In this blog, our clinical Lead, Dr David Griffiths, looks at what our regular user surveys can teach us.
I have been looking at the feedback from Consultant Connect’s recent surveys of clinical users to see what we can learn from the reflections of service users. I was interested, and pleased, to see that much of the feedback chimed with my own feelings about the service.
There are several ways in which the ability for GPs and consultants to communicate in real-time adds significant value for patients and the system as a whole.
The majority of feedback suggested that the phone calls provide useful advice on how to investigate a patient’s condition, including the expected progression; how to manage it, especially regarding the choice and dosing of medication; and how to navigate the system.
GPs valued the reassurance of immediate expert advice, appreciating the confidence boost even when it confirmed their initial thoughts. They also described how their patients were comforted by this aspect of the service and there were many references to the advantage of being able to get this type of advice while the patient was still in the consulting room i.e. in real-time. There were also examples of consultants providing longitudinal support via phone calls and emails.
There were many references to improved decision making, where the consultant’s advice had changed the GP’s mind about which choice to make. This is hardly surprising, after all that is exactly the reason why GPs use the service: to check their thinking with an expert in a specific field and then use their generalist skills to apply this to the patient’s particular context. The speed with which this can occur and the fact that GP and consultant can discuss the context, which can often be lost in a letter, has obvious benefits for patients, of course.
The data on the service clearly shows that it reduces both referrals to outpatients and emergency admissions, with different rates across a variety of specialities and there were many comments confirming this. There were also examples where a GP felt that the advice received, while not avoiding referral, had improved the patient’s journey: they had ended up in the right clinic or department first time and often much earlier than they otherwise would have done.
I particularly noted the example of a patient whose GP was planning for home management (as we are strongly encouraged to do, of course) only to be told that this would not be safe and that emergency admission was needed.
Clearly this is potentially of great benefit for the patient in question and means that quality care is being delivered but does it mean that consultant advice might make healthcare more expensive? I would argue the opposite. Ensuring that the right thing is done as soon as possible – thanks to streamlined access to an expert opinion – is almost certainly cheaper in the long run for the service as a whole.
One of the most frustrating forms of waste in any system is internally generated work. This might mean repeating a process (rework – this helpful definition from manufacturing if interested) or trying an alternative approach (repair) because the required outcome has not been reached. In general practice this might mean, for example, re-referring a patient to another service after an appointment which has not solved their problem. It might mean repeating tests which should never have been requested in the first place. It could even mean picking up the pieces for patients harmed by their care.
However, as the feedback demonstrates, when a GP has access to rapid and specific advice, this frustrating extra work is much less likely to be required. Given that healthcare interventions can harm as well as heal, this is an ‘everyone wins’ situation.
If you would like to speak to us about Consultant Connect or its urgent care application, Urgent Connect, please call us on 01865 261457 or email firstname.lastname@example.org.