These preliminary results support the validity and reliability of the CARE measure as a tool for measuring patients' perceptions of relational empathy in the consultation.

The study shows that 'enablement' is a primary care outcome measure which is related to but is different from general satisfaction.

Objectives To measure quality of care at general practice consultations in diverse geographical areas, and to determine the principal correlates associated with enablement as an outcome measure. Design Cross sectional multipractice questionnaire based study. Setting Random sample of practices in four participating regions: Lothian, Coventry, Oxfordshire, and west London. Participants 25 994 adults attending 53 practices over two weeks in March and April 1998. Main outcome measures Patient enablement, duration of consultation, how well patients know their doctor, and the size of the practice list.

BackgroundPhysical inactivity is a major, potentially modifiable, risk factor for cardiovascular disease, cancer, and other chronic diseases. Effective, simple, and generalisable interventions that will increase physical activity in populations are needed.

These results indicate that the CARE Measure is considered by GPs and patients alike as being of direct relevance to everyday consultations in general practice, in both high and low deprivation settings. The measures is stable across patient groups and a reliable estimate of perceived GP empathy requires 50 completed questionnaires per doctor.

Although telephone consultations are convenient and judged satisfactory by patients and doctors, they may compromise patient safety more than face-to-face consultations and further research is required to elucidate this. Telephone consultations may be more suited to follow-up and management of long-term conditions than for in-hours acute management.

Internationally, there is increasing use of telephone consultations, particularly for triaging requests for acute care. However, little is known about how this mode of consulting differs from face-to-face encounters. AimTo understand patient and healthcare-staff perspectives on how telephone consulting differs from face-to-face consulting in terms of content, quality, and safety, and how it can be most appropriately incorporated into routine health care. Design of studyFocus groups triangulated by a national questionnaire. SettingPrimary care in urban and rural Scotland. MethodFifteen focus groups (n = 91) were conducted with GPs, nurses, administrative staff, and patients, purposively sampled to attain a maximum-variation sample. Findings were triangulated by a national questionnaire.

No abstract