↓ Skip to main content

Receptionists’ role in new approaches to consultations in primary care: a focused ethnographic study

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
38 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 Mendeley
Title
Receptionists’ role in new approaches to consultations in primary care: a focused ethnographic study
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, June 2018
DOI 10.3399/bjgp18x697505
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heather Dawn Brant, Helen Atherton, Annemieke Bikker, Tania Porqueddu, Chris Salisbury, Brian McKinstry, John Campbell, Andy Gibson, Sue Ziebland

Abstract

The receptionist is pivotal to the smooth running of general practice in the UK, communicating with patients and booking appointments. The authors aimed to explore the role of the receptionist in the implementation of new approaches to consultations in primary care. The authors conducted a team-based focused ethnography. Three researchers observed eight general practices across England and Scotland between June 2015 and May 2016. Interviews were conducted with 39 patients and 45 staff in the practices, all of which had adopted one or more methods (telephone, email, e-consultation, or internet video) for providing an alternative to face-to-face consultation. Receptionists have a key role in facilitating patient awareness regarding new approaches to consultations in primary care, while at the same time ensuring that patients receive a consultation appropriate to their needs. In this study, receptionists' involvement in implementation and planning for the introduction of alternative approaches to face-to-face consultations was minimal, despite the expectation that they would be involved in delivery. A shared understanding within practices of the potential difficulties and extra work that might ensue for reception staff was lacking. This might contribute to the low uptake by patients of potentially important innovations in service delivery. Involvement of the wider practice team in planning and piloting changes, supporting team members through service reconfiguration, and providing an opportunity to discuss and contribute to modifications of any new system would ensure that reception staff are suitably prepared to support the introduction of a new approach to consultations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 38 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 87 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 21%
Researcher 8 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Professor 7 8%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 30 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 17%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 6%
Psychology 5 6%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 33 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 December 2018.
All research outputs
#1,135,641
of 25,724,500 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#505
of 4,931 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,215
of 343,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#11
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,724,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,931 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 343,853 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.