↓ Skip to main content

When the phone rings - factors influencing its impact on the experience of patients and healthcare workers during primary care consultation: a qualitative study

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 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
When the phone rings - factors influencing its impact on the experience of patients and healthcare workers during primary care consultation: a qualitative study
Published in
BMC Primary Care, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12875-015-0330-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

A. Y. L. Koong, D. Koot, S. K. Eng, A. Purani, A. Yusoff, C. C. Goh, S. S. H. Teo, N. C. Tan

Abstract

In the primary health care setting, patients interact directly with their healthcare workers (HCW), which include their primary physicians, nurses and pharmacists. Studies have shown that such interactions, when interrupted by phone calls received by either party, can lead to adverse outcomes and negative experiences. There is insufficient data however on the factors affecting the reaction and responses of both patients and HCWs when phone calls occur amidst their interaction. Understanding these factors will allow for the introduction of targeted measures to mitigate the negative impact of such interruptions and improve patient-HCW relationships. This study therefore aims to understand the impact of unplanned phone calls during primary health care consultations on patient-HCW interactions and the factors affecting the patient and the HCW responses. This study used focus group discussions (FGD) to gather qualitative data from patients and HCWs who had visited or worked in a major public primary healthcare institution in Singapore. The FGDs were audio-recorded, transcribed, audited and analyzed using standard content analysis to identify emergent themes. 15 patients and 16 HCWs participated in 5 FGDs. The key themes that emerged from these FGDs were patients' and HCWs' attitudes toward professionalism and respect, task and thought interruption, call characteristics, the impact on patient safety and stakeholders' experiences. Phone calls during consultations answered by either party often resulted in the answering party feeling apologetic and would usually keep the phone conversations short as a sign of respect to the other party. Both stakeholders valued the consultation time and similarly reported negative experiences if the phone-call interruptions became prolonged. Calls from the desk phone answered by HCWs were perceived by most patients to be relevant to healthcare services, with the assumption that HCWs exercised professionalism and would not attend to personal calls during their clinical duties.HCWs expressed their concerns and distress about potential medical errors due to phone-calls interrupting their clinical tasks and thinking processes. However, they acknowledged that these same phone-calls were important to allow clarifications of instructions and improved the safety of other patients. Phone interruptions affected patient and HCW interaction during consultations and factors leading to their adverse reactions need to be recognized and addressed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 1%
Unknown 95 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 16%
Researcher 14 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 14%
Student > Master 6 6%
Other 6 6%
Other 18 19%
Unknown 24 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 19%
Psychology 9 9%
Social Sciences 7 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Other 15 16%
Unknown 26 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 28 May 2016.
All research outputs
#16,046,765
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from BMC Primary Care
#1,529
of 2,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,367
of 277,045 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Primary Care
#37
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,359 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 277,045 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.