Impact of the clinically oriented roles of a general practice receptionist: a systematic review with narrative synthesis.

Abstract

Modern general practice is characterised by increased demand and growing multidisciplinarity, including ring-fenced funding for additional non-clinical roles. For practice receptionists, however, training has remained unchanged for decades despite primary care being under greater pressure than ever, with receptionists becoming a growing focal point for abuse and unprecedented numbers leaving the role. To present the evidence of the range of tasks that receptionists continue to perform, describing their impact on primary care delivery and how the role might be better supported. Systematic review of research conducted in the UK. A systematic review of evidence contained in the major medical databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, ASSIA, Cochrane Library, and Embase) from January 2000 to March 2024 was conducted, including hand searches of the bibliographies of included studies. In total, 29 studies were identified that grouped into three themes: service delivery, patient attitudes, and receptionist experience. The theme 'service delivery' confirms the continuing role of receptionists in providing administrative support alongside the clinical tasks of prioritising patients for consultations, facilitating repeat prescriptions, and communicating blood test results. The theme 'patient attitudes' describes how patients lacked trust in receptionists, who were viewed as unqualified and unnecessarily obstructive. Finally, in considering receptionist experience, the contrast between their confidence in performing administrative roles and the anxiety induced from the clinically related tasks was described, particularly the mounting pressure from patients to meet their preferences for clinician appointments. Although confident performing administrative tasks, receptionists described uncertainty and anxiety when providing clinically oriented support or managing patients when their requests for appointments could not be met. More appropriate training or professionalisation might improve staff retainment.