Impact of telephone triage on access to primary care for people living with multiple long-term health conditions: rapid evaluation

C. Saunders, Evangelos Gkousis
{"title":"Impact of telephone triage on access to primary care for people living with multiple long-term health conditions: rapid evaluation","authors":"C. Saunders, Evangelos Gkousis","doi":"10.3310/ucce5549","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Telephone triage is a service innovation in which every patient asking to see a general practitioner or other primary care professional calls the general practice and usually speaks to a receptionist first, who records a few details. The patient is then telephoned back by the general practitioner/primary care professional. At the end of this return telephone call with the general practitioner/primary care professional, either the issue is resolved or a face-to-face appointment is arranged. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, telephone triage was designed and used in the UK as a tool for managing demand and to help general practitioners organise their workload. During the first quarter of 2020, much of general practice moved to a remote (largely telephone) triage approach to reduce practice footfall and minimise the risk of COVID-19 contact for patients and staff. Ensuring equitable care for people living with multiple long-term health conditions (‘multimorbidity’) is a health policy priority. We aimed to evaluate whether or not the increased use of telephone triage would affect access to primary care differently for people living with multimorbidity than for other patients. We used data from the English GP Patient Survey to explore the inequalities impact of introducing telephone triage in 154 general practices in England between 2011 and 2017. We looked particularly at the time taken to see or speak to a general practitioner for people with multiple long-term health conditions compared with other patients before the COVID-19 pandemic. We also used data from Understanding Society, a nationally representative survey of households from the UK, to explore inequalities in access to primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic (between April and November 2020). Using data from before the COVID-19 pandemic, we found no evidence (p = 0.26) that the impact of a general practice moving to a telephone triage approach on the time taken to see or speak to a general practitioner was different for people with multimorbidity and for people without. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we found that people with multimorbidity were more likely than people with no long-term health conditions to have a problem for which they needed access to primary care. Among people who had a problem for which they would normally try to contact their general practitioner, there was no evidence of variation based on the number of conditions as to whether or not someone did try to contact their general practitioner; whether or not they were able to make an appointment; or whether they were offered a face-to-face, an online or an in-person appointment. Survey non-response, limitations of the specific survey measures of primary care access that were used, and being unable to fully explore the quality of the telephone triage and consultations were all limitations. These results highlight that, although people with multimorbidity have a greater need for primary care than people without multimorbidity, the overall impact for patients of changing to a telephone triage approach is larger than the inequalities in primary care access that exist between groups of patients. Future evaluations of service innovations and the ongoing changes in primary care access should consider the inequalities impact of their introduction, including for people with multimorbidity. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 10, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.","PeriodicalId":73204,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and social care delivery research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/ucce5549","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Telephone triage is a service innovation in which every patient asking to see a general practitioner or other primary care professional calls the general practice and usually speaks to a receptionist first, who records a few details. The patient is then telephoned back by the general practitioner/primary care professional. At the end of this return telephone call with the general practitioner/primary care professional, either the issue is resolved or a face-to-face appointment is arranged. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, telephone triage was designed and used in the UK as a tool for managing demand and to help general practitioners organise their workload. During the first quarter of 2020, much of general practice moved to a remote (largely telephone) triage approach to reduce practice footfall and minimise the risk of COVID-19 contact for patients and staff. Ensuring equitable care for people living with multiple long-term health conditions (‘multimorbidity’) is a health policy priority. We aimed to evaluate whether or not the increased use of telephone triage would affect access to primary care differently for people living with multimorbidity than for other patients. We used data from the English GP Patient Survey to explore the inequalities impact of introducing telephone triage in 154 general practices in England between 2011 and 2017. We looked particularly at the time taken to see or speak to a general practitioner for people with multiple long-term health conditions compared with other patients before the COVID-19 pandemic. We also used data from Understanding Society, a nationally representative survey of households from the UK, to explore inequalities in access to primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic (between April and November 2020). Using data from before the COVID-19 pandemic, we found no evidence (p = 0.26) that the impact of a general practice moving to a telephone triage approach on the time taken to see or speak to a general practitioner was different for people with multimorbidity and for people without. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we found that people with multimorbidity were more likely than people with no long-term health conditions to have a problem for which they needed access to primary care. Among people who had a problem for which they would normally try to contact their general practitioner, there was no evidence of variation based on the number of conditions as to whether or not someone did try to contact their general practitioner; whether or not they were able to make an appointment; or whether they were offered a face-to-face, an online or an in-person appointment. Survey non-response, limitations of the specific survey measures of primary care access that were used, and being unable to fully explore the quality of the telephone triage and consultations were all limitations. These results highlight that, although people with multimorbidity have a greater need for primary care than people without multimorbidity, the overall impact for patients of changing to a telephone triage approach is larger than the inequalities in primary care access that exist between groups of patients. Future evaluations of service innovations and the ongoing changes in primary care access should consider the inequalities impact of their introduction, including for people with multimorbidity. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 10, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
电话分诊对患有多种长期健康状况的人获得初级保健的影响:快速评估
电话分诊是一项服务创新,每个要求看全科医生或其他初级保健专业人员的患者都会打电话给全科医生,通常会先与接待员交谈,接待员会记录一些细节。然后,全科医生/初级保健专业人员给患者回电话。在与全科医生/初级保健专业人员的回访电话结束时,要么问题得到解决,要么安排面对面预约。在新冠肺炎大流行之前,英国设计并使用了电话分流,作为管理需求和帮助全科医生组织工作量的工具。在2020年第一季度,大部分全科医学转向远程(主要是电话)分诊方法,以减少实习人数,并将患者和工作人员接触新冠肺炎的风险降至最低。确保对患有多种长期健康状况(“绝症”)的人的公平护理是卫生政策的优先事项。我们旨在评估电话分诊的使用增加是否会对多发病患者获得初级保健的影响与其他患者不同。我们使用英国全科医生患者调查的数据,探讨了2011年至2017年间在英格兰154家全科诊所引入电话分诊的不平等影响。与新冠肺炎大流行前的其他患者相比,我们特别关注了患有多种长期健康状况的患者看全科医生或与全科医生交谈的时间。我们还使用了“了解社会”(Understanding Society)的数据,这是一项对英国家庭进行的具有全国代表性的调查,以探索新冠肺炎大流行期间(2020年4月至11月)在获得初级保健方面的不平等。使用新冠肺炎大流行前的数据,我们没有发现任何证据(p = 0.26),全科医生转向电话分诊方法对全科医生就诊或与之交谈的时间的影响,对于患有多种疾病的人和没有这种疾病的人来说是不同的。在新冠肺炎大流行期间,我们发现患有多发性疾病的人比没有长期健康状况的人更有可能出现需要获得初级保健的问题。在那些有问题的人中,他们通常会尝试联系他们的全科医生,没有证据表明有人是否试图联系全科医生的情况会有所不同;他们是否能够预约;或者是否为他们提供了面对面、在线或面对面的预约。调查没有回应、所使用的初级保健服务的具体调查措施的局限性,以及无法充分探讨电话分诊和咨询的质量,都是局限性。这些结果强调,尽管多发性疾病患者比无多发性患者更需要初级保健,但改用电话分诊方法对患者的总体影响大于患者群体之间在获得初级保健方面存在的不平等。未来对服务创新和初级保健服务的持续变化的评估应考虑其引入对不平等的影响,包括对多发性疾病患者的影响。该项目由国家卫生与护理研究所(NIHR)卫生与社会护理提供研究计划资助,并将在《卫生与社会保健提供研究》上全文发表;第10卷,第18期。有关更多项目信息,请访问NIHR期刊图书馆网站。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Causes and solutions to workplace psychological ill-health for nurses, midwives and paramedics: the Care Under Pressure 2 realist review. Relationship between staff and quality of care in care homes: StaRQ mixed methods study. Practices of falls risk assessment and prevention in acute hospital settings: a realist investigation. Safer and more efficient vital signs monitoring protocols to identify the deteriorating patients in the general hospital ward: an observational study. Reducing health inequalities through general practice: a realist review and action framework.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1