Comparing the content and quality of video, telephone, and face-to-face consultations: a non-randomised, quasi-experimental, exploratory study in UK primary care

Growing demands on primary care services have led to policymakers promoting video consultations (VCs) to replace routine face-to-face consultations (FTFCs) in general practice. To explore the content, quality, and patient experience of VC, telephone (TC), and FTFCs in general practice. Comparison of...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:	British journal of general practice Jg. 69; H. 686; S. e595
Hauptverfasser:	Hammersley, Victoria, Donaghy, Eddie, Parker, Richard, McNeilly, Hannah, Atherton, Helen, Bikker, Annemieke, Campbell, John, McKinstry, Brian
Format:	Journal Article
Sprache:	Englisch
Veröffentlicht:	England 01.09.2019
Schlagworte:	Adult Aftercare Aged Appointments and Schedules Communication Delivery of Health Care Female General Practice Health Services Research Humans Male Middle Aged Patient Education as Topic Physician-Patient Relations Primary Health Care Remote Consultation Scotland Telephone Time Factors United Kingdom Videoconferencing Scotland United Kingdom health services research telemedicine communication general practice
ISSN:	1478-5242, 1478-5242
Online-Zugang:	Weitere Angaben
Tags:	Tag hinzufügen Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!

Abstract	Growing demands on primary care services have led to policymakers promoting video consultations (VCs) to replace routine face-to-face consultations (FTFCs) in general practice. To explore the content, quality, and patient experience of VC, telephone (TC), and FTFCs in general practice. Comparison of audio-recordings of follow-up consultations in UK primary care. Primary care clinicians were provided with video-consulting equipment. Participating patients required a smartphone, tablet, or computer with camera. Clinicians invited patients requiring a follow-up consultation to choose a VC, TC, or FTFC. Consultations were audio-recorded and analysed for content and quality. Participant experience was explored in post-consultation questionnaires. Case notes were reviewed for NHS resource use. Of the recordings, 149/163 were suitable for analysis. VC recruits were younger, and more experienced in communicating online. FTFCs were longer than VCs (mean difference +3.7 minutes, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.1 to 5.2) or TCs (+4.1 minutes, 95% CI = 2.6 to 5.5). On average, patients raised fewer problems in VCs (mean 1.5, standard deviation [SD] 0.8) compared with FTFCs (mean 2.1, SD 1.1) and demonstrated fewer instances of information giving by clinicians and patients. FTFCs scored higher than VCs and TCs on consultation-quality items. VC may be suitable for simple problems not requiring physical examination. VC, in terms of consultation length, content, and quality, appeared similar to TC. Both approaches appeared less 'information rich' than FTFC. Technical problems were common and, though patients really liked VC, infrastructure issues would need to be addressed before the technology and approach can be mainstreamed in primary care.
AbstractList	Growing demands on primary care services have led to policymakers promoting video consultations (VCs) to replace routine face-to-face consultations (FTFCs) in general practice.BACKGROUNDGrowing demands on primary care services have led to policymakers promoting video consultations (VCs) to replace routine face-to-face consultations (FTFCs) in general practice.To explore the content, quality, and patient experience of VC, telephone (TC), and FTFCs in general practice.AIMTo explore the content, quality, and patient experience of VC, telephone (TC), and FTFCs in general practice.Comparison of audio-recordings of follow-up consultations in UK primary care.DESIGN AND SETTINGComparison of audio-recordings of follow-up consultations in UK primary care.Primary care clinicians were provided with video-consulting equipment. Participating patients required a smartphone, tablet, or computer with camera. Clinicians invited patients requiring a follow-up consultation to choose a VC, TC, or FTFC. Consultations were audio-recorded and analysed for content and quality. Participant experience was explored in post-consultation questionnaires. Case notes were reviewed for NHS resource use.METHODPrimary care clinicians were provided with video-consulting equipment. Participating patients required a smartphone, tablet, or computer with camera. Clinicians invited patients requiring a follow-up consultation to choose a VC, TC, or FTFC. Consultations were audio-recorded and analysed for content and quality. Participant experience was explored in post-consultation questionnaires. Case notes were reviewed for NHS resource use.Of the recordings, 149/163 were suitable for analysis. VC recruits were younger, and more experienced in communicating online. FTFCs were longer than VCs (mean difference +3.7 minutes, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.1 to 5.2) or TCs (+4.1 minutes, 95% CI = 2.6 to 5.5). On average, patients raised fewer problems in VCs (mean 1.5, standard deviation [SD] 0.8) compared with FTFCs (mean 2.1, SD 1.1) and demonstrated fewer instances of information giving by clinicians and patients. FTFCs scored higher than VCs and TCs on consultation-quality items.RESULTSOf the recordings, 149/163 were suitable for analysis. VC recruits were younger, and more experienced in communicating online. FTFCs were longer than VCs (mean difference +3.7 minutes, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.1 to 5.2) or TCs (+4.1 minutes, 95% CI = 2.6 to 5.5). On average, patients raised fewer problems in VCs (mean 1.5, standard deviation [SD] 0.8) compared with FTFCs (mean 2.1, SD 1.1) and demonstrated fewer instances of information giving by clinicians and patients. FTFCs scored higher than VCs and TCs on consultation-quality items.VC may be suitable for simple problems not requiring physical examination. VC, in terms of consultation length, content, and quality, appeared similar to TC. Both approaches appeared less 'information rich' than FTFC. Technical problems were common and, though patients really liked VC, infrastructure issues would need to be addressed before the technology and approach can be mainstreamed in primary care.CONCLUSIONVC may be suitable for simple problems not requiring physical examination. VC, in terms of consultation length, content, and quality, appeared similar to TC. Both approaches appeared less 'information rich' than FTFC. Technical problems were common and, though patients really liked VC, infrastructure issues would need to be addressed before the technology and approach can be mainstreamed in primary care. Growing demands on primary care services have led to policymakers promoting video consultations (VCs) to replace routine face-to-face consultations (FTFCs) in general practice. To explore the content, quality, and patient experience of VC, telephone (TC), and FTFCs in general practice. Comparison of audio-recordings of follow-up consultations in UK primary care. Primary care clinicians were provided with video-consulting equipment. Participating patients required a smartphone, tablet, or computer with camera. Clinicians invited patients requiring a follow-up consultation to choose a VC, TC, or FTFC. Consultations were audio-recorded and analysed for content and quality. Participant experience was explored in post-consultation questionnaires. Case notes were reviewed for NHS resource use. Of the recordings, 149/163 were suitable for analysis. VC recruits were younger, and more experienced in communicating online. FTFCs were longer than VCs (mean difference +3.7 minutes, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.1 to 5.2) or TCs (+4.1 minutes, 95% CI = 2.6 to 5.5). On average, patients raised fewer problems in VCs (mean 1.5, standard deviation [SD] 0.8) compared with FTFCs (mean 2.1, SD 1.1) and demonstrated fewer instances of information giving by clinicians and patients. FTFCs scored higher than VCs and TCs on consultation-quality items. VC may be suitable for simple problems not requiring physical examination. VC, in terms of consultation length, content, and quality, appeared similar to TC. Both approaches appeared less 'information rich' than FTFC. Technical problems were common and, though patients really liked VC, infrastructure issues would need to be addressed before the technology and approach can be mainstreamed in primary care.
Author	Hammersley, Victoria Donaghy, Eddie Parker, Richard Atherton, Helen McKinstry, Brian Campbell, John McNeilly, Hannah Bikker, Annemieke
Author_xml	– sequence: 1 givenname: Victoria surname: Hammersley fullname: Hammersley, Victoria organization: Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics – sequence: 2 givenname: Eddie surname: Donaghy fullname: Donaghy, Eddie organization: Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics – sequence: 3 givenname: Richard surname: Parker fullname: Parker, Richard organization: Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics – sequence: 4 givenname: Hannah surname: McNeilly fullname: McNeilly, Hannah organization: Medical Teaching Unit, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh – sequence: 5 givenname: Helen surname: Atherton fullname: Atherton, Helen organization: Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry – sequence: 6 givenname: Annemieke surname: Bikker fullname: Bikker, Annemieke organization: Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics – sequence: 7 givenname: John surname: Campbell fullname: Campbell, John organization: General Practice and Primary Care, University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter – sequence: 8 givenname: Brian surname: McKinstry fullname: McKinstry, Brian organization: Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics
BackLink	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31262846$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed
BookMark	eNpNkEtLw0AUhQep2FZdupVZukg0807cSfGFBTcW3IVJ5qZNSTNpZiL25_hPnWoFV_fBd8493CkatbYFhC5Ics1Ylt0U62VHsneVcKHYEZoQrtJYUE5H__oxmjq3ThJKJUlO0JgRKmnK5QR9zeym033dLrFfAS5t66H1WLcGbwfd1H6HbYU_agM2wh4a6FbhfvQDVLqE2Nt4X_dKNzRe-zo0t1jjkDPuA2Y3tQMT7e1cHcNnB329CTd0E-EwNbbX3vY77Pxgdrhu8eIFdwHRYVfqHs7QcaUbB-eHeooWD_dvs6d4_vr4PLubxx1jzMcllayomMqAClMqwyUv00woIbUiXEhBDAWjSlVBRpVJUxAMNCmAMyV1UJ2iq1_frrfbAZzPQ_ASmka3YAeXUyoIoVxKGdDLAzoUGzD5IW7-91b6Dd17frQ
ContentType	Journal Article
Copyright	British Journal of General Practice 2019.
Copyright_xml	– notice: British Journal of General Practice 2019.
DBID	CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7X8
DOI	10.3399/bjgp19X704573
DatabaseName	Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitle	MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitleList	MEDLINE - Academic MEDLINE
Database_xml	– sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 2 dbid: 7X8 name: MEDLINE - Academic url: https://search.proquest.com/medline sourceTypes: Aggregation Database
DeliveryMethod	no_fulltext_linktorsrc
Discipline	Medicine
EISSN	1478-5242
ExternalDocumentID	31262846
Genre	Journal Article Comparative Study
GeographicLocations	Scotland United Kingdom
GeographicLocations_xml	– name: United Kingdom – name: Scotland
GrantInformation_xml	– fundername: Chief Scientist Office grantid: HIPS/16/20
GroupedDBID	--- .GJ 23N 2WC 53G 5GY 5RE 5VS 6PF AAFWJ AAWTL ABOCM ABSQV ACDUE ADBBV ADDZX ADMOG AENEX AFHIN AFPMT ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS AOIJS BAWUL BTFSW CGR CS3 CUY CVF DIK DU5 E3Z EBD EBS ECM EIF EJD EMOBN F5P GX1 H13 HYE K-O KQ8 L7B NPM P2P R0Z RHI RPM SJN SV3 TR2 WOQ ZGI ZXP 7X8
ID	FETCH-LOGICAL-p333t-c263bf379e25dc7d464c895756a7145651d2ed7c7fe927d88e53ea1be4376a9e2
IEDL.DBID	7X8
ISICitedReferencesCount	234
ISICitedReferencesURI	http://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=Summon&SrcAuth=ProQuest&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=000483925100002&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D
ISSN	1478-5242
IngestDate	Fri Jul 11 07:10:08 EDT 2025 Mon Jul 21 06:02:56 EDT 2025
IsDoiOpenAccess	false
IsOpenAccess	true
IsPeerReviewed	true
IsScholarly	true
Issue	686
Keywords	health services research telemedicine communication general practice
Language	English
License	British Journal of General Practice 2019.
LinkModel	DirectLink
MergedId	FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-p333t-c263bf379e25dc7d464c895756a7145651d2ed7c7fe927d88e53ea1be4376a9e2
Notes	ObjectType-Article-2 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-1 content type line 23
OpenAccessLink	https://bjgp.org/content/bjgp/69/686/e595.full.pdf
PMID	31262846
PQID	2251124666
PQPubID	23479
ParticipantIDs	proquest_miscellaneous_2251124666 pubmed_primary_31262846
PublicationCentury	2000
PublicationDate	2019-09-01
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD	2019-09-01
PublicationDate_xml	– month: 09 year: 2019 text: 2019-09-01 day: 01
PublicationDecade	2010
PublicationPlace	England
PublicationPlace_xml	– name: England
PublicationTitle	British journal of general practice
PublicationTitleAlternate	Br J Gen Pract
PublicationYear	2019
References	32586805 - Br J Gen Pract. 2020 Jun 25;70(696):329. doi: 10.3399/bjgp20X710861.
References_xml	– reference: 32586805 - Br J Gen Pract. 2020 Jun 25;70(696):329. doi: 10.3399/bjgp20X710861.
SSID	ssj0022610
Score	2.6457577
Snippet	Growing demands on primary care services have led to policymakers promoting video consultations (VCs) to replace routine face-to-face consultations (FTFCs) in...
SourceID	proquest pubmed
SourceType	Aggregation Database Index Database
StartPage	e595
SubjectTerms	Adult Aftercare Aged Appointments and Schedules Communication Delivery of Health Care Female General Practice Health Services Research Humans Male Middle Aged Patient Education as Topic Physician-Patient Relations Primary Health Care Remote Consultation Scotland Telephone Time Factors United Kingdom Videoconferencing
Title	Comparing the content and quality of video, telephone, and face-to-face consultations: a non-randomised, quasi-experimental, exploratory study in UK primary care
URI	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31262846 https://www.proquest.com/docview/2251124666
Volume	69
WOSCitedRecordID	wos000483925100002&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D
hasFullText
inHoldings	1
isFullTextHit
isPrint
link	http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV1LS8QwEA7qinjx_VhfjOBxgzbpNqkXEXERdBcPKntb0ky6rEi72l3Bn-M_ddLWx0UQvLSXTJkmw3xfMpMZxo4EEuoLq3mU0F41jCPkxoTIE9dONKrUiLKoz8ON6vV0vx_f1gduRZ1W-ekTS0eNufVn5MfCc2EREts-Gz9z3zXKR1frFhqzrCGJynirVv2vKAIxi6oaQUg7pTZhUVVjU9LA4-RxOA7iviJG41um_8YuS5TpLP9XvxW2VPNLOK8MYpXNuGyNLXTrCPo6e7-oGg9mQyDqBz5TnWAHTIZQ3a98gzwFfzkvb8GEMMnnrrtWOSA11vFJzv3bSxbTpyqQX5yCgSzPOAEf5mQ5Dlv-c8WI_-wg0AJXZvyVgX0oC9vCKIP7axhXNS_A56FtsPvO5d3FFa_bNPCxlHLCrYhkkkoVO9FGqzCMQqtjooGRUYEnjAEKh8qq1MVCodauLZ0JEheSczMktcnmSEW3zcA4jSY9QZ3QvlVZNBigFkkaI8lrHTfZ4efkD-hnfGzDZC6fFoPv6W-yrWoFB7XuAxmIiFA42vmD9C5bJEpUZ5HtsUZKTsDts3n7OhkVLwelfdGzd9v9ALTm3u4
linkProvider	ProQuest
openUrl	ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparing+the+content+and+quality+of+video%2C+telephone%2C+and+face-to-face+consultations%3A+a+non-randomised%2C+quasi-experimental%2C+exploratory+study+in+UK+primary+care&rft.jtitle=British+journal+of+general+practice&rft.au=Hammersley%2C+Victoria&rft.au=Donaghy%2C+Eddie&rft.au=Parker%2C+Richard&rft.au=McNeilly%2C+Hannah&rft.date=2019-09-01&rft.issn=1478-5242&rft.eissn=1478-5242&rft.volume=69&rft.issue=686&rft.spage=e595&rft_id=info:doi/10.3399%2Fbjgp19X704573&rft.externalDBID=NO_FULL_TEXT
thumbnail_l	http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1478-5242&client=summon
thumbnail_m	http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1478-5242&client=summon
thumbnail_s	http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1478-5242&client=summon