JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Abstract NHS England's early digital-first agenda has been absorbed into a broader reform of modern general practice built around multiple access routes, structured triage, and routine use of online consultation systems. The central question is therefore no longer whether digital access should exist, but under what conditions it improves care. This review reassesses digital-first primary care in England through the linked lenses of access, equity, communication, continuity, and trust. Recent UK evidence shows that digital routes can reduce friction for routine and bounded problems, improve administrative convenience, and widen options for contacting general practice. However, these gains are conditional rather than universal. Patients with limited digital confidence, language barriers, multimorbidity, or needs that are diagnostically or relationally complex are less well served when digital systems become the default route rather than one option within a broader access model. New English studies also show that patients judge access less by speed alone than by whether they can reach an appropriate professional in an acceptable mode and, where possible, maintain continuity with a known clinician. At the same time, staff studies indicate that digital access reform can redistribute work, create hidden facilitation labour, and strain relationships within practice teams. We argue that the most useful analytic and policy endpoint is no longer digital-first primary care, but patient-centred hybrid care. In this review, that term denotes a multi-channel model in which route of access, consultation modality, continuity, and safety are deliberately matched to patient need rather than subordinated to technological throughput. Future research should prioritize subgroup-sensitive outcomes, continuity, trust, safety, and implementation burden.