Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBrant, H
dc.contributor.authorAtherton, H
dc.contributor.authorZiebland, S
dc.contributor.authorMcKinstry, B
dc.contributor.authorCampbell, JL
dc.contributor.authorSalisbury, C
dc.date.accessioned2016-08-01T15:55:40Z
dc.date.issued2016-07
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: 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. AIM: The aim of the survey was to identify the frequency and range of ways in which general practices are providing (or planning) alternatives to face-to-face consultations. DESIGN AND SETTING: A postal survey of practices around Bristol, Oxford, Lothian, the Highlands, and the Western Isles of Scotland. METHOD: A postal questionnaire survey was sent to each of the GPs and practice managers of 421 practices between January and May 2015. RESULTS: A response was received from 319/421 practices (76%). Although the majority of the practices reported that they were conducting telephone consultations frequently (n = 211/318, 66%), fewer were implementing email consultations (n = 18/318, 6%), and most (n = 169/318, 53%) had no plans to introduce this. None were currently using internet video, and 86% (n = 273/318) had no plans to introduce internet video consultations. These findings were repeated in the reported use of alternatives to face-to-face consultations at an individual GP level. Optional free text responses were completed by 28% of responders, and offered an explanation for the (often perceived) barriers and incentives for implementation. CONCLUSION: Despite policy pressure to introduce consultations by email and internet video, there is a general reluctance among GPs to implement alternatives to face-to-face consultations. This identifies a substantial gap between rhetoric and reality in terms of the likelihood of certain alternatives (email, video) changing practice in the near future.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipThis study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research Programme (reference number: 13/59/08). The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the HS&DR Programme, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health. Helen Atherton was funded by a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) School for Primary Care Research (SPCR) fellowship. Sue Ziebland is an NIHR Senior Investigatoren_GB
dc.identifier.citationVol. 66, pp. e460 - e466en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.3399/bjgp16X685597
dc.identifier.otherbjgp16X685597
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/22819
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherRoyal College of General Practitionersen_GB
dc.relation.urlhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27215571en_GB
dc.rights.embargoreasonUnder indefinite embargo due to publisher policy. The final version is freely available from the publisher via the DOI in this record.en_GB
dc.subjectelectronic mailen_GB
dc.subjectprimary health careen_GB
dc.subjectreferral and consultationen_GB
dc.subjecttelephoneen_GB
dc.subjectvideoconferencingen_GB
dc.titleUsing alternatives to face-to-face consultations: a survey of prevalence and attitudes in general practice.en_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
exeter.place-of-publicationEnglanden_GB
dc.identifier.journalBritish Journal of General Practiceen_GB
dc.identifier.pmid27215571


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record