Impact of a telephone-first consultation system in general practice.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: Increasing pressure on general practice prompts innovative change in service organisation. This study sought to evaluate the impact of introducing a telephone-first consultation system in a socioeconomically deprived population. STUDY DESIGN: An interrupted time series of preplanned outcomes for 2 years before and 1 year postintroduction of a telephone-first system was used to measure the volume and type of general practitioner (GP) consultations and the number of patients consulted per year. Emergency department (ED) and GP out-of-hours attendances, the number of outpatient referrals, and the number of requests for laboratory tests were measured as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: The telephone-first system was associated with a 20% increase in total GP consultations (telephone and face-to-face, effect estimate at 12 months, p=0.001). Face-to-face consultations decreased by 39% (p<0.001), while telephone consultations increased by 131% (p<0.001). The volume of individual patient requests for a GP consultation and the number of treatment room nurse consultations did not change. Secondary outcome measures showed no change in hospital outpatient referrals, number of requests for laboratory tests, and ED or GP out-of-hours attendances. CONCLUSIONS: A telephone-first system in a deprived urban general practice can decrease delays to GP-patient contacts. The number of patients seeking a medical intervention did not differ irrespective of the consultation system used. The telephone-first system did not affect GP out-of-hours, laboratory investigations or secondary care contacts.

Popular apps on the medical category targeting patients and the general public in the United Kingdom: Do they conform to the Health On the Net Foundation principles?

Smartphones with their rising popularity and versatile software 'apps' have great potential for revolutionising healthcare services. However, this was soon overshadowed by concerns highlighted by many studies over quality. These were subject and/or discipline specific and mostly evaluated compliance with a limited number of information portrayal standards originally devised for health websites. Hence, this study aimed to take a broader approach by evaluating the most popular apps categorised as medical in the United Kingdom for compliance with all of those standards systematically using the Health On the Net (HON) Foundation principles. The study evaluated top 50 free and paid apps of the 'medical' category on both iTunes and Google stores for evidence of compliance with an app-adapted version of the HON Foundation code of conduct. The sample included 64 apps, 34/64 (53%) were on Google Play and 36/64 (56%) were free. None of the apps managed to comply with the entire eight principles. Compliance with seven principles was achieved by only one app (1.6%), and the rest were compliant with three, two, and one (14.7%, 27%, and 38%, respectively). In conclusion, this study demonstrated that most popular apps on the medical category that are available in the United Kingdom do not meet the standards for presenting health information to the public, and this is consistent with earlier studies. Improving the situation would require raising the public awareness, providing tools that would assist in quality evaluation, encouraging developers to use robust development process, and facilitating collaboration and engagement among the stakeholders.