Why Primary Care Clinicians use Advice and Guidance: A qualitative study.

IF 5.2
Alice Faux-Nightingale, Rosie Harrison, Claire Burton, Ram Bajpai, Lorna Clarson, Tina Hadley-Barrows, John Haines, Toby Helliwell, Samantha Hider, Clare Jinks, Kelvin Jordan, Natalie Knight, Christian D Mallen, Kayleigh J Mason, Victoria K Welsh
{"title":"Why Primary Care Clinicians use Advice and Guidance: A qualitative study.","authors":"Alice Faux-Nightingale, Rosie Harrison, Claire Burton, Ram Bajpai, Lorna Clarson, Tina Hadley-Barrows, John Haines, Toby Helliwell, Samantha Hider, Clare Jinks, Kelvin Jordan, Natalie Knight, Christian D Mallen, Kayleigh J Mason, Victoria K Welsh","doi":"10.3399/BJGP.2026.0217","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Background Where available, Advice and Guidance (A&G) can enable primary care clinicians to seek specialist input, supporting decision making and avoiding unnecessary referrals. The use of A&G has significantly expanded, accelerated by COVID19 and contractual changes. While A&G is intended to streamline elective care, concerns persist regarding workload shift, variable responsiveness, and system usability. Despite growing policy emphasis, little is known about why clinicians choose to use A&G. Aim Explore the current use of A&G within primary care, focusing on decision making processes which underpin PCCs' (primary care clinicians') decision to use A&G. Design and Setting Qualitative study set in English Primary Care Method Twenty semi structured video interviews were conducted with primary care clinicians purposively sampled for maximum variation. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis within an interpretive description framework, with themes developed collaboratively and refined through discussion with researchers and PPIE contributors. Ethical approval was obtained (REC 333799). Results Four overarching themes encapsulate clinicians' decisions to use A&G: clinical presentation (acuity and complexity), navigating healthcare pathways, previous experiences of A&G, and using A&G to validate clinical decision making. Barriers included delayed responses and uncertainty about inequitable workload distribution. These factors shape how effectively A&G could be integrated into routine practice. Conclusion Primary care clinicians use A&G to support patient care and aid decision-making, but its effectiveness depends on timely, clinically helpful responses. Ensuring responses remain appropriate to primary care remit and capacity will be essential if A&G becomes the main route into elective care.</p>","PeriodicalId":520790,"journal":{"name":"The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2026.0217","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background Where available, Advice and Guidance (A&G) can enable primary care clinicians to seek specialist input, supporting decision making and avoiding unnecessary referrals. The use of A&G has significantly expanded, accelerated by COVID19 and contractual changes. While A&G is intended to streamline elective care, concerns persist regarding workload shift, variable responsiveness, and system usability. Despite growing policy emphasis, little is known about why clinicians choose to use A&G. Aim Explore the current use of A&G within primary care, focusing on decision making processes which underpin PCCs' (primary care clinicians') decision to use A&G. Design and Setting Qualitative study set in English Primary Care Method Twenty semi structured video interviews were conducted with primary care clinicians purposively sampled for maximum variation. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis within an interpretive description framework, with themes developed collaboratively and refined through discussion with researchers and PPIE contributors. Ethical approval was obtained (REC 333799). Results Four overarching themes encapsulate clinicians' decisions to use A&G: clinical presentation (acuity and complexity), navigating healthcare pathways, previous experiences of A&G, and using A&G to validate clinical decision making. Barriers included delayed responses and uncertainty about inequitable workload distribution. These factors shape how effectively A&G could be integrated into routine practice. Conclusion Primary care clinicians use A&G to support patient care and aid decision-making, but its effectiveness depends on timely, clinically helpful responses. Ensuring responses remain appropriate to primary care remit and capacity will be essential if A&G becomes the main route into elective care.

为什么初级保健临床医生使用建议和指导:一项定性研究。
在可行的情况下,建议和指导(A&G)可以使初级保健临床医生寻求专家意见,支持决策并避免不必要的转诊。新冠肺炎疫情和合同变更加速了A&G的使用。虽然A&G旨在简化选择性护理,但对工作量转移、可变响应性和系统可用性的关注仍然存在。尽管越来越多的政策强调,很少知道为什么临床医生选择使用A&G。目的探讨目前在初级保健中使用A&G的情况,重点关注支持PCCs(初级保健临床医生)决定使用A&G的决策过程。对初级保健临床医生进行了20次半结构化的视频访谈,有目的地对其进行抽样,以获得最大的差异。数据分析使用解释性描述框架内的反身性专题分析,通过与研究人员和PPIE贡献者的讨论协作开发和完善主题。获得伦理批准(REC 333799)。结果:临床医生决定使用A&G的四个主要主题:临床表现(敏锐度和复杂性)、医疗路径导航、A&G的既往经验以及使用A&G来验证临床决策。障碍包括反应迟缓和工作量分配不公平的不确定性。这些因素决定了A&G如何有效地融入日常实践。结论初级保健临床医生使用A&G来支持患者护理和辅助决策,但其有效性取决于及时、临床有益的反应。如果A&G成为选择性护理的主要途径,确保应对措施仍然适合初级保健的职权范围和能力将是至关重要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书