IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0313639.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient safety indicators for virtual consultations in primary care: A systematic review protocol

Author

Listed:
  • Tetiana Lunova
  • Ulrik Bak Kirk
  • Geva Greenfield
  • Andrée Rochfort
  • Ara Darzi
  • Ana Luisa Neves

Abstract

Background: Virtual consultations are being increasingly incorporated into routine primary care, as they offer better time and geographical flexibility for patients while also being cost-effective for both patients and service providers. At the same time, concerns have been raised about the extent to which virtual care is safe for patients. As of now, there is no validated methodology for evaluating the safety nuances and implications of virtual care. This study aims to identify patient safety indicators that could be used to evaluate the safety of virtual consultations in primary care. Methods: A literature search will be performed in Ovid MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for relevant articles published over the last 10 years (2014–2024). The systematic review will include randomized and non-randomized controlled trials and observational studies with adult populations that compare synchronous patient-provider virtual consultations (telephone or video) or multicomponent interventions involving synchronous remote consultations with face-to-face consultations. The outcome of interest will be patient safety indicators extracted from the studies. The quality of randomized controlled trials will be assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale will be used to analyze risk of bias in observational studies. Discussion: Considering the growing adoption of virtual medical care worldwide, a robust and comprehensive evaluation of its safety and quality is now a system-wide priority. Therefore, one of the primary strengths of this proposed systematic review is its focus on a topic of great importance and timeliness, specifically addressing the existing knowledge gap in this area. By publishing this protocol, we demonstrate the transparency and reliability of our research strategy and aim to minimize the risk of selection bias. Potential limitations include the heterogeneity of measures and outcomes, as well as a lower-than-expected number of studies in subgroup analyses, which may negatively influence the statistical significance in data synthesis. Trial registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023464878.

Suggested Citation

  • Tetiana Lunova & Ulrik Bak Kirk & Geva Greenfield & Andrée Rochfort & Ara Darzi & Ana Luisa Neves, 2025. "Patient safety indicators for virtual consultations in primary care: A systematic review protocol," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(1), pages 1-8, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0313639
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0313639
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0313639
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0313639&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0313639?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0313639. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.