The Added Value of Using Video in Out-of-Hours Primary Care Telephone Triage Among General Practitioners: Cross-Sectional Survey Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Many countries have introduced video consultations in primary care both inside and outside of office hours. Despite some relational and technical limitations, general practitioners (GPs) have reported the benefits of video use in the daytime as it provides faster and more flexible access to health care. Studies have indicated that video may be specifically valuable in out-of-hours primary care (OOH-PC), but additional information on the added value of video use is needed. Objective: This study aimed to investigate triage GPs' perspectives on video use in GP-led telephone triage in OOH-PC by exploring their reasons for choosing video use and its effect on triage outcome, the decision-making process, communication, and invested time. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional questionnaire study among GPs performing telephone triage in the OOH-PC service in the Central Denmark Region from September 5, 2022, until December 21, 2022. The questionnaire was integrated into the electronic patient registration system as a pop-up window appearing after every third video contact. This setup automatically linked background data on the contact, patient, and GP to the questionnaire data. We used descriptive analyses to describe reasons for and effects of video use and GP evaluation, stratified by patient age. Results: A total of 2456 questionnaires were completed. The most frequent reasons for video use were to assess the severity (n=1951, 79.4%), to increase the probability of self-care (n=1279, 52.1%), and to achieve greater certainty in decision-making (n=810, 33%) (multiple answers were possible for reasons of video use). In 61.9% (n=1516) of contacts, the triage GPs anticipated that the contact would have resulted in a different triage outcome if video had not been used. Use of video resulted in a downgrading of severity level in 88.3% (n=1338) of cases. Triage GPs evaluated the use of video as positive in terms of their decision-making process (n=2358, 96%), communication (n=2214, 90.1%), and invested time (n=2391, 97.3%). Conclusions: Triage GPs assessed that the use of video in telephone triage did affect their triage outcome, mostly by downgrading the level of care needed. The participating triage GPs found video in OOH-PC to be of added value, particularly in communication and the decision-making process.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".