↓ Skip to main content

Clinical risk in remote consultations in general practice: findings from in-COVID-19 pandemic qualitative research

Overview of attention for article published in BJGP Open, April 2022
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
25 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
Title
Clinical risk in remote consultations in general practice: findings from in-COVID-19 pandemic qualitative research
Published in
BJGP Open, April 2022
DOI 10.3399/bjgpo.2021.0204
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rebecca Rosen, Sietse Wieringa, Trisha Greenhalgh, Claudia Leone, Sarah Rybczynska-Bunt, Gemma Hughes, Lucy Moore, Sara E Shaw, Joseph Wherton, Richard Byng

Abstract

The Covid-19 pandemic-related rise in remote consulting raises questions about the nature and type of risks in remote general practice AIM: To develop an empirically-based and theory-informed taxonomy of risks associated with remote consultations. Qualitative sub-study of data selected from the wider datasets of three large, multi-site, mixed-method studies of remote care in general practice prior to and during the Covid-19 pandemic in the UK METHOD: Semi-structured interviews and focus groups with a total of 176 clinicians, and 45 patients. We analysed data thematically, taking account of an existing framework of domains of clinical risk. The Covid-19 pandemic brought changes to estates (eg, how waiting rooms were used), access pathways, technologies, and interpersonal interactions. Six domains of risk were evident in relation to[1] practice organisation and set-up (including digital inequalities of access, technology failure and reduced service efficiency); [2] communication and the therapeutic relationship (including a shift to more transactional consultations); [3] quality of clinical care (including missed diagnoses, safeguarding challenges, over-investigation and over-treatment); [4] increased burden on the patient (eg, to self-examine and navigate between services); [5] reduced opportunities for screening and managing the social determinants of health; and [6] workforce (including increased clinician stress and fewer opportunities for learning). Notwithstanding potential benefits, if remote consultations are to work safely, risks must be actively mitigated by measures that include digital inclusion strategies, enhanced safety-netting and training and support for staff.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 3 21%
Student > Master 2 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 7%
Researcher 1 7%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 3 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 14%
Social Sciences 1 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 7%
Engineering 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 43%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 September 2022.
All research outputs
#1,946,500
of 22,408,829 outputs
Outputs from BJGP Open
#126
of 495 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,648
of 344,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BJGP Open
#6
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,408,829 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 495 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 344,875 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.