@article {Hammersleye595, author = {Victoria Hammersley and Eddie Donaghy and Richard Parker and Hannah McNeilly and Helen Atherton and Annemieke Bikker and John Campbell and Brian McKinstry}, title = {Comparing the content and quality of video, telephone, and face-to-face consultations: a non-randomised, quasi-experimental, exploratory study in UK primary care}, volume = {69}, number = {686}, pages = {e595--e604}, year = {2019}, doi = {10.3399/bjgp19X704573}, publisher = {Royal College of General Practitioners}, abstract = {Background Growing demands on primary care services have led to policymakers promoting video consultations (VCs) to replace routine face-to-face consultations (FTFCs) in general practice.Aim To explore the content, quality, and patient experience of VC, telephone (TC), and FTFCs in general practice.Design and setting Comparison of audio-recordings of follow-up consultations in UK primary care.Method Primary care clinicians were provided with video-consulting equipment. Participating patients required a smartphone, tablet, or computer with camera. Clinicians invited patients requiring a follow-up consultation to choose a VC, TC, or FTFC. Consultations were audio-recorded and analysed for content and quality. Participant experience was explored in post-consultation questionnaires. Case notes were reviewed for NHS resource use.Results Of the recordings, 149/163 were suitable for analysis. VC recruits were younger, and more experienced in communicating online. FTFCs were longer than VCs (mean difference +3.7 minutes, 95\% confidence interval [CI] = 2.1 to 5.2) or TCs (+4.1 minutes, 95\% CI = 2.6 to 5.5). On average, patients raised fewer problems in VCs (mean 1.5, standard deviation [SD] 0.8) compared with FTFCs (mean 2.1, SD 1.1) and demonstrated fewer instances of information giving by clinicians and patients. FTFCs scored higher than VCs and TCs on consultation-quality items.Conclusion VC may be suitable for simple problems not requiring physical examination. VC, in terms of consultation length, content, and quality, appeared similar to TC. Both approaches appeared less {\textquoteleft}information rich{\textquoteright} than FTFC. Technical problems were common and, though patients really liked VC, infrastructure issues would need to be addressed before the technology and approach can be mainstreamed in primary care.}, issn = {0960-1643}, URL = {https://bjgp.org/content/69/686/e595}, eprint = {https://bjgp.org/content/69/686/e595.full.pdf}, journal = {British Journal of General Practice} }