ArticleBMJ open2026
Teleconsultation and joint consultation across primary-secondary care in a Dutch urbanised area: an exploratory qualitative study of healthcare professionals' experiences of implementation barriers and facilitators.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study explored healthcare professionals' experiences with (asynchronous) teleconsultations and (synchronous) joint consultations in primary and secondary care as well as perceived implementation barriers and facilitators to their use in clinical practice.
designAn implementation-focused qualitative study employing semi-structured interviews guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). A systematic examination of implementation barriers and facilitators using deductive and inductive approaches, followed by thematic analysis that identified patterns, developed conceptual categories and synthesised these into overarching themes and thematic areas.
settingTeleconsultation and joint consultation used to support collaboration and continuity of care between general practitioners and medical specialists in a Dutch urbanised area.
participants37 participants were interviewed between August 2021 and October 2022, including 14 general practitioners and 23 medical specialists.
resultsFour thematic areas were identified: (1) intervention, (2) interprofessional collaboration, (3) perceived patient perspective and (4) prerequisites for implementation and sustainability. Teleconsultations were highly valued by healthcare professionals, as they enhanced the quality, efficiency and flexibility of their work and improved access to care and the overall care experience for patients. Joint consultations were particularly appreciated for their interactive nature, which strengthened interprofessional relationships and supported their educational value while facilitating delivery of the right care in the right place. However, next to these facilitators several challenges were identified. Specifically, teleconsultations were hindered by variation in use, unclear expectations, a lack of dialogue and limited IT interoperability. Furthermore, scaling up joint consultations was deemed challenging due to volume requirements, time inefficiencies and organisational constraints.
conclusionsTeleconsultation and joint consultation were valued by healthcare professionals as tools that support continuity and quality of care. While serving distinct purposes, their combined use strengthened collaboration between general practitioners and medical specialists. However, sustainable implementation was hindered by organisational, technical, financial and governance-related barriers, as well as limited interoperability and lack of shared clinical ownership. Addressing these barriers is essential to enable scalable and routine use of digital interprofessional consultation models.
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.