Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 5
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Greenhalgh, Trisha Swinglehurst, Deborah and Stones, Rob 2014. Rethinking resistance to ‘big IT’: a sociological study of why and when healthcare staff do not use nationally mandated information and communication technologies. Health Services and Delivery Research, Vol. 2, Issue. 39, p. 1.

    Heimly, Vigdis and Nytro, Oystein 2011. 2011 IEEE International Conference on Information Reuse & Integration. p. 406.

    Murray, Elizabeth Burns, Joanne May, Carl Finch, Tracy O'Donnell, Catherine Wallace, Paul and Mair, Frances 2011. Why is it difficult to implement e-health initiatives? A qualitative study. Implementation Science, Vol. 6, Issue. 1,

    Pisipati, Sailaja Chow, Karyee and Payne, Stephen R. 2009. Choose and book: An audit of the appropriateness of referrals and their effect on patients’ attendance to an inner city hospital secondary care provider. British Journal of Medical and Surgical Urology, Vol. 2, Issue. 3, p. 111.

    Green, Judith McDowall, Zoe and Potts, Henry WW 2008. Does Choose & Book fail to deliver the expected choice to patients? A survey of patients' experience of outpatient appointment booking. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, Vol. 8, Issue. 1,


‘Choose and Book’ in ENT: the GP perspective

  • David Pothier (a1), Zaid Awad (a2) and Paul Tierney (a2)
  • DOI:
  • Published online: 01 January 2006

Objectives: ‘Choose and Book’ is a UK government initiative devised to allow a greater freedom of choice for National Health Service patients. The system is designed to give patients a choice of hospitals and appointment times, as well as giving their general practitioner (GP) more responsibility for appropriate prioritization. We set out to determine the attitudes of UK GPs to the new Choose and Book project and to assess the impact that these changes are likely to have on ENT practice.

Design: Postal questionnaire survey.

Methods: Five hundred GPs were sent a questionnaire about the planned Choose and Book referral project.

Results: Three hundred and eighty GPs (76 per cent) replied to the questionnaire after reminders were sent. Most were aware of the project and had been sent information about it. Of those who had heard of it, 61.5 per cent did not think it was a good thing. Most stated that both they and their patients were satisfied with current prioritization practices. Many GPs would be willing to delegate responsibility for prioritization to non-clinical staff. Important time and responsibility issues were identified.

Conclusions: The majority of GPs were not in favour of Choose and Book. Many cited difficulties with time constraints and an inflexible system as factors that made Choose and Book unacceptable.

Corresponding author
Address for correspondence: David D Pothier, Specialist Registrar in Otolaryngology, Gloucestershire Royal Hospital, Great Western Road, Gloucester GL1 3NN, UK. Fax: +44 (0)8454 226432 E-mail:
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

The Journal of Laryngology & Otology
  • ISSN: 0022-2151
  • EISSN: 1748-5460
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-laryngology-and-otology
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *