Design and performance of a multi-centre randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of joint tele-consultations [ ISRCTN 54264250 ]

Background: Appropriate information flow is crucial to the care of patients, particularly at the interface between primary and secondary care. Communication problems can result from inadequate organisation and training, There is a major expectation that information and communication technologies may offer solutions, but little reliable evidence. This paper reports the design and performance of a multi-centre randomised controlled trial (RCT), unparalleled in telemedicine research in either scale or range of outcomes. The study investigated the effectiveness and cost implications in rural and inner-city settings of using videoconferencing to perform joint tele-consultations as an alternative to general practitioner referral to the hospital specialist in the outpatient clinic. Methods: Joint tele-consultation services were established in both the Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust in inner London, and the Royal Shrewsbury Hospitals Trust, in Shropshire. All the patients who gave consent to participate were randomised either to joint tele-consultation or to a routine outpatients appointment. The principal outcome measures included the frequency of decision by the specialist to offer a follow-up outpatient appointment, patient satisfaction (Ware Specific Questionnaire), wellbeing (SF12) and enablement (PEI), numbers of tests, investigations, procedures and treatments. Results: A total of 134 general practitioners operating from 29 practices participated in the trial, referring a total of 3170 patients to 20 specialists in ENT medicine, general medicine (including endocrinology, and rheumatology), gastroenterology, orthopaedics, neurology and urology. Of these, 2094 patients consented to participate in the study and were correctly randomised. There was a 91% response rate to the initial assessment questionnaires, and analysis showed equivalence for all key characteristics between the treatment and control groups. Published: 11 January 2002 BMC Family Practice 2002, 3:1 Received: 28 September 2001 Accepted: 11 January 2002 This article is available from: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2296/3/1 © 2002 Wallace et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. Verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in any medium for any purpose, provided this notice is preserved along with the article's original URL.

[1]  L. Farrell What does the patient want? , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[2]  A. Bowling,et al.  A national evaluation of specialists' clinics in primary care settings. , 2001, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[3]  P. Wallace,et al.  General practitioner participants in a telemedicine trial: comparisons with their peers , 2001, Journal of telemedicine and telecare.

[4]  P. Whitten,et al.  Systematic review of studies of patient satisfaction with telemedicine , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[5]  M. Marshall How well do general practitioners and hospital consultants work together? A qualitative study of cooperation and conflict within the medical profession. , 1998, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[6]  D. Heaney,et al.  A comparison of a Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI) against two established satisfaction scales as an outcome measure of primary care consultations. , 1998, Family practice.

[7]  B. Leese,et al.  Specialist outreach clinics in general practice: what do they offer? , 1997, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[8]  J. Stradling,et al.  A shorter form health survey: can the SF-12 replicate results from the SF-36 in longitudinal studies? , 1997, Journal of public health medicine.

[9]  M. Roland,et al.  Long-term follow-up in outpatient clinics. 1: The view from general practice. , 1997, Family practice.

[10]  P. Wallace,et al.  Can telemedicine be used to improve communication between primary and secondary care? , 1996, BMJ.

[11]  P Pop,et al.  Effectiveness of joint consultation sessions of general practitioners and orthopaedic surgeons for locomotor-system disorders , 1995, The Lancet.

[12]  D Wilkin,et al.  Specialist outreach clinics in general practice , 1994, BMJ.

[13]  D. Armstrong,et al.  Reasons for referral to hospital: extent of agreement between the perceptions of patients, general practitioners and consultants. , 1986, Family practice.

[14]  M. Kerr Are follow-up consultations at medical outpatient departments futile? , 1982 .

[15]  L. Machet [Multicentre randomised control trial comparing real time teledermatology with conventional outpatient dermatological care: societal cost-benefit analysis]. , 2002, Annales de dermatologie et de venereologie.

[16]  J. De Maeseneer,et al.  Classification of severity of health problems in family/general practice: an international field trial. , 1996, Family practice.

[17]  J E Ware,et al.  Defining and measuring patient satisfaction with medical care. , 1983, Evaluation and program planning.