How do patients respond when confronted with telephone access barriers to care?

OBJECTIVE: To gain an in-depth understanding of patient barriers to accessing telephone care, subsequent responses to telephone access issues and recommendations for system improvement within a large integrated health-care system. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional qualitative focus group study. METHODS: One focus group was conducted at each of 17 Veterans Affairs facilities with a total of 123 Veteran users of VA health care. All facilities followed a focus group discussion guide, and purposively sampled patients receiving care at their VA facility in primary and/or specialty care. Focus groups' recordings were sent to the authors' independent evaluation centre, transcribed verbatim and analysed using qualitative content analysis methodology. RESULTS: Participants described many issues with the phone system that resulted in delays to care needs being addressed, including difficulty getting someone to answer the phone, out-dated phone directories, frequent disconnections and incorrect transfers. Participants most frequently responded to access issues by doing nothing or waiting to contact at a later time, or seeking unscheduled in-person care in the emergency department or primary care clinic. Participants offered recommendations for improving telephone care, including access to direct extensions, and upgrades to the telephone system. CONCLUSIONS: Telephone access issues could result in increased patient harm and/or increased wait times for in-person primary care or emergency services. Periodic evaluation of telephone systems is necessary to ensure telephone systems adequately meet patient needs while using resources efficiently to optimize the delivery of high quality, safe health care.

Relational continuity or rapid accessibility in primary care?: A mixed-methods study of veteran preferences.

OBJECTIVE: To examine preferences for relational continuity and rapid accessibility for telephone care. METHODS: A mixed-methods sequential explanatory design was utilized. Structured telephone interviews were conducted with 448 Veterans receiving primary care from Veterans Affairs facilities, who rated the importance of relational continuity and rapid accessibility. Seventeen focus groups were conducted with 123 Veterans to examine preferences for continuity versus accessibility and factors affecting these preferences. RESULTS: Higher proportions of interview patients rated talking with a nurse from their own primary care team (69%) and talking with a nurse with whom they have previous primary care contact (60%) as very important, compared with talking to any nurse as soon as possible (53%) and receiving advice immediately (50%). Focus group participants preferred a familiar provider within 24 hours over immediate contact with an unfamiliar provider, particularly for routine needs. Rapid accessibility was more frequently preferred for urgent questions/concerns. Preference for relational continuity was mitigated by patient age, and access to electronic medical records in larger, but not smaller, facilities. CONCLUSIONS: Health care systems supplementing in-person care with telephone care need to ensure that this care aligns with patient preferences and provide opportunities for both relational continuity and rapid accessibility where possible.