Back

Patient experiences of UK primary care online triage and consultation platforms during COVID-19: A systematic review

Roberts, C.; George, J.; Jenkins, J.

2024-01-10 health informatics
10.1101/2024.01.09.24301062 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundOnline triage and consultation platforms are being increasingly used by healthcare providers in the UK for patient/clinician interactions. COVID-19 accelerated the shift towards the use of these platforms to maintain healthcare provision and reduce transmission. Strict directives were introduced by the UK Government to avoid in-person contact wherever possible in March 2020. AimTo examine patients experiences of online triage and consultation in UK primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic and offer considerations for their continued use. DesignThis study follows the PRISMA framework and includes qualitative studies conducted in UK primary care based on the experiences of patient users of any such online platform during the period of March 2020 to April 2023. Studies were included using the PICO format. Three literature databases were searched for relevant studies: PubMed, Science Direct and EMBASE. CASP is used to assess data quality. Results540 studies were reviewed and reduced to 12 studies that met the inclusion criteria. Study characteristics were identified as: year of study, study population, disease types/conditions, patient response themes and the studys data capture method. A thematic inductive approach identifies three overarching themes (Accessibility, Care delivery, System functionality) and 10 sub-themes (Affordability, IT literacy, Communication, Convenience, Care quality, Patient safety/privacy, Usability, Continuity of care, Inequality and Media influence). ConclusionThis review highlights aspects of patient satisfaction and benefit but also those most concerning for patients. This study reviews the rapid, compulsory adoption of these systems during COVID-19 with implications for their future implementation beyond the pandemic.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.