Skip to main content

Video consultations can improve both access to GPs and patient experience

The NHS should make better use of video consultations because they can boost patient access and save time and money for both patients and doctors, concludes preliminary research presented at this year’s International Forum on Quality & Safety in Healthcare in Kuala Lumpur (24-26 August).

Current challenges in the UK medical workforce are well known, making accessing a GP in a timely manner difficult, say the researchers (including myself) from Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and the Department of Primary Care and Public Health at Imperial College London.

The estimated total number of consultations in England rose from 224.5 million in 1995-6 to 303.9 million in 2008-9, with an average wait for a GP appointment of two weeks in some parts of the country. In light of these difficulties, weset up a trial video consultation clinic in two busy London general practices, with lists of nearly 10,000 patients.

Twice weekly video clinics were set up for 23 months to gauge the impact on patient access and to assess whether these could work alongside or possibly replace conventional face-to-face appointments. Initial doctor concerns included security and governance issues, while the absence of a physical examination worried some patients.

In all, 192 video consultations took place over the trial period. Only three patients didn’t attend their appointment compared with 576 no shows for face-to-face appointments over the same period.

Based on average appointment costs, this is a potential cost saving of £61,884 for just these two practices. We suggested that remote accessibility of video consultations and the reduction in travel time and delays might explain the findings.

The trial results prompted the practices to regularly offer video consultations. Traditional face-to-face appointments were available for patients with more long-term or complex health needs, to ensure that those needing more time with GPs accessed services appropriately.

“Clearly video consultations have a place in a health care system to improve access to primary care,” says the lead author Dr Mateen Jiwani. They offer an additional visual sensory component to consulting compared to telephone appointments, enabling clinicians to make safer decisions and carry out more effective triage, he added.

“With an increase in technology usage and remote socialising being the everyday norm, communicating with your doctor remotely will become a mainstay of future medical practice and self-care,” Dr Jiwani concludes. Evidently, the demand is there, he suggests.

Source: Jiwani M, Majeed A, Tahir A. The doctor will see you now....online. Presentation at the International Forum on Quality & Safety in Healthcare, 2017.

Read the news reports from Onmedica and the BMJ.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between primordial prevention and primary prevention?

Primordial prevention and primary prevention are both crucial strategies for promoting health, but they operate at different levels. Primordial prevention aims to address the root causes of health problems and improve the wider determinants of health. It focuses on preventing the emergence of risk factors in the first place by tackling the underlying social, economic, and environmental determinants of health. This involves broad, population-wide interventions such as: Policies that promote healthy food choices: Think about initiatives like taxing sugary drinks to discourage unhealthy consumption, or providing subsidies for fruits and vegetables to make them more accessible. Urban planning that prioritises well-being: This could include creating walkable neighborhoods with safe cycling routes, ensuring access to green spaces for recreation and relaxation, and designing communities that foster social connections. Social programs that address inequality: Initiatives aimed at reducing pov...

What makes a good doctor – and who gets to decide?

What Makes a Good Doctor? This is the question that Waseem Jerjes and I explore in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine . It is a key question that underpins the architecture of medical education, clinical practice, regulation, and professional identity. It cannot be answered by regulators, educators, or employers in isolation. It must be answered together – by doctors and patients – revisited throughout a career, and adapted as society and the profession change. Without that shared reflection, the danger is not simply disillusionment, but the erosion of the moral foundations of clinical work. As we enter an era when diagnosis will increasingly involve artificial intelligence and when performance metrics reward volume over value, reclaiming this question as a professional one is imperative. The integrity of our institutions – and of the practitioners within them – depends on reimagining excellence in inclusive, relational terms. A good doctor is not a flawless technician or a f...

Relevance Over Recall: Rethinking How AI Uses Clinical Data

Our article in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine argues that safe and effective AI in healthcare must incorporate mechanisms that emulate human judgement - down-weighting old, inaccurate or superseded information and prioritising what is recent, clinically relevant and reaffirmed - so that AI supports, rather than disrupts, high-quality patient care.  Clinicians constantly revise, reinterpret and filter past information so that only what is relevant, accurate and timely shapes present-day management decisions; medical records function as dynamic “working tools” rather than fixed archives. By contrast, many AI systems lack this capacity for selective forgetting and often treat all historical data as equally meaningful.  This can lead to outdated or low-confidence diagnoses being repeatedly resurfaced, persistent labels influencing clinical expectations, and irrelevant, long-resolved events cluttering summaries and decision-support outputs. Such indiscriminate recall...