23
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Use of a primary care online consultation system, by whom, when and why: evaluation of a pilot observational study in 36 general practices in South West England

      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

          Objectives

          Evaluation of a pilot study of an online consultation system in primary care. We describe who used the system, when and why, and the National Health Service costs associated with its use.

          Design

          15-month observational study.

          Setting

          Primary care practices in South West England.

          Results

          36 General practices covering 396 828 patients took part in the pilot. The online consultation website was viewed 35 981 times over the pilot period (mean 9.11 visits per 1000 patients per month). 7472 patients went on to complete an ‘e-consultation’ (mean 2.00 online consultations per 1000 patients per month). E-consultations were mainly performed on weekdays and during normal working hours. Patient records (n=485) were abstracted for eight practices and showed that women were more likely to use e-consultations than men (64.7% vs 35.3%) and users had a median age of 39 years (IQR 30–50). The most common reason for an e-consultation was an administrative request (eg, test results, letters and repeat prescriptions (22.5%)) followed by infections/immunological issues (14.4%). The majority of patients (65.2%) received a response within 2 days. The most common outcome was a face-to-face (38%) or telephone consultation (32%). The former were more often needed for patients consulting about new conditions (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.27, p=0.049). The average cost of a practice’s response to an e-consultation was £36.28, primarily triage time and resulting face-to-face/telephone consultations needed.

          Conclusions

          Use of e-consultations is very low, particularly at weekends. Unless this can be improved, any impact on staff workload and patient waiting times is likely to be negligible. It is possible that use of e-consultations increases primary care workload and costs. Online consultation systems could be developed to improve efficiency both for staff and patients. These findings have implications for software developers as well as primary care services and policy-makers who are considering investing in online consultation systems.

          Related collections

          Most cited references19

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

          Telephone triage for management of same-day consultation requests in general practice (the ESTEEM trial): a cluster-randomised controlled trial and cost-consequence analysis.

          Telephone triage is increasingly used to manage workload in primary care; however, supporting evidence for this approach is scarce. We aimed to assess the effectiveness and cost consequences of general practitioner-(GP)-led and nurse-led telephone triage compared with usual care for patients seeking same-day consultations in primary care.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Using alternatives to face-to-face consultations: a survey of prevalence and attitudes in general practice

            The ubiquitous use of communication technologies has led to an expectation that a similar approach should extend to health care. Despite considerable rhetoric about the need for general practices to offer alternatives to face-to-face consultations, such as telephone, email, and internet video consultations, the extent to which such technologies are actually used at present is unclear.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Patient experience of access to primary care: identification of predictors in a national patient survey

              Background The 2007/8 GP Access Survey in England measured experience with five dimensions of access: getting through on the phone to a practice, getting an early appointment, getting an advance appointment, making an appointment with a particular doctor, and surgery opening hours. Our aim was to identify predictors of patient satisfaction and experience with access to English primary care. Methods 8,307 English general practices were included in the survey (of 8,403 identified). 4,922,080 patients were randomly selected and contacted by post and 1,999,523 usable questionnaires were returned, a response rate of 40.6%. We used multi-level logistic regressions to identify patient, practice and regional predictors of patient satisfaction and experience. Results After controlling for all other factors, younger people, and people of Asian ethnicity, working full time, or with long commuting times to work, reported the lowest levels of satisfaction and experience of access. For people in work, the ability to take time off work to visit the GP effectively eliminated the disadvantage in access. The ethnic mix of the local area had an impact on a patient's reported satisfaction and experience over and above the patient's own ethnic identity. However, area deprivation had only low associations with patient ratings. Responses from patients in small practices were more positive for all aspects of access with the exception of satisfaction with practice opening hours. Positive reports of access to care were associated with higher scores on the Quality and Outcomes Framework and with slightly lower rates of emergency admission. Respondents in London were the least satisfied and had the worst experiences on almost all dimensions of access. Conclusions This study identifies a number of patient groups with lower satisfaction, and poorer experience, of gaining access to primary care. The finding that access is better in small practices is important given the increasing tendency for small practices to combine into larger units. Consideration needs to be given to ways of retaining these and other benefits of small practice size when primary care services are reconfigured. Differences between population groups (e.g. younger people, ethnic minorities) may be due to differences in actual care received or different response tendencies of different groups. Further analysis is needed to determine whether case-mix adjustment is required when comparing practices serving different populations.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2017
                22 November 2017
                : 7
                : 11
                : e016901
                Affiliations
                [1 ] departmentSchool of Social and Community Medicine , University of Bristol , Bristol, UK
                [2 ] departmentNational Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (NIHR CLAHRC) West , at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust , Bristol, UK
                [3 ] departmentSchool of Clinical Sciences , University of Bristol , Bristol, UK
                [4 ] One Care Consortium , Bristol, UK
                [5 ] departmentCentre for Academic Primary Care, School of Social and Community Medicine , University of Bristol , Bristol, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Kate Northstone; kate.northstone@ 123456bristol.ac.uk
                Article
                bmjopen-2017-016901
                10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016901
                5701981
                29167106
                9d183b62-23a9-482e-b23a-ed22299f7022
                © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

                History
                : 17 March 2017
                : 07 July 2017
                : 04 August 2017
                Funding
                Funded by: NIHR CLAHRC West;
                Funded by: One Care Consortium;
                Categories
                General practice / Family practice
                Research
                1506
                1696
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                general practice,primary care,online consultations,e-consultations,evaluation
                Medicine
                general practice, primary care, online consultations, e-consultations, evaluation

                Comments

                Comment on this article