Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
I support the usage of digital methods of consulting as an adjunct to the provision of clinical care and improving access in General Practice.
We are all on a steep learning curve in defining our ‘post-lockdown new-normal’ and should embrace the positive lessons from the COVID pandemic and carry them forwards.
Digital consultations are not a panacea and there are both disadvantages as well as advantages (discussion of which is beyond the scope of this response). Yes, digital consultations have been billed as an effective way to maximise so-called left shift terms of efficiency but evidence is mounting that this may not actually be true in reality. Astute patient/problem selection is key in determining positive consultation outcomes for digital consultations. Selection should be shared; both patient and doctor-led selection will undoubtedly contribute to the shared-selection process. Digital consultations also work better for dealing with certain problems and can increase efficiency and doctor-patient satisfaction.
One must remember however, that the face-to-face doctor-patient consultation is greater than the sum of its parts. The rapport and emotional connections that can be established via conveyance of empathy and non-verbal communication are the fabric of General Practice and moving to a predominantly digital world may compromise this
Competing interests:
No competing interests
08 July 2020
Carter Singh
FRCGP, Partner, National Council Member RCGP, Vice Chair Notts LMC
Re: Rammya Mathew: We must let patients choose how to access primary care
Dear Editor,
I support the usage of digital methods of consulting as an adjunct to the provision of clinical care and improving access in General Practice.
We are all on a steep learning curve in defining our ‘post-lockdown new-normal’ and should embrace the positive lessons from the COVID pandemic and carry them forwards.
Digital consultations are not a panacea and there are both disadvantages as well as advantages (discussion of which is beyond the scope of this response). Yes, digital consultations have been billed as an effective way to maximise so-called left shift terms of efficiency but evidence is mounting that this may not actually be true in reality. Astute patient/problem selection is key in determining positive consultation outcomes for digital consultations. Selection should be shared; both patient and doctor-led selection will undoubtedly contribute to the shared-selection process. Digital consultations also work better for dealing with certain problems and can increase efficiency and doctor-patient satisfaction.
One must remember however, that the face-to-face doctor-patient consultation is greater than the sum of its parts. The rapport and emotional connections that can be established via conveyance of empathy and non-verbal communication are the fabric of General Practice and moving to a predominantly digital world may compromise this
Competing interests: No competing interests