Abstract
Aim To explore Ontario primary care physician and nurse practitioner experiences with, and perceptions of, digital self-triage patient navigator tools, and to identify implications for future design and implementation.
Background Purported benefits of digital self-triage tools include triage any time/place, easily updated triage logic, and reduced primary care demand. The COVID-19 pandemic provided a particularly important context for studying digital self-triage; primary care clinicians are an important group to learn from, but their perspectives have received little attention.
Methods We interviewed fourteen Ontario family physicians/nurse practitioners in Spring 2021 using semi-structured interviews. We asked about experiences with, and perceptions of, digital self-triage tools, including the province’s centralized tool. Interview data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.
Findings Participants had limited awareness of the provincial tool. They had greater awareness of locally developed tools that were intended to mimic the provincial tool’s logic, but that were integrated into primary care. Respondents noted local tools were embedded in EMR systems, enabled scheduling, and were designed by others they knew and trusted. Respondents preferred self-assessment tools positioned as adjuncts to, rather than replacements for, clinical care, due to concerns about coordination and continuity of care. Concerns centred on tool efficacy, user input and interpretation, and access and equity.
Conclusions This study highlights a gap between stand-alone digital self-triage tools (meant to reduce demand on primary care) and primary care. Locally developed tools intended to mimic that centralized tool, but integrated into primary care, are preferred. This aids primary care coordination and workflows but undermines ability to provide standardized triage anywhere, at any time, via a centralized tool, key benefits of digital self-triage. Future self-triage tools may be more effective if centrally maintained, but interoperable with local systems, developed with physician input, and customizable to support clinical workflows and continuity of care.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
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 was received from the University of Western Ontario Health Science Research Ethics Board, reference number 118202.
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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵** Current appointment: Department of Nursing, University of Windsor, Windsor ON
↵*** Current appointment: Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Western University, London ON
The revised manuscript sharpens the paper's central findings, particularly around how providers feel about digital self-triage more generally, without changing the underlying data or sample (14 Ontario family physicians/NPs, Spring 2021 interviews). The title now explicitly names nurse practitioners as study participants, better reflecting the actual sample (12 physicians, 2 NPs) and broadening the framing from "family physicians" to "primary care" perspectives throughout. We restructured themes for clarity, especially on general attitudes toward self-triage: The most substantive change is in Theme 2/3. In the original version, "perceived value" was framed somewhat dichotomously across two subthemes (tools playing a positive public health role vs. being supportive-but-not-a-substitute). The revised version replaces this with a single, more nuanced theme (Participants were selectively open to digital self-assessment in primary care) that better captures the conditional, mixed nature of provider attitudes (e.g., openness to self-triage for specific conditions, interest in chatbot-assisted triage, but resistance to tools replacing physician judgment). This directly addresses the goal of clarifying how providers feel about self-triage as a general concept rather than presenting split findings. In addition, three concerns sub-themes were relabeled and reorganized for precision. The abstract and conclusions were revised to match the new theme structure and to state findings more directly (e.g., "digital self-assessment tools appear most acceptable in primary care when used as adjuncts to clinical care rather than substitutes"). Discussion was strengthened with new evidence: Several new citations were added (e.g., on symptom-checker performance variability, human-centered design, pre-consultation history-taking systems, UK triage-GP models) to better ground physicians' stated concerns and preferences in existing literature.
Data Availability
This project received ethics approval from Western University Health Science Research Ethics Board. The Letter of Information (LOI) that participants signed says no identifiable data will be shared outside the research team. Given in-depth interviews, the nature of our data does not allow us to completely disentangle possibly identifiable information from the dataset, so we cannot share that in a repository and abide by our LOI. Many de-identified excerpts from interviews are found within the manuscript. Researchers requesting access to the data more broadly should reach out to Western University Health Science Ethics Review Board at ethics{at}uwo.ca.
Funder Information Declared
