ArticleBMJ open2020
Qualitative and quantitative approach to assess of the potential for automating administrative tasks in general practice.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
23 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Family physician perspectives on managing indirect patient care activities in the electronic inbox: a systematic mixed studies review.Family practice · 2025Pooled it
- Impact of the clinically oriented roles of a general practice receptionist: a systematic review with narrative synthesis.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Pooled it
- Counting general practitioners: a comparative repeat cross-sectional analysis of GPs in NHS general practice in England.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026Article
- Explainable multimodal AI and neuro-symbolic clinical decision support system for chronic eye disease management: a digital health implementation study.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- No Band-Aids for papercuts: understanding and addressing challenges of administrative workload in primary care in Canada.Family practice · 2025Article
- Time Allocation in Clinical Training (TACT): national study reveals Resident Doctors spend four hours on admin for every hour with patients.QJM : monthly journal of the Association of Physicians · 2025Observational
- Primary care physicians' job satisfaction in eleven Western countries: a cross-sectional study.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- Government's 10 year plan for the NHS in England.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- Stepwise considerations when using artificial intelligence tools for administrative tasks in primary care.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2025Article
- Labour's 10 year plan for the English NHS.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- The Future of Artificial Intelligence in Mental Health Nursing Practice: An Integrative Review.International journal of mental health nursing · 2025Review
- The future of pharmacy work: How pharmacists are adapting to and preparing for technology infusion.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2024Article
- Leadership for AI Transformation in Health Care Organization: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Labour's health "mission".BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023Article
- Tackling the crisis in general practice.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023Article
- Machine learning in general practice: scoping review of administrative task support and automation.BMC primary care · 2023Article
- Developing integration among stakeholders in the primary care networks of Singapore: a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Identifying how GPs spend their time and the obstacles they face: a mixed-methods study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2022Article
- Megatrends in Healthcare: Review for the Swiss National Science Foundation's National Research Programme 74 (NRP74) "Smarter Health Care".Public health reviews · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo identify the extent to which administrative tasks carried out by primary care staff in general practice could be automated.
designA mixed-method design including ethnographic case studies, focus groups, interviews and an online survey of automation experts.
settingThree urban and three rural general practice health centres in England selected for differences in list size and organisational characteristics.
participantsObservation and interviews with 65 primary care staff in the following job roles: administrator, manager, general practitioner, healthcare assistant, nurse practitioner, pharmacy technician, phlebotomist, practice nurse, pharmacist, prescription clerk, receptionist, scanning clerk, secretary and medical summariser; together with a survey of 156 experts in automation technologies.
methods330 hours of ethnographic observation and documentation of administrative tasks carried out by staff in each of the above job roles, followed by coding and classification; semistructured interviews with 10 general practitioners and 6 staff focus groups. The online survey of machine learning, artificial intelligence and robotics experts was analysed using an ordinal Gaussian process prediction model to estimate the automatability of the observed tasks.
resultsThe model predicted that roughly 44% of administrative tasks carried out by staff in general practice are 'mostly' or 'completely' automatable using currently available technology. Discussions with practice staff underlined the need for a cautious approach to implementation.
conclusionsThere is considerable potential to extend the use of automation in primary care, but this will require careful implementation and ongoing evaluation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.