Telephone consultations
BMJ 2018; 360 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k1047 (Published 29 March 2018) Cite this as: BMJ 2018;360:k1047
All rapid responses
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.
This is a useful article but i was slightly surprised that it omitted the fact that, where possible, you should have access to the patient record while consulting on the telephone. This allows: 1 access to information such as recent drugs, allergies etc 2. An instant entry in the record to record the conversation.
Reception staff often ask me to take an advice call from a patient. If I can't access the record immediately, e.g. while doing a complicated prescription, I will suggest phoning the patient back in a few minutes when I have their record open.
I suspect the authors may have assumed this point but I do think it would have been worth making specifically
Competing interests: No competing interests
25 years ago, as a recently appointed public health consultant responsible for working with clinicians to improve the processes of care, I got involved in a discussion with GPs and hospital consultants on the subject of innovative ways of working. Patients would often get frustrated and occasionally irate, the doctors reported, at having to wait in out-patient clinics and doctors surgeries. In what may have been a throw-away remark, I suggested that a proportion of such clinic visits could be replaced by telephone consultations with obvious advantages for patients.
I recall being all but laughed out of that meeting as a wet-behind-the ears bright-eyed but ultimately out-of-touch-with-reality public health doctor.
In the days that followed I researched the subject of telephone consultations, and published an editorial [Ref 1] in the British Medical [Journal entitled "Follow up by telephone, It may be just as good to talk on the phone as in a clinic"
(See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2541748/?page=1)
In the course of my literature search I found that it was not really as novel and outlandish an idea as my detractors made it out to be. I proposed that, at the very least a proportion of follow up visits cold safely, and with not inconsiderable benefits, be replaced by telephone consultations.
I am delighted that telephone consultation as the medium for clinician-patient interaction has come such a long way. As both a recipient of such a service from my own general practitioner and as a health service researcher, I believe that van Galen and Car [Ref 2] have made a tremendously useful contribution to the subject.
References
1. Rao JN. Follow-up by telephone. BMJ. 1994 Dec 10; 309(6968): 1527–1528.
2. van Galen LS, Car J. How to conduct telephone consultations. BMJ 2018;360:k1047
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Telephone consultations: issues to revise
We read this paper and the associated commentary with considerable interest. It certainly raises some timely and valuable issues on patient-doctor communication over the phone. However, we found that certain key points are not adequately – even wrongly - addressed. Specifically:
How does the physician compensate for the loss of face-to-face connection? Certainly voice and intonation can play a role, but how can you adequately alleviate a patient’s health concerns without giving them access to your professional personality? What about the “magic -almost therapeutic- power” that this face-to-face connection has?
How can you ensure that there is no significant “between the lines” loss of information over the phone cables?
How can you reliably decide on a modification of the diagnostic or therapeutic intervention dictated by presence or absence of disease signs and symptoms?
Are all physicians regardless of their level of clinical experience and expertise and their type of voice (“persuasive or adequate”) able to handle diagnostic and treatment over the phone? If not, who then would be able to evaluate the type of physician that can successfully handle a phone consultation? Can we really afford medical “trial and error” methods on a health consult?
What legal guidelines would apply for a phone consultation (that varies across countries) and what is the physician’s legal liability in such a setting?
Of note, the tips presented by authors are quite useful, but they apply only to a limited subset of patients/diseases.
We do agree that such consultations may apply to the management of long term conditions, such as diabetes or depression (of an already known patient), or for communicating the results of investigations, or even for providing preventive healthcare advices, we oppose the notion that acute conditions can be safely managed by telephone calls. Safety-net criteria cannot be really “safe” when they are used only by patients. Patients have neither the knowledge nor the skills to adequately recognize a medical emergency. It would be more prudent if safety net criteria could be used by medical personnel, but again this is not an easy target to be accomplished by and over the phone. As the authors mentioned patients in many cases do not even know the name and location of body parts. This is why the authors mention twice in their manuscript the need for safety netting provision to the patients.
The authors acknowledge that telephone consultations do not reduce the workload of clinicians in most of the cases. Not to mention that a doctor can trust the report of a non-medical patient who conducted self-examination, or examined their child and rely his/her a diagnosis based on that. The Cochrane review showed that there is a lack of training in phone consultation. This is true, as this practice is not taught in any medical school worldwide, probably because it is considered as not practical and unsafe for both patients and doctors alike.
In conclusion: Let’s not make haste to put aside elementary rules of patient diagnosis and treatment in the name of innovation or convenience. Granted, flexibility in approaching and evaluating a patient health concern is essential, but in the interest of maintaining a reasonable risk-to-benefit ratio for our patients, a phone consultation should remain strictly complementary to the office visit that precedes it.
Competing interests: No competing interests