Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Protocol

Exploring the clinically orientated roles of the general practice receptionist: a systematic review protocol

Authors: Michael Burrows, Nicola Gale, Sheila Greenfield, Ian Litchfield

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The receptionist is the focal point of the practice, undertaking an array of clinically orientated roles such as triaging patients for GP consultations or managing repeat prescribing. However, the full nature and extent of the receptionist’s clinical activities is unknown as are the implications for patients. The aim of the proposed review is to explore the nature of the receptionist’s clinical roles, their extent and their implications for patients. In doing so, we will highlight any gaps in the evidence base which future research may explore.

Methods

The databases Medline/PubMed, Ovid, Cinahl, ASSIA, Cochrane, EMBASE and Science Direct will be searched for relevant literature. We will look at both qualitative and quantitative research on GP receptionists, based within primary care to explore their roles within the primary care team, the clinically relevant roles they undertake, the extent of these roles and any implications these roles might have. No limits are placed on the date or place of publication; however, only research published in English will be included. Screening, quality assessments and data extraction will be carried out by two reviewers, who are not blinded to study characteristics. Analysis follows a four-stage method, established by Whittemore and Knafl (2005).

Discussion

The review will explore existing research covering the clinically orientated roles of the GP receptionist. The findings of the review will be important for healthcare professionals and academics working within primary healthcare. It will highlight and for the first time synthesise research relating to the complex and essential work of the GP receptionist. Our findings will inform the direction and focus of further research, as gaps in the knowledge base will be uncovered.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO registration no: CRD42016048957.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Buchan IC, Richardson IM. Receptionists at work. A time study in general practice. J R Coll Gen Pract. 1972;22(118):331–4.PubMedPubMedCentral Buchan IC, Richardson IM. Receptionists at work. A time study in general practice. J R Coll Gen Pract. 1972;22(118):331–4.PubMedPubMedCentral
2.
go back to reference Copeman JP, Zwanenberg TDV. Practice receptionists: poorly trained and taken for granted? J R Coll Gen Pract. 1988;38(306):14–6.PubMedPubMedCentral Copeman JP, Zwanenberg TDV. Practice receptionists: poorly trained and taken for granted? J R Coll Gen Pract. 1988;38(306):14–6.PubMedPubMedCentral
3.
go back to reference Hesselgreaves H, Lough M, Power A. The perceptions of reception staff in general practice about the factors influencing specific medication errors. Educ Prim Care. 2009;20(1):21–7.CrossRefPubMed Hesselgreaves H, Lough M, Power A. The perceptions of reception staff in general practice about the factors influencing specific medication errors. Educ Prim Care. 2009;20(1):21–7.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Swinglehurst D, et al. Receptionist input to quality and safety in repeat prescribing in UK general practice: ethnographic case study. BMJ. 2011:343. Swinglehurst D, et al. Receptionist input to quality and safety in repeat prescribing in UK general practice: ethnographic case study. BMJ. 2011:343.
5.
go back to reference Arber S, Sawyer L. The role of the receptionist in general practice: a ‘dragon behind the desk’? Soc Sci Med. 1985;20(9):911–21.CrossRefPubMed Arber S, Sawyer L. The role of the receptionist in general practice: a ‘dragon behind the desk’? Soc Sci Med. 1985;20(9):911–21.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Gallagher M, et al. Managing patient demand: a qualitative study of appointment making in general practice. Br J Gen Pract. 2001;51(465):280–5.PubMedPubMedCentral Gallagher M, et al. Managing patient demand: a qualitative study of appointment making in general practice. Br J Gen Pract. 2001;51(465):280–5.PubMedPubMedCentral
7.
8.
9.
go back to reference McNulty CAM, et al. Strategies used to increase chlamydia screening in general practice: a qualitative study. Public Health. 2008;122(9):845–56.CrossRefPubMed McNulty CAM, et al. Strategies used to increase chlamydia screening in general practice: a qualitative study. Public Health. 2008;122(9):845–56.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Mellor RM, et al. Receptionist rECognition and rEferral of Patients with Stroke (RECEPTS): unannounced simulated patient telephone call study in primary care. Br J Gen Pract. 2015;65(636):e421–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Mellor RM, et al. Receptionist rECognition and rEferral of Patients with Stroke (RECEPTS): unannounced simulated patient telephone call study in primary care. Br J Gen Pract. 2015;65(636):e421–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
go back to reference Sheppard JP, et al. Receptionist rECognition and rEferral of PaTients with Stroke (RECEPTS) study—protocol of a mixed methods study. BMC Fam Pract. 2014;15:91.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Sheppard JP, et al. Receptionist rECognition and rEferral of PaTients with Stroke (RECEPTS) study—protocol of a mixed methods study. BMC Fam Pract. 2014;15:91.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
go back to reference Ward J, McMurray R. The unspoken work of general practitioner receptionists: a re-examination of emotion management in primary care. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72(10):1583–7.CrossRefPubMed Ward J, McMurray R. The unspoken work of general practitioner receptionists: a re-examination of emotion management in primary care. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72(10):1583–7.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Baird B, et al. Understanding pressures in general practice, in Ideas that change health care. London: The King's Fund; 2016. Baird B, et al. Understanding pressures in general practice, in Ideas that change health care. London: The King's Fund; 2016.
14.
15.
go back to reference Litchfield I, et al. Routine failures in the process for blood testing and the communication of results to patients in primary care in the UK: a qualitative exploration of patient and provider perspectives. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015;24:681.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Litchfield I, et al. Routine failures in the process for blood testing and the communication of results to patients in primary care in the UK: a qualitative exploration of patient and provider perspectives. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015;24:681.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
go back to reference Hayes E. GP receptionists: their work and training. Health Visit. 1989;62(4):117–8.PubMed Hayes E. GP receptionists: their work and training. Health Visit. 1989;62(4):117–8.PubMed
18.
go back to reference Whittemore R, Knafl K. The integrative review: updated methodology. J Adv Nurs. 2005;52(5):546–53.CrossRefPubMed Whittemore R, Knafl K. The integrative review: updated methodology. J Adv Nurs. 2005;52(5):546–53.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Moher D, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535 Moher D, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535
21.
22.
go back to reference Conn VS, Rantz MJ. Research methods: managing primary study quality in meta-analyses. Res Nurs Health. 2003;26(4):322–33.CrossRefPubMed Conn VS, Rantz MJ. Research methods: managing primary study quality in meta-analyses. Res Nurs Health. 2003;26(4):322–33.CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Thomson R. Endnote x7: Windows Getting Started. Netherlands: Thomson Reuters; 2013. Thomson R. Endnote x7: Windows Getting Started. Netherlands: Thomson Reuters; 2013.
27.
go back to reference Noyes J, L. S. Chapter 5: Extracting qualitative evidence. In supplementary guidance for inclusion of qualitative research in Cochrane Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 1 Noyes J, et al., editors. London: Cochrane Collaboration Qualitative Methods Group; 2011. Noyes J, L. S. Chapter 5: Extracting qualitative evidence. In supplementary guidance for inclusion of qualitative research in Cochrane Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 1 Noyes J, et al., editors. London: Cochrane Collaboration Qualitative Methods Group; 2011.
28.
go back to reference QSR International Pty Ltd. NVivo qualitative data analysis software 2015. Accessed 15 May 2016. QSR International Pty Ltd. NVivo qualitative data analysis software 2015. Accessed 15 May 2016.
29.
go back to reference Litchfield I, et al. Protocol for using mixed methods and process improvement methodologies to explore primary care receptionist work. BMJ Open. 2016;6(11):e013240.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Litchfield I, et al. Protocol for using mixed methods and process improvement methodologies to explore primary care receptionist work. BMJ Open. 2016;6(11):e013240.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
go back to reference NHS. General Practice Forward View. 2016. Accessed 4 May 2016. NHS. General Practice Forward View. 2016. Accessed 4 May 2016.
Metadata
Title
Exploring the clinically orientated roles of the general practice receptionist: a systematic review protocol
Authors
Michael Burrows
Nicola Gale
Sheila Greenfield
Ian Litchfield
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0612-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Systematic Reviews 1/2017 Go to the issue