Cookie policy notice

By continuing to use this site you agree to our cookies policy below:
Since 26 May 2011, the law now states that cookies on websites can ony be used with your specific consent. Cookies allow us to ensure that you enjoy the best browsing experience.

This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

The myth of the ten-minute consultation

  • Print
  • Comments (14)
  • Save

As a GP trainer, one of the hot topics for discussion amongst Trainers’ groups is how quickly the trainee should get their consultations down to ten minutes. I find these discussions difficult as I have never achieved this myself, and I wonder how many GPs do.

A recent audit of consultations at our practice showed that the majority of GPs were consulting for an average of 12.5 minutes but my average consulting time was 14 minutes. This higher-than-average consultation length did not translate into longer average waiting time for patients, as I have always consulted with breaks after every four to five patients.

There are many reasons why the ten-minute consultation is becoming as fanciful as a leprechaun to me. The following, fairly typical consultation at my practice will explain why:

09.00: Call patient on display board and over the tannoy.

09.01: Patient finally arrives after I have intercepted them walking down the wrong corridor. She has come alone and speaks no English so I call the Bengali interpreter

09.03: Interpreter arrives after finishing with last GP. There is no Bengali interpreter available today so she will attempt to consult in Hindi or Urdu

09.04: Interpreter reports that patient’s communication in Hindi/Urdu is limited so we cannot proceed.

09.06: Get through to Bengali interpreter on the phone, via Big Word.

09.09: Get a history of postmenopausal bleeding for the last three months

09.10: Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep! Time’s up.

Language and multiculturalism are not the only reasons for running late. I am sure many of you will be familiar with the time it takes for a patient to undo hook and eye of a suspender belt and corset, or undress an infant out of a coat, cardigan, dungarees, shirt, body suit, vest and tights.

Beyond language and clothing problems, we are also bombarded with a whole surgery of complex co-morbidities and mental health problems. We no longer have the respite of a smattering of sore throats and Pill checks – now triaged out to minor illness and nurse practitioner clinics.

Laudable as it is, eliciting the patient’s ICE, responding to all their cues, sharing a variety of management options and safety-netting takes considerably longer than ten minutes.

The most laughable element of the proposed new contract is the removal of the minimum ten-minute consultation time. There will obviously be a rush of GPs waiting to exploit this policy and reduce consultation times to five minutes so they can spend an extra hour or two on the golf course.

Or perhaps this contract change is to justify the use of total telephone triage, which seems to be the stock answer to managing the funding and workforce crises at the moment.

As a profession, we are doing ourselves no favours by pretending we can manage patients in less than ten minutes in a face-to-face appointment – or in five in a telephone call. The Government, with the help of our College, realised this – and is now trying to sell us the dream of email, Skype and telephone access on an ‘anytime, anywhere’-contract style.

The reality is that the complex, ageing population with more long-term conditions will need more face-to-face time, and this requires manpower and money.

Alternative access models or the use of technology is no substitute for this, and when our heads are on the block for a medical negligence case, we should remind them so.

As a profession we should whistle-blow a system that allows up to forty daily face-to-face contacts per GP, which has origins rooted in the archaic model of capitation fee (rather than activity fee).

But the latter is not compatible with a socialised health care system and is therefore seldom discussed in a meaningful way.

Dr Shaba Nabi is a GP trainer in Bristol.

Readers' comments (14)

  • spot on!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • One should teach what one practices

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 40 patient contacts a day, is that all you do? There were 32 in my afternoon session alone yesterday...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • You don't need to whistleblow just tell people straight out that officially you only have 10 minutes to consult....nobody i have spoken to had any idea that this is the case.....ps can we please drop the golf course nonsense.the public has a long time ago

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • wow.....@1230.......any price for your sanity?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • NHS funds shouldn't be spent on interpreter services. Patients should bring a friend/local community member with them until they have learnt the language. Phone translator services can then be used as a last resort

    This is surprisingly easy to implement, and quickly becomes the norm. Our patient group (very multicultural but speak so many languages we'd have to employ 30 interpreters) has rapidly accepted it makes better sense to spend this money on patient care.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I think that Dr. Nabi has raised a very important issue. In my previous practice before I retired one or two partners bragged about how quickly they could consult. A lot of these patients made another appointment to see a different doctor so this was counter-productive in time as shown by a practice audit. I certainly wouldn't want to be treated in a session of 32 patients as in 12.30 comment.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @ 26/03 3:51pm

    To be fair, I think she was being sarcastic.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Concerning the above comment - no, you weren't being fair. You must have invented a new definition of sarcasm.
    There were many serious points raised concerning the difficulties faced in everyday general practice which merit consideration and discussion.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 84% of GPs wish to keep the Independent Contract. It has great benefits. But the down side is that there cannot be any control of workload as it based on 1800 patients or so list size, which was calculated using the Colossus at Bletchley in 1947. The Contract has to change from list size to appointments provided as consultation rates since 1948 has risen more than 6 times, effectively a list size of almost 12000, compared to 1948. Hence the 40 + consultations and 13 hour workdays. Add to this all the rubbishy paperwork such as care plans [ do you have to write a textbook of Medicine for every eventuality for every patient?].
    I digress. As long as we have average list sizes and a silver tsunami of old age , our workloads will increase.
    Our pay per consultation has exactly halved in 9 years, which is a 50 % pay cut, in effect. No wonder, very few GPs actually wish to stay in this mess.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page

Have your say

  • Print
  • Comments (14)
  • Save