12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Why do GPs rarely do video consultations? qualitative study in UK general practice

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Fewer than 1% of UK general practice consultations occur by video.

          Aim

          To explain why video consultations are not more widely used in general practice.

          Design and setting

          Analysis of a sub-sample of data from three mixed-method case studies of remote consultation services in various UK settings from 2019–2021.

          Method

          The dataset included interviews and focus groups with 121 participants from primary care (33 patients, 55 GPs, 11 other clinicians, nine managers, four support staff, four national policymakers, five technology industry). Data were transcribed, coded thematically, and then analysed using the Planning and Evaluating Remote Consultation Services (PERCS) framework.

          Results

          With few exceptions, video consultations were either never adopted or soon abandoned in general practice despite a strong policy push, short-term removal of regulatory and financial barriers, and advances in functionality, dependability, and usability of video technologies (though some products remained ‘fiddly’ and unreliable). The relative advantage of video was perceived as minimal for most of the caseload of general practice, since many presenting problems could be sorted adequately and safely by telephone and in-person assessment was considered necessary for the remainder. Some patients found video appointments convenient, appropriate, and reassuring but others found a therapeutic presence was only achieved in person. Video sometimes added value for out-of-hours and nursing home consultations and statutory functions (for example, death certification).

          Conclusion

          Efforts to introduce video consultations in general practice should focus on situations where this modality has a clear relative advantage (for example, strong patient or clinician preference, remote localities, out-of-hours services, nursing homes).

          Related collections

          Most cited references37

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations.

          This article summarizes an extensive literature review addressing the question, How can we spread and sustain innovations in health service delivery and organization? It considers both content (defining and measuring the diffusion of innovation in organizations) and process (reviewing the literature in a systematic and reproducible way). This article discusses (1) a parsimonious and evidence-based model for considering the diffusion of innovations in health service organizations, (2) clear knowledge gaps where further research should be focused, and (3) a robust and transferable methodology for systematically reviewing health service policy and management. Both the model and the method should be tested more widely in a range of contexts.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Beyond Adoption: A New Framework for Theorizing and Evaluating Nonadoption, Abandonment, and Challenges to the Scale-Up, Spread, and Sustainability of Health and Care Technologies

            Background Many promising technological innovations in health and social care are characterized by nonadoption or abandonment by individuals or by failed attempts to scale up locally, spread distantly, or sustain the innovation long term at the organization or system level. Objective Our objective was to produce an evidence-based, theory-informed, and pragmatic framework to help predict and evaluate the success of a technology-supported health or social care program. Methods The study had 2 parallel components: (1) secondary research (hermeneutic systematic review) to identify key domains, and (2) empirical case studies of technology implementation to explore, test, and refine these domains. We studied 6 technology-supported programs—video outpatient consultations, global positioning system tracking for cognitive impairment, pendant alarm services, remote biomarker monitoring for heart failure, care organizing software, and integrated case management via data sharing—using longitudinal ethnography and action research for up to 3 years across more than 20 organizations. Data were collected at micro level (individual technology users), meso level (organizational processes and systems), and macro level (national policy and wider context). Analysis and synthesis was aided by sociotechnically informed theories of individual, organizational, and system change. The draft framework was shared with colleagues who were introducing or evaluating other technology-supported health or care programs and refined in response to feedback. Results The literature review identified 28 previous technology implementation frameworks, of which 14 had taken a dynamic systems approach (including 2 integrative reviews of previous work). Our empirical dataset consisted of over 400 hours of ethnographic observation, 165 semistructured interviews, and 200 documents. The final nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability (NASSS) framework included questions in 7 domains: the condition or illness, the technology, the value proposition, the adopter system (comprising professional staff, patient, and lay caregivers), the organization(s), the wider (institutional and societal) context, and the interaction and mutual adaptation between all these domains over time. Our empirical case studies raised a variety of challenges across all 7 domains, each classified as simple (straightforward, predictable, few components), complicated (multiple interacting components or issues), or complex (dynamic, unpredictable, not easily disaggregated into constituent components). Programs characterized by complicatedness proved difficult but not impossible to implement. Those characterized by complexity in multiple NASSS domains rarely, if ever, became mainstreamed. The framework showed promise when applied (both prospectively and retrospectively) to other programs. Conclusions Subject to further empirical testing, NASSS could be applied across a range of technological innovations in health and social care. It has several potential uses: (1) to inform the design of a new technology; (2) to identify technological solutions that (perhaps despite policy or industry enthusiasm) have a limited chance of achieving large-scale, sustained adoption; (3) to plan the implementation, scale-up, or rollout of a technology program; and (4) to explain and learn from program failures.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              Video consultations for covid-19

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Professor
                Role: NIHR in-practice fellow
                Role: Health services researcher
                Role: Health services researcher
                Role: Health services researcher
                Role: Associate professor
                Role: Senior researcher
                Role: GP academic
                Role: Senior policy analyst
                Role: Researcher
                Role: Postdoctoral researcher
                Journal
                Br J Gen Pract
                Br J Gen Pract
                bjgp
                bjgp
                The British Journal of General Practice
                Royal College of General Practitioners
                0960-1643
                1478-5242
                May 2022
                08 March 2022
                08 March 2022
                : 72
                : 718
                : e351-e360
                Affiliations
                Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
                Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
                Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
                Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
                Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
                Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
                Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
                University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
                Nuffield Trust, London, UK.
                Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands.
                University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.
                Author notes
                Address for correspondence Trisha Greenhalgh, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK Email: trish.greenhalgh@ 123456phc.ox.ac.uk
                Article
                10.3399/BJGP.2021.0658
                8936181
                35256385
                41fbda5f-485f-466f-87c0-2726185f71a3
                © The Authors

                This article is Open Access: CC BY 4.0 licence ( http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 19 November 2021
                : 14 December 2021
                : 21 December 2021
                Categories
                Research

                percs framework,primary care,qualitative research,remote consultation,telephone consultations,video consultations

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content177

                Cited by34

                Most referenced authors608