The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

The potential of alternatives to face-to-face consultation in general practice, and the impact on different patient groups: a mixed-methods case study

The potential of alternatives to face-to-face consultation in general practice, and the impact on different patient groups: a mixed-methods case study
The potential of alternatives to face-to-face consultation in general practice, and the impact on different patient groups: a mixed-methods case study
Background: there is international interest in the potential role of different forms of communication technology to provide an alternative to face-to-face consultations in health care. There has been considerable rhetoric about the need for general practices to offer consultations by telephone, e-mail or internet video. However, little is understood about how, under what conditions, for which patients and in what ways these approaches may offer benefits to patients and practitioners in general practice.

Objectives: our objectives were to review existing evidence about alternatives to face-to-face consultation; conduct a scoping exercise to identify the ways in which general practices currently provide these alternatives; recruit eight general practices as case studies for focused ethnographic research, exploring how practice context, patient characteristics, type of technology and the purpose of the consultation interact to determine the impact of these alternatives; and synthesise the findings in order to develop a website resource about the implementation of alternatives to face-to-face consultations and a framework for subsequent evaluation.

Design: mixed-methods case study.

Setting: general practices in England and Scotland with varied experience of implementing alternatives to face-to-face consultations.

Participants: patients and practice staff.

Interventions: alternatives to face-to-face consultations include telephone consultations, e-mail, e-consultations and internet video.

Main outcome measures: how context influenced the implementation and impact of alternatives to the face-to-face consultation; the rationale for practices to introduce alternatives; the use of different forms of consultation by different patient groups; and the intended benefits/outcomes.

Review methods: the conceptual review used an approach informed by realist review, a method for synthesising research evidence regarding complex interventions.

Results: alternatives to the face-to-face consultation are not in mainstream use in general practice, with low uptake in our case study practices. We identified the underlying rationales for the use of these alternatives and have shown that different stakeholders have different perspectives on what they hope to achieve through the use of alternatives to the face-to-face consultation. Through the observation of real-life use of different forms of alternative, we have a clearer understanding of how, under what circumstances and for which patients alternatives might have a range of intended benefits and potential unintended adverse consequences. We have also developed a framework for future evaluation.

Limitations: the low uptake of alternatives to the face-to-face consultation means that our research participants might be deemed to be early adopters. The case study approach provides an in-depth examination of a small number of sites, each using alternatives in different ways. The findings are therefore hypothesis-generating, rather than hypothesis-testing.

Conclusions: the current low uptake of alternatives, lack of clarity about purpose and limited evidence of benefit may be at odds with current policy, which encourages the use of alternatives. We have highlighted key issues for practices and policy-makers to consider and have made recommendations about priorities for further research to be conducted, before or alongside the future roll-out of alternatives to the face-to-face consultation, such as telephone consulting, e-consultation, e-mail and video consulting.

Future work: we have synthesised our findings to develop a framework and recommendations about future evaluation of the use of alternatives to face-to-face consultations.

Funding details: the National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.
2050-4349
Atherton, Helen
9bb8932e-7bb7-4781-ab97-114613de99b1
Brant, Heather
e3112697-fc0a-466c-bb40-5f6f89a214d1
Ziebland, Sue
9a00bdc5-7b90-4dae-a503-1799f5e80b17
Bikker, Annemieke
c0adc13d-aa6e-495f-b616-9ffe34efe4f8
Campbell, John
40fcc705-8391-4cde-bb69-266bbb7f23ed
Gibson, Andy
ffc74e7a-73a0-4ec8-ba28-d0c375d1f708
McKinstry, Brian
63563c1a-feed-42b7-8288-ebbd1d6b3dad
Porqueddu, Tania
a10aec25-fcde-45af-994d-9d799e06783d
Salisbury, Chris
50e9a5a0-c074-4af8-9b1b-e1e8408aae3c
Atherton, Helen
9bb8932e-7bb7-4781-ab97-114613de99b1
Brant, Heather
e3112697-fc0a-466c-bb40-5f6f89a214d1
Ziebland, Sue
9a00bdc5-7b90-4dae-a503-1799f5e80b17
Bikker, Annemieke
c0adc13d-aa6e-495f-b616-9ffe34efe4f8
Campbell, John
40fcc705-8391-4cde-bb69-266bbb7f23ed
Gibson, Andy
ffc74e7a-73a0-4ec8-ba28-d0c375d1f708
McKinstry, Brian
63563c1a-feed-42b7-8288-ebbd1d6b3dad
Porqueddu, Tania
a10aec25-fcde-45af-994d-9d799e06783d
Salisbury, Chris
50e9a5a0-c074-4af8-9b1b-e1e8408aae3c

Atherton, Helen, Brant, Heather, Ziebland, Sue, Bikker, Annemieke, Campbell, John, Gibson, Andy, McKinstry, Brian, Porqueddu, Tania and Salisbury, Chris (2018) The potential of alternatives to face-to-face consultation in general practice, and the impact on different patient groups: a mixed-methods case study. Health Services and Delivery Research, 6 (20). (doi:10.3310/hsdr06200).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Background: there is international interest in the potential role of different forms of communication technology to provide an alternative to face-to-face consultations in health care. There has been considerable rhetoric about the need for general practices to offer consultations by telephone, e-mail or internet video. However, little is understood about how, under what conditions, for which patients and in what ways these approaches may offer benefits to patients and practitioners in general practice.

Objectives: our objectives were to review existing evidence about alternatives to face-to-face consultation; conduct a scoping exercise to identify the ways in which general practices currently provide these alternatives; recruit eight general practices as case studies for focused ethnographic research, exploring how practice context, patient characteristics, type of technology and the purpose of the consultation interact to determine the impact of these alternatives; and synthesise the findings in order to develop a website resource about the implementation of alternatives to face-to-face consultations and a framework for subsequent evaluation.

Design: mixed-methods case study.

Setting: general practices in England and Scotland with varied experience of implementing alternatives to face-to-face consultations.

Participants: patients and practice staff.

Interventions: alternatives to face-to-face consultations include telephone consultations, e-mail, e-consultations and internet video.

Main outcome measures: how context influenced the implementation and impact of alternatives to the face-to-face consultation; the rationale for practices to introduce alternatives; the use of different forms of consultation by different patient groups; and the intended benefits/outcomes.

Review methods: the conceptual review used an approach informed by realist review, a method for synthesising research evidence regarding complex interventions.

Results: alternatives to the face-to-face consultation are not in mainstream use in general practice, with low uptake in our case study practices. We identified the underlying rationales for the use of these alternatives and have shown that different stakeholders have different perspectives on what they hope to achieve through the use of alternatives to the face-to-face consultation. Through the observation of real-life use of different forms of alternative, we have a clearer understanding of how, under what circumstances and for which patients alternatives might have a range of intended benefits and potential unintended adverse consequences. We have also developed a framework for future evaluation.

Limitations: the low uptake of alternatives to the face-to-face consultation means that our research participants might be deemed to be early adopters. The case study approach provides an in-depth examination of a small number of sites, each using alternatives in different ways. The findings are therefore hypothesis-generating, rather than hypothesis-testing.

Conclusions: the current low uptake of alternatives, lack of clarity about purpose and limited evidence of benefit may be at odds with current policy, which encourages the use of alternatives. We have highlighted key issues for practices and policy-makers to consider and have made recommendations about priorities for further research to be conducted, before or alongside the future roll-out of alternatives to the face-to-face consultation, such as telephone consulting, e-consultation, e-mail and video consulting.

Future work: we have synthesised our findings to develop a framework and recommendations about future evaluation of the use of alternatives to face-to-face consultations.

Funding details: the National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Text
3014543 - Version of Record
Available under License Other.
Download (10MB)

More information

Published date: June 2018

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 486559
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/486559
ISSN: 2050-4349
PURE UUID: 1db91eec-89cf-459a-b17b-c1ef4c969d09
ORCID for Helen Atherton: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-7072-1925

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 26 Jan 2024 17:34
Last modified: 18 Mar 2024 04:18

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Helen Atherton ORCID iD
Author: Heather Brant
Author: Sue Ziebland
Author: Annemieke Bikker
Author: John Campbell
Author: Andy Gibson
Author: Brian McKinstry
Author: Tania Porqueddu
Author: Chris Salisbury

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.

×