Understanding the integration of artificial intelligence in healthcare organisations and systems through the NASSS framework: a qualitative study in a leading Canadian academic centre.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies are expected to "revolutionise" healthcare. However, despite their promises, their integration within healthcare organisations and systems remains limited. The objective of this study is to explore and understand the systemic challenges and implications of their integration in a leading Canadian academic hospital. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 29 stakeholders concerned by the integration of a large set of AI technologies within the organisation (e.g., managers, clinicians, researchers, patients, technology providers). Data were collected and analysed using the Non-Adoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, Sustainability (NASSS) framework. RESULTS: Among enabling factors and conditions, our findings highlight: a supportive organisational culture and leadership leading to a coherent organisational innovation narrative; mutual trust and transparent communication between senior management and frontline teams; the presence of champions, translators, and boundary spanners for AI able to build bridges and trust; and the capacity to attract technical and clinical talents and expertise. Constraints and barriers include: contrasting definitions of the value of AI technologies and ways to measure such value; lack of real-life and context-based evidence; varying patients' digital and health literacy capacities; misalignments between organisational dynamics, clinical and administrative processes, infrastructures, and AI technologies; lack of funding mechanisms covering the implementation, adaptation, and expertise required; challenges arising from practice change, new expertise development, and professional identities; lack of official professional, reimbursement, and insurance guidelines; lack of pre- and post-market approval legal and governance frameworks; diversity of the business and financing models for AI technologies; and misalignments between investors' priorities and the needs and expectations of healthcare organisations and systems. CONCLUSION: Thanks to the multidimensional NASSS framework, this study provides original insights and a detailed learning base for analysing AI technologies in healthcare from a thorough socio-technical perspective. Our findings highlight the importance of considering the complexity characterising healthcare organisations and systems in current efforts to introduce AI technologies within clinical routines. This study adds to the existing literature and can inform decision-making towards a judicious, responsible, and sustainable integration of these technologies in healthcare organisations and systems.

'When the visible body is no longer the seer': The phenomenology of perception and the clinical gaze in video consultations.

Video technology enabled professionals and patients to conduct consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic when in-person health care was minimised to reduce the spread of the virus. We present findings of a study of video-consulting through in-depth qualitative remote interviews with 40 health professionals, managers, support staff and 10 patients in health-care services across the UK from 2020 to 2021. Drawing on Foucault's concept of the clinical gaze, Merleau-Ponty's work on the phenomenology of perception and Ihde's postphenomenology we interpreted the ways in which remote consultations shaped patient-professional interactions, mediating and framing what was seen, revealed and known. We found that participating in video consultations not only involved creative adaption and adjustment to a virtual clinic but also changed how professionals and patients saw and were seen. We argue that this mode of consulting can transform boundaries and perceptions, alter aspects of clinical presence, knowledge and embodiment and thus both change and incorporate the clinical gaze.

The reflexive imperative in the digital age: Using Archer's 'fractured reflexivity' to theorise widening inequities in UK general practice.

'Reflexivity', as used by Margaret Archer, means creative self-mastery that enables individuals to evaluate their social situation and act purposively within it. People with complex health and social needs may be less able to reflect on their predicament and act to address it. Reflexivity is imperative in complex and changing social situations. The substantial widening of health inequities since the introduction of remote and digital modalities in health care has been well-documented but inadequately theorised. In this article, we use Archer's theory of fractured reflexivity to understand digital disparities in data from a 28-month longitudinal ethnographic study of 12 UK general practices and a sample of in-depth clinical cases from 'Deep End' practices serving highly deprived populations. Through four composite patient cases crafted to illustrate different dimensions of disadvantage, we show how adverse past experiences and structural inequities intersect with patients' reflexive capacity to self-advocate and act strategically. In some cases, staff were able to use creative workarounds to compensate for patients' fractured reflexivity, but such actions were limited by workforce capacity and staff awareness. Unless a more systematic safety net is introduced and resourced, people with complex needs are likely to remain multiply disadvantaged by remote and digital health care.

How Informal Carers Support Video Consulting in Physiotherapy, Heart Failure, and Cancer: Qualitative Study Using Linguistic Ethnography.

BACKGROUND: Informal carers play an important role in the everyday care of patients and the delivery of health care services. They aid patients in transportation to and from appointments, and they provide assistance during the appointments (eg, answering questions on the patient's behalf). Video consultations are often seen as a way of providing patients with easier access to care. However, few studies have considered how this affects the role of informal carers and how they are needed to make video consultations safe and feasible. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify how informal carers, usually friends or family who provide unpaid assistance, support patients and clinicians during video consultations. METHODS: We conducted an in-depth analysis of the communication in a sample of video consultations drawn from 7 clinical settings across 4 National Health Service Trusts in the United Kingdom. The data set consisted of 52 video consultation recordings (of patients with diabetes, gestational diabetes, cancer, heart failure, orthopedic problems, long-term pain, and neuromuscular rehabilitation) and interviews with all participants involved in these consultations. Using Linguistic Ethnography, which embeds detailed analysis of verbal and nonverbal communication in the context of the interaction, we examined the interactional, technological, and clinical work carers did to facilitate video consultations and help patients and clinicians overcome challenges of the remote and video-mediated context. RESULTS: Most patients (40/52, 77%) participated in the video consultation without support from an informal carer. Only 23% (12/52) of the consultations involved an informal carer. In addition to facilitating the clinical interaction (eg, answering questions on behalf of the patient), we identified 3 types of work that informal carers did: facilitating the use of technology; addressing problems when the patient could not hear or understand the clinician; and assisting with physical examinations, acting as the eyes, ears, and hands of the clinician. Carers often stayed in the background, monitoring the consultation to identify situations where they might be needed. In doing so, copresent carers reassured patients and helped them conduct the activities that make up a consultation. However, carers did not necessarily help patients solve all the challenges of a video consultation (eg, aiming the camera while laying hands on the patient during an examination). We compared cases where an informal carer was copresent with cases where the patient was alone, which showed that carers provided an important safety net, particularly for patients who were frail and experienced mobility difficulties. CONCLUSIONS: Informal carers play a critical role in making video consultations safe and feasible, particularly for patients with limited technological experience or complex needs. Guidance and research on video consulting need to consider the availability and work done by informal carers and how they can be supported in providing patients access to digital health care services.

TRIPLE C reporting principles for case study evaluations of the role of context in complex interventions.

BACKGROUND: Guidance and reporting principles such as CONSORT (for randomised trials) and PRISMA (for systematic reviews) have greatly improved the reporting, discoverability, transparency and consistency of published research. We sought to develop similar guidance for case study evaluations undertaken to explore the influence of context on the processes and outcomes of complex interventions. METHODS: A range of experts were recruited to an online Delphi panel, sampling for maximum diversity in disciplines (e.g. public health, health services research, organisational studies), settings (e.g. country), and sectors (e.g. academic, policy, third sector). To inform panel deliberations, we prepared background materials based on: [a] a systematic meta-narrative review of empirical and methodological literatures on case study, context and complex interventions; [b] the collective experience of a network of health systems and public health researchers; and [c] the established RAMESES II standards (which cover one kind of case study). We developed a list of topics and issues based on these sources and encouraged panel members to provide free text comments. Their feedback informed development of a set of items in the form of questions for potential inclusion in the reporting principles. We circulated these by email, asking panel members to rank each potential item twice (for relevance and validity) on a 7-point Likert scale. This sequence was repeated twice. RESULTS: We recruited 51 panel members from 50 organisations across 12 countries, who brought experience of a range of case study research methods and applications. 26 completed all three Delphi rounds, reaching over 80% consensus on 16 items covering title, abstract, definitions of terms, philosophical assumptions, research question(s), rationale, how context and complexity relates to the intervention, ethical approval, empirical methods, findings, use of theory, generalisability and transferability, researcher perspective and influence, conclusions and recommendations, and funding and conflicts of interest. CONCLUSION: The 'Triple C' (Case study, Context, Complex interventions) reporting principles recognise that case studies are undertaken in different ways for different purposes and based on different philosophical assumptions. They are designed to be enabling rather than prescriptive, and to make case study evaluation reporting on context and complex health interventions more comprehensive, accessible and useable.

Opportunities for shared decision-making about major surgery with high-risk patients: a multi-method qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the opportunities for shared decision-making when older high-risk patients are offered major surgery. This study examines how, when, and why clinicians and patients can share decision-making about major surgery. METHODS: This was a multi-method qualitative study, combining video recordings of preoperative consultations, interviews, and focus groups (33 patients, 19 relatives, 36 clinicians), with observations and documentary analysis in clinics in five hospitals in the UK undertaking major orthopaedic, colorectal, and/or cardiac surgery. RESULTS: Three opportunities for shared decision-making about major surgery were identified. Resolution-focused consultations (cardiac/colorectal) resulted in a single agreed preferred option related to a potentially life-threatening problem, with limited opportunities for shared decision-making. Evaluative and deliberative consultations offered more opportunity. The former focused on assessing the likelihood of benefits of surgery for a presenting problem that was not a threat to life for the patient (e.g., orthopaedic consultations) and the latter (largely colorectal) involved discussion of a range of options while also considering significant comorbidities and patient preferences. The extent to which opportunities for shared decision-making were available, and taken up by surgeons, was influenced by the nature of the presenting problem, clinical pathway, and patient trajectory. CONCLUSIONS: Decisions about major surgery were not always shared between patients and doctors. The nature of the presenting problem, comorbidities, clinical pathways, and patient trajectories all informed the type of consultation and opportunities for sharing decision-making. Our findings have implications for clinicians, with shared decision-making about major surgery most feasible when the focus is on life-enhancing treatment.

Mobilising context as complex and dynamic in evaluations of complex health interventions.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between healthcare interventions and context is widely conceived as involving complex and dynamic interactions over time. However, evaluations of complex health interventions frequently fail to mobilise such complexity, reporting context and interventions as reified and demarcated categories. This raises questions about practices shaping knowledge about context, with implications for who and what we make visible in our research. Viewed through the lens of case study research, we draw on data collected for the Triple C study (focused on Case study, Context and Complex interventions), to critique these practices, and call for system-wide changes in how notions of context are operationalised in evaluations of complex health interventions. METHODS: The Triple C study was funded by the Medical Research Council to develop case study guidance and reporting principles taking account of context and complexity. As part of this study, a one-day workshop with 58 participants and nine interviews were conducted with those involved in researching, evaluating, publishing, funding and developing policy and practice from case study research. Discussions focused on how to conceptualise and operationalise context within case study evaluations of complex health interventions. Analysis focused on different constructions and connections of context in relation to complex interventions and the wider social forces structuring participant's accounts. RESULTS: We found knowledge-making practices about context shaped by epistemic and political forces, manifesting as: tensions between articulating complexity and clarity of description; ontological (in)coherence between conceptualisations of context and methods used; and reified versions of context being privileged when communicating with funders, journals, policymakers and publics. CONCLUSION: We argue that evaluations of complex health interventions urgently requires wide-scale critical reflection on how context is mobilised - by funders, health services researchers, journal editors and policymakers. Connecting with how scholars approach complexity and context across disciplines provides opportunities for creatively expanding the field in which health evaluations are conducted, enabling a critical standpoint to long-established traditions and opening up possibilities for innovating the design of evaluations of complex health interventions.

The Role of Virtual Consulting in Developing Environmentally Sustainable Health Care: Systematic Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: Health systems globally need to rapidly set and achieve targets for reaching net zero carbon emissions. Virtual consulting (including video- and telephone-based consulting) is regarded as one means by which this might be achieved, largely through reduced patient travel. Little is currently known about the ways in which forms of virtual consulting might contribute to the net zero agenda or how countries may develop and implement programs at scale that can support increased environmental sustainability. OBJECTIVE: In this paper, we asked, What is the impact of virtual consulting on environmental sustainability in health care? and What can we learn from current evaluations that can inform future reductions in carbon emissions? METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of published literature according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. We searched the MEDLINE, PubMed, and Scopus databases using key terms relating to "carbon footprint," "environmental impact," "telemedicine," and "remote consulting," using citation tracking to identify additional articles. The articles were screened, and full texts that met the inclusion criteria were obtained. Data on the approach to carbon footprinting reported reductions in emissions, and the opportunities and challenges associated with the environmental sustainability of virtual consultations were extracted into a spreadsheet, analyzed thematically, and theorized using the Planning and Evaluating Remote Consultation Services framework to consider the various interacting influences, including environmental sustainability, that shape the adoption of virtual consulting services. RESULTS: A total of 1672 papers were identified. After removing duplicates and screening for eligibility, 23 papers that focused on a range of virtual consulting equipment and platforms across different clinical conditions and services were included. The focus on the environmental sustainability potential of virtual consulting was unanimously reported through carbon savings achieved by a reduction in travel related to face-to-face appointments. The shortlisted papers used a range of methods and assumptions to determine carbon savings, reporting these using different units and across varied sample sizes. This limited the potential for comparison. Despite methodological inconsistencies, all papers concluded that virtual consulting significantly reduced carbon emissions. However, there was limited consideration of wider factors (eg, patient suitability, clinical indication, and organizational infrastructure) influencing the adoption, use, and spread of virtual consultations and the carbon footprint of the entire clinical pathway in which the virtual consultation was provided (eg, risk of missed diagnoses from virtual consultations that result in the need for subsequent in-person consultations or admissions). CONCLUSIONS: There is overwhelming evidence that virtual consulting can reduce health care carbon emissions, largely through reducing travel related to in-person appointments. However, the current evidence fails to look at system factors associated with implementing virtual health care delivery and wider research into carbon emissions across the entire clinical pathway.

An urgent call for the environmental sustainability of health systems: A 'sextuple aim' to care for patients, costs, providers, population equity and the planet.

Health systems have a duty to protect the health and well-being of individuals and populations. Yet, healthcare contributes about 4.6% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Health systems need to question and improve established practices, assume strong environmental leadership, and aim for ambitious, sometimes radical, actions in favour of the climate. In this paper, we interrogate the suitability and feasibility of integrating the aim of 'environmental sustainability' to form the 'Sextuple Aim.' Environmental sustainability may be in tension with, but also a potential lever to meet the other cardinal aims: (1) quality and experience of patient care; (2) population health; (3) quality of work and satisfaction of healthcare providers; (4) equity and inclusion; and (5) cost reduction. We propose policy and practical avenues to help move towards the Sextuple Aim.

Case study research and causal inference.

Case study methodology is widely used in health research, but has had a marginal role in evaluative studies, given it is often assumed that case studies offer little for making causal inferences. We undertook a narrative review of examples of case study research from public health and health services evaluations, with a focus on interventions addressing health inequalities. We identified five types of contribution these case studies made to evidence for causal relationships. These contributions relate to: (1) evidence about system actors' own theories of causality; (2) demonstrative examples of causal relationships; (3) evidence about causal mechanisms; (4) evidence about the conditions under which causal mechanisms operate; and (5) inference about causality in complex systems. Case studies can and do contribute to understanding causal relationships. More transparency in the reporting of case studies would enhance their discoverability, and aid the development of a robust and pluralistic evidence base for public health and health services interventions. To strengthen the contribution that case studies make to that evidence base, researchers could: draw on wider methods from the political and social sciences, in particular on methods for robust analysis; carefully consider what population their case is a case 'of'; and explicate the rationale used for making causal inferences.

Why doesn't integrated care work? Using Strong Structuration Theory to explain the limitations of an English case.

Integrated care is an aim and a method for organising health and care services, particularly for older people and those with chronic conditions. Policy expects that integrated care programmes will provide person-centred coordinated care which will improve patient or client experience, enable population health, prevent hospital admissions and thereby reduce costs. However, empirical evaluations of integrated care interventions have shown disappointing results. We analysed an in-depth case study using Strong Structuration Theory to ask: how and why have efforts to integrate health and social care failed to produce desired outcomes? In our case, integrated case management and the creation of cost-saving plans were dominant practices. People working in health and social care recursively produced a structure of integrated care: a recognised set of resources created by collective activities. Integrated care, intended to help patients manage their long-term conditions and avoid hospital admission, was only a small part of the complex network that sustained patients at home. The structures of integrated care were unable to compensate for changes in patients' health. The result was that patients' experiences remained largely unaffected and hospital admissions were not easily avoided.

The Role of Information Infrastructures in Scaling up Video Consultations During COVID-19: Mixed Methods Case Study Into Opportunity, Disruption, and Exposure.

BACKGROUND: Until COVID-19, implementation and uptake of video consultations in health care was slow. However, the pandemic created a "burning platform" for scaling up such services. As health care organizations look to expand and maintain the use of video in the "new normal," it is important to understand infrastructural influences and changes that emerged during the pandemic and that may influence sustainability going forward. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to draw lessons from 4 National Health Service (NHS) organizations on how information infrastructures shaped, and were shaped by, the rapid scale-up of video consultations during COVID-19. METHODS: A mixed methods case study of 4 NHS trusts in England was conducted before and during the pandemic. Data comprised 90 interviews with 49 participants (eg, clinicians, managers, administrators, and IT support), ethnographic field notes, and video consultation activity data. We sought examples of infrastructural features and challenges related to the rapid scale-up of video. Analysis was guided by Gkeredakis et al's 3 perspectives on crisis and digital change: as opportunity (for accelerated innovation and removal of barriers to experimentation), disruption (to organizational practices, generating new dependencies and risks), and exposure (of vulnerabilities in both people and infrastructure). RESULTS: Before COVID-19, there was a strong policy push for video consultations as a way of delivering health care efficiently. However, the spread of video was slow, and adopting clinicians described their use as ad hoc rather than business as usual. When the pandemic hit, video was rapidly scaled up. The most rapid increase in use was during the first month of the pandemic (March-April 2020), from an average of 8 video consultations per week to 171 per week at each site. Uptake continued to increase during the pandemic, averaging approximately 800 video consultations per week by March 2021. From an opportunity perspective, participants talked about changes to institutional elements of infrastructure, which had historically restricted the introduction and use of video. This was supported by an "organizing vision" for video, bringing legitimacy and support. Perspectives on disruption centered on changes to social, technical, and material work environments and the emergence of new patterns of action. Retaining positive elements of such change required a judicious balance between managerial (top-down) and emergent (bottom-up) approaches. Perspectives on exposure foregrounded social and technical impediments to video consulting. This highlighted the need to attend to the materiality and dependability of the installed base, as well as the social and cultural context of use. CONCLUSIONS: For sustained adoption at scale, health care organizations need to enable incremental systemic change and flexibility through agile governance and knowledge transfer pathways, support process multiplicity within virtual clinic workflows, attend to the materiality and dependability of the IT infrastructure within and beyond organizational boundaries, and maintain an overall narrative within which the continued use of video can be framed.

Using Linguistic Ethnography to Study Video Consultations: A Call to Action and Future Research Agenda.

Video consultations are a rapidly growing service model, particularly in secondary care. Studies, mainly using trials and post-hoc surveys, have routinely documented that they can be a safe and effective means to deliver care at a distance. While video offers new opportunities to provide health services, it also constrains how patients and clinicians can interact, raising questions about feasibility, quality, and safety-questions that cannot be adequately addressed with prevailing methods and approaches. To support successful and appropriate implementation, use and spread of video consultations, we need to investigate how video changes the interaction. In this article, we use two worked examples to demonstrate how Linguistic Ethnography, a methodological approach combining ethnographic with linguistic analysis, enables a detailed understanding of how communication in video consultations works, providing an evidence base to support patients and clinicians with using this service model.

Evaluating complex interventions in context: systematic, meta-narrative review of case study approaches.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing need for methods that acknowledge and successfully capture the dynamic interaction between context and implementation of complex interventions. Case study research has the potential to provide such understanding, enabling in-depth investigation of the particularities of phenomena. However, there is limited guidance on how and when to best use different case study research approaches when evaluating complex interventions. This study aimed to review and synthesise the literature on case study research across relevant disciplines, and determine relevance to the study of contextual influences on complex interventions in health systems and public health research. METHODS: Systematic meta-narrative review of the literature comprising (i) a scoping review of seminal texts (n = 60) on case study methodology and on context, complexity and interventions, (ii) detailed review of empirical literature on case study, context and complex interventions (n = 71), and (iii) identifying and reviewing 'hybrid papers' (n = 8) focused on the merits and challenges of case study in the evaluation of complex interventions. RESULTS: We identified four broad (and to some extent overlapping) research traditions, all using case study in a slightly different way and with different goals: 1) developing and testing complex interventions in healthcare; 2) analysing change in organisations; 3) undertaking realist evaluations; 4) studying complex change naturalistically. Each tradition conceptualised context differently-respectively as the backdrop to, or factors impacting on, the intervention; sets of interacting conditions and relationships; circumstances triggering intervention mechanisms; and socially structured practices. Overall, these traditions drew on a small number of case study methodologists and disciplines. Few studies problematised the nature and boundaries of 'the case' and 'context' or considered the implications of such conceptualisations for methods and knowledge production. CONCLUSIONS: Case study research on complex interventions in healthcare draws on a number of different research traditions, each with different epistemological and methodological preferences. The approach used and consequences for knowledge produced often remains implicit. This has implications for how researchers, practitioners and decision makers understand, implement and evaluate complex interventions in different settings. Deeper engagement with case study research as a methodology is strongly recommended.

Interrogating the promise of technology in epilepsy care: systematic, hermeneutic review.

Technology development is gathering pace in epilepsy with seizure detection devices promising to transform self-care and service provision. However, such accounts often neglect the uncertainties, displacements and responsibilities that technology-supported care generates. This review brings together a heterogeneous literature, identified through systematic searches in 8 databases and snowball searching, to interrogate how technology becomes positioned in epilepsy care. We took a hermeneutic approach in our analysis of the 206 included articles, which resulted in the development of a conceptual framework surfacing the underlying logics by which technology-supported epilepsy care is organised. Each of these logics enacts different techno-scientific futures and carries specific assumptions about how (often imagined) 'users' and their bodies become co-constituted. Our review shows that studies in this area remain primarily deterministic and technology-focused. Few draw phenomenological insights on lived experiences with epilepsy or use social theory to problematise the role of technology. We propose future directions for sociotechnical, theory-driven studies of technology in epilepsy care and offer a framework transferable across other long-term conditions.

Expanding Video Consultation Services at Pace and Scale in Scotland During the COVID-19 Pandemic: National Mixed Methods Case Study.

BACKGROUND: Scotland-a country of 5.5 million people-has a rugged geography with many outlying islands, creating access challenges for many citizens. The government has long sought to mitigate these through a range of measures including an ambitious technology-enabled care program. A strategy to develop a nationwide video consultation service began in 2017. Our mixed methods evaluation was commissioned in mid-2019 and extended to cover the pandemic response in 2020. OBJECTIVE: To draw lessons from a national evaluation of the introduction, spread, and scale-up of Scotland's video consultation services both before and during the pandemic. METHODS: Data sources comprised 223 interviews (with patients, staff, technology providers, and policymakers), 60 hours of ethnographic observation (including in-person visits to remote settings), patient and staff satisfaction surveys (n=20,349), professional and public engagement questionnaires (n=5400), uptake statistics, and local and national documents. Fieldwork during the pandemic was of necessity conducted remotely. Data were analyzed thematically and theorized using the Planning and Evaluating Remote Consultation Services (PERCS) framework which considers multiple influences interacting dynamically and unfolding over time. RESULTS: By the time the pandemic hit, there had been considerable investment in material and technological infrastructure, staff training, and professional and public engagement. Scotland was thus uniquely well placed to expand its video consultation services at pace and scale. Within 4 months (March-June 2020), the number of video consultations increased from about 330 to 17,000 per week nationally. While not everything went smoothly, video was used for a much wider range of clinical problems, vastly extending the prepandemic focus on outpatient monitoring of chronic stable conditions. The technology was generally considered dependable and easy to use. In most cases (14,677/18,817, 78%), patients reported no technical problems during their postconsultation survey. Health care organizations' general innovativeness and digital maturity had a strong bearing on their ability to introduce, routinize, and expand video consultation services. CONCLUSIONS: The national-level groundwork before the pandemic allowed many services to rapidly extend the use of video consultations during the pandemic, supported by a strong strategic vision, a well-resourced quality improvement model, dependable technology, and multiple opportunities for staff to try out the video option. Scotland provides an important national case study from which other countries may learn.

Spread, Scale-up, and Sustainability of Video Consulting in Health Care: Systematic Review and Synthesis Guided by the NASSS Framework.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has thrust video consulting into the limelight, as health care practitioners worldwide shift to delivering care remotely. Evidence suggests that video consulting is acceptable, safe, and effective in selected conditions and settings. However, research to date has mostly focused on initial adoption, with limited consideration of how video consulting can be mainstreamed and sustained. OBJECTIVE: This study sought to do the following: (1) review and synthesize reported opportunities, challenges, and lessons learned in the scale-up, spread, and sustainability of video consultations, and (2) identify transferable insights that can inform policy and practice. METHODS: We identified papers through systematic searches in PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science. Included articles reported on synchronous, video-based consultations that had spread to more than one setting beyond an initial pilot or feasibility stage, and were published since 2010. We used the Nonadoption, Abandonment, and challenges to the Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability (NASSS) framework to synthesize findings relating to 7 domains: an understanding of the health condition(s) for which video consultations were being used, the material properties of the technological platform and relevant peripherals, the value proposition for patients and developers, the role of the adopter system, organizational factors, wider macro-level considerations, and emergence over time. RESULTS: We identified 13 papers describing 10 different video consultation services in 6 regions, covering the following: (1) video-to-home services, connecting providers directly to the patient; (2) hub-and-spoke models, connecting a provider at a central hub to a patient at a rural center; and (3) large-scale top-down evaluations scaled up or spread across a national health administration. Services covered rehabilitation, geriatrics, cancer surgery, diabetes, and mental health, as well as general specialist care and primary care. Potential enablers of spread and scale-up included embedded leadership and the presence of a telehealth champion, appropriate reimbursement mechanisms, user-friendly technology, pre-existing staff relationships, and adaptation (of technology and services) over time. Challenges tended to be related to service development, such as the absence of a long-term strategic plan, resistance to change, cost and reimbursement issues, and the technical experience of staff. There was limited articulation of the challenges to scale-up and spread of video consultations. This was combined with a lack of theorization, with papers tending to view spread and scale-up as the sum of multiple technical implementations, rather than theorizing the distinct processes required to achieve widespread adoption. CONCLUSIONS: There remains a significant lack of evidence that can support the spread and scale-up of video consulting. Given the recent pace of change due to COVID-19, a more definitive evidence base is urgently needed to support global efforts and match enthusiasm for extending use.

We Need to Talk About Complexity in Health Research: Findings From a Focused Ethnography.

There is increasing focus on complexity-informed approaches across health disciplines. This attention takes several forms, but commonly involves framing research topics as "complex" to justify use of particular methods (e.g., qualitative). Little emphasis is placed on how divergent and convergent ways of knowing complexity become negotiated within academic communities. Drawing on findings from a focused ethnography of an international workshop, we illustrate how health researchers employ "boundary-ordering devices" to navigate different meanings ascribed to complexity while they attempt to sustain interdisciplinary communication and collaboration. These include (a) surfacing (but not resolving) tensions between philosophical grounding of knowledge claims and need for practical purchase, (b) employing techniques of representation and abstraction, and (c) drawing on the fluid, ongoing accomplishment of complexity for different audiences and purposes. Our findings have implications for progressing complexity-informed health research, particularly with respect to qualitative approaches.

Whose turn is it anyway? Latency and the organization of turn-taking in video-mediated interaction.

Latency in video-mediated interaction can frustrate smooth turn-taking: it may cause participants to perceive silence at points where talk should occur, it may cause them to talk in overlap, and it impedes their ability to return to one-speaker-at-a-time. Whilst potentially frustrating for participants, this makes video-mediated interaction a perspicuous setting for the study of social interaction: it is an environment that nurtures the occurrence of turn-taking problems. For this paper, we conducted secondary analysis of 25 video consultations recorded for heart failure, (antenatal) diabetes, and cancer services in the UK. By comparing video recordings of the patient's and clinician's side of the call, we provide a detailed analysis of how latency interferes with the turn-taking system, how participants understand problems, and how they address them. We conclude that in our data latency unnoticed until it becomes problematic: participants act as if they share the same reality.

Case study research for better evaluations of complex interventions: rationale and challenges.

BACKGROUND: The need for better methods for evaluation in health research has been widely recognised. The 'complexity turn' has drawn attention to the limitations of relying on causal inference from randomised controlled trials alone for understanding whether, and under which conditions, interventions in complex systems improve health services or the public health, and what mechanisms might link interventions and outcomes. We argue that case study research-currently denigrated as poor evidence-is an under-utilised resource for not only providing evidence about context and transferability, but also for helping strengthen causal inferences when pathways between intervention and effects are likely to be non-linear. MAIN BODY: Case study research, as an overall approach, is based on in-depth explorations of complex phenomena in their natural, or real-life, settings. Empirical case studies typically enable dynamic understanding of complex challenges and provide evidence about causal mechanisms and the necessary and sufficient conditions (contexts) for intervention implementation and effects. This is essential evidence not just for researchers concerned about internal and external validity, but also research users in policy and practice who need to know what the likely effects of complex programmes or interventions will be in their settings. The health sciences have much to learn from scholarship on case study methodology in the social sciences. However, there are multiple challenges in fully exploiting the potential learning from case study research. First are misconceptions that case study research can only provide exploratory or descriptive evidence. Second, there is little consensus about what a case study is, and considerable diversity in how empirical case studies are conducted and reported. Finally, as case study researchers typically (and appropriately) focus on thick description (that captures contextual detail), it can be challenging to identify the key messages related to intervention evaluation from case study reports. CONCLUSION: Whilst the diversity of published case studies in health services and public health research is rich and productive, we recommend further clarity and specific methodological guidance for those reporting case study research for evaluation audiences.