Abstract
Background The adoption of remote consultations, catalysed by the COVID-19 pandemic, has transformed the delivery of primary care services. We evaluated the impact of remote consultations on the quality of primary care.
Methods Six databases were searched. Studies evaluating the impact of remote consultations, for any disease, were included. Title and abstract screening, and full-text screening were performed by two pairs of investigators. Risk of bias was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. A narrative synthesis of the results was performed.
Findings Thirty studies (5,469,333 participants) were included in the review. Remote consultations generally had a positive or equivalent impact compared to face-to-face (F2F) consultations, particularly in reducing patient costs and improving time efficiency. The effectiveness of remote consultations was non-inferior to F2F care in six out of seven studies evaluating this aspect. Two studies found that remote consultations reduced wait times for appointments. Younger, female patients were more likely to use remote consultations and those of lower socioeconomic status were less likely to use video consultations than telephone appointments. The impacts on safety and patient-centeredness were largely inconclusive.
Interpretation Remote consultations may be equally as effective as F2F care and have a potentially positive impact on the efficiency and timeliness of care. Those of lower socioeconomic status were more likely to use consultations delivered via telephone than videoconference. Developing a strong evidence-base capitalising on real-world data as well as clinical trials is crucial for the future development of remote consultations and tailoring them to patient needs and preferences.
Funding National Institute for Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration Northwest London.
What is already known on this topic Existing literature reviews exploring remote consultations have primarily been confined to assessing their impact on effectiveness, efficiency, or specific clinical conditions whilst utilising a broad definition regarding what constitutes remote services. Evidence was largely heterogeneous, often focussing on interventions delivered in secondary care facilities or by specialists only. There is a paucity of systematic reviews pertaining to primary care.
What this study adds This systematic review investigates the impact of remote consultations on the quality of primary care. Our results show that remote consultations may be equally as effective as F2F care and have a potentially positive impact on efficiency, timeliness of care, and reduced rates of follow-up in secondary or tertiary care. Patients from lower socioeconomic backgrounds were more likely to use consultations delivered via telephone than video conference.
How this study might affect research, practice or policy Our systematic review has demonstrated that remote consultations have the potential to be just as effective as F2F consultations by reducing waiting times, patient costs, and rates of follow-up in hospitals. However, there currently remains a lack of robust studies available exploring the effect of remote consultations on patient safety, equity, and patient-centredness, highlighting areas where future research efforts need to be devoted. Data collection methods more bespoke to the primary care context, better accounting for patient characteristics and needs, and inclusive of its intended end-users, are necessary to generate a stronger evidence base to inform future remote care policies.
Competing Interest Statement
KC, GG, EL, NO, TB, AM and ALN have nothing to disclose. BH is an employee of eConsult Health Ltd, a provider of electronic consultations for NHS primary, secondary and urgent / emergency care.
Funding Statement
This work is independent research supported by the National Institute for Health and Care (NIHR) Research Applied Research Collaboration Northwest London. EL and ALN are funded by NIHR Patient Safety Research Collaborative, with infrastructure support from Imperial NIHR Biomedical Research Centre. The study funders did not play a role in the study design; collection, analysis, or interpretation of data; manuscript writing; or in the decision to submit for publication. Researchers were independent of the funders. All authors had full access to all data included in this study and can take responsibility for its integrity and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The search strategy and extracted data contributing to the narrative synthesis are available as Supplementary Data. Any additional data are available on request.
