Back

Why Primary Care Clinicians use Advice and Guidance: A qualitative study

Faux-Nightingale, A.; Harrison, R.; Burton, C.; Bajpai, R.; Clarson, L. E.; Hadley-Barrows, T.; Haines, J.; Helliwell, T.; Hider, S. L.; Jinks, C.; Jordan, K. P.; Knight, N.; Mallen, C. D.; Mason, K. J.; Welsh, V. K.

2026-03-20 health systems and quality improvement
10.64898/2026.03.13.26348141 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background Advice and Guidance (A&G) enables primary care clinicians to seek specialist input, supporting decision making and avoiding unnecessary referrals. The use of A&G has significantly expanded, accelerated by COVID19 and contractual changes. While A&G is intended to streamline elective care, concerns persist regarding workload shift, variable responsiveness, and system usability. Despite growing policy emphasis, little is known about why clinicians choose to use A&G. Aim Explore the current use of A&G within primary care, focusing on decision making processes which underpin PCCs' decision to use A&G. Design and Setting Qualitative study set in English Primary Care Method Twenty semi structured video interviews were conducted with primary care clinicians purposively sampled for maximum variation. Topic guides were developed with PPIE input and refined iteratively. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis within an interpretive description framework, with themes developed collaboratively and refined through discussion with researchers and PPIE contributors. Ethical approval was obtained (REC 333799). Results Four overarching themes encapsulate clinicians' decisions to use A&G: clinical presentation (acuity and complexity), navigating healthcare pathways, previous experiences of A&G, and using A&G to validate clinical decision making. Barriers included delayed responses and uncertainty about inequitable workload distribution. These factors shape how effectively A&G could be integrated into routine practice. Conclusion Primary care clinicians use A&G to support patient care and aid decision-making, but its effectiveness depends on timely, clinically helpful responses. Ensuring responses remain appropriate to primary care remit and capacity will be essential if A&G becomes the main route into elective care.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BMJ Open Quality
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.6%
2
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 1%
14.4%
3
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.1%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 25%
6.8%
50% of probability mass above
5
British Journal of General Practice
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.4%
6
Health Expectations
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.4%
7
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.9%
8
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.6%
9
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.4%
10
CMAJ Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.8%
11
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
12
BJGP Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
13
Emergency Medicine Journal
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
14
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
15
JMIRx Med
31 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
16
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.1%
17
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
18
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.9%
19
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
20
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
21
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
22
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
28 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
23
Journal of Clinical Pathology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.6%