See the published version of this article at BMC Family Practice.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Ian Litchfield
University of Birmingham College of Medical and Dental Sciences
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1169-5392
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at BMC Family Practice.
Background Amidst increased pressures on General Practice across England, the receptionist continues to fulfil key administrative and clinically related tasks. The need for more robust support for these key personnel to ensure they stay focussed and motivated is apparent, however, to be effective a more systematic understanding of the parameters of their work is required. Here we present a valuable insight into the tasks they fulfil, their relationship with colleagues and their organisation and their attitudes and behaviour at work collectively defined as their ‘work design’.
Methods Our aim was to quantitatively assess the various characteristics of receptionists in primary care in England using the validated Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ) a 21 point validated questionnaire, divided into four categories: task, knowledge and social characteristics and work context with a series of sub-categories within each, disseminated online and as a postal questionnaire to 100 practices nationally.
Results Seventy participants completed the WDQ, 54 online and 16 using the postal questionnaire with the response rate for the latter being 3.1%. The WDQ suggested receptionists experience high levels of task variety, task significance and of information processing and knowledge demands, confirming the high cognitive load placed on receptionists by performing numerous yet significant tasks. Perhaps in relation to these substantial responsibilities a reliance on colleagues for support and feedback to help negotiate this workload was reported.
Conclusion The evidence of our survey suggests that the role of modern GP receptionists requires an array of skills to accommodate various administrative, communicative, problem solving, and decision-making duties. There are ways in which the role might be better supported for example devising ways to separate complex tasks to avoid the errors involved with high cognitive load, providing informal feedback, and perhaps most importantly developing training programmes.
Keywords
Primary care, Health service delivery, Quantitative research
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
Version 3
Posted 19 Jun, 2020
Published
On 10 Jul, 2020
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 19 Jun, 2020
Editor assigned
On 18 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 17 Jun, 2020
Editor invited
On 17 Jun, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 04 Jun, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 04 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 01 May, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 09 Mar, 2020
Editor assigned
On 28 Feb, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 27 Feb, 2020
Editor invited
On 27 Feb, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 09 Jan, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 17 Dec, 2019
Review #2 received
Received 12 Dec, 2019
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 22 Nov, 2019
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 21 Nov, 2019
Review #1 received
Received 15 Nov, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 15 Oct, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 26 Aug, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 16 Aug, 2019
Editor invited
On 16 Aug, 2019
Editor assigned
On 01 Jul, 2019
First submitted
On 26 Jun, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
General Practice
Learn more about our company.
This preprint is under consideration at BMC Family Practice. A preprint is a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Ian Litchfield
University of Birmingham College of Medical and Dental Sciences
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1169-5392
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
Version 3
Posted 19 Jun, 2020
Published
On 10 Jul, 2020
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 19 Jun, 2020
Editor assigned
On 18 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 17 Jun, 2020
Editor invited
On 17 Jun, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 04 Jun, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 04 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 01 May, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 09 Mar, 2020
Editor assigned
On 28 Feb, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 27 Feb, 2020
Editor invited
On 27 Feb, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 09 Jan, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 17 Dec, 2019
Review #2 received
Received 12 Dec, 2019
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 22 Nov, 2019
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 21 Nov, 2019
Review #1 received
Received 15 Nov, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 15 Oct, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 26 Aug, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 16 Aug, 2019
Editor invited
On 16 Aug, 2019
Editor assigned
On 01 Jul, 2019
First submitted
On 26 Jun, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
General Practice
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at BMC Family Practice.
Background Amidst increased pressures on General Practice across England, the receptionist continues to fulfil key administrative and clinically related tasks. The need for more robust support for these key personnel to ensure they stay focussed and motivated is apparent, however, to be effective a more systematic understanding of the parameters of their work is required. Here we present a valuable insight into the tasks they fulfil, their relationship with colleagues and their organisation and their attitudes and behaviour at work collectively defined as their ‘work design’.
Methods Our aim was to quantitatively assess the various characteristics of receptionists in primary care in England using the validated Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ) a 21 point validated questionnaire, divided into four categories: task, knowledge and social characteristics and work context with a series of sub-categories within each, disseminated online and as a postal questionnaire to 100 practices nationally.
Results Seventy participants completed the WDQ, 54 online and 16 using the postal questionnaire with the response rate for the latter being 3.1%. The WDQ suggested receptionists experience high levels of task variety, task significance and of information processing and knowledge demands, confirming the high cognitive load placed on receptionists by performing numerous yet significant tasks. Perhaps in relation to these substantial responsibilities a reliance on colleagues for support and feedback to help negotiate this workload was reported.
Conclusion The evidence of our survey suggests that the role of modern GP receptionists requires an array of skills to accommodate various administrative, communicative, problem solving, and decision-making duties. There are ways in which the role might be better supported for example devising ways to separate complex tasks to avoid the errors involved with high cognitive load, providing informal feedback, and perhaps most importantly developing training programmes.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Loading...