Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Dec 14;7(4):e21698.
doi: 10.2196/21698.

Health Care Professionals' Experience of a Digital Tool for Patient Exchange, Anamnesis, and Triage in Primary Care: Qualitative Study

Ann Catrine Eldh  1   2 , Annette Sverker  3 , Preben Bendtsen  4 , Evalill Nilsson  1   5
Affiliations

Health Care Professionals' Experience of a Digital Tool for Patient Exchange, Anamnesis, and Triage in Primary Care: Qualitative Study

Ann Catrine Eldh et al. JMIR Hum Factors. .

Abstract

Background: Despite a growing body of knowledge about eHealth innovations, there is still limited understanding of the implementation of such tools in everyday primary care.

Objective: The objective of our study was to describe health care staff's experience with a digital communication system intended for patient-staff encounters via a digital route in primary care.

Methods: In this qualitative study we conducted 21 individual interviews with staff at 5 primary care centers in Sweden that had used a digital communication system for 6 months. The interviews were guided by narrative queries, transcribed verbatim, and subjected to content analysis.

Results: While the digital communication system was easy to grasp, it was nevertheless complex to use, affecting both staffing and routines for communicating with patients, and documenting contacts. Templates strengthened equivalent procedures for patients but dictated a certain level of health and digital literacy for accuracy. Although patients expected a chat to be synchronous, asynchronous communication was extended over time. The system for digital communication benefited assessments and enabled more efficient use of resources, such as staff. On the other hand, telephone contact was faster and better for certain purposes, especially when the patient's voice itself provided data. However, many primary care patients, particularly younger ones, expected digital routes for contact. To match preferences for communicating to a place and time that suited patients was significant; staff were willing to accept some nuisance from a suboptimal service-at least for a while-if it procured patient satisfaction. A team effort, including engaged managers, scaffolded the implementation process, whereas being subjected to a trial without likely success erected barriers.

Conclusions: A digital communication system introduced in regular primary care involved complexity beyond merely learning how to manage the tool. Rather, it affected routines and required that both the team and the context were addressed. Further knowledge is needed about what factors facilitate implementation, and how. This study suggested including ethical perspectives on eHealth tools, providing an important but novel aspect of implementation.

Keywords: communication; content analysis; digital technology; eHealth; interviews; primary health care; qualitative research; telemedicine.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

References

    1. Starfield B, Shi L, Macinko J. Contribution of primary care to health systems and health. Milbank Q. 2005;83(3):457–502. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00409.x. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/16202000 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Banks J, Farr M, Salisbury C, Bernard E, Northstone K, Edwards H, Horwood J. Use of an electronic consultation system in primary care: a qualitative interview study. Br J Gen Pract. 2018 Jan;68(666):e1–e8. doi: 10.3399/bjgp17X693509. https://bjgp.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=29109115 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bashshur RL, Howell JD, Krupinski EA, Harms KM, Bashshur N, Doarn CR. The empirical foundations of telemedicine interventions in primary care. Telemed J E Health. 2016 May;22(5):342–75. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2016.0045. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/27128779 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mold F, Hendy J, Lai Y, de Lusignan S. Electronic consultation in primary care between providers and patients: systematic review. JMIR Med Inform. 2019 Dec 03;7(4):e13042. doi: 10.2196/13042. https://medinform.jmir.org/2019/4/e13042/ - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mair FS, May C, O'Donnell C, Finch T, Sullivan F, Murray E. Factors that promote or inhibit the implementation of e-health systems: an explanatory systematic review. Bull World Health Organ. 2012 May 01;90(5):357–64. doi: 10.2471/BLT.11.099424. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/22589569 - DOI - PMC - PubMed