Experiences with online consultation systems in primary care: case study of one early adopter site
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a strong policy drive towards implementing alternatives to face-to-face consultations in general practice to improve access, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness. These alternatives embrace novel technologies that are assumed to offer potential to improve care. AIM: To explore the introduction of one online consultation system (Tele-Doc) and how it shapes working practices. DESIGN AND SETTING: Mixed methods case study in an inner-city general practice. METHOD: The study was conducted through interviews with IT developers, clinicians, and administrative staff, and scrutiny of documents, websites, and demonstrator versions of Tele-Doc, followed by thematic analysis and discourse analysis. RESULTS: Three interrelated themes were identified: online consultation systems as innovation, managing the 'messiness' of general practice consultations, and redistribution of the work of general practice. These themes raise timely questions about what it means to consult in contemporary general practice. Uptake of Tele-Doc by patients was low. Much of the work of the consultation was redistributed to patients and administrators, sometimes causing misunderstandings. The 'messiness' of consultations was hard to eliminate. In-house training focused on the technical application rather than associated transformations to practice work that were not anticipated. GPs welcomed varied modes of consulting, but the aspiration of improved efficiency was not realised in practice. CONCLUSION: Tele-Doc offers a new kind of consultation that is still being worked out in practice. It may offer convenience for patients with discrete, single problems, and a welcome variation to GPs' workload. Tele-Doc's potential for addressing more complex problems and achieving efficiency is less clear, and its adoption may involve unforeseeable consequences.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".