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

• Published in: Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy 2015-12, Vol.18 (6), p.2154-2163
• Main Authors: Locatelli, Sara M., LaVela, Sherri L., Talbot, Mary E., Davies, Michael L.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Access; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Content analysis; Cross-Sectional Studies; Directories; Emergency medical care; Emergency medical services; Emergency services; Female; Focus Groups; Health care; Health care access; Health facilities; health services accessibility; Health Services Accessibility - standards; Health Services Needs and Demand - standards; Hospitals, Veterans; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Nurses; Original; Original Research Papers; Patient communication; Patient Satisfaction; Patients; Primary care; Primary Health Care - standards; Professionals; Qualitative analysis; Qualitative Research; Quality of Health Care; Systems analysis; Telephone - instrumentation; Telephone - utilization; telephone hotlines; Telephone systems; United States; Veterans; Waiting times; Womens health
• ISSN: 1369-6513; 1369-7625
• DOI: 10.1111/hex.12184

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.