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

BMJ 2003; 326 doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7387.477 (Published 1 March 2003)
Cite this as: BMJ 2003;326:477
  1. Hilary Pinnock, General Practice Airways Group clinical research fellow (hpinnock{at}gpiag-asthma.org)a,
  2. Robert Bawden, general practitionerb,
  3. Stephen Proctor, general practitionerc,
  4. Stephanie Wolfe, respiratory nursed,
  5. Jane Scullion, nurse consultante,
  6. David Price, General Practice Airways Group professor of primary care respiratory medicinea,
  7. Aziz Sheikh, NHS/PPP Foundation national primary care postdoctoral researcherf
  1. a Department of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill Health Centre, Aberdeen AB25 2AY
  2. b Botesdale Health Centre, Diss, Norfolk IP22 1DU
  3. c Clarendon Medical Centre, Hyde, Cheshire SK14 2AQ
  4. d Thorpewood Surgery, Norwich NR7 9QL
  5. e Respiratory Unit, Glenfield Hospital, Leicester LE3 9QP
  6. f Department of Public Health Sciences, St George's Hospital Medical School, London SW17 0RE
  1. Correspondence to: H Pinnock, Whitstable Health Centre, Whitstable, Kent CT5 1BZ
  • Accepted 17 December 2002

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.

What is already known on the topic

What is already known on the topic Regular review of patients with asthma reduces morbidity and is endorsed as good practice by UK and international guidelines, but only about a third of patients attend for their annual review

Most studies of telephone consultation in primary care have focused on consultations requested by patients rather than their use in the routine review of chronic disease

What this study adds

What this study adds Telephone consultations enable more people with asthma to be reviewed

Telephone consultations are shorter than face to face consultations, without any apparent clinical disadvantage

Patients are satisfied with telephone consultations

Footnotes

  • Funding British Lung Foundation (Grant No P00/9). AS is supported by an NHS R&D national primary care fellowship. The guarantor accepts full responsibility for the conduct of the study, had access to the data, and controlled the decision to publish.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Ethical approval The study was approved by all relevant ethics committees. All participants gave their fully informed consent.

  • Accepted 17 December 2002

THIS WEEK'S POLL