Accessibility, acceptability, and effectiveness in primary care of routine telephone review of asthma: pragmatic, randomised controlled trial

Hilary Jane Pinnock, R. Bawden, S. Proctor, S. Wolfe, Jane Elizabeth Scullion, David Brendan Price, A. Sheikh

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

99 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective To determine whether routine review by telephone of patients with asthma improves access and is a good alternative to face to face reviews in general practices.

Design Pragmatic, randomised controlled trial.

Setting Four general practices in England.

Participants 278 adults who had not been reviewed in the previous 11 months.

Intervention Participants were randomised to either telephone review or face to face consultation with the asthma nurse.

Main outcome measures Primary outcome measures Were the proportion of participants who were reviewed within three months of randomisation and disease specific quality of life, as measured by the Juniper mini asthma quality of life questionnaire. Secondary outcome measures included the validated "short Q" asthma morbidity score, nursing care satisfaction questionnaire score, and length of consultation.

Results Of 137 people randomised to telephone consultation, 101 (74%) were reviewed, compared with 68 reviewed (48%) of the 141 people in the surgery group, a difference of 26% (95% confidence interval 14% to 37%; P < 0.001; number needed to treat 3.8). Three months after randomisation the two groups did not differ in the Juniper score (risk difference - 0.07 (95% confidence interval - 0.40 to 0.27) or in satisfaction with the consultation (risk difference - 0.07 (- 0.27 to 0.13)). Telephone consultations were on average 10 minutes shorter than reviews held in the surgery (mean difference 10.7 minutes (12.6 to 8.8; P < 0.001)).

Conclusions Compared with face to face consultations in the surgery, telephone consultations enable more people with asthma to be reviewed, without clinical disadvantage or loss of satisfaction. A shorter duration means that telephone consultations are likely to be an efficient option in primary care for routine review of asthma.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)477-479
Number of pages2
JournalBritish Medical Journal
Volume326
Issue number7387
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2003

Keywords

  • OF-LIFE QUESTIONNAIRE
  • GENERAL-PRACTICE
  • PATIENTS SATISFACTION
  • QUALITY
  • CONSULTATIONS
  • PRACTITIONERS
  • ACCESS

Cite this

Accessibility, acceptability, and effectiveness in primary care of routine telephone review of asthma: pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. / Pinnock, Hilary Jane; Bawden, R.; Proctor, S.; Wolfe, S.; Scullion, Jane Elizabeth; Price, David Brendan; Sheikh, A.

In: British Medical Journal, Vol. 326, No. 7387, 2003, p. 477-479.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Pinnock, Hilary Jane ; Bawden, R. ; Proctor, S. ; Wolfe, S. ; Scullion, Jane Elizabeth ; Price, David Brendan ; Sheikh, A. / Accessibility, acceptability, and effectiveness in primary care of routine telephone review of asthma: pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. In: British Medical Journal. 2003 ; Vol. 326, No. 7387. pp. 477-479.
@article{521c2d5553c045d2849645af9c7f4d3f,
title = "Accessibility, acceptability, and effectiveness in primary care of routine telephone review of asthma: pragmatic, randomised controlled trial",
abstract = "Objective To determine whether routine review by telephone of patients with asthma improves access and is a good alternative to face to face reviews in general practices.Design Pragmatic, randomised controlled trial.Setting Four general practices in England.Participants 278 adults who had not been reviewed in the previous 11 months.Intervention Participants were randomised to either telephone review or face to face consultation with the asthma nurse.Main outcome measures Primary outcome measures Were the proportion of participants who were reviewed within three months of randomisation and disease specific quality of life, as measured by the Juniper mini asthma quality of life questionnaire. Secondary outcome measures included the validated {"}short Q{"} asthma morbidity score, nursing care satisfaction questionnaire score, and length of consultation.Results Of 137 people randomised to telephone consultation, 101 (74{\%}) were reviewed, compared with 68 reviewed (48{\%}) of the 141 people in the surgery group, a difference of 26{\%} (95{\%} confidence interval 14{\%} to 37{\%}; P < 0.001; number needed to treat 3.8). Three months after randomisation the two groups did not differ in the Juniper score (risk difference - 0.07 (95{\%} confidence interval - 0.40 to 0.27) or in satisfaction with the consultation (risk difference - 0.07 (- 0.27 to 0.13)). Telephone consultations were on average 10 minutes shorter than reviews held in the surgery (mean difference 10.7 minutes (12.6 to 8.8; P < 0.001)).Conclusions Compared with face to face consultations in the surgery, telephone consultations enable more people with asthma to be reviewed, without clinical disadvantage or loss of satisfaction. A shorter duration means that telephone consultations are likely to be an efficient option in primary care for routine review of asthma.",
keywords = "OF-LIFE QUESTIONNAIRE, GENERAL-PRACTICE, PATIENTS SATISFACTION, QUALITY, CONSULTATIONS, PRACTITIONERS, ACCESS",
author = "Pinnock, {Hilary Jane} and R. Bawden and S. Proctor and S. Wolfe and Scullion, {Jane Elizabeth} and Price, {David Brendan} and A. Sheikh",
year = "2003",
doi = "10.1136/bmj.326.7387.477",
language = "English",
volume = "326",
pages = "477--479",
journal = "BMJ",
issn = "0959-8146",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "7387",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Accessibility, acceptability, and effectiveness in primary care of routine telephone review of asthma: pragmatic, randomised controlled trial

AU - Pinnock, Hilary Jane

AU - Bawden, R.

AU - Proctor, S.

AU - Wolfe, S.

AU - Scullion, Jane Elizabeth

AU - Price, David Brendan

AU - Sheikh, A.

PY - 2003

Y1 - 2003

N2 - Objective To determine whether routine review by telephone of patients with asthma improves access and is a good alternative to face to face reviews in general practices.Design Pragmatic, randomised controlled trial.Setting Four general practices in England.Participants 278 adults who had not been reviewed in the previous 11 months.Intervention Participants were randomised to either telephone review or face to face consultation with the asthma nurse.Main outcome measures Primary outcome measures Were the proportion of participants who were reviewed within three months of randomisation and disease specific quality of life, as measured by the Juniper mini asthma quality of life questionnaire. Secondary outcome measures included the validated "short Q" asthma morbidity score, nursing care satisfaction questionnaire score, and length of consultation.Results Of 137 people randomised to telephone consultation, 101 (74%) were reviewed, compared with 68 reviewed (48%) of the 141 people in the surgery group, a difference of 26% (95% confidence interval 14% to 37%; P < 0.001; number needed to treat 3.8). Three months after randomisation the two groups did not differ in the Juniper score (risk difference - 0.07 (95% confidence interval - 0.40 to 0.27) or in satisfaction with the consultation (risk difference - 0.07 (- 0.27 to 0.13)). Telephone consultations were on average 10 minutes shorter than reviews held in the surgery (mean difference 10.7 minutes (12.6 to 8.8; P < 0.001)).Conclusions Compared with face to face consultations in the surgery, telephone consultations enable more people with asthma to be reviewed, without clinical disadvantage or loss of satisfaction. A shorter duration means that telephone consultations are likely to be an efficient option in primary care for routine review of asthma.

AB - Objective To determine whether routine review by telephone of patients with asthma improves access and is a good alternative to face to face reviews in general practices.Design Pragmatic, randomised controlled trial.Setting Four general practices in England.Participants 278 adults who had not been reviewed in the previous 11 months.Intervention Participants were randomised to either telephone review or face to face consultation with the asthma nurse.Main outcome measures Primary outcome measures Were the proportion of participants who were reviewed within three months of randomisation and disease specific quality of life, as measured by the Juniper mini asthma quality of life questionnaire. Secondary outcome measures included the validated "short Q" asthma morbidity score, nursing care satisfaction questionnaire score, and length of consultation.Results Of 137 people randomised to telephone consultation, 101 (74%) were reviewed, compared with 68 reviewed (48%) of the 141 people in the surgery group, a difference of 26% (95% confidence interval 14% to 37%; P < 0.001; number needed to treat 3.8). Three months after randomisation the two groups did not differ in the Juniper score (risk difference - 0.07 (95% confidence interval - 0.40 to 0.27) or in satisfaction with the consultation (risk difference - 0.07 (- 0.27 to 0.13)). Telephone consultations were on average 10 minutes shorter than reviews held in the surgery (mean difference 10.7 minutes (12.6 to 8.8; P < 0.001)).Conclusions Compared with face to face consultations in the surgery, telephone consultations enable more people with asthma to be reviewed, without clinical disadvantage or loss of satisfaction. A shorter duration means that telephone consultations are likely to be an efficient option in primary care for routine review of asthma.

KW - OF-LIFE QUESTIONNAIRE

KW - GENERAL-PRACTICE

KW - PATIENTS SATISFACTION

KW - QUALITY

KW - CONSULTATIONS

KW - PRACTITIONERS

KW - ACCESS

U2 - 10.1136/bmj.326.7387.477

DO - 10.1136/bmj.326.7387.477

M3 - Article

VL - 326

SP - 477

EP - 479

JO - BMJ

JF - BMJ

SN - 0959-8146

IS - 7387

ER -