Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorJones, Ray
dc.contributor.authorTredinnick-Rowe, JF
dc.contributor.authorBaines, R
dc.contributor.authorMaramba, Inocencio Daniel
dc.contributor.authorChatterjee, Arunangsu
dc.date.accessioned2022-03-11T14:00:27Z
dc.date.available2022-03-11T14:00:27Z
dc.date.issued2022-03-07
dc.identifier.issn2044-6055
dc.identifier.issn2044-6055
dc.identifier.othere058247
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/18934
dc.description.abstract

<jats:sec><jats:title>Objectives</jats:title><jats:p>We explored use and usability of general practitioner (GP) online services.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Setting</jats:title><jats:p>Devon and Cornwall, England.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Design</jats:title><jats:p>Mixed-methods sequential study based on qualitative interviews, analysis of routine eConsult usage and feedback data, and assessment of GP websites.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>First, we interviewed 32 staff and 18 patients from seven practices in June 2018. Second, we used routinely collected consultation meta-data and, third, patient feedback data for all practices using eConsult from June 2018 to March 2021. Lastly, we examined GP websites’ usability in January 2020 and September 2021.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>Interviews suggested practices infrequently involved patients in eConsult implementation. Some patients ‘gamed’ the system to achieve what they wanted. Usage data showed a major increase in eConsult resulting from COVID-19. Women used eConsult twice as much as men. Older had similar eConsult consultation rates to younger patients. Patient feedback forms were completed for fewer than 3% of consultations. Patients were mostly satisfied with eConsult but some had concerns about its length and repetitiveness, lack of continuity over time and between eConsult and medical records. We did not find clear evidence that patients’ suggested improvements were acted on. Finally, few GP websites met accessibility guidelines and may hinder access to online national services such as eConsult.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title><jats:p>Given that, face to face, older people consult more, usage data suggest that older people have reduced online access. That the female-to-male ratio of eConsult use use was even greater than ‘traditional’ face-to-face ratio was unexpected and needs further research. Although eConsult collects and uses routine patient feedback to improve the system, more open systems for patient feedback, such as Care Opinion, may be more effective in helping online systems evolve. Lastly, we question the need for GP websites and suggest that national or regional services are better placed to maintain accessible services.</jats:p></jats:sec>

dc.format.extente058247-e058247
dc.format.mediumElectronic
dc.languageen
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherBMJ Publishing Group
dc.subjecthealth informatics
dc.subjectinformation technology
dc.subjectprimary care
dc.titleUse and usability of GP online services: a mixed-methods sequential study, before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, based on qualitative interviews, analysis of routine eConsult usage and feedback data, and assessment of GP websites in Devon and Cornwall, England
dc.typejournal-article
dc.typeJournal Article
plymouth.author-urlhttps://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000766758800006&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=11bb513d99f797142bcfeffcc58ea008
plymouth.issue3
plymouth.volume12
plymouth.publication-statusPublished
plymouth.journalBMJ Open
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058247
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Health
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Health/Peninsula Medical School
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Health/School of Nursing and Midwifery
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA/UoA03 Allied Health Professions, Dentistry, Nursing and Pharmacy
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA/UoA23 Education
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups/FoH - Community and Primary Care
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups/Institute of Health and Community
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role/Academics
dc.publisher.placeEngland
dcterms.dateAccepted2022-02-11
dc.rights.embargodate2022-3-12
dc.identifier.eissn2044-6055
dc.rights.embargoperiodNot known
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058247
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2022-03-07
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


All items in PEARL are protected by copyright law.
Author manuscripts deposited to comply with open access mandates are made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the details provided on the item record or document. In the absence of an open licence (e.g. Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher or author.
Theme by 
Atmire NV