The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Virtual outreach: a randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of joint teleconferenced medical consultations
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVES: To test the hypotheses that virtual outreach would reduce offers of hospital follow-up appointments and reduce numbers of medical interventions and investigations, reduce numbers of contacts with the health care system, have a positive impact on patient satisfaction and enablement, and lead to improvements in patient health status. To perform an economic evaluation of virtual outreach. DESIGN: A randomised controlled trial comparing joint teleconsultations between GPs, specialists and patients with standard outpatient referral. It was accompanied by an economic evaluation. SETTING: The trial was centred on the Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust, London, and the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital Trust in Shropshire. The project teams recruited and trained a total of 134 GPs from 29 practices and 20 consultant specialists. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 3170 patients were referred, of whom 2094 consented to participate in the study and were eligible for inclusion. In all, 1051 patients were randomised to the virtual outreach group and 1043 to standard outpatient appointments. The patients were followed 6 months after their index consultation. INTERVENTIONS: Patients randomised to virtual outreach underwent a joint teleconsultation, in which they attended the general practice surgery where they and their GP consulted with a hospital specialist via a videolink between the hospital and the practice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures included offers of follow-up outpatient appointments, numbers of tests, investigations, procedures, treatments and contacts with primary and secondary care, patient satisfaction (Ware Specific Visit Questionnaire), enablement (Patient Enablement Instrument) and quality of life (Short Form-12 and Child Health Questionnaire). An economic evaluation of the costs and consequences of the intervention was undertaken. Sensitivity analysis was used to test the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Patients in the virtual outreach group were more likely to be offered a follow-up appointment. Significant differences in effects were observed between the two sites and across different specialities. Virtual outreach increased the offers of follow-up appointments more in Shrewsbury than in London, and more in ENT and orthopaedics than in the other specialities. Fewer tests and investigations were ordered in the virtual outreach group, by an average of 0.79 per patient. In the 6-month period following the index consultation, there were no significant differences overall in number of contacts with general practice, outpatient visits, accident and emergency contacts, inpatient stays, day surgery and inpatient procedures or prescriptions between the randomised groups. Tests of interaction indicated that virtual outreach decreased the number of tests and investigations, particularly in patients referred to gastroenterology, and increased the number of outpatient visits, particularly in those referred to orthopaedics. Patient satisfaction was greater after a virtual outreach consultation than after a standard outpatient consultation, with no heterogeneity between specialities or sites. However, patient enablement after the index consultation, and the physical and psychological scores of the Short Form-12 for adults and the scores on the Child Health Questionnaire for children under 16, did not differ between the randomised groups at 6 months' follow-up. NHS costs over 6 months were greater for the virtual outreach consultations than for conventional outpatients, pound 724 and pound 625 per patient, respectively. The index consultation accounted for this excess. Cost and time savings to patients were found. Estimated productivity losses were also less in the virtual outreach group. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual outreach consultations result in significantly higher levels of patient satisfaction than standard outpatient appointments and lead to substantial reductions in numbers of tests and investigations, but they are variably associated with increased rates of offer of follow-up according to speciality and site. Changes in costs and technological advances may improve the relative position of virtual consultations in future. The extent to which virtual outreach is implemented will probably be dependent on factors such as patient demand, costs, and the attitudes of staff working in general practice and hospital settings. Further research could involve long-term follow-up of patients in the virtual outreach trial to determine downstream outcomes and costs; further study into the effectiveness and costs of virtual outreach used for follow-up appointments, rather than first-time referrals; and whether the costs of virtual outreach could be substantially reduced without adversely affecting the quality of the consultation if nurses or other members of the primary care team were to undertake the hosting of the joint teleconsultations in place of the GP. Qualitative work into the attitudes of the patients, GPs and hospital
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes
Drummond, M. E., Sculpher, M. J., Torrance, G. W., O’Brien, B. J., & Stoddart, G. L. (2005) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198529446.001.0001 · Cited by 13,648
Marteau, T. M., & Bekker, H. (1992) · British Journal of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8260.1992.tb00997.x · Cited by 3,238
Jenkinson, C., Layte, R., Jenkinson, D., Lawrence, K., Petersen, S., Paice, C., & Stradling, J. (1997) · Journal of Public Health · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubmed.a024606 · Cited by 971
Evolving General Practice Consultation in Britain: Issues of Length and Context
Freeman, G. K., Horder, J. P., Howie, J. G. R., Hungin, A. P., Hill, A. P., Shah, N. C., & Wilson, A. (2002) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.324.7342.880 · Cited by 195
Telepsychiatry: Psychiatric consultation by interactive television
DWYER, T. F. (1973) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/ajp.130.8.865 · Cited by 186
Obstacles on the path to a primary-care led National Health Service: complexities of outpatient care
Somerset, M., Faulkner, A., Shaw, A., Dunn, L., & Sharp, D. J. (1999) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(98)00338-4 · Cited by 28
Cited by
Interactive telemedicine: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes
Flodgren, G., Rachas, A., Farmer, A. J., Inzitari, M., & Shepperd, S. (2015) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd002098.pub2 · Cited by 806
Hobart, J., & Cano, S. (2009) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta13120 · Cited by 621
Socioeconomic status and cardiovascular disease: risks and implications for care
Clark, A. M., DesMeules, M., Luo, W., Duncan, A. S., & Wielgosz, A. (2009) · Nature Reviews Cardiology · doi:10.1038/nrcardio.2009.163 · Cited by 533
A rational model for assessing and evaluating complex interventions in health care
May, C. (2006) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-6-86 · Cited by 447
Self-monitoring of blood glucose in type 2 diabetes: systematic review
Clar, C., Barnard, K., Cummins, E., Royle, P., & Waugh, N. (2010) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta14120 · Cited by 274
Metadata
- Authors
- Wallace, P., Barber, J., Clayton, W., Currell, R., Fleming, K., Garner, P., Haines, A., Harrison, R., Jacklin, P., Jarrett, C., Jayasuriya, R., Lewis, L., Parker, S., Roberts, J., Thompson, S., & Wainwright, P.
- Venue
- Health Technology Assessment
- Published
- 2004-12
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 50
- Pages
- 1-106, iii
- ISSN
- 1366-5278 (ISSN-L)
- 2046-4924
- OpenAlex
- W1998094270
- Cited by
- 237
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 14.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Virtual outreach: a randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of joint teleconferenced medical consultations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3310/hta8500
- The paper
- Wallace, P., Barber, J., Clayton, W., Currell, R., Fleming, K., Garner, P., Haines, A., Harrison, R., Jacklin, P., Jarrett, C., Jayasuriya, R., Lewis, L., Parker, S., Roberts, J., Thompson, S., & Wainwright, P. (2004). Virtual outreach: a randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of joint teleconferenced medical consultations. Health Technology Assessment. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta8500
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.