Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39292500›Full record

ArticleJMIR public health and surveillance2024

The Use of Online Consultation Systems or Remote Consulting in England Characterized Through the Primary Care Health Records of 53 Million People in the OpenSAFELY Platform: Retrospective Cohort Study.

Martina Fonseca, Brian MacKenna, Amir Mehrkar, OpenSAFELY Collaborative, Caroline E Walters, George Hickman, Jonathan Pearson, Louis Fisher, Peter Inglesby, Seb Bacon and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR public health and surveillance, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Why coding the modality of primary care consultations matters.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

15 authors.

Martina FonsecaNHS England, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3020-8112
Brian MacKennaNHS England, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3786-9063
Amir MehrkarBennett Institute for Applied Data Science, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2098-1278
OpenSAFELY CollaborativeSee Acknowledgments, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Caroline E WaltersBennett Institute for Applied Data Science, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1882-0886
George HickmanBennett Institute for Applied Data Science, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6691-4046
Jonathan PearsonNHS England, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0000-7520-9659
Louis FisherBennett Institute for Applied Data Science, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0295-3812
Peter InglesbyBennett Institute for Applied Data Science, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7784-1719
Seb BaconBennett Institute for Applied Data Science, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6354-3454
Simon DavyBennett Institute for Applied Data Science, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9890-3619
William HulmeBennett Institute for Applied Data Science, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9162-4999
Ben GoldacreBennett Institute for Applied Data Science, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5127-4728
Ofra KoffmanNHS England, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0009-7365-149X
Minal BakhaiNHS England, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0001-6330-4867

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe National Health Service (NHS) Long Term Plan, published in 2019, committed to ensuring that every patient in England has the right to digital-first primary care by 2023-2024. The COVID-19 pandemic and infection prevention and control measures accelerated work by the NHS to enable and stimulate the use of online consultation (OC) systems across all practices for improved access to primary care.

objectiveWe aimed to explore general practice coding activity associated with the use of OC systems in terms of trends, COVID-19 effect, variation, and quality.

methodsWith the approval of NHS England, the OpenSAFELY platform was used to query and analyze the in situ electronic health records of suppliers The Phoenix Partnership (TPP) and Egton Medical Information Systems, covering >53 million patients in >6400 practices, mainly in 2019-2020. Systematized Medical Nomenclature for Medicine-Clinical Terminology (SNOMED-CT) codes relevant to OC systems and written OCs were identified including eConsultation. Events were described by volumes and population rates, practice coverage, and trends before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Variation was characterized among practices, by sociodemographics, and by clinical history of long-term conditions.

resultsOverall, 3,550,762 relevant coding events were found in practices using TPP, with the code eConsultation detected in 84.56% (2157/2551) of practices. Activity related to digital forms of interaction increased rapidly from March 2020, the onset of the pandemic; namely, in the second half of 2020, >9 monthly eConsultation coding events per 1000 registered population were registered compared to <1 a year prior. However, we found large variations among regions and practices: December 2020 saw the median practice have 0.9 coded instances per 1000 population compared to at least 36 for the highest decile of practices. On sociodemographics, the TPP cohort with OC instances, when compared (univariate analysis) to the cohort with general practitioner consultations, was more predominantly female (661,235/1,087,919, 60.78% vs 9,172,833/17,166,765, 53.43%), aged 18 to 40 years (349,162/1,080,589, 32.31% vs 4,295,711/17,000,942, 25.27%), White (730,389/1,087,919, 67.14% vs 10,887,858/17,166,765, 63.42%), and less deprived (167,889/1,068,887, 15.71% vs 3,376,403/16,867,074, 20.02%). Looking at the eConsultation code through multivariate analysis, it was more commonly recorded among patients with a history of asthma (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.131, 95% CI 1.124-1.137), depression (aOR 1.144, 95% CI 1.138-1.151), or atrial fibrillation (aOR 1.119, 95% CI 1.099-1.139) when compared to other patients with general practitioner consultations, adjusted for long-term conditions, age, and gender.

conclusionsWe successfully queried general practice coding activity relevant to the use of OC systems, showing increased adoption and key areas of variation during the pandemic at both sociodemographic and clinical levels. The work can be expanded to support monitoring of coding quality and underlying activity. This study suggests that large-scale impact evaluation studies can be implemented within the OpenSAFELY platform, namely looking at patient outcomes.

Indexed as

COVID-19PandemicsPrimary Health CareRemote ConsultationAdultCohort StudiesElectronic Health RecordsEnglandFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOnline SystemsRetrospective StudiesSARS-CoV-2State Medicinedigital primary careelectronic health record codinggeneral practicehealth informaticsonline consultation systemOpenSAFELYprimary care researchremote monitoringtriagetrusted research environment

Identifiers

PMID39292500
PMCPMC11447420

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.