The Impact of Digital-First Consultations on Workload in General Practice: Modeling Study.
access to health care
electronic consultations
family practice
general practice
health care quality, access, and evaluation
remote consultation
telemedicine
telephone consultation
video
Journal
Journal of medical Internet research
ISSN: 1438-8871
Titre abrégé: J Med Internet Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 100959882
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 06 2020
16 06 2020
Historique:
received:
11
02
2020
accepted:
28
03
2020
revised:
26
03
2020
entrez:
17
6
2020
pubmed:
17
6
2020
medline:
17
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Health services in many countries are promoting digital-first models of access to general practice based on offering online, video, or telephone consultations before a face-to-face consultation. It is claimed that this will improve access for patients and moderate the workload of doctors. However, improved access could also potentially increase doctors' workload. The aim of this study was to explore whether and under what circumstances digital-first access to general practice is likely to decrease or increase general practice workload. A process map to delineate primary care access pathways was developed and a model to estimate general practice workload constructed in Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corp). The model was populated using estimates of key variables obtained from a systematic review of published studies. A MEDLINE search was conducted for studies published in English between January 1, 2000, and September 30, 2019. Included papers provided quantitative data about online, telephone, or video consultations for unselected patients requesting a general practice in-hours consultation for any problem. We excluded studies of general practitioners consulting specialists, consultations not conducted by doctors, and consultations conducted after hours, in secondary care, in specialist services, or for a specific health care problem. Data about the following variables were extracted from the included papers to form the model inputs: the proportion of consultations managed digitally, the proportion of digital consultations completed without a subsequent consultation, the proportion of subsequent consultations conducted by telephone rather than face-to-face, consultation duration, and the proportion of digital consultations that represent new demand. The outcome was general practice workload. The model was used to test the likely impact of different digital-first scenarios, based on the best available evidence and the plausible range of estimates from the published studies. The model allows others to test the impact on workload of varying assumptions about model inputs. Digital-first approaches are likely to increase general practice workload unless they are shorter, and a higher proportion of patients are managed without a subsequent consultation than observed in most published studies. In our base-case scenarios (based on the best available evidence), digital-first access models using online, telephone, or video consultations are likely to increase general practitioner workload by 25%, 3%, and 31%, respectively. An important determinant of workload is whether the availability of digital-first approaches changes the demand for general practice consultations, but there is little robust evidence to answer this question. Digital-first approaches to primary care could increase general practice workload unless stringent conditions are met. Justification for these approaches should be based on evidence about the benefits in relation to the costs, rather than assumptions about reductions in workload. Given the potential increase in workload, which in due course could worsen problems of access, these initiatives should be implemented in a staged way alongside careful evaluation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Health services in many countries are promoting digital-first models of access to general practice based on offering online, video, or telephone consultations before a face-to-face consultation. It is claimed that this will improve access for patients and moderate the workload of doctors. However, improved access could also potentially increase doctors' workload.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to explore whether and under what circumstances digital-first access to general practice is likely to decrease or increase general practice workload.
METHODS
A process map to delineate primary care access pathways was developed and a model to estimate general practice workload constructed in Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corp). The model was populated using estimates of key variables obtained from a systematic review of published studies. A MEDLINE search was conducted for studies published in English between January 1, 2000, and September 30, 2019. Included papers provided quantitative data about online, telephone, or video consultations for unselected patients requesting a general practice in-hours consultation for any problem. We excluded studies of general practitioners consulting specialists, consultations not conducted by doctors, and consultations conducted after hours, in secondary care, in specialist services, or for a specific health care problem. Data about the following variables were extracted from the included papers to form the model inputs: the proportion of consultations managed digitally, the proportion of digital consultations completed without a subsequent consultation, the proportion of subsequent consultations conducted by telephone rather than face-to-face, consultation duration, and the proportion of digital consultations that represent new demand. The outcome was general practice workload. The model was used to test the likely impact of different digital-first scenarios, based on the best available evidence and the plausible range of estimates from the published studies. The model allows others to test the impact on workload of varying assumptions about model inputs.
RESULTS
Digital-first approaches are likely to increase general practice workload unless they are shorter, and a higher proportion of patients are managed without a subsequent consultation than observed in most published studies. In our base-case scenarios (based on the best available evidence), digital-first access models using online, telephone, or video consultations are likely to increase general practitioner workload by 25%, 3%, and 31%, respectively. An important determinant of workload is whether the availability of digital-first approaches changes the demand for general practice consultations, but there is little robust evidence to answer this question.
CONCLUSIONS
Digital-first approaches to primary care could increase general practice workload unless stringent conditions are met. Justification for these approaches should be based on evidence about the benefits in relation to the costs, rather than assumptions about reductions in workload. Given the potential increase in workload, which in due course could worsen problems of access, these initiatives should be implemented in a staged way alongside careful evaluation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32543441
pii: v22i6e18203
doi: 10.2196/18203
pmc: PMC7327596
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e18203Informations de copyright
©Chris Salisbury, Mairead Murphy, Polly Duncan. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 16.06.2020.
Références
Lancet. 2014 Nov 22;384(9957):1859-1868
pubmed: 25098487
London J Prim Care (Abingdon). 2016 Jun 10;8(4):56-65
pubmed: 28250835
BMJ. 2002 Nov 23;325(7374):1214
pubmed: 12446539
Br J Gen Pract. 2019 Aug 29;69(686):e595-e604
pubmed: 31262846
Health Technol Assess. 2015 Feb;19(13):1-212, vii-viii
pubmed: 25690266
Int J Med Inform. 2005 Sep;74(9):705-10
pubmed: 16095961
BMJ. 2017 Sep 27;358:j4197
pubmed: 28954741
J Health Organ Manag. 2018 Apr 9;32(2):321-337
pubmed: 29624133
Br J Gen Pract. 2005 Dec;55(521):956-61
pubmed: 16378566
Fam Pract. 2002 Oct;19(5):516-9
pubmed: 12356705
BMJ. 2018 Mar 26;360:k1195
pubmed: 29581174
BMJ Open. 2017 Nov 16;7(11):e018261
pubmed: 29150473
BMJ Open. 2017 Nov 22;7(11):e016901
pubmed: 29167106
Lancet. 2016 Jun 4;387(10035):2323-2330
pubmed: 27059888
BMJ Open. 2018 Jan 21;8(1):e019233
pubmed: 29358442
JAMA. 2012 Nov 21;308(19):2012-9
pubmed: 23168824
J Am Board Fam Med. 2016 Sep-Oct;29(5):613-9
pubmed: 27613794
J Gen Intern Med. 2003 Sep;18(9):736-44
pubmed: 12950483
Br J Gen Pract. 2018 Jan;68(666):e1-e8
pubmed: 29109115
Telemed J E Health. 2018 Mar;24(3):210-215
pubmed: 28731388
J Telemed Telecare. 2015 Jun;21(4):219-26
pubmed: 25697491
Pharmacoecon Open. 2018 Sep;2(3):347-354
pubmed: 29623633
J R Soc Med. 2001 Jun;94(6):290-1
pubmed: 11387420
BMJ Open. 2018 Mar 19;8(3):e019966
pubmed: 29555817
Br J Gen Pract. 2006 Jul;56(528):530-5
pubmed: 16834880
Qual Saf Health Care. 2010 Aug;19(4):298-303
pubmed: 20430933
BMJ Open. 2018 Feb 15;8(2):e018688
pubmed: 29449293
Br J Gen Pract. 2002 May;52(478):390-1
pubmed: 12014537
Health Aff (Millwood). 2009 Mar-Apr;28(2):323-33
pubmed: 19275987
Br J Gen Pract. 2016 Mar;66(644):e214-8
pubmed: 26917660
Br J Gen Pract. 2002 Apr;52(477):306-10
pubmed: 11942448
Am J Manag Care. 2007 Jul;13(7):418-24
pubmed: 17620037
Telemed J E Health. 2014 Mar;20(3):192-8
pubmed: 24350803