Access and triage in contemporary general practice: A novel theory of digital candidacy.

To access contemporary healthcare, patients must find and navigate a complex socio-technical network of human and digital actors linked in multi-modal pathways. Asynchronous, digitally-mediated triage decisions have largely replaced synchronous conversations between humans. In this paper, we draw on a large qualitative dataset from a multi-site study of remote and digital technologies in general practice to understand widening inequities of access. We theorise our data by bringing together traditional candidacy theory (in particular, concepts of self-assessment, help-seeking, adjudication and negotiation) and socio-technical and technology structuration theories (in particular, concepts of user configuration, articulation, distanciation, disembedding, and recursivity), thus producing a novel theory of digital candidacy. We propose that both human and technological actors (in different ways) embody social structures which affect how they 'act' in social situations. Digital technologies contain inbuilt assumptions about users' capabilities, needs, rights, and skills. Patients' ability to self-assess as sick, access digital platforms, self-advocate, and navigate multiple stages in the pathway, including adapting to and compensating for limitations in the technology, vary widely and are markedly patterned by disadvantage. Not every patient can craft an accurate digital facsimile on which the subsequent adjudication decision will be made; those who create incomplete, flawed or unpersuasive digital facsimiles may be deprioritised or misdirected. Staff who know about such patients may use articulation measures to ensure a personalised and appropriate access package, but they cannot identify or fully mitigate all such cases. The decisions and actions of human and technological agents at the time of an attempt to access care can significantly influence, disrupt, and reconstitute candidacy both immediately and recursively over time, and also recursively shape the system itself. These findings underscore the need for services to be (co-)designed with attention to the exclusionary tendencies of digital technologies and technology-supported processes and pathways.

Clinical risk in remote consultations in general practice: findings from in-COVID-19 pandemic qualitative research.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic-related rise in remote consulting raises questions about the nature and type of risks in remote general practice. AIM: To develop an empirically based and theory-informed taxonomy of risks associated with remote consultations. DESIGN & SETTING: Qualitative sub-study of data selected from the wider datasets of three large, multi-site, mixed-method studies of remote care in general practice before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews and focus groups, with a total of 176 clinicians and 43 patients. Data were analysed thematically, taking account of an existing framework of domains of clinical risk. RESULTS: The COVID-19 pandemic brought changes to estates (for example, how waiting rooms were used), access pathways, technologies, and interpersonal interactions. Six domains of risk were evident in relation to the following: (1) practice set-up and organisation (including digital inequalities of access, technology failure, and reduced service efficiency); (2) communication and the clinical relationship (including a shift to more transactional consultations); (3) quality of clinical care (including missed diagnoses, safeguarding challenges, over-investigation, and over-treatment); (4) increased burden on the patient (for example, to self-examine and navigate between services); (5) reduced opportunities for screening and managing the social determinants of health; and (6) workforce (including increased clinician stress and fewer opportunities for learning). CONCLUSION: Notwithstanding potential benefits, if remote consultations are to work safely, risks must be actively mitigated by measures that include digital inclusion strategies, enhanced safety-netting, and training and support for staff.

Protocol: Remote care as the 'new normal'? Multi-site case study in UK general practice.

Background: Following a pandemic-driven shift to remote service provision, UK general practices offer telephone, video or online consultation options alongside face-to-face. This study explores practices' varied experiences over time as they seek to establish remote forms of accessing and delivering care. Methods: This protocol is for a mixed-methods multi-site case study with co-design and national stakeholder engagement. 11 general practices were selected for diversity in geographical location, size, demographics, ethos, and digital maturity. Each practice has a researcher-in-residence whose role is to become familiar with its context and activity, follow it longitudinally for two years using interviews, public-domain documents and ethnography, and support improvement efforts. Research team members meet regularly to compare and contrast across cases. Practice staff are invited to join online learning events. Patient representatives work locally within their practice patient involvement groups as well as joining an online patient learning set or linking via a non-digital buddy system. NHS Research Ethics Approval has been granted. Governance includes a diverse independent advisory group with lay chair. We also have policy in-reach (national stakeholders sit on our advisory group) and outreach (research team members sit on national policy working groups). Results anticipated: We expect to produce rich narratives of contingent change over time, addressing cross-cutting themes including access, triage and capacity; digital and wider inequities; quality and safety of care (e.g. continuity, long-term condition management, timely diagnosis, complex needs); workforce and staff wellbeing (including non-clinical staff, students and trainees); technologies and digital infrastructure; patient perspectives; and sustainability (e.g. carbon footprint). Conclusion: By using case study methods focusing on depth and detail, we hope to explain why digital solutions that work well in one practice do not work at all in another. We plan to inform policy and service development through inter-sectoral network-building, stakeholder workshops and topic-focused policy briefings.

The pandemic required general practices to introduce remote (phone, video and email) consultations. That policy undoubtedly saved lives at the time but there are also clear benefits of face-to-face consultations in some circumstances, and the exact role of remote care still needs to be worked out. Despite best efforts, remote care tends to worsen health inequities (people who were poor or less well educated are less able to access and navigate the system and secure the type of appointment they need or prefer). Workstream 1: We will look at 11 GP surgeries across England, Scotland and Wales. We have selected a variety of sites: urban and rural, serving a range of different communities. Each surgery has a different approach to technology. A researcher from our team will work alongside surgery staff to learn what methods and technologies each practice uses to deliver care. They will gather information (mostly qualitative) about how different technological solutions are playing out over time. Workstream 2: Many people experience barriers to accessing care when it is done through technology. This could be because they lack understanding of how to do it, don't have the right equipment, can't afford data, or other reasons. We will ask patients about their experiences and work with them and staff to develop ideas about how to overcome barriers. Workstream 3: We will take what we have learnt in Workstreams 1 and 2 to make suggestions to inform national stakeholders and to influence policymakers. Patients and members of the public helped shape the research design. They continue to help guide our research by reading our reports, giving us their opinions and advising on how best to share our research so everyone can benefit from what we have learnt. Our governance panel is chaired by a member of the public.

The impact of new forms of large-scale general practice provider collaborations on England's NHS: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, collaboration between general practices in England to form new provider networks and large-scale organisations has been driven largely by grassroots action among GPs. However, it is now being increasingly advocated for by national policymakers. Expectations of what scaling up general practice in England will achieve are significant. AIM: To review the evidence of the impact of new forms of large-scale general practice provider collaborations in England. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review. METHOD: Embase, MEDLINE, Health Management Information Consortium, and Social Sciences Citation Index were searched for studies reporting the impact on clinical processes and outcomes, patient experience, workforce satisfaction, or costs of new forms of provider collaborations between general practices in England. RESULTS: A total of 1782 publications were screened. Five studies met the inclusion criteria and four examined the same general practice networks, limiting generalisability. Substantial financial investment was required to establish the networks and the associated interventions that were targeted at four clinical areas. Quality improvements were achieved through standardised processes, incentives at network level, information technology-enabled performance dashboards, and local network management. The fifth study of a large-scale multisite general practice organisation showed that it may be better placed to implement safety and quality processes than conventional practices. However, unintended consequences may arise, such as perceptions of disenfranchisement among staff and reductions in continuity of care. CONCLUSION: Good-quality evidence of the impacts of scaling up general practice provider organisations in England is scarce. As more general practice collaborations emerge, evaluation of their impacts will be important to understand which work, in which settings, how, and why.

Commissioning healthcare for people with long term conditions: the persistence of relational contracting in England's NHS quasi-market.

BACKGROUND: Since 1991, there has been a series of reforms of the English National Health Service (NHS) entailing an increasing separation between the commissioners of services and a widening range of public and independent sector providers able to compete for contracts to provide services to NHS patients. We examine the extent to which local commissioners had adopted a market-oriented (transactional) model of commissioning of care for people with long term conditions several years into the latest period of market-oriented reform. The paper also considers the factors that may have inhibited or supported market-oriented behaviour, including the presence of conditions conducive to a health care quasi-market. METHODS: We studied the commissioning of services for people with three long term conditions - diabetes, stroke and dementia - in three English primary care trust (PCT) areas over two years (2010-12). We took a broadly ethnographic approach to understanding the day-to-day practice of commissioning. Data were collected through interviews, observation of meetings and from documents. RESULTS: In contrast to a transactional, market-related approach organised around commissioner choice of provider and associated contracting, commissioning was largely relational, based on trust and collaboration with incumbent providers. There was limited sign of commissioners significantly challenging providers, changing providers, or decommissioning services.In none of the service areas were all the conditions for a well functioning quasi-market in health care in place. Choice of provider was generally absent or limited; information on demand and resource requirements was highly imperfect; motivations were complex; and transaction costs uncertain, but likely to be high. It was difficult to divide care into neat units for contracting purposes. As a result, it is scarcely surprising that commissioning practice in relation to all six commissioning developments was dominated by a relational approach. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings challenge the notion of a strict separation of commissioners and providers, and instead demonstrate the adaptive persistence of relational commissioning based on continuity of provision, trust and interdependence between commissioners and providers, at least for services for people with long-term conditions.

Special interest GPs. Special branch.

Special interest GPs can cut down on hospital referrals but there is no evidence that their role reduces hospital outpatient waiting times. There is no evidence of different clinical outcomes between GPSI and hospital clinics. Patients place the quality of their consultation and the expertise of the doctor ahead of accessibility.

General practitioners with special interests: evolution and evaluation.

General practitioners with special interests (GPSIs) have emerged in the UK as a government initiative aimed at improving access in specialities that traditionally have long waiting times for investigations and treatment. This represents, to some extent, a formalisation of existing working practices of general practitioners who had obtained specialist experience during hospital training. GPSIs are working in a wide range of clinical areas including coronary heart disease, drug abuse, echocardiography and sexual health. Similar changes at the primary-secondary care interface are taking place in other European health systems. Key issues in the development of these services include the assurance of high-quality health care, clinical governance and risk management, cost-effectiveness and impact on outpatient care, and the work and role of specialists. It is possible that these new opportunities for general practitioners and other health care professions will aid recruitment and retention of staff in primary care, enhance education and encourage commissioners of services to look carefully at unmet needs in their health economies. Further challenges include the need to train a cadre of practitioners and to provide the research evidence on which to base continued investment in this promising initiative.

Choice. Shop 'til you drop.

It is unclear whether the public will embrace choice with enough enthusiasm to drive improvement. A series of focus groups have confirmed there is general support for choice, but also concern about how patients would get information to inform their decisions. Many people would act against one of the main drivers of the policy and choose to wait.

Clinical management where medicine meets management. The American way.

Close relationships between business managers and clinicians, and purchaser and provider, are valuable in chronic-disease management. Organisations used high-quality clinical information and performance management. Chronic-disease management based on risk-management, proactive case managers and patient education is effective.

Developing and supporting extended nursing roles: the challenges of NHS walk-in centres.

BACKGROUND: National Health Service (NHS) walk-in centres offer immediate access to nurse-led primary care. Forty 'pilot' centres are now open, of which nine are in London. In providing clinical assessment, health information and a limited range of treatments to users, they exemplify new nursing roles that are emerging in primary care. AIM: To describe the emerging roles of walk-in centre nurses, and explore the causes of role stress and review arrangements for training, development and support. METHODS; Semi-structured interviews with 29 managers and nurses from the nine London walk-in centres and with 10 stakeholders providing other primary care services near to three of the walk-in centres. Findings. Walk-in centre nurses are drawn from a wide range of clinical backgrounds. Emerging roles include diagnosing, developing clinical management plans, prescribing and discharging patients. Most find the roles challenging, but at times also stressful. There is no consensus on the most appropriate nursing skill mix for a walk-in centre nor on the core competencies required by the nurses working there. As a result there is no standardization of induction, training or support for walk-in centre nurses - particularly on the balance between taught and apprenticeship-type training. CONCLUSIONS: Agreement is required on the competencies required for walk-in centre nursing and on appropriate ways to develop and support nurses in their practice. Lessons could be learned from general practitioner training.