Factors related to consultation time: Experience in Slovenia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Consultation time has a serious impact on physicians' work and patient satisfaction. No systematic study of consultation time in general practice in Slovenia has yet been carried out. The aim of the present study was to measure consultation time, to identify the factors influencing it, and to study the influence of the workload of general practitioners on consultation time. DESIGN: A total of 42 general practitioners participated in this cross-sectional study. Each physician collected data from 300 consecutive consultations and measured the length of the visit. SETTING: Forty-two randomly selected general practices in Slovenia. SUBJECTS: Patients of 42 general practices. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Average consultation time in general practice in Slovenia; factors influencing consultation time in Slovenia. RESULTS: Data from 12 501 visits to the surgery were collected. A quarter of all visits (25.5%) were administrative. The mean consultation time was 6.9 minutes (median 6.0 minutes, 5%-95% interval: 1.0-16.0 minutes). Longer consultation time was predicted by: patient-related factors (female gender, higher age, higher level of education, higher number of health problems, change of physician within the last year), physician-related factors (higher age), physicians' workload (absence of high workload), and the type of visit (consultation and/or clinical examination). CONCLUSION: Consultation time in general practice is short, and depends on the characteristics of the patient and the physician, the physician's workload, and the type of visit. A reduction of high workload in general practice should be one of the priorities of the healthcare system.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it