RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Comparing the content and quality of video, telephone, and face-to-face consultations: a non-randomised, quasi-experimental, exploratory study in UK primary care
JF British Journal of General Practice
JO Br J Gen Pract
FD British Journal of General Practice
SP e595
OP e604
DO 10.3399/bjgp19X704573
VO 69
IS 686
A1 Victoria Hammersley
A1 Eddie Donaghy
A1 Richard Parker
A1 Hannah McNeilly
A1 Helen Atherton
A1 Annemieke Bikker
A1 John Campbell
A1 Brian McKinstry
YR 2019
UL http://bjgp.org/content/69/686/e595.abstract
AB 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 ‘information rich’ 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.