The independent report, by the Australian Primary Healthcare Research Institute, found the government ignored, selectively used or misinterpreted evidence when planning the centre, which opened in May 2010.

The report said there was no evidence to support the ACT government’s argument that locating the centre on the hospital campus would reduce pressure on the emergency department (ED).

It said the centre would have been better located in the community.

The review found the government’s decision was heavily influenced by interest groups such as the ACT Division of General Practice, which would not support a stand-alone nurse-led model but agreed to trial the centre at a hospital.

The report also said a difficult computer system was adding as much as 50 per cent to the time nurses spent in consultation with patients and the centre had been poorly marketed to Canberrans who could benefit from it most.

The report compared the planning of the ACT’s walk-in centre to the English walk-in centres on which it was modelled. It said there was no evidence to show the English centres on hospital campuses had any effect in reducing pressure on their EDs.

“Had the evidence from the NHS [National Health Service] been heeded, the ACT walk-in centre would have been located in a more accessible community location,” the report said.

The report found that, contrary to the ACT government’s rationale, “the location of the ACT walk-in centre actually resulted in a net increase in ED activity”.

The review said the walk-in centre’s computer system was frustrating nurses as it was more suited to telephone consultations.

The report found the system was problematic, took too much time and denied nurses professional autonomy.

The article also said the ACT government focused its promotion of the centre on 18-35 year-olds, a “mainly affluent and able group” and failed to target “marginalised groups, who would benefit from free access to primary care”.

The report said despite seeking evidence to inform the planning of the centre, the evidence had “been used selectively and cautiously, at times misinterpreted, and largely influenced by the views of powerful interest groups”.

As a result, much of the evidence had been lost in translation. Health Minister Katy Gallagher said the report was “an academic view without having to think about the practical implementation of a service”. She said the location choice was “pragmatic” because a nurse-led centre would not survive without GP support.

“There were compromises that had to be made,” she said.

“I’m not going to pretend we didn’t hope this centre would take pressure off the ED if we could get our category five patients to go somewhere else. I hold my hand up and say we didn’t see that.”

But Ms Gallagher said patients were happy with the walk-in centre and about 21,000 had used the service in 2012-13 alone.