↓ Skip to main content

Use of an electronic consultation system in primary care: a qualitative interview study

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#19 of 2,031)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
205 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
3 Mendeley
Title
Use of an electronic consultation system in primary care: a qualitative interview study
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, November 2017
DOI 10.3399/bjgp17x693509
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jon Banks, Michelle Farr, Chris Salisbury, Elly Bernard, Kate Northstone, Hannah Edwards, Jeremy Horwood

Abstract

The level of demand on primary care continues to increase. Electronic or e-consultations enable patients to consult their GP online and have been promoted as having potential to improve access and efficiency. To evaluate whether an e-consultation system improves the ability of practice staff to manage workload and access. A qualitative interview study in general practices in the West of England that piloted an e-consultation system for 15 months during 2015 and 2016. Practices were purposefully sampled by location and level of e-consultation use. Clinical, administrative, and management staff were recruited at each practice. Interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically. Twenty-three interviews were carried out across six general practices. Routine e-consultations offered benefits for the practice because they could be completed without direct contact between GP and patient. However, most e-consultations resulted in GPs needing to follow up with a telephone or face-to-face appointment because the e-consultation did not contain sufficient information to inform clinical decision making. This was perceived as adding to the workload and providing some patients with an alternative route into the appointment system. Although this was seen as offering some patient benefit, there appeared to be fewer benefits for the practices. The experiences of the practices in this study demonstrate that the technology, in its current form, fell short of providing an effective platform for clinicians to consult with patients and did not justify their financial investment in the system. The study also highlights the challenges of remote consultations, which lack the facility for real time interactions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 205 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 3 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 3 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 1 33%
Student > Master 1 33%
Researcher 1 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 67%
Unspecified 1 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 143. 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 21 November 2017.
All research outputs
#59,339
of 8,658,076 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#19
of 2,031 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,105
of 148,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#1
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,658,076 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,031 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 148,006 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 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 98% of its contemporaries.