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

PERCS framework primary care qualitative research remote consultation telephone consultations video consultations

Journal

The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners
ISSN: 1478-5242
Titre abrégé: Br J Gen Pract
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9005323

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
05 2022
Historique:
received: 19 11 2021
accepted: 21 12 2021
pubmed: 9 3 2022
medline: 3 5 2022
entrez: 8 3 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Fewer than 1% of UK general practice consultations occur by video. To explain why video consultations are not more widely used in general practice. Analysis of a sub-sample of data from three mixed-method case studies of remote consultation services in various UK settings from 2019-2021. 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. 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). 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).

Sections du résumé

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).

Identifiants

pubmed: 35256385
pii: BJGP.2021.0658
doi: 10.3399/BJGP.2021.0658
pmc: PMC8936181
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e351-e360

Informations de copyright

© The Authors.

Auteurs

Trisha Greenhalgh (T)

Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Emma Ladds (E)

Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Gemma Hughes (G)

Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Lucy Moore (L)

Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Joseph Wherton (J)

Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Sara E Shaw (SE)

Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Chrysanthi Papoutsi (C)

Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Sietse Wieringa (S)

University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.

Rebecca Rosen (R)

Nuffield Trust, London, UK.

Alexander Rushforth (A)

Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands.

Sarah Rybczynska-Bunt (S)

University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH