eHealth Literacy and the Use of NHS 111 Online Urgent Care Service in England: Cross-Sectional Survey.

BACKGROUND: Many health care systems have used digital technologies to support care delivery, a trend amplified by the COVID-19 pandemic. "Digital first" may exacerbate health inequalities due to variations in eHealth literacy. The relationship between eHealth literacy and web-based urgent care service use is unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to measure the association between eHealth literacy and the use of NHS (National Health Service) 111 online urgent care service. METHODS: A cross-sectional sequential convenience sample survey was conducted with 2754 adults (October 2020-July 2021) from primary, urgent, or emergency care; third sector organizations; and the NHS 111 online website. The survey included the eHealth Literacy Questionnaire (eHLQ), questions about use, preferences for using NHS 111 online, and sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: Across almost all dimensions of the eHLQ, NHS 111 online users had higher mean digital literacy scores than nonusers (P<.001). Four eHLQ dimensions were significant predictors of use, and the most highly significant dimensions were eHLQ1 (using technology to process health information) and eHLQ3 (ability to actively engage with digital services), with odds ratios (ORs) of 1.86 (95% CI 1.46-2.38) and 1.51 (95% CI 1.22-1.88), respectively. Respondents reporting a long-term health condition had lower eHLQ scores. People younger than 25 years (OR 3.24, 95% CI 1.87-5.62) and those with formal qualifications (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55-0.99) were more likely to use NHS 111 online. Users and nonusers were likely to use NHS 111 online for a range of symptoms, including chest pain symptoms (n=1743, 70.4%) or for illness in children (n=1117, 79%). The users of NHS 111 online were more likely to have also used other health services, particularly the 111 telephone service (χ12=138.57; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: These differences in eHealth literacy scores amplify perennial concerns about digital exclusion and access to care for those impacted by intersecting forms of disadvantage, including long-term illness. Although many appear willing to use NHS 111 online for a range of health scenarios, indicating broad acceptability, not all are able or likely to do this. Despite a policy ambition for NHS 111 online to substitute for other services, it appears to be used alongside other urgent care services and thus may not reduce demand.

Provision of interpreting support for cross-cultural communication in UK maternity services: A Freedom of Information request.

Background: Language, communication and understanding of information are central to safe, ethical and efficient maternity care. The National Health Service (NHS) commissioning board, NHS England, describes how healthcare providers should obtain language support through professionally trained interpreters. Providers of interpreters are commissioned to deliver remote/face to face interpretation across the NHS. Services can be booked in advance or calls can be made in real time. However, women report infrequent use of professionally trained interpreters during their maternity care, often relying on friends and family as interpreters which can compromise confidentiality, disclosure and accuracy. Methods: To determine the demand for, and provision of, professionally trained interpreters in practice, we sent a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to 119 NHS Trusts delivering maternity services in England in November 2022. For the financial years 2020/2021 and 2021/2022, we asked how many women in the maternity service were identified as needing an interpreter, the number and mode of interpreter sessions, and the annual spend on interpreting services. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Results: One hundred maternity Trusts responded by 21st April 2023 (response rate 100/119-84 %). Of these, 56 (56 %) recorded a woman's need for an interpreter. Nineteen Trusts relied on documentation in paper notes and 37 Trusts recorded the information on a digital system. From the 37 Trusts where this information could be digitally retrieved, women requiring interpreter support reflected between 1 and 25 % of the annual birth rate of the Trust (average 9 %) and received an average of three interpreter sessions across their pregnancy, birth and postnatal journey. Telephone was the dominant mode used for interpreting sessions, though 11 Trusts favoured face to face interpreting. Financial spend on interpreting services varied across Trusts; some funded their own in-house interpreting services, or worked with local community groups in addition to their contracted interpreting provider. Conclusion: Information obtained from this FOI request suggests that documentation of a woman's interpreting need is not complete or consistent across NHS maternity services. As a result, it is not clear how many women require an interpreter, the mode of provision or how frequently it is provided, and the cost involved. However, the limited information available suggests a failure to provide interpreter support to women at each scheduled care encounter. This raises questions about, the risk of women not understanding the care being offered, and the increased risk of uninformed, unconsented care as women traverse pregnancy and birth. Tweetable: There appears to be failure to provide interpreter support to women at each scheduled maternity care encounter increasing the risk of uninformed, unconsented care.

Unpacking complexity in addressing the contribution of trauma to women's ill health: a qualitative study of perspectives from general practice.

BACKGROUND: There is an intricate relationship between the mind and the body in experiences of health and wellbeing. This can result in complexity of both symptom presentation and experience. Although the contribution of life trauma to illness experience is well described, this is not always fully recognised or addressed in healthcare encounters. Negotiating effective and acceptable trauma-informed conversations can be difficult for clinicians and patients. AIM: To explore the experience of primary care practitioners caring for women through a trauma-informed care lens. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative study in the general practice setting of England, with reflections from representatives of a group with lived experience of trauma. METHOD: This was a secondary thematic analysis of 46 qualitative interviews conducted online/by telephone to explore primary care practitioners' experiences of supporting women's health needs in general practice, alongside consultation with representatives of a lived-experience group to contextualise the findings. RESULTS: Four themes were constructed: 'you prioritise physical symptoms because you don't want to miss something'; you do not want to alienate people by saying the wrong thing; the system needs to support trauma-informed care; and delivering trauma-informed care takes work that can have an impact on practitioners. CONCLUSION: Primary care practitioners are aware of the difficulties in discussing the interface between trauma and illness with patients, and request support and guidance in how to negotiate this supportively. Lack of support for practitioners moves the focus of trauma-informed care from a whole-systems approach towards individual clinician-patient interactions.

Evidence for Access: Systematic Scoping Review of Access Systems in General Practice.

BACKGROUND: Access to GP appointments is increasingly challenging in many high-income countries, with an overstretched workforce and rising demand. Various access systems have been developed and evaluated internationally. AIM: We aimed to systematically consolidate the current international evidence base related to different types of GP access systems. DESIGN AND SETTING: A scoping review examining international literature. METHOD: Literature searches were run across relevant databases in May 2022. Title, abstract and full text screenings were carried out. Data from included studies were extracted and mapped to synthesise the components and aims within different GP access systems. RESULTS: 49 studies were included in the review. The majority of these were set in the UK. Some access systems featured heavily in the literature, such as Advanced Access, telephone triage and online consultations, and others less so. There were two key strategies adopted by systems which related to either changing appointment capacity or modifying patient pathways. Components related to these strategies are summarised and illustrated as a schematic representation. Most rationales behind access systems were practice, rather than patient, focused. 'Add on' systems and aims for efficiency became more popular in recent years. CONCLUSION: The synthesis provides a useful tool in understanding access systems' aims, design, and implementation. With focus on alleviating demand, patient-focused outcomes appear to be under investigated and potentially overlooked during design and implementation. More recently, digital services are promoted as offering patient choice and convenience. But a context where demand outweighs resources challenges the premise that extending choice is possible.