Safety-netting communication during telephone consultations: an observational study using recorded consultations

Peter J Edwards; Barbara Caddick; Adam R Skeen; Jordan Lin; Helena Thornton; Matthew J Ridd; Rebecca K Barnes; Chris Salisbury

doi:10.3399/BJGP.2025.0637

Published eLetters

eLetter submission guidelines

Submit a Response to This Article

Compose eLetter

Title *

Author Information

Contributors

First Name and Middle Initial *

First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.

Last Name *

Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.

Email Address *

Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson{at}gmail.com. PLEASE NOTE: your email address will be published.

Occupation *

Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.

Affiliation *

Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.

Statement of Competing Interests

Competing interests? *

Yes

Please describe the competing interests

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Jump to comment:

The relational dimension of safety-netting
Koki Kato

Published on: 29 June 2026

Published on: (29 June 2026)
Page navigation anchor for The relational dimension of safety-netting
The relational dimension of safety-netting
Koki Kato, GP, Madoka Family Clinic, Japan
I read with great interest the study by Edwards et al on safety-netting communication during telephone consultations.¹ Their careful analysis provides valuable insights into when and how safety-netting advice is delivered, documented, and recalled by patients.

The authors understandably focus on safety-netting as a form of communication: ensuring that patients know when and how to seek further help if their condition changes. However, safety-netting may involve more than the transfer of information.

Patients facing diagnostic uncertainty are not only interpreting clinical advice but also the clinician. Advice such as "come back if things worsen" conveys not only instructions about future symptoms but also signals about the doctor's willingness to remain available should uncertainty persist. Patients may therefore be making inductive judgements about whether the clinician will continue to respond attentively, take their concerns seriously, and remain committed over time.

This relational dimension may help explain why the same safety-netting advice can feel more or less reassuring depending on the existing doctor-patient relationship. The effectiveness of safety-netting may therefore depend not only on the clarity or specificity of advice, but also on the patient's confidence in the clinician's future responsiveness.

As remote consulting becomes an increasingly established component of general practice, underst...
Show More

I read with great interest the study by Edwards et al on safety-netting communication during telephone consultations.¹ Their careful analysis provides valuable insights into when and how safety-netting advice is delivered, documented, and recalled by patients.

The authors understandably focus on safety-netting as a form of communication: ensuring that patients know when and how to seek further help if their condition changes. However, safety-netting may involve more than the transfer of information.

Patients facing diagnostic uncertainty are not only interpreting clinical advice but also the clinician. Advice such as "come back if things worsen" conveys not only instructions about future symptoms but also signals about the doctor's willingness to remain available should uncertainty persist. Patients may therefore be making inductive judgements about whether the clinician will continue to respond attentively, take their concerns seriously, and remain committed over time.

This relational dimension may help explain why the same safety-netting advice can feel more or less reassuring depending on the existing doctor-patient relationship. The effectiveness of safety-netting may therefore depend not only on the clarity or specificity of advice, but also on the patient's confidence in the clinician's future responsiveness.

As remote consulting becomes an increasingly established component of general practice, understanding safety-netting as both an informational and relational practice may offer another perspective on how patients navigate diagnostic uncertainty.

Reference

1. Edwards PJ, Caddick B, Skeen AR, et al. Safety-netting communication during telephone consultations: an observational study using recorded consultations. Br J Gen Pract. 2026;76(768):e552-e561.
Show Less

Competing Interests: None declared.