Background: Telemedicine has moved from an emergency substitute during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic to a permanent component of many family medicine and primary-care systems. Patient satisfaction and perceived consultation quality are central to judging whether remote consultation can be safely integrated into longitudinal, person-centred family practice. Objective: This systematic review synthesized evidence on patient satisfaction and perceived quality of telemedicine consultations in family medicine and primary-care settings. Methods: A structured literature search was designed in accordance with PRISMA 2020 principles and covered PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar from January 2020 to May 2026. Eligible studies were primary research articles involving adult patients receiving telephone, video, virtual-clinic, or asynchronous teleconsultation in family medicine, general practice, or primary-care clinics, with patient satisfaction, patient experience, communication quality, access, safety, or preference outcomes. Because of heterogeneity in instruments and reporting, findings were synthesized narratively. Results: Nine studies were included in the qualitative synthesis, representing diverse primary-care contexts in Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the Philippines, Iran, the United States, and broader outpatient telemedicine cohorts with direct relevance to primary-care redesign. Most studies reported high or generally favourable patient satisfaction, commonly driven by convenience, reduced travel and waiting burden, continuity of access, perceived safety during infection-risk periods, and acceptable communication with clinicians. Quality concerns were consistent across settings and included inability to perform physical examination, weaker relational depth in selected encounters, technical or internet limitations, privacy concerns, and lower satisfaction among older adults or patients who did not actively choose virtual care. Conclusion: Telemedicine consultations in family medicine are generally acceptable and often highly satisfying when used for appropriate visit types and supported by reliable infrastructure, clear triage, privacy safeguards, and access to face-to-face assessment when clinically needed. Future work should use standardized satisfaction and quality instruments, examine equity across age and digital-literacy groups, and evaluate long-term outcomes beyond pandemic-era implementation.