Joint teleconsultations (virtual outreach) versus standard outpatient appointments for patients referred by their general practitioner for a specialist opinion: a randomised trial
Abstract
Background The current model of general practitioner referral of patients to hospital specialists in the UK is sometimes associated with unnecessary duplication of investigations and treatments. We aimed to compare joint teleconsultations between general practitioners, specialists, and patients (virtual outreach) with standard outpatient referral.Methods Virtual outreach services were established in London and Shrewsbury. The general practitioners referred 3170 patients, of whom 2094 consented to participate in the study and were eligible for inclusion. 1051 patients were randomly assigned virtual outreach, and 1043 standard outpatient appointments. We followed up the patients for 6 months after their index consultation. The primary outcome measure was the offer of a follow-up outpatient appointment. Analysis was by intention to treat.Findings More patients in the virtual outreach group than the standard group were offered a follow-up appointment (502 [52%] vs 400 [41%], odds ratio 1.52 [95% CI 1.27-1.82], p<0.0001). Significant differences in effects were observed between the two sites (p=0.009) and across different specialties (p<0.0001). Virtual outreach increased the offers of follow-up appointments more in Shrewsbury than in London, and more in ear, nose, and throat surgery and orthopaedics than in the other specialties. Fewer tests and investigations were ordered in the virtual outreach group by an average of 0.79 per patient (0.37-1.21, p=0.0002). Patients' satisfaction (analysed per protocol) was greater after a virtual outreach consultation than after a standard outpatient consultation (mean difference 0.33 scale points [95% CI 0.23-0.43], p<0.0001), with no heterogeneity between specialties or sites.Interpretation The trial showed that allocation of patients to virtual outreach consultations is variably associated with increased offers of follow-up appointments according to site and specialty, but leads to significant increases in patients' satisfaction and substantial reductions in tests and investigations. Efficient operation of such services will require appropriate selection of patients, significant service reorganisation, and provision of logistical support.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Compared to face-to-face consultations, PCPs order fewer tests and investigations and are unable to physically examine patients in remote settings, which can affect the appropriateness of patient management.
“Compared to face-to-face consultations, PCPs order fewer tests and investigations and are unable to physically examine patients in remote settings, which can affect the appropriateness of patient management [8,28].”
From Impact of Remote Consultations on Antibiotic Prescribing in Primary Health Care: Systematic Review (2020) · cites this paper as [28]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 29 · Cited by 145
- Authors
- Wallace, P., Haines, A., Harrison, R., Barbour, J., Thompson, S., Jacklin, P., Roberts, J., Lewis, L., & Wainwright, P.
- Affiliations
- The Royal Free Hospital (GB)
- London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
- University College Hospital (GB)
- MRC Biostatistics Unit (GB)
- Swansea University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Wallace, P
- Venue
- The Lancet
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2002-06
- Volume
- 359
- Issue
- 9322
- Pages
- 1961-1968
- ISSN
- 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
- 0140-6736
- OpenAlex
- W2158206011
- Cited by
- 145
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 11.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Lancet (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Repository (Kingston University London) (submittedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Health Services Research and Development
- Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust
- Health Technology Assessment Programme
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Healthcare Systems and Technology
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
- Keywords
- virtual outreach, teleconsultation, general practitioner referral, follow-up visits, unnecessary testing, patient satisfaction, ear, nose and throat surgery, orthopedics
- MeSH terms
- Ambulatory Care Facilities, Appointments and Schedules, England, Family Practice, Female, Humans, Male, Medicine, Middle Aged, Referral and Consultation, Specialization, User-Computer Interface, Patient Satisfaction, Remote Consultation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review