Digital First Primary Care for those with multiple long-term conditions: a rapid review of the views of stakeholders.

Background: General practices are facing challenges such as rising patient demand and difficulties recruiting and retaining general practitioners. Greater use of digital technology has been advocated as a way of mitigating some of these challenges and improving patient access. This includes Digital First Primary Care, when a patient's first contact with primary care is through a digital route, either through a laptop or smartphone. The use of Digital First Primary Care has been expedited since COVID-19. There is little evidence of staff experiences of using Digital First Primary Care with more complex patients, such as those with multiple long-term conditions. Objective: To understand the experiences of those with multiple long-term conditions of Digital First Primary Care from the perspectives of healthcare professionals and stakeholders. Design: This was a qualitative evaluation, comprised of four distinct work packages: Work package 1: Locating the study within the wider context, engaging with literature, and co-designing the study approach and research questions with patients. Work package 2: Interviews with health professionals working across general practice and key expert topic stakeholders, including academics and policy-makers. Work package 3: Analysis of data and generation of themes, and testing findings with patients. Work package 4: Synthesis, reporting and dissemination. Results: The study commenced in January 2021 and in total 28 interviews were conducted with 14 health professionals and 15 stakeholders between January and August 2022. From the perspective of health professionals, Digital First Primary Care approaches could enable patients to speak with a clinician more quickly than traditional approaches. Those with multiple long-term conditions could submit healthcare readings from home, though health professionals felt patients may struggle navigating digital systems not designed to capture the nuances associated with living with multiple conditions. Clinicians expressed preferences for seeing patients face-to-face, particularly those with multiple long-term conditions, to identify non-verbal cues about a patient's health. Digital First Primary Care approaches provided an opportunity for clinicians to engage with the carers of patients living with multiple long-term conditions, yet there were concerns around obtaining consent and confidentiality. There remain debates among stakeholders about the nature and extent to which Digital First Primary Care impacts on staff workload. Limitations: At the time of data collection, general practices were facing considerable pressure to deliver care and respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. While it was originally intended that the study would include interviews with patients with multiple long-term conditions and their carers, none of the general practices that took part in the study were willing and/or able to recruit patients and carers in the time available. Conclusions: The rapid implementation of Digital First Primary Care, at a time of immense pressures, meant there has been little time for considering the impact on patients, including those with multiple long-term conditions. The impacts on care continuity depended largely on how surgeries implemented their approaches. Staff and stakeholders felt that Digital First Primary Care, as an additional route for accessing primary care, could be useful for patients with multiple long-term conditions but not at the expense of face-to-face consultations. Future work: Future research obtaining patient and carer views of digital-first approaches, understanding the impacts on carers and how approaches are designed with patients with more complex conditions in mind, is essential. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 16/138/31) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 21. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Healthcare professionals want to provide the best primary care in the face of increasing pressures, as well as improve access to care for patients. Digital First Primary Care is one response to this situation, when a patients' first contact with primary care is through a digital route, either through a laptop or smartphone. Online systems allow the patient to provide information to their practice about their symptoms or needs and request a response from a health professional. Our study aimed to understand how Digital First Primary Care works for healthcare professionals providing care to increasing numbers of patients with multiple long-term conditions and their carers. Firstly, we examined the relatively limited existing findings and then interviewed healthcare professionals and key stakeholders experienced in digital approaches within primary care (e.g. from policy organisations, universities and the National Health Service). While we attempted to speak to patients and carers directly, unfortunately the pressures in general practice meant we were unable to do so. However, the study was co-designed with patients. Healthcare professionals and stakeholders felt that patients with multiple long-term conditions faced additional challenges with the use of Digital First Primary Care compared to other patients. For example, they reported difficulties navigating online forms and not being able to speak with a general practitioner who knew them well. There were differing views from healthcare professionals and stakeholders about how far Digital First Primary Care could help staff in general practice and enhance care. For some clinicians, the workload was easier to manage and some simple tasks (e.g. sick notes) could be completed quickly. This could reduce stress for staff and mean more patients could be seen per day. Others felt that the digital system had shortcomings. This could be important for patients with multiple long-term conditions; for example, when a digital form may not fully inform the general practitioner as to the exact nature of the problem, potentially requiring a further follow-up appointment. Health professionals reported that carers of patients with multiple long-term conditions generally liked the new systems as they helped to improve contact with general practice staff. The summary was co-authored by members of the BRACE Patient and Public Involvement group.

Supporting patients with a mental health diagnosis to use online services in primary care. A qualitative interview study.

Objective: The increase in reliance on online services for general practice has the potential to increase inequalities within some populations. Patients with a mental health condition are one such group. Digital facilitation is defined as a range of processes, procedures, and people, which seek to support NHS patients in using online services. This study aimed to examine the views and experiences of digital facilitation in primary care amongst patients living with a mental health condition. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients living with a mental health condition, recruited from general practices across England participating in the Di-Facto study. Thematic analysis was conducted on interview transcripts. Results: Interviews were conducted with ten participants with a mental health condition, recruited from five general practices. Three themes were identified: (1) familiarity with online services; (2) experiences of those using online services; (3) the need for digital facilitation. The need for digital facilitation was identified in the registration for online services, and in trusting online services. Conclusions: Online services offer convenience for patients, but registration for the use of such services remains a potential area of difficulty. Participants had difficulties with registering for online services and had concerns about trust in using them. Support offered by general practices in using online services needs to be varied and adaptable to meet the needs of individual patients.

Implementing mental health support teams in schools and colleges: the perspectives of programme implementers and service providers.

Background: Between 2018 and 2025, a national implementation programme is funding more than 500 new mental health support teams (MHSTs) in England, to work in education settings to deliver evidence-based interventions to children with mild to moderate mental health problems and support emotional wellbeing for all pupils. A new role, education mental health practitioner (EMHP), has been created for the programme.Aims: A national evaluation explored the development, implementation and early progress of 58 MHSTs in the programme's first 25 'Trailblazer' sites. This paper reports the views and experiences of people involved in MHST design, implementation and service delivery at a local, regional and national level.Methods: Data are reported from in-depth interviews with staff in five Trailblazer sites (n = 71), and the programme's regional (n = 52) and national leads (n = 21).Results: Interviewees universally welcomed the creation of MHSTs, but there was a lack of clarity about their purpose, concerns that the standardised CBT interventions being offered were not working well for some children, and challenges retaining EMHPs.Conclusions: This study raises questions about MHSTs' service scope, what role they should play in addressing remaining gaps in mental health provision, and how EMHPs can develop the skills to work effectively with diverse groups.

GPs' and practice staff's views of a telephone first approach to demand management: a qualitative study in primary care.

BACKGROUND: To better manage patient demand, some general practices have implemented a 'telephone first' approach in which all patients seeking a face-to-face appointment first have to speak to a GP on the telephone. Previous studies have suggested that there is considerable scope for this new approach, but there remain significant concerns. AIM: To understand the views of GPs and practice staff of the telephone first approach, and to identify enablers and barriers to successful adoption of the approach. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative study of the telephone first approach in 12 general practices that have adopted it, and two general practices that have tried the approach but reverted to their previous system. METHOD: A total of 53 qualitative interviews with GPs and practice staff were conducted. Transcriptions of the interviews were systematically analysed. RESULTS: Staff in the majority of practices reported that the approach was an improvement on their previous system, but all practices experienced challenges; for example, where practices did not have the capacity to meet the increase in demand for telephone consultations. Staff were also aware that the new system suited some patients better than others. Adoption of the telephone first approach could be very stressful, with a negative impact on morale, especially reported in interviews with the two practices that had tried but stopped the approach. Interviewees identified enablers and barriers to the successful adoption of a telephone first approach in primary care. Enablers to successful adoption were: understanding demand, practice staff as pivotal, making modifications to the approach, and educating patients. CONCLUSION: Practices considering adopting or clinical commissioning groups considering funding a telephone first approach should consider carefully a practice's capacity and capability before launching.

The Evaluation of Physicians' Communication Skills From Multiple Perspectives.

PURPOSE: To examine how family physicians', patients', and trained clinical raters' assessments of physician-patient communication compare by analysis of individual appointments. METHODS: Analysis of survey data from patients attending face-to-face appointments with 45 family physicians at 13 practices in England. Immediately post-appointment, patients and physicians independently completed a questionnaire including 7 items assessing communication quality. A sample of videotaped appointments was assessed by trained clinical raters, using the same 7 communication items. Patient, physician, and rater communication scores were compared using correlation coefficients. RESULTS: Included were 503 physician-patient pairs; of those, 55 appointments were also evaluated by trained clinical raters. Physicians scored themselves, on average, lower than patients (mean physician score 74.5; mean patient score 94.4); 63.4% (319) of patient-reported scores were the maximum of 100. The mean of rater scores from 55 appointments was 57.3. There was a near-zero correlation coefficient between physician-reported and patient-reported communication scores (0.009, P = .854), and between physician-reported and trained rater-reported communication scores (-0.006, P = .69). There was a moderate and statistically significant association, however, between patient and trained-rater scores (0.35, P = .042). CONCLUSIONS: The lack of correlation between physician scores and those of others indicates that physicians' perceptions of good communication during their appointments may differ from those of external peer raters and patients. Physicians may not be aware of how patients experience their communication practices; peer assessment of communication skills is an important approach in identifying areas for improvement.

Qualitative study of patient views on a 'telephone-first' approach in general practice in England: speaking to the GP by telephone before making face-to-face appointments.

OBJECTIVE: To understand patients' views on a 'telephone-first' approach, in which all appointment requests in general practice are followed by a telephone call from the general practitioner (GP). DESIGN: Qualitative interviews with patients and carers. SETTING: Twelve general practices in England. PARTICIPANTS: 43 patients, including 30 women, nine aged over 75 years, four parents of young children, five carers, five patients with hearing impairment and two whose first language was not English. RESULTS: Patients expressed varied views, often strongly held, ranging from enthusiasm for to hostility towards the 'telephone-first' approach. The new system suited some patients, avoiding the need to come into the surgery but was problematic for others, for example, when it was difficult for someone working in an open plan office to take a call-back. A substantial proportion of negative comments were about the operation of the scheme itself rather than the principles behind it, for example, difficulty getting through on the phone or being unable to schedule when the GP would phone back. Some practices were able to operate the scheme in a way that met their patients' needs better than others and practices varied significantly in how they had implemented the approach. CONCLUSIONS: The 'telephone-first' approach appears to work well for some patients, but others find it much less acceptable. Some of the reported problems related to how the approach had been implemented rather than the 'telephone-first' approach in principle and suggests there may be potential for some of the challenges experienced by patients to be overcome.

Evaluation of telephone first approach to demand management in English general practice: observational study.

Objective To evaluate a "telephone first" approach, in which all patients wanting to see a general practitioner (GP) are asked to speak to a GP on the phone before being given an appointment for a face to face consultation.Design Time series and cross sectional analysis of routine healthcare data, data from national surveys, and primary survey data.Participants 147 general practices adopting the telephone first approach compared with a 10% random sample of other practices in England.Intervention Management support for workload planning and introduction of the telephone first approach provided by two commercial companies.Main outcome measures Number of consultations, total time consulting (59 telephone first practices, no controls). Patient experience (GP Patient Survey, telephone first practices plus controls). Use and costs of secondary care (hospital episode statistics, telephone first practices plus controls). The main analysis was intention to treat, with sensitivity analyses restricted to practices thought to be closely following the companies' protocols.Results After the introduction of the telephone first approach, face to face consultations decreased considerably (adjusted change within practices -38%, 95% confidence interval -45% to -29%; P<0.001). An average practice experienced a 12-fold increase in telephone consultations (1204%, 633% to 2290%; P<0.001). The average duration of both telephone and face to face consultations decreased, but there was an overall increase of 8% in the mean time spent consulting by GPs, albeit with large uncertainty on this estimate (95% confidence interval -1% to 17%; P=0.088). These average workload figures mask wide variation between practices, with some practices experiencing a substantial reduction in workload and others a large increase. Compared with other English practices in the national GP Patient Survey, in practices using the telephone first approach there was a large (20.0 percentage points, 95% confidence interval 18.2 to 21.9; P<0.001) improvement in length of time to be seen. In contrast, other scores on the GP Patient Survey were slightly more negative. Introduction of the telephone first approach was followed by a small (2.0%) increase in hospital admissions (95% confidence interval 1% to 3%; P=0.006), no initial change in emergency department attendance, but a small (2% per year) decrease in the subsequent rate of rise of emergency department attendance (1% to 3%; P=0.005). There was a small net increase in secondary care costs.Conclusions The telephone first approach shows that many problems in general practice can be dealt with over the phone. The approach does not suit all patients or practices and is not a panacea for meeting demand. There was no evidence to support claims that the approach would, on average, save costs or reduce use of secondary care.

Wasting the doctor's time? A video-elicitation interview study with patients in primary care.

Reaching a decision about whether and when to visit the doctor can be a difficult process for the patient. An early visit may cause the doctor to wonder why the patient chose to consult when the disease was self-limiting and symptoms would have settled without medical input. A late visit may cause the doctor to express dismay that the patient waited so long before consulting. In the UK primary care context of constrained resources and government calls for cautious healthcare spending, there is all the more pressure on both doctor and patient to meet only when necessary. A tendency on the part of health professionals to judge patients' decisions to consult as appropriate or not is already described. What is less well explored is the patient's experience of such judgment. Drawing on data from 52 video-elicitation interviews conducted in the English primary care setting, the present paper examines how patients seek to legitimise their decision to consult, and their struggles in doing so. The concern over wasting the doctor's time is expressed repeatedly through patients' narratives. Referring to the sociological literature, the history of 'trivia' in defining the role of general practice is discussed, and current public discourses seeking to assist the patient in developing appropriate consulting behaviour are considered and problematised. Whilst the patient is expected to have sufficient insight to inform timely consulting behaviour, it becomes clear that any attempt on the part of doctor or patient to define legitimate help-seeking is in fact elusive. Despite this, a significant moral dimension to what is deemed appropriate consulting by doctors and patients remains. The notion of candidacy is suggested as a suitable framework and way forward for encompassing these struggles to negotiate eligibility for medical time.

Barriers and facilitators to integrating care: experiences from the English Integrated Care Pilots.

BACKGROUND: In 2008, the English Department of Health appointed 16 'Integrated Care Pilots' which used a range of approaches to provide better integrated care. We report qualitative analyses from a three-year multi-method evaluation to identify barriers and facilitators to successful integration of care. THEORY AND METHODS: Data were analysed from transcripts of 213 in-depth staff interviews, and from semi-structured questionnaires (the 'Living Document') completed by staff in pilot sites at six points over a two-year period. Emerging findings were therefore built from 'bottom up' and grounded in the data. However, we were then interested in how these findings compared and contrasted with more generic analyses. Therefore after our analyses were complete we then systematically compared and contrasted the findings with the analysis of barriers and facilitators to quality improvement identified in a systematic review by Kaplan et al. (2010) and the analysis of more micro-level shapers of behaviour found in Normalisation Process Theory (May et al. 2007). Neither of these approaches claims to be full blown theories but both claim to provide mid-range theoretical arguments which may be used to structure existing data and which can be undercut or reinforced by new data. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Many barriers and facilitators to integrating care are those of any large-scale organisational change. These include issues relating to leadership, organisational culture, information technology, physician involvement, and availability of resources. However, activities which appear particularly important for delivering integrated care include personal relationships between leaders in different organisations, the scale of planned activities, governance and finance arrangements, support for staff in new roles, and organisational and staff stability. We illustrate our analyses with a 'routemap' which identifies questions that providers may wish to consider when planning interventions to improve the integration of care.

International Variation in the Usage of Medicines: A Review of the Literature.

This article describes a review of the published and grey literature on international variation in the use of medicines in six areas (osteoporosis, atypical anti-psychotics, dementia, rheumatoid arthritis, cardiovascular disease/lipid-regulating drugs (statins), and hepatitis C). We identify three broad groups of determinants of international variation in medicines use: (1) Macro- or system level factors: Differences in reimbursement policies, and the role of health technology assessment, were highlighted as a likely driving force of international variation in almost all areas of medicines use reviewed. A related aspect is patient co-payment, which is likely to play an important role in the United States in particular. The extent to which cost-sharing policies impact on overall use of medicines in international comparison remains unclear. (2) Service organisation and delivery: Differences in access to specialists are a likely driver of international variation in areas such as atypical anti-psychotics, dementia, and rheumatic arthritis, with for example access to and availability of relevant specialists identified as acting as a crucial bottleneck for accessing treatment for dementia and rheumatoid arthritis. (3) Clinical practice: Studies highlighted the role of variation in the use and ascertainment methods for mental disorders; differences in the use of clinical or practice guidelines; differences in prescribing patterns; and reluctance among clinicians in some countries to take up newer medicines. Each of these factors is likely to play a role in explaining international variation in medicines use, but their relative importance will vary depending on the disease area in question and the system context.

'I'm fine doing it on my own': partnerships between young people and their parents in the management of medication for asthma and diabetes.

Recent UK policy has highlighted the importance of a young person's family in their care and the need for health professionals to work in partnership with young people and their parents. This research provides health professionals with an insight into how the responsibilities for different aspects of medicine management are shared between young people and their parents in the home. It highlights the dynamic nature of partnerships between parents and young people and the considerable role of young people in medicine management in the home, which contrasts with their more limited involvement in consultations with health care professionals. The findings are based on semi-structured interviews conducted in the participants' own homes, with 69 young people aged 8-15 years (43 young people with asthma; 26 young people with diabetes) and their parents (138 interviews in total), recruited through general practice (GP) surgeries.

Lay-led self-management in chronic illness: a review of the evidence.

OBJECTIVES: In this paper, we seek to clarify what is known about self-care in chronic illness and the impact of lay-led self-management programmes. The main focus of the paper is the specific 'lay-led' interventions developed by Kate Lorig and her collaborators in the USA, and in the context of the English Expert Patients Programme (EPP). METHODS: A systematic search of relevant databases was undertaken. RESULTS: Seventeen articles and two conference papers met the criteria set. These papers documented the use of condition-specific lay-led self-management programmes and generic lay-led self-management programmes. DISCUSSION: Despite the potential benefits of enhanced self-management, the review of the literature presented here suggests several possible problems associated with the presentation and implementation of initiatives such as the EPP programme. These include the possibility that advocates of public service improvements have on occasion been tempted to overstate the evidence for the relative and absolute effectiveness of lay-led self-management programmes. In addition, the varied experiences of those living with a chronic illness warn against promulgating rigid prescriptions about what patients -should think and do. The evidence to date is indicative of short-term benefits being derived from the provision of lay-led self-management programmes.