Download PDF
Appl Clin Inform 2025; 16(05): 1862-1880
DOI: 10.1055/a-2758-9634
Review Article

Actionable Mechanisms to Improve Patient Experience during Consultations: Scoping Review and Implications for Virtual Care

Authors

  • Kanesha Ward 

    1   Centre for Health Informatics, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

  • Ella Zurita 

    2   Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia

  • Saneeya Hussain 

    3   Department of Health Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

  • Sarah J. White 

    4   School of Clinical Medicine - Discipline of General Practice, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

  • Annie Y. S. Lau

    1   Centre for Health Informatics, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

Funding No funding was required for the completion of this scoping literature review. K.W. was supported with a Higher Degree Research - Research Excellence scholarship from Macquarie University and Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship. A.L. was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council grant (grant no.: APP1134919; Centre for Research Excellence in Digital Health), and the New South Wales Health Early-Mid Career Fellowship.
Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background

Patient experience mechanisms (e.g., safety netting, patient partnership) are routinely used by health care professionals (HCPs) to support high-quality care. However, there is limited synthesis of these mechanisms across studies, and little is known about how they translate to virtual care.

Objectives

This study aimed to conduct a scoping review to (1) identify mechanisms used by HCPs to enhance patient experience during consultations and (2) to consider how these may be adapted for virtual care delivery.

Methods

A scoping review using narrative synthesis. Studies were obtained from four databases (Ovid [MEDLINE], CINAHL Complete, Cochrane Library, and ProQuest) and gray literature. Three reviewers independently screened studies featuring HCP–patient interactions and discussion of patient experience mechanisms. The NHS Patient Experience Framework guided mechanism identification. Considerations for in-person and virtual care interactions were compared. Virtual care considerations were extracted from eligible studies and mapped to each of the mechanism categories.

Results

A total of 49 studies were included, mainly commentaries, guidelines, or executive summaries (20/49, 41%). Five categories of mechanisms were identified: clinician-focused (n = 5), patient-focused (n = 5), relationship/familial (n = 3), organizational (n = 6), and IT and digital (n = 3). The three most frequent actionable mechanisms were patient empowerment and engagement (49%, 24/49), patient education (41%, 20/49), and clinical organization and positive safety culture (41%, 20/49). For virtual care, key considerations included adapting communication and relationship-building mechanisms to virtual formats, supporting patient digital literacy, and maintaining continuity and trust during remote interactions. These mechanisms were supported by both direct, indirect, and inferred evidence.

Conclusion

To the best of our knowledge, this review provides the first structured mapping of patient experience mechanisms and considerations to virtual care contexts. Findings support HCPs and health systems in tailoring communication, relational, and digital strategies to enhance care across hybrid models. Continual reflection of what results in positive patient experiences is essential as we continue to transition to hybrid models of care.

Keywords

telemedicine and telehealth - patient–provider communications - patient engagement - consumer health informatics - patient - consumer health - consultation - patient experience

Protection of Human and Animal Subjects

Not required. No human subjects were involved in this project.


Authors' Contributions

K.W.: primary author of this review, contributing to the searches, selection process, data abstraction, critical appraisal, and synthesis of results; A.L.: primary supervisor to review the methodology and synthesis of all components of the review; S.H. and E.Z.: contributed to the article screening, selection processes of the review, and editing and review of the final manuscript; S.W.: contributed to analysis and synthesis of the review and editing and review of the final manuscript.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 29 July 2025

Accepted: 20 November 2025

Article published online:
18 December 2025

© 2025. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany