Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34713199›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in digital health2021

Planning and Evaluating Remote Consultation Services: A New Conceptual Framework Incorporating Complexity and Practical Ethics.

Trisha Greenhalgh, Rebecca Rosen, Sara E Shaw, Richard Byng, Stuart Faulkner, Teresa Finlay, Emily Grundy, Laiba Husain, Gemma Hughes, Claudia Leone and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 91 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
91citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

91 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. The impact of remote care approaches on continuity in primary care: a mixed-studies systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023
    Pooled it
  5. Virtual consultations for patients with obstructive sleep apnoea: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2022
    Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Staying Connected? Revaluing 'Relationship Goods' in Digital Health Ecologies.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

31 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

18 authors.

Trisha GreenhalghNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Rebecca RosenNuffield Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Sara E ShawNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Richard ByngPlymouth Institute of Health and Care Research, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.
Stuart FaulknerNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Teresa FinlayNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Emily GrundyNuffield Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Laiba HusainNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Gemma HughesNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Claudia LeoneNuffield Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Lucy MooreNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Chrysanthi PapoutsiNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Catherine PopeNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Sarah Rybczynska-BuntPlymouth Institute of Health and Care Research, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.
Alexander RushforthNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Joseph WhertonNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Sietse WieringaNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Gary W WoodIndependent Research Consultant, Birmingham, United Kingdom.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Establishing and running remote consultation services is challenging politically (interest groups may gain or lose), organizationally (remote consulting requires implementation work and new roles and workflows), economically (costs and benefits are unevenly distributed across the system), technically (excellent care needs dependable links and high-quality audio and images), relationally (interpersonal interactions are altered), and clinically (patients are unique, some examinations require contact, and clinicians have deeply-held habits, dispositions and norms). Many of these challenges have an under-examined ethical dimension. In this paper, we present a novel framework, Planning and Evaluating Remote Consultation Services (PERCS), built from a literature review and ongoing research. PERCS has 7 domains-the reason for consulting, the patient, the clinical relationship, the home and family, technologies, staff, the healthcare organization, and the wider system-and considers how these domains interact and evolve over time as a complex system. It focuses attention on the organization's digital maturity and digital inclusion efforts. We have found that both during and beyond the pandemic, policymakers envisaged an efficient, safe and accessible remote consultation service delivered through state-of-the art digital technologies and implemented via rational allocation criteria and quality standards. In contrast, our empirical data reveal that strategic decisions about establishing remote consultation services, allocation decisions for appointment type (phone, video, e-, face-to-face), and clinical decisions when consulting remotely are fraught with contradictions and tensions-for example, between demand management and patient choice-leading to both large- and small-scale ethical dilemmas for managers, support staff, and clinicians. These dilemmas cannot be resolved by standard operating procedures or algorithms. Rather, they must be managed by attending to here-and-now practicalities and emergent narratives, drawing on guiding principles applied with contextual judgement. We complement the PERCS framework with a set of principles for informing its application in practice, including education of professionals and patients.

Indexed as

complexityE-consultationsevaluationPERCS frameworkremote consultationstelephone consultationsvideo consultations

Identifiers

PMID34713199
PMCPMC8521880

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.