Cited by 107Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationHealthcare Systems and TechnologyPrimary Care and Health Outcomes

Alternatives to the face-to-face consultation in general practice: focused ethnographic case study

Open access
Atherton, Helen, Brant, Heather, Ziebland, Sue, Bikker, Annemieke, Campbell, John, Gibson, Andy, McKinstry, Brian, Porqueddu, Tania +1 more·2018·British Journal of General Practice

Abstract

Background: 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.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3399/bjgp18x694853

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [37]Salisbury C Atherton H Brant H Alternatives to face-to-face consultations in primary care 2016 http://www.bristol.ac.uk/primaryhealthcare/researchthemes/alt-con/resources/ (accessed 18 Jan 2018) PMC4917048 27215571

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Atherton, H., Brant, H., Ziebland, S., Bikker, A., Campbell, J., Gibson, A., McKinstry, B., Porqueddu, T., & Salisbury, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Warwick (GB)
  • University of Bristol (GB)
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • University of Exeter (GB)
  • University of the West of England (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Venue
British Journal of General Practice
Published
2018-01-29
Volume
68
Issue
669
Pages
e293-e300
ISSN
  • 0960-1643 (ISSN-L)
  • 1478-5242
OpenAlex
W2778645981
Cited by
107
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 4
FWCI
10.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • British Journal of General Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (acceptedVersion)
  • Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (acceptedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
  • UWE Research Repository (UWE Bristol) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (13/59/08, HS&DR/13/59/08, NF-SI-0515-10043, NF-SI-0512-10128)
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
telephone consultation, e-consultation, general practice, patient access, staff workload, NHS policy
MeSH terms
Adult, Anthropology, Cultural, Attitude of Health Personnel, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Male, Physician-Patient Relations, Workload, Patient Satisfaction, Remote Consultation, Health Care Surveys, Practice Management, 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