Patients' and clinicians' experiences of remote consultation? A narrative synthesis.
Helen Walthall, Sue Schutz, Joanne Snowball and 3 others
PMID 35362191WHAT IT FOUND
Patients and clinicians often valued telephone or video consultations for convenience and less travel.
Relationships could still form, but poor connections, equipment access and the need for physical examination made them unsuitable for some.
Key findings
01Both patients and clinicians reported practical benefits from avoiding travel and having consultations at home, but technology and equipment problems shaped the experience.
02Therapeutic relationships were important to positive experiences, and some clinicians found remote consultations more personal than they expected.
03Remote consultations were seen as unsuitable when physical contact, unknown diagnosis, lifestyle or social discussions, or patient preference for face-to-face care were involved.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Only seven qualitative studies were included, so the themes are not a broad evidence base. All included studies came from Western or Northern countries, so findings may not transfer to other health systems. Most patients were low risk and stable, with routine reviews, not new diagnoses or difficult treatment conversations. Clinician participants were limited to physiotherapists, nurses and physicians, and the numbers were small. Many studies lacked details on race, socio-economic status, education, language and access to technology. Some studies were qualitative data nested in randomized controlled trials, and the link between the qualitative and trial data was not always clear. The search may have missed studies because remote consultation was described using different terms.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest. The paper names Oxford Biomedical Research Centre as funder.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that remote consultations are suitable for every patient. The paper reports experiences from selected stable patients and a small range of clinicians, not measured clinical outcomes.