Adjudications and tinkering with care for socially vulnerable patients with type 2 diabetes in general practice.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the mechanisms at play in the adjudications made by professionals and socially vulnerable patients with type 2 diabetes about their eligibility for care. DESIGN, SETTING AND SUBJECTS: The study included 14 patients and 10 health professionals in seven general practice surgeries in deprived areas in Greater Copenhagen. The study data consist of 17 semi-structured interviews with patients and 22 with health professionals immediately after observation of 23 consultations. Our analytical approach was inspired by Systematic Text Condensation and the concept of 'candidacy' for access to health care. RESULTS: Adjudications of patients not being candidates for services were common, but we also found that both patients and health professionals worked to align the services to the needs of the patients. This could include using services differently than was intended by the providers or by changing routines to make it easier for patients to use the services. We discuss these processes as 'tinkering'. This usually implies that the best individual solution for the patient is aimed for, and in this study, the best solution sometimes meant not focusing on diabetes. CONCLUSION: The study adds to existing knowledge about access to services for socially vulnerable patients by demonstrating that both patients and professionals in general practice engage in tinkering processes to make services work.

Unequal use and benefits of health services play a significant role in relation to social inequality in healthFlexibility in services and alternatives to school-like rehabilitation are needed to reduce inequality in access to health carePatients were sometimes judged as unsuitable for available routine services, but professionals 'tinkered' with services to make them fitAdaptation of services by professionals in general practice implies a longer time frame for obtaining goals.

Guidance for Implementing Video Consultations in Danish General Practice: Rapid Cycle Coproduction Study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has changed various spheres of health care. General practitioners (GPs) have widely replaced face-to-face consultations with telephone or video consultations (VCs) to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission. Using VCs for health service delivery is an entirely new way of practicing for many GPs. However, this transition process has largely been conducted with no formal guidelines, which may have caused implementation barriers. This study presents a rapid cycle coproduction approach for developing a guide to assist VC implementation in general practice. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to describe the developmental phases of the VC guide to assist general practices in implementing VCs and summarize the evaluation made by general practice users. METHODS: The development of a guide for VC in general practice was structured as a stepped process based on the coproduction and prototyping processes. We used an iterative framework based on rapid qualitative analyses and interdisciplinary collaborations. Thus, the guide was developed in small, repeated cycles of development, implementation, evaluation, and adaptation, with a continuous exchange between research and practice. The data collection process was structured in 3 main phases. First, we conducted a literature review, recorded observations, and held informal and semistructured interviews. Second, we facilitated coproduction with stakeholders through 4 workshops with GPs, a group interview with patient representatives, and individual revisions by GPs. Third, nationwide testing was conducted in 5 general practice clinics and was followed by an evaluation of the guide through interviews with GPs. RESULTS: A rapid cycle coproduction approach was used to explore the needs of general practice in connection with the implementation of VC and to develop useful, relevant, and easily understandable guiding materials. Our findings suggest that a guide for VCs should include advice and recommendations regarding the organization of VCs, the technical setup, the appropriate target groups, patients' use of VCs, the performance of VCs, and the arrangements for booking a VC. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of coproduction, prototyping, small iterations, and rapid data analysis is a suitable approach when contextually rich, hands-on guide materials are urgently needed. Moreover, this method could provide an efficient way of developing relevant guide materials for general practice to aid the implementation of new technology beyond the pandemic period.