↓ Skip to main content

Implementing telephone triage in general practice: a process evaluation of a cluster randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Primary Care, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
123 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Implementing telephone triage in general practice: a process evaluation of a cluster randomised controlled trial
Published in
BMC Primary Care, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12875-015-0263-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jamie Murdoch, Anna Varley, Emily Fletcher, Nicky Britten, Linnie Price, Raff Calitri, Colin Green, Valerie Lattimer, Suzanne H Richards, David A Richards, Chris Salisbury, Rod S Taylor, John L Campbell

Abstract

Telephone triage represents one strategy to manage demand for face-to-face GP appointments in primary care. However, limited evidence exists of the challenges GP practices face in implementing telephone triage. We conducted a qualitative process evaluation alongside a UK-based cluster randomised trial (ESTEEM) which compared the impact of GP-led and nurse-led telephone triage with usual care on primary care workload, cost, patient experience, and safety for patients requesting a same-day GP consultation. The aim of the process study was to provide insights into the observed effects of the ESTEEM trial from the perspectives of staff and patients, and to specify the circumstances under which triage is likely to be successfully implemented. Here we report perspectives of staff. The intervention comprised implementation of either GP-led or nurse-led telephone triage for a period of 2-3 months. A qualitative evaluation was conducted using staff interviews recruited from eight general practices (4 GP triage, 4 Nurse triage) in the UK, implementing triage as part of the ESTEEM trial. Qualitative interviews were undertaken with 44 staff members in GP triage and nurse triage practices (16 GPs, 8 nurses, 7 practice managers, 13 administrative staff). Staff reported diverse experiences and perceptions regarding the implementation of telephone triage, its effects on workload, and on the benefits of triage. Such diversity were explained by the different ways triage was organised, the staffing models used to support triage, how the introduction of triage was communicated across practice staff, and by how staff roles were reconfigured as a result of implementing triage. The findings from the process evaluation offer insight into the range of ways GP practices participating in ESTEEM implemented telephone triage, and the circumstances under which telephone triage can be successfully implemented beyond the context of a clinical trial. Staff experiences and perceptions of telephone triage are shaped by the way practices communicate with staff, prepare for and sustain the changes required to implement triage effectively, as well as by existing practice culture, and staff and patient behaviour arising in response to the changes made. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN20687662 . Registered 28 May 2009.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 122 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 17%
Researcher 17 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 11%
Student > Bachelor 14 11%
Other 7 6%
Other 22 18%
Unknown 28 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 22%
Social Sciences 8 7%
Psychology 5 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 2%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 36 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 June 2015.
All research outputs
#5,413,154
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from BMC Primary Care
#748
of 2,371 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,785
of 279,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Primary Care
#13
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,371 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,138 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.