BACKGROUND: Reports suggest approximately 21-23% of GPs in the UK have consulted with patients using email, but little is known about the nature of this use and what it means for clinicians and patients in general practice. AIM: To understand the use of email consultation in general practice by investigating the experiences of existing users and views of experts. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative study conducted in 2010 using purposive sampling and semi-structured interviews in general practice and community settings in some London boroughs. METHOD: A maximum variation sample of GPs and patients who had used email for consultation in general practice were recruited, as were policy and/or implementation experts. Interviews continued until saturation was achieved. RESULTS: In total 10 GPs, 14 patients, and six experts were interviewed. Consultation by email was often triggered by logistic or practical issues; motivators for ongoing use were the benefits, such as convenience, for GPs and patients. Both GPs and patients reported concerns about safety and lack of guidance about the 'rules of engagement' in email consultations, with GPs also concerned about workload. In response, both groups attempted to introduce their own rules, although this only went some way to addressing uncertainty. Long term, participants felt there was a need for regulation and guidance. CONCLUSION: Consultations by email in general practice occur in an unregulated and unstructured way. Current UK policy is to promote consultations by email, making it crucial to consider the responsibility and workload faced by clinicians, and the changes required to ensure safe use; not doing so may risk safety breaches and result in suboptimal care for patients.
BACKGROUND: Reports suggest approximately 21-23% of GPs in the UK have consulted with patients using email, but little is known about the nature of this use and what it means for clinicians and patients in general practice. AIM: To understand the use of email consultation in general practice by investigating the experiences of existing users and views of experts. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative study conducted in 2010 using purposive sampling and semi-structured interviews in general practice and community settings in some London boroughs. METHOD: A maximum variation sample of GPs and patients who had used email for consultation in general practice were recruited, as were policy and/or implementation experts. Interviews continued until saturation was achieved. RESULTS: In total 10 GPs, 14 patients, and six experts were interviewed. Consultation by email was often triggered by logistic or practical issues; motivators for ongoing use were the benefits, such as convenience, for GPs and patients. Both GPs and patients reported concerns about safety and lack of guidance about the 'rules of engagement' in email consultations, with GPs also concerned about workload. In response, both groups attempted to introduce their own rules, although this only went some way to addressing uncertainty. Long term, participants felt there was a need for regulation and guidance. CONCLUSION: Consultations by email in general practice occur in an unregulated and unstructured way. Current UK policy is to promote consultations by email, making it crucial to consider the responsibility and workload faced by clinicians, and the changes required to ensure safe use; not doing so may risk safety breaches and result in suboptimal care for patients.
Authors: John Hobbs; Jonathan Wald; Yamini S Jagannath; Anne Kittler; Lisa Pizziferri; Lynn A Volk; Blackford Middleton; David W Bates Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Madhavi R Patt; Thomas K Houston; Mollie W Jenckes; Daniel Z Sands; Daniel E Ford Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2003 Apr-Jun Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Heather Brant; Helen Atherton; Sue Ziebland; Brian McKinstry; John L Campbell; Chris Salisbury Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2016-05-23 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Nikki Newhouse; Francisco Lupiáñez-Villanueva; Cristiano Codagnone; Helen Atherton Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2015-03-06 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Hannah B Edwards; Elsa Marques; William Hollingworth; Jeremy Horwood; Michelle Farr; Elly Bernard; Chris Salisbury; Kate Northstone Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-11-22 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Martine W J Huygens; Ilse C S Swinkels; Robert A Verheij; Roland D Friele; Onno C P van Schayck; Luc P de Witte Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-01-21 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Jon Banks; Michelle Farr; Chris Salisbury; Elly Bernard; Kate Northstone; Hannah Edwards; Jeremy Horwood Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2017-11-06 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Helen Atherton; Heather Brant; Sue Ziebland; Annemieke Bikker; John Campbell; Andy Gibson; Brian McKinstry; Tania Porqueddu; Chris Salisbury Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2018-01-29 Impact factor: 5.386