Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Editor’s Briefing

Tech Tonic

Roger Jones
British Journal of General Practice 2019; 69 (684): 323. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp19X704153
Roger Jones
Roles: Editor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

The course of innovation has rarely run smooth. The 15th century Benedictine monk, Trimethius, was sceptical about the value of Johannes Gutenberg’s printing press: parchment lasted longer than paper, and monks, he claimed, were less likely to make transcribing errors than machines. More recent inventions such as the motorcar, the telephone and the iPhone received cool initial receptions — Western Union turned down Alexander Graham Bell and Gardiner Hubbard’s offer to sell them their patent, and the iPhone, was described as ‘a luxury bauble that will appeal to a few gadget freaks’.

Healthcare technologies produce a range of interesting responses, too. At one end of the spectrum of opinion you can hear the sea water lapping around Canute’s sandals, while at the other there is an unshakeable belief that there is nothing wrong with healthcare, or with the human condition, that technology can’t put right. In their editorial, stimulated by the withdrawal of the Natural Cycles fertility app, Lara Shemtob and Rebecca Littlewood comment that the NHS is struggling to keep up with new healthcare technologies: ‘drowning in a sea of innovation’.

Given the heterogeneity of technologies and the diversity of opinion, it might be helpful to think about four general categories of technology that have different implications for their use in healthcare, as well as for evaluation: administration, backup, communications, and diagnosis.

Administration refers to ‘back office’ functions such as information management, document retrieval and storage, scheduling, timetabling, procurement, and audit. Automation in this area is likely to progress relentlessly, and without the need for evaluation at every step. Backup technologies are those which support activities that are part of current practice by making them routine, and safety proofing them. This includes automated telephone/text reminders for appointments, follow-up, screening appointments, prescriptions, and investigations. This could be extended to bespoke, systematised safety-netting for patients with undiagnosed but persistent symptoms, or database analysis with machine learning to identify at risk groups for example, frail older people and patients at high cancer or cardiovascular risk.

These technologies are already being used and need to be disseminated as examples of good practice.

Communications technologies relate to access, doctor–patient communication and interprofessional communications. They include telephone triage and consultation, e-consultations, video and other remote, non-face-to-face consultations, GP–specialist consultations, and the use of ITC to create and work with virtual groups, such as multidisciplinary teams, patient groups, and teaching groups. Many of these innovations are in daily use, and some are the subject of scrutiny and evaluation.

Coming to the theme of this issue of the BJGP, diagnostic technologies may hold the most allure, but are also the most elusive. Computerised decision support, as described in Summerton and Cansdale’s editorial, has the potential to correct some of the biases, heuristics and oversights inherent in human decision-making, but the best way to incorporate it into the consultation is yet to be determined. Co-consultation with a doctor and a co-bot listening in and giving a guiding nudge when a possible diagnosis of Addison’s disease has been overlooked, perhaps? Sarah Price and colleagues’ finding that only one in five practices makes use of computerised risk assessment tools for cancer suggests that we may be some way away from this scenario. The holy grail — fool-proof, AI-based remote, autonomous diagnosis — is further away still. The papers on inflammatory markers by Jessica Watson and colleagues and the importance of the ‘clinical gestalt’ described by Ariella Dale and colleagues serve as reminders of the complexity of the diagnostic process. Louise Hall and colleagues report on the effect of GP burnout on patient safety: the computer may not get exhausted, but you have to wonder about the Maslach Inventory scores of doctors doing remote video consultations with patients that they do not know and will never see again.

Finally, read Machines Like Me and be entertained and slightly worried; Adam might possibly make a good doctor, but I doubt he’d agree to take the Hippocratic Oath.

  • © British Journal of General Practice 2019
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 69 (684)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 69, Issue 684
July 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Tech Tonic
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Tech Tonic
Roger Jones
British Journal of General Practice 2019; 69 (684): 323. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp19X704153

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Tech Tonic
Roger Jones
British Journal of General Practice 2019; 69 (684): 323. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp19X704153
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • John Diamond Did Not Battle Cancer Bravely
  • Complex Systems Harm People with Complex Needs
  • Seeing red with the NICE traffic lights
Show more Editor’s Briefing

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2022 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242