Display options
Cite
Salisbury C, Murphy M, Duncan P. The Impact of Digital-First Consultations on Workload in General Practice: Modeling Study. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(6):e18203doi: 10.2196/18203.
Salisbury, C., Murphy, M., & Duncan, P. (2020). The Impact of Digital-First Consultations on Workload in General Practice: Modeling Study. Journal of medical Internet research, 22(6), e18203. https://doi.org/10.2196/18203
Salisbury, Chris, et al. "The Impact of Digital-First Consultations on Workload in General Practice: Modeling Study." Journal of medical Internet research vol. 22,6 (2020): e18203. doi: https://doi.org/10.2196/18203
Salisbury C, Murphy M, Duncan P. The Impact of Digital-First Consultations on Workload in General Practice: Modeling Study. J Med Internet Res. 2020 Jun 16;22(6):e18203. doi: 10.2196/18203. PMID: 32543441; PMCID: PMC7327596.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Med Internet Res. 2020 Jun 16;22(6):e18203. doi: 10.2196/18203.

The Impact of Digital-First Consultations on Workload in General Practice: Modeling Study.

Journal of medical Internet research

Chris Salisbury, Mairead Murphy, Polly Duncan

Affiliations

  1. Centre for Academic Primary Care, Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.

PMID: 32543441 PMCID: PMC7327596 DOI: 10.2196/18203

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Health services in many countries are promoting digital-first models of access to general practice based on offering online, video, or telephone consultations before a face-to-face consultation. It is claimed that this will improve access for patients and moderate the workload of doctors. However, improved access could also potentially increase doctors' workload.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore whether and under what circumstances digital-first access to general practice is likely to decrease or increase general practice workload.

METHODS: A process map to delineate primary care access pathways was developed and a model to estimate general practice workload constructed in Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corp). The model was populated using estimates of key variables obtained from a systematic review of published studies. A MEDLINE search was conducted for studies published in English between January 1, 2000, and September 30, 2019. Included papers provided quantitative data about online, telephone, or video consultations for unselected patients requesting a general practice in-hours consultation for any problem. We excluded studies of general practitioners consulting specialists, consultations not conducted by doctors, and consultations conducted after hours, in secondary care, in specialist services, or for a specific health care problem. Data about the following variables were extracted from the included papers to form the model inputs: the proportion of consultations managed digitally, the proportion of digital consultations completed without a subsequent consultation, the proportion of subsequent consultations conducted by telephone rather than face-to-face, consultation duration, and the proportion of digital consultations that represent new demand. The outcome was general practice workload. The model was used to test the likely impact of different digital-first scenarios, based on the best available evidence and the plausible range of estimates from the published studies. The model allows others to test the impact on workload of varying assumptions about model inputs.

RESULTS: Digital-first approaches are likely to increase general practice workload unless they are shorter, and a higher proportion of patients are managed without a subsequent consultation than observed in most published studies. In our base-case scenarios (based on the best available evidence), digital-first access models using online, telephone, or video consultations are likely to increase general practitioner workload by 25%, 3%, and 31%, respectively. An important determinant of workload is whether the availability of digital-first approaches changes the demand for general practice consultations, but there is little robust evidence to answer this question.

CONCLUSIONS: Digital-first approaches to primary care could increase general practice workload unless stringent conditions are met. Justification for these approaches should be based on evidence about the benefits in relation to the costs, rather than assumptions about reductions in workload. Given the potential increase in workload, which in due course could worsen problems of access, these initiatives should be implemented in a staged way alongside careful evaluation.

©Chris Salisbury, Mairead Murphy, Polly Duncan. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 16.06.2020.

Keywords: access to health care; electronic consultations; family practice; general practice; health care quality, access, and evaluation; remote consultation; telemedicine; telephone consultation; video

References

  1. Lancet. 2014 Nov 22;384(9957):1859-1868 - PubMed
  2. London J Prim Care (Abingdon). 2016 Jun 10;8(4):56-65 - PubMed
  3. BMJ. 2002 Nov 23;325(7374):1214 - PubMed
  4. Br J Gen Pract. 2019 Aug 29;69(686):e595-e604 - PubMed
  5. Health Technol Assess. 2015 Feb;19(13):1-212, vii-viii - PubMed
  6. Int J Med Inform. 2005 Sep;74(9):705-10 - PubMed
  7. BMJ. 2017 Sep 27;358:j4197 - PubMed
  8. J Health Organ Manag. 2018 Apr 9;32(2):321-337 - PubMed
  9. Br J Gen Pract. 2005 Dec;55(521):956-61 - PubMed
  10. Fam Pract. 2002 Oct;19(5):516-9 - PubMed
  11. BMJ. 2018 Mar 26;360:k1195 - PubMed
  12. BMJ Open. 2017 Nov 16;7(11):e018261 - PubMed
  13. BMJ Open. 2017 Nov 22;7(11):e016901 - PubMed
  14. Lancet. 2016 Jun 4;387(10035):2323-2330 - PubMed
  15. BMJ Open. 2018 Jan 21;8(1):e019233 - PubMed
  16. JAMA. 2012 Nov 21;308(19):2012-9 - PubMed
  17. J Am Board Fam Med. 2016 Sep-Oct;29(5):613-9 - PubMed
  18. J Gen Intern Med. 2003 Sep;18(9):736-44 - PubMed
  19. Br J Gen Pract. 2018 Jan;68(666):e1-e8 - PubMed
  20. Telemed J E Health. 2018 Mar;24(3):210-215 - PubMed
  21. J Telemed Telecare. 2015 Jun;21(4):219-26 - PubMed
  22. Pharmacoecon Open. 2018 Sep;2(3):347-354 - PubMed
  23. J R Soc Med. 2001 Jun;94(6):290-1 - PubMed
  24. BMJ Open. 2018 Mar 19;8(3):e019966 - PubMed
  25. Br J Gen Pract. 2006 Jul;56(528):530-5 - PubMed
  26. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010 Aug;19(4):298-303 - PubMed
  27. BMJ Open. 2018 Feb 15;8(2):e018688 - PubMed
  28. Br J Gen Pract. 2002 May;52(478):390-1 - PubMed
  29. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009 Mar-Apr;28(2):323-33 - PubMed
  30. Br J Gen Pract. 2016 Mar;66(644):e214-8 - PubMed
  31. Br J Gen Pract. 2002 Apr;52(477):306-10 - PubMed
  32. Am J Manag Care. 2007 Jul;13(7):418-24 - PubMed
  33. Telemed J E Health. 2014 Mar;20(3):192-8 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types