Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32913690›Full record

ArticleCureus2020

Revolution in UK General Practice Due to COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

Sanjeev C Sharma, Sonita Sharma, Arjuna Thakker, Gopal Sharma, Mohamed Roshan, Vivek Varakantam

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
6.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Evolution of the general practice receptionist role and online services: a qualitative study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Technostress, technosuffering, and relational strain: a multi-method qualitative study of how remote and digital work affects staff in UK general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  5. The Family Doctor in the "COVID-19 Era".Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Sanjeev C SharmaFamily Medicine, Whittington Health NHS Trust, London, GBR.
Sonita SharmaFamily Medicine, University of Buckingham Medical School, Buckingham, GBR.
Arjuna ThakkerFamily Medicine, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, GBR.
Gopal SharmaFamily Medicine, Fosse Medical Centre, Leicester, GBR.
Mohamed RoshanFamily Medicine, Willows Health, Leicester, GBR.
Vivek VarakantamFamily Medicine, Croft Medical Centre, Leicester, GBR.
Willow Wood (United States) · USUniversity Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust · GBUniversity of Buckingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives To assess how UK General Practitioners (GPs) and Practice Managers (PMs) have coped with the challenges posed by the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic and whether they felt adequately supported by the wider National Health Service (NHS). Methods This is a cross-sectional survey. All GPs and PMs (total 1,354) in Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland (LLR) were invited to participate in an online questionnaire. Results A total of 95 invitees completed the survey. Over a quarter had required time off work due to COVID symptoms or contact. All respondents described either introducing or increasing the use of remote patient consultations. Most striking was the rise in video consultations from just 3% to 95% during the pandemic. Almost half of the feedback on the usefulness of remote consultations were positive, 16% were negative and 17% were mixed. The most commonly cited benefit was time efficiency. Drawbacks of remote consultations included technical difficulties and poor patient communication. Practice premises, systems and processes also required significant modifications during the pandemic to ensure the provision of safe clinical care, including reception screens, one-way patient flow, greater infection prevention measures. However, despite their ability to introduce such widescale change virtually overnight, over 10% of respondents reported that the strain had placed their practice at risk of closure. Over half of respondents felt they were not provided with adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) for the safety of their staff. Perception of the support provided by NHS England and the Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) was rather mixed, although additional guidelines were broadly welcomed. The most requested enduring changes related to remote patient consultations (59%) and remote triage (19%). However, in order to support such largescale permanent change, study respondents felt that a different funding and financial structure is required together with improved IT infrastructure, greater patient education and a more supportive regulatory environment. Conclusions COVID-19 has substantially accelerated the pace of change within NHS primary care. The long-term fear is that there may be insufficient financial and clinical backing from regulatory bodies to support such rapid and far-reaching changes.

Indexed as

corona viruscoronavirus pandemiccovid-19general practiceprimary caresurvey research

Identifiers

PMID32913690
PMCPMC7474564
OpenAlexW3047275309

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.