Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25887747›Full record

Trial reportBMC family practice2015

Implementing telephone triage in general practice: a process evaluation of a cluster randomised controlled trial.

Jamie Murdoch, Anna Varley, Emily Fletcher, Nicky Britten, Linnie Price, Raff Calitri, Colin Green, Valerie Lattimer, Suzanne H Richards, David A Richards and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC family practice, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Observational
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Uses of Virtual Care in Primary Care: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025
    Article
  10. Access systems in general practice: a systematic scoping review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. GPs' and practice staff's views of a telephone first approach to demand management: a qualitative study in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019
    Article
  17. A computer template to enhance patient-centredness in multimorbidity reviews: a qualitative evaluation in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jamie MurdochSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. jamie.murdoch@uea.ac.uk.
Anna VarleySchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. Anna.Varley@uea.ac.uk.
Emily FletcherPrimary Care Research Group, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK. E.Fletcher@exeter.ac.uk.
Nicky BrittenInstitute of Health Service Research, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK. N.Britten@exeter.ac.uk.
Linnie PriceInstitute of Health Service Research, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK. linnieprice@live.co.uk.
Raff CalitriPrimary Care Research Group, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK. R.Calitri@exeter.ac.uk.
Colin GreenInstitute of Health Service Research, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK. C.Green@exeter.ac.uk.
Valerie LattimerSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. V.Lattimer@uea.ac.uk.
Suzanne H RichardsPrimary Care Research Group, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK. S.H.Richards@exeter.ac.uk.
David A RichardsInstitute of Health Service Research, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK. D.A.Richards@exeter.ac.uk.
Chris SalisburyCentre for Academic Primary Care, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. c.salisbury@bristol.ac.uk.
Rod S TaylorPrimary Care Research Group, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK. R.Taylor@exeter.ac.uk.
John L CampbellPrimary Care Research Group, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK. john.campbell@exeter.ac.uk.
University of Exeter · GBUniversity of East Anglia · GBUniversity of Bristol · GB

Funding

Department of Health 08/53/15
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTelephone triage represents one strategy to manage demand for face-to-face GP appointments in primary care. However, limited evidence exists of the challenges GP practices face in implementing telephone triage. We conducted a qualitative process evaluation alongside a UK-based cluster randomised trial (ESTEEM) which compared the impact of GP-led and nurse-led telephone triage with usual care on primary care workload, cost, patient experience, and safety for patients requesting a same-day GP consultation. The aim of the process study was to provide insights into the observed effects of the ESTEEM trial from the perspectives of staff and patients, and to specify the circumstances under which triage is likely to be successfully implemented. Here we report perspectives of staff.

methodsThe intervention comprised implementation of either GP-led or nurse-led telephone triage for a period of 2-3 months. A qualitative evaluation was conducted using staff interviews recruited from eight general practices (4 GP triage, 4 Nurse triage) in the UK, implementing triage as part of the ESTEEM trial. Qualitative interviews were undertaken with 44 staff members in GP triage and nurse triage practices (16 GPs, 8 nurses, 7 practice managers, 13 administrative staff).

resultsStaff reported diverse experiences and perceptions regarding the implementation of telephone triage, its effects on workload, and on the benefits of triage. Such diversity were explained by the different ways triage was organised, the staffing models used to support triage, how the introduction of triage was communicated across practice staff, and by how staff roles were reconfigured as a result of implementing triage.

conclusionThe findings from the process evaluation offer insight into the range of ways GP practices participating in ESTEEM implemented telephone triage, and the circumstances under which telephone triage can be successfully implemented beyond the context of a clinical trial. Staff experiences and perceptions of telephone triage are shaped by the way practices communicate with staff, prepare for and sustain the changes required to implement triage effectively, as well as by existing practice culture, and staff and patient behaviour arising in response to the changes made.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN20687662. Registered 28 May 2009.

Indexed as

Process Assessment, Health CareTelephoneGeneral PracticeHumansNurse's RoleOrganizational CultureTriage

Identifiers

PMID25887747
PMCPMC4395901
OpenAlexW2043289460

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.