by Grant Russell, Monash University

Since 2023, 137 Urgent Care Clinics have opened across Australia, in all states and territories. They’re usually located within or partnered with a general practice, an Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation or a community health centre.

Last week, an independent report was released evaluating how well they’re working, based on the first 87 clinics to open. This follows an initial report in March 2025.

The evaluation team surveyed patients and staff and interviewed local and peak body stakeholders, managers and clinical staff. They also blended Medicare, emergency department and other public data to map program performance against the program’s measures of success.

The new evaluation reveals millions of visits since the clinics opened, and a high level of satisfaction about the quality of care.

But it also flags concerns about follow-up care, staff workload, opening hours, and access to X-rays and critical blood tests after hours.

What are the urgent care clinics for?

These walk-in clinics aim to alleviate pressure on hospital emergency departments by offering short-term care for urgent but non-life-threatening conditions. These may include illnesses such as gastroenteritis or chest infections or minor injuries from sport or mishaps at home.

All clinics must bulk-bill and offer easy access to X-rays and critical blood tests.

The clinics can also give prescriptions to patients who have run out of long-term medications – but only enough until the patient sees their usual GP.

Patients are either treated on-site or sent on to emergency departments or their GP for further care. Those without a GP need to be given advice about finding one.

So, are they working?

The clinics are certainly being used. The report says 1.5 million Australians had visited one of the initial 87 clinics by May 2025. According to the government, there have now been more than 2.5 million presentations since they first opened in 2023.

The evaluation found two-thirds (62%) of visits were for acute illness and just over a quarter (27%) for minor injuries. One in five patients needed X-ray or pathology services.

Wait times were impressive: nine in ten patients are seen within an hour, and 95% of surveyed patients rated their care as good or very good.

Analysis of visits to nearby emergency departments suggest a 4–10% reduction in the sort of low intensity visits the clinics are designed to cover. Early cost-effectiveness analysis suggested this could save A$381 in emergency department costs for each clinic visit.

What kind of issues are there?

Some important concerns about the program have emerged:

• the small but steady number of “inappropriate presentations”, where patients actually require longer-term care. This highlights the importance of clear communication about what the clinics can and can’t do
• very few clinics have imaging and/or pathology available after 5–6pm and on weekends. Only 1.1% of all visits were billed in Medicare’s after-hours window (after 8pm, Saturday afternoons, or Sundays and public holidays). Taken together, clinics seem to be operating in the same time window as general practice, leaving after-hours care to locum services or emergency departments
• the government’s own guidelines require the clinics hand over a patient’s care to their usual GP. But the report found one in every three visits lacked subsequent communication with the patient’s GP. This echoes many doctors’ concerns about fragmentation of care
• staff surveys showed clinical staff valued their experience at the clinics and opportunities for professional development. But only half the nurses and doctors thought they had a manageable workload – and this was worse in rural and remote areas.

But there’s still information missing

While the report raises concerns about whether clinics are open long enough to meet demand, there is no direct data on clinics’ actual opening hours. So we don’t know in detail what is available and whether this varies between states and territories, and cities and rural and remote areas.

And while we have a general idea of what people are presenting for, the evaluation doesn’t give a detailed breakdown. More specific information would help us understand what kind of “inappropriate” presentations are still happening, and better tailor what care the clinics offer – and how this is communicated to the public.

What should change?

These early findings show urgent care clinics may be filling a gap in health care, particularly in cities. The challenge now is whether they can effectively complement team-based primary care.

The second evaluation shows how the model has evolved. But its lack of detail on opening hours, clinical presentations, workload and staff experience leave more questions than answers.

What is clear is there needs to be a focus on matching opening hours with need, making it clearer to the community what clinics can and can’t do and working harder to keep the patient’s GP in the loop. The 13% of urgent care clinic patients without a regular GP need help to find one.

We can only hope for a bit more clarity in the final evaluation, which is expected later this year.

Grant Russell, Professor of Primary Care Research, Monash University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.