Abstract
Introduction Online NHS111 was introduced in 2018 in response to increasing and unsustainable demand for Telephone NHS111. We explored user and staff perspectives of telephone and online NHS111 to understand how the two services were used, and whether and how online NHS111 had potential to reduce demand for telephone NHS111.
Methods We used a convergent parallel mixed methods design, using data from the national online NHS 111 user survey and telephone user survey for 2 NHS 111 areas and semi-structured interviews with 32 recent users of online 111 and 16 NHS 111 staff. We analysed survey data for 3728 online users and 795 telephone users in SPSS, using chi-squared test for proportions and adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity and presence of long-term conditions. Qualitative data was analysed using Framework Analysis.
Results Telephone NHS111 health adviser skills in probing and obtaining ‘soft information’ were key to obtaining advice that was considered more appropriate and trusted than advice from online interactions, which relied on over-simplified or inappropriate questions. Telephone users were more satisfied with NHS111 than online users for all comparable measures, reported higher compliance with advice and were more likely to say they would have contacted another service if they hadn’t used NHS111 (p<0.001).
Online NHS111 was perceived to provide a useful and convenient adjunct to the telephone service and widened access to NHS111 services for some subgroups of users who would not otherwise access the telephone service (e.g. communication barriers, social anxiety), or were concerned about ‘bothering’ a health professional. The nature of the online consultation meant that online NHS111 was perceived as more disposable and used more speculatively.
Conclusion Online 111 was perceived as a useful adjunct but not replacement for telephone NHS 111 with potential for channel shift hindered by reduced confidence in the online service.
What is already known on this topic
Online NHS111 was introduced in the UK in 2018 to reduce unsustainable demand on the NHS111 telephone service.
Quantitative routine data analysis showed that the introduction of online NHS111 had limited impact on demand for the NHS111 telephone service but does not explain how or why ‘channel shift’ of demand from the NHS111 telephone service may not be happening.
What this study adds
Users trusted and followed advice from telephone NHS111 more than online NHS111 due to the human interactions involved in answering questions appropriately.
Online NHS111 was used more speculatively and advice potentially seen as more ‘disposable’ due to the lack of contact with health professionals.
The introduction of online NHS111 improved overall access to NHS111 services for a subset of users.
How this study might affect research, policy, practice
Online triage has limited potential for shifting demand due to ambiguity in algorithm question wording.
Refinement of questioning will be required for online NHS 111 to increase in value and use for people with multimorbidity and long-term conditions. A hybrid option whereby online users can clarify question meaning using live chat options may improve the usefulness of online NHS111.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The study was funded by National Institute for Health Research (NIHR HSDR 127655)
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics approval for the interview-based work with service users and stakeholders was granted by North West Haydock Research Ethics Committee (reference 19.NW/0361). The University of Sheffield Research Ethics Committee granted ethics approval for the telephone and online NHS 111 user surveys (reference 030991)
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript
