Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37881300›Full record

ArticleNIHR open research2022

Protocol: Remote care as the 'new normal'?  Multi-site case study in UK general practice.

Trisha Greenhalgh, Sara E Shaw, Anica Alvarez Nishio, Amy Booth, Richard Byng, Aileen Clarke, Francesca Dakin, Roz Davies, Stuart Faulkner, Nina Hemmings and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NIHR open research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. 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
  2. Article
  3. Teamwork and relational infrastructure: a qualitative study of modern UK general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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
  10. Article
  11. Challenges to quality in contemporary, hybrid general practice a multi-site longitudinal case study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Training needs for staff providing remote services in general practice: a mixed-methods study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. 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

18 authors.

Trisha GreenhalghNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2369-8088
Sara E ShawNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7014-4793
Anica Alvarez NishioIndependent Lay Adviser, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9841-5682
Amy BoothNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.
Richard ByngUniversity of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.
Aileen ClarkeNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8299-3146
Francesca DakinNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4105-4617
Roz DaviesThrive by Design, Leeds, UK.
Stuart FaulknerNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.
Nina HemmingsNuffield Trust, London, UK.
Laiba HusainNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9889-0889
Asli KalinNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.
Emma LaddsNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9864-7408
Lucy MooreNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.
Rebecca RosenNuffield Trust, London, UK.
Sarah Rybczynska-BuntUniversity of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.
Joseph WhertonNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7701-4783
Sietse WieringaNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7758-8493

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Following a pandemic-driven shift to remote service provision, UK general practices offer telephone, video or online consultation options alongside face-to-face. This study explores practices' varied experiences over time as they seek to establish remote forms of accessing and delivering care. Methods: This protocol is for a mixed-methods multi-site case study with co-design and national stakeholder engagement. 11 general practices were selected for diversity in geographical location, size, demographics, ethos, and digital maturity. Each practice has a researcher-in-residence whose role is to become familiar with its context and activity, follow it longitudinally for two years using interviews, public-domain documents and ethnography, and support improvement efforts. Research team members meet regularly to compare and contrast across cases. Practice staff are invited to join online learning events. Patient representatives work locally within their practice patient involvement groups as well as joining an online patient learning set or linking via a non-digital buddy system. NHS Research Ethics Approval has been granted. Governance includes a diverse independent advisory group with lay chair. We also have policy in-reach (national stakeholders sit on our advisory group) and outreach (research team members sit on national policy working groups). Results anticipated: We expect to produce rich narratives of contingent change over time, addressing cross-cutting themes including access, triage and capacity; digital and wider inequities; quality and safety of care (e.g. continuity, long-term condition management, timely diagnosis, complex needs); workforce and staff wellbeing (including non-clinical staff, students and trainees); technologies and digital infrastructure; patient perspectives; and sustainability (e.g. carbon footprint). Conclusion: By using case study methods focusing on depth and detail, we hope to explain why digital solutions that work well in one practice do not work at all in another. We plan to inform policy and service development through inter-sectoral network-building, stakeholder workshops and topic-focused policy briefings.

Indexed as

accessdigital inclusione-consultationsgeneral practiceRemote consultationstelephone consultationstriagevideo consultations

Identifiers

PMID37881300
PMCPMC10593351

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.