The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Comparing the content and quality of video, telephone, and face-to-face consultations: a non-randomised, quasi-experimental, exploratory study in UK primary care

Comparing the content and quality of video, telephone, and face-to-face consultations: a non-randomised, quasi-experimental, exploratory study in UK primary care
Comparing the content and quality of video, telephone, and face-to-face consultations: a non-randomised, quasi-experimental, exploratory study in UK primary care
Background: growing demands on primary care services have led to policymakers promoting video consultations (VCs) to replace routine face-to-face consultations (FTFCs) in general practice.

Aim: to explore the content, quality, and patient experience of VC, telephone (TC), and FTFCs in general practice.

Design and setting: comparison of audio-recordings of follow-up consultations in UK primary care.

Method: primary care clinicians were provided with video-consulting equipment. Participating patients required a smartphone, tablet, or computer with camera. Clinicians invited patients requiring a follow-up consultation to choose a VC, TC, or FTFC. Consultations were audio-recorded and analysed for content and quality. Participant experience was explored in post-consultation questionnaires. Case notes were reviewed for NHS resource use.

Results: of the recordings, 149/163 were suitable for analysis. VC recruits were younger, and more experienced in communicating online. FTFCs were longer than VCs (mean difference +3.7 minutes, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.1 to 5.2) or TCs (+4.1 minutes, 95% CI = 2.6 to 5.5). On average, patients raised fewer problems in VCs (mean 1.5, standard deviation [SD] 0.8) compared with FTFCs (mean 2.1, SD 1.1) and demonstrated fewer instances of information giving by clinicians and patients. FTFCs scored higher than VCs and TCs on consultation-quality items.

Conclusion: VC may be suitable for simple problems not requiring physical examination. VC, in terms of consultation length, content, and quality, appeared similar to TC. Both approaches appeared less ‘information rich’ than FTFC. Technical problems were common and, though patients really liked VC, infrastructure issues would need to be addressed before the technology and approach can be mainstreamed in primary care.
0960-1643
e595-e604
Hammersley, Victoria
e58ac3a9-e287-49f0-b2bc-4fd3942585e9
Donaghy, Eddie
8bbbe5bf-6bee-4a9e-bb69-ec08abccfbab
Parker, Richard
14c458d4-13aa-4602-bae5-85d52d4849e2
McNeilly, Hannah
416823eb-140d-463d-a0ae-aaad3a66dd88
Atherton, Helen
9bb8932e-7bb7-4781-ab97-114613de99b1
Bikker, Annemieke
c0adc13d-aa6e-495f-b616-9ffe34efe4f8
Campbell, John
40fcc705-8391-4cde-bb69-266bbb7f23ed
McKinstry, Brian
63563c1a-feed-42b7-8288-ebbd1d6b3dad
Hammersley, Victoria
e58ac3a9-e287-49f0-b2bc-4fd3942585e9
Donaghy, Eddie
8bbbe5bf-6bee-4a9e-bb69-ec08abccfbab
Parker, Richard
14c458d4-13aa-4602-bae5-85d52d4849e2
McNeilly, Hannah
416823eb-140d-463d-a0ae-aaad3a66dd88
Atherton, Helen
9bb8932e-7bb7-4781-ab97-114613de99b1
Bikker, Annemieke
c0adc13d-aa6e-495f-b616-9ffe34efe4f8
Campbell, John
40fcc705-8391-4cde-bb69-266bbb7f23ed
McKinstry, Brian
63563c1a-feed-42b7-8288-ebbd1d6b3dad

Hammersley, Victoria, Donaghy, Eddie, Parker, Richard, McNeilly, Hannah, Atherton, Helen, Bikker, Annemieke, Campbell, John and McKinstry, Brian (2019) Comparing the content and quality of video, telephone, and face-to-face consultations: a non-randomised, quasi-experimental, exploratory study in UK primary care. British Journal of General Practice, 69 (686), e595-e604. (doi:10.3399/bjgp19X704573).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Background: growing demands on primary care services have led to policymakers promoting video consultations (VCs) to replace routine face-to-face consultations (FTFCs) in general practice.

Aim: to explore the content, quality, and patient experience of VC, telephone (TC), and FTFCs in general practice.

Design and setting: comparison of audio-recordings of follow-up consultations in UK primary care.

Method: primary care clinicians were provided with video-consulting equipment. Participating patients required a smartphone, tablet, or computer with camera. Clinicians invited patients requiring a follow-up consultation to choose a VC, TC, or FTFC. Consultations were audio-recorded and analysed for content and quality. Participant experience was explored in post-consultation questionnaires. Case notes were reviewed for NHS resource use.

Results: of the recordings, 149/163 were suitable for analysis. VC recruits were younger, and more experienced in communicating online. FTFCs were longer than VCs (mean difference +3.7 minutes, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.1 to 5.2) or TCs (+4.1 minutes, 95% CI = 2.6 to 5.5). On average, patients raised fewer problems in VCs (mean 1.5, standard deviation [SD] 0.8) compared with FTFCs (mean 2.1, SD 1.1) and demonstrated fewer instances of information giving by clinicians and patients. FTFCs scored higher than VCs and TCs on consultation-quality items.

Conclusion: VC may be suitable for simple problems not requiring physical examination. VC, in terms of consultation length, content, and quality, appeared similar to TC. Both approaches appeared less ‘information rich’ than FTFC. Technical problems were common and, though patients really liked VC, infrastructure issues would need to be addressed before the technology and approach can be mainstreamed in primary care.

Text
e595.full - Version of Record
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (305kB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 5 April 2019
e-pub ahead of print date: 29 August 2019
Published date: September 2019

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 486555
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/486555
ISSN: 0960-1643
PURE UUID: 26c1fa50-846b-4acc-8fc2-0ffcbd0b7275
ORCID for Helen Atherton: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-7072-1925

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 26 Jan 2024 17:32
Last modified: 18 Mar 2024 04:18

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Victoria Hammersley
Author: Eddie Donaghy
Author: Richard Parker
Author: Hannah McNeilly
Author: Helen Atherton ORCID iD
Author: Annemieke Bikker
Author: John Campbell
Author: Brian McKinstry

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×