PreprintCited by 124Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationHealthcare Systems and TechnologyPrimary Care and Health Outcomes

The Impact of Digital-First Consultations on Workload in General Practice: Modeling Study (Preprint)

Open access
Salisbury, Chris, Murphy, Mairead, Duncan, Polly·2020·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Preprint — published as 10.2196/18203

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Health services in many countries are promoting digital-first models of access to general practice based on offering online, video, or telephone consultations before a face-to-face consultation. It is claimed that this will improve access for patients and moderate the workload of doctors. However, improved access could also potentially increase doctors’ workload. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore whether and under what circumstances digital-first access to general practice is likely to decrease or increase general practice workload. METHODS: A process map to delineate primary care access pathways was developed and a model to estimate general practice workload constructed in Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corp). The model was populated using estimates of key variables obtained from a systematic review of published studies. A MEDLINE search was conducted for studies published in English between January 1, 2000, and September 30, 2019. Included papers provided quantitative data about online, telephone, or video consultations for unselected patients requesting a general practice in-hours consultation for any problem. We excluded studies of general practitioners consulting specialists, consultations not conducted by doctors, and consultations conducted after hours, in secondary care, in specialist services, or for a specific health care problem. Data about the following variables were extracted from the included papers to form the model inputs: the proportion of consultations managed digitally, the proportion of digital consultations completed without a subsequent consultation, the proportion of subsequent consultations conducted by telephone rather than face-to-face, consultation duration, and the proportion of digital consultations that represent new demand. The outcome was general practice workload. The model was used to test the likely impact of different digital-first scenarios, based on the best available evidence and the plausible range of estimates from the published studies. The model allows others to test the impact on workload of varying assumptions about model inputs. RESULTS: Digital-first approaches are likely to increase general practice workload unless they are shorter, and a higher proportion of patients are managed without a subsequent consultation than observed in most published studies. In our base-case scenarios (based on the best available evidence), digital-first access models using online, telephone, or video consultations are likely to increase general practitioner workload by 25%, 3%, and 31%, respectively. An important determinant of workload is whether the availability of digital-first approaches changes the demand for general practice consultations, but there is little robust evidence to answer this question. CONCLUSIONS: Digital-first approaches to primary care could increase general practice workload unless stringent conditions are met. Justification for these approaches should be based on evidence about the benefits in relation to the costs, rather than assumptions about reductions in workload. Given the potential increase in workload, which in due course could worsen problems of access, these initiatives should be implemented in a staged way alongside careful evaluation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2196/preprints.18203

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 34 · Cited by 124

Authors
Salisbury, C., Murphy, M., & Duncan, P.
Affiliations
University of Bristol (GB)
Corresponding author
Salisbury, Chris
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2020-02-11
Volume
22
Issue
6
Pages
e18203-e18203
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3022571389
Cited by
124
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 7
FWCI
14.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR201314, NIHR-IPF-16-10-05)
  • Department of Health and Social Care
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
general practitioner workload, teleconsultation, video consultation, telephone consultation, consultation time, primary care demand, general practitioners, digital health services, waiting time, health workforce planning
MeSH terms
Humans, Referral and Consultation, Workload, General Practice

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