This site is intended for health professionals only


GP receptionists need more training and support to do clinical triage, finds study

GP receptionists need more training and support to do clinical triage, finds study

GP receptionists require specialised training and support for carrying out the clinical tasks now expected of them if primary care is to stem the ‘unprecedented numbers leaving the role’, a study has said.

Amid growing pressure on GP services, receptionists are increasingly targeted for abuse as they are required to take on clinical tasks, such as prioritising patients for appointments, without receiving proper support, the BGJP study published this week has said.

It is not only causing them anxiety and stress but has led to a situation where ‘turnover of reception staff is higher than at any point since records began’.

Researchers said the receptionist role is still being advertised as a non-clinical role despite expectations set out by NHS England that they support clinical care, and the fact their training has remained unchanged for decades.

A systematic review of research, believed to be the first exploring receptionists’ role in UK general practice, resulted in findings on three themes: the tasks performed by receptionists and impact on patient care; patient attitudes to receptionists; and receptionists’ experiences of the role.

It found that:

  • While receptionists’ job continues to include admin tasks such as filing, their role also involves clinically-related tasks such as prioritising patients’ for clinical appointments, communicating blood test results, and facilitating repeat prescriptions.
  • Receptionists felt confident about their admin role but uncertain, anxious or stressed about the clinically-related tasks. For example, when having to give blood test results that were abnormal or  when booking appointments patients felt should be more urgent or weren’t with their preferred clinician, causing conflict.
  • There is a lack of patient trust in receptionists’ judgement . Patients can be reluctant to provide clinical information and view receptionists as ‘unnecessarily obstructive when attempting to gain access to GPs’.
  • Total triage, introduced after the pandemic, and which required patients to provide reasons and symptoms for their request for a clinical appointment, formally involved reception staff but was ‘mandated without additional training for any practice staff, including receptionists’.
  • Despite patient abuse being on the rise since the pandemic, receptionists receive only informal support from colleagues and no training in coping with conflict.

The receptionist role is under recognised, the study added, despite them ‘ensuring general operated safely and effectively’.

‘This review confirms the pivotal role receptionists play in delivering safe and effective clinical care often without recognition or relevant support,’ researchers said.

And recent policy initiatives designed to improve patient access to primary care, including expansion of of the range of non-clinical roles (for example, via ARRS), have failed to ‘acknowledge the importance of receptionists’.

Authors said an ‘obvious step’ to improve GP receptionists’ job satisfaction and retention was developing a structured training programme or professionalisation of the role. It suggested that training covered safe prescribing practices, literacy in medical terminology, result communication or how to sensitively manage interactions with concerned or anxious patients.

They also called for more patient education to communicate the message that non-clinical roles such as receptionists or those employed via ARRS are capable of ‘supporting the most appropriate course of care and/ or support’.

The research concluded that: ‘With the growing, if controversial, integration of ARRS- funded non-clinical staff into primary care teams the time is right for policymakers, commissioners, and senior practice staff to reconsider the parameters of the role to include clinically relevant tasks, and explicitly recognise its value and the support and training needed to sustain it.’

The study reviewed evidence contained in the major medical databases from 2000 to 2024, which resulted in 29 receptionists studies being looked at and included participants drawn from receptionists, practice managers, GPs and patients.

Last year, the Institute of General Practice Management (IGPM) has a campaign encouraging patients to share details of their request with the front desk team, so receptionists can work with them to get the right care.

A version of this article was first published by Pulse’s sister title Management in Practice


          

READERS' COMMENTS [3]

Please note, only GPs are permitted to add comments to articles

Mark Hambly 18 February, 2025 2:32 pm

I rarely comment but I am so deeply worried about how much we are asking receptionists to carry and how poorly they are paid and prepared (never mind indemnified) that I have to.

We are asking non-medical people to be professional, friendly, calm, patient and reassuring in the face of a worried and sometimes aggressive public, whilst also clinically triaging them safely.

Our receptionists are the most important and irreplicable members of the practice. I can be replaced with a quick phone call to a locum agency, but not my receptionists – their organisational knowledge and skills are hard to attain and are a limited resource.

How does the NHS fund them? Appallingly, meaning most earn a few pence above minimum wage. They could all go and stack shelves in a warehouse on shift work and earn more money. Yet we are asking them to take more and more responsibility and abuse. Is this safe? Is it the right way to go? If so, should their role not be recognised as a clinically skilled triage role and funding increased?

Sorry to rant – happy for people to propose an alternative view but I can tell you I would not do what they do for what they get in return – both financially and thrown back in their faces by patients and the press.

Iain Chalmers 18 February, 2025 9:45 pm

I’m with MH & happy to be shot at as semi-retired ex Principle with personal list, in short triage should be done by those who know & have been trained for. Not script reading persons at 111 or staff with minimal/no back up IMHO

Alexander Liddle 19 February, 2025 11:08 pm

Well said both. To get the best out of triage requires skills an individual without a proper medical training cannot deliver. If it’s efficiency that wanted then use an ANP or even a GP to sift the wheat etc. As it is, many receptionists are directing patients to pharmacists or 111 and many pharmacists are directing patients to 111. No wonder ED is busy!