Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorAtherton, H
dc.contributor.authorBrant, H
dc.contributor.authorZiebland, S
dc.contributor.authorBikker, A
dc.contributor.authorCampbell, J
dc.contributor.authorGibson, A
dc.contributor.authorMcKinstry, B
dc.contributor.authorPorqueddu, T
dc.contributor.authorSalisbury, C
dc.date.accessioned2018-02-13T16:17:33Z
dc.date.issued2018-01-29
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: NHS policy encourages general practices to introduce alternatives to the face-to-face consultation, such as telephone, email, e-consultation systems, or internet video. Most have been slow to adopt these, citing concerns about workload. This project builds on previous research by focusing on the experiences of patients and practitioners who have used one or more of these alternatives. AIM: To understand how, under what conditions, for which patients, and in what ways, alternatives to face-to-face consultations present benefits and challenges to patients and practitioners in general practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: Focused ethnographic case studies took place in eight UK general practices between June 2015 and March 2016. METHOD: Non-participant observation, informal conversations with staff, and semi-structured interviews with staff and patients were conducted. Practice documents and protocols were reviewed. Data were analysed through charting and the 'one sheet of paper' mind-map method to identify the line of argument in each thematic report. RESULTS: Case study practices had different rationales for offering alternatives to the face-to-face consultation. Beliefs varied about which patients and health issues were suitable. Co-workers were often unaware of each other's practice; for example, practice policies for use of e-consultations systems with patients were not known about or followed. Patients reported benefits including convenience and access. Staff and some patients regarded the face-to-face consultation as the ideal. CONCLUSION: Experience of implementing alternatives to the face-to-face consultation suggests that changes in patient access and staff workload may be both modest and gradual. Practices planning to implement them should consider carefully their reasons for doing so and involve the whole practice team.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research [HS&DR programme] (project number 13/59/08) and hosted by Bristol NHS Clinical Commissioning Group. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the HS&DR Programme, NIHR, NHS, the Department of Health or Bristol NHS Clinical Commissioning Group.en_GB
dc.identifier.citationVol. 68 (669), pp. e293-e300en_GB
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp18X694853
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/31465
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherRoyal College of General Practitionersen_GB
dc.relation.urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29378697en_GB
dc.rights.embargoreasonUnder embargo until 29 January 2019 in compliance with publisher policy.en_GB
dc.rights© 2018, British Journal of General Practice. All rights reserved.en_GB
dc.subjectcommunicationen_GB
dc.subjectelectronic mailen_GB
dc.subjectethnographyen_GB
dc.subjectgeneral practiceen_GB
dc.subjectqualitative researchen_GB
dc.subjectremote consultationen_GB
dc.subjectworkloaden_GB
dc.titleAlternatives to the face-to-face consultation in general practice: focused ethnographic case studyen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
exeter.place-of-publicationEnglanden_GB
dc.descriptionThis is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Royal College of General Practitioners via the DOI in this record.en_GB
dc.identifier.journalBritish Journal of General Practiceen_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record