Staff interview participant characteristics

Helen Atherton; Heather Brant; Sue Ziebland; Annemieke Bikker; John Campbell; Andy Gibson; Brian McKinstry; Tania Porqueddu; Chris Salisbury

Warning: The NCBI web site requires JavaScript to function. more...

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Atherton H, Brant H, Ziebland S, et al. The potential of alternatives to face-to-face consultation in general practice, and the impact on different patient groups: a mixed-methods case study. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2018 Jun. (Health Services and Delivery Research, No. 6.20.)

Cover of The potential of alternatives to face-to-face consultation in general practice, and the impact on different patient groups: a mixed-methods case study

The potential of alternatives to face-to-face consultation in general practice, and the impact on different patient groups: a mixed-methods case study.

Show details

Contents

< Prev Next >

Appendix 7Staff interview participant characteristics

Sex	Age (years)	Role description	Length of time within role	Use of alternatives to the face-to-face consultation
F	46	GP partner	19 years	E-consultations, telephone, e-mail and text messaging
F	58	GP partner	30 years	E-consultations, telephone, e-mail and text messaging
M	31	GP partner	GP partner for 5 months, GP for 2 years	Telephone
M	38	GP partner	6 years	Telephone and text messaging (to send results)
F	50	GP partner	6 years	Telephone, e-mail and texting messaging (to send results)
F	43	GP partner	11 years	E-consultations, telephone and e-mail
M	55	GP partner	18 years	E-consultations, telephone and e-mail
M	31	GP partner	10 months	Telephone and e-mail
M	49	GP partner	12 years	Telephone and e-mail
F	54	GP partner	14 years	Telephone and e-mail
M	38	GP partner	8 years	Telephone and e-mail
F	49	GP partner	9 years	Telephone and e-mail
M	47	GP partner	3–4 years	Telephone and e-mail
M	52	GP partner	15 years	Telephone and e-mail
M	55	Principal GP partner	26 years	Telephone and e-mail
M	42	Medical director and GP partner	5 months	Telephone and video
F	50	Salaried GP	6 months (but was also partner in previous practice)	E-consultations, telephone and e-mail
M	55	Salaried GP	16 years (at current practice)	Telephone, e-mail and video
M	59	Salaried GP	6 months	Telephone, e-mail and video
M	41	Salaried GP	4 years	Telephone, e-consultations and e-mail
M	48	Salaried GP	18 years	Telephone and e-mail
F	50	Salaried part time GP	19 years	Telephone and e-consultations
F	50	Partner practice manager	8 years	N/A
F	56	Practice manager	8 years	N/A
M	50	Practice manager	4 years	N/A
F	Not answered	Practice manager	10 years	N/A
F	60	Practice manager	1–2 years	N/A
F	57	Practice manager	13 years	N/A
F	56	Practice manager	4 years	N/A
F	38	Practice manager	3 years	N/A
F	51	Practice manager	5 years	About to start using video
F	36	Assistant practice manager	18 years	N/A
F	52	Deputy practice manager	13 years	N/A
F	55	Patient service manager	2 years	Telephone
F	59	Practice nurse	10 years	Telephone and e-mail
F	54	Practice nurse	15 years	Telephone
F	50	Practice nurse	4 years	Telephone
F	59	Practice nurse	33 years	Telephone
F	56	Practice nurse	20 years	Telephone
F	61	Senior practice nurse	20 years	Telephone and e-mail
F	53	Senior receptionist	14 years	Telephone and e-mail
F	53	Senior receptionist	1 year	Telephone
F	51	Receptionist	3.5 years	Telephone and e-mail
F	48	Receptionist	13 years	N/A
F	46	Receptionist	7 years	N/A
F	51	Practice coordinator	9 years	N/A
F	45	Practice administrator	11 years	Telephone and e-mail
F	51	Support worker	Not answered	Video
M	68	IT manager	13 years	N/A

: F, female; M, male; N/A, not applicable.

Copyright © Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2018. This work was produced by Atherton et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.

Bookshelf ID: NBK507075

Contents

< Prev Next >

PubReader
Print View
Cite this Page
Atherton H, Brant H, Ziebland S, et al. The potential of alternatives to face-to-face consultation in general practice, and the impact on different patient groups: a mixed-methods case study. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2018 Jun. (Health Services and Delivery Research, No. 6.20.) Appendix 7, Staff interview participant characteristics.
PDF version of this title (10M)

Other titles in this collection

Health Services and Delivery Research

Recent Activity

Clear Turn Off Turn On

Staff interview participant characteristics - The potential of alternatives to f...
Staff interview participant characteristics - The potential of alternatives to face-to-face consultation in general practice, and the impact on different patient groups: a mixed-methods case study

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Bookshelf

The potential of alternatives to face-to-face consultation in general practice, and the impact on different patient groups: a mixed-methods case study.

Appendix 7Staff interview participant characteristics

Views

Other titles in this collection

Recent Activity