Clinician views on how clinical decision support systems can help diagnose asthma in primary care: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: Asthma can be difficult to diagnose in primary care. Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) can assist clinicians when making diagnostic decisions, but the perspectives of intended users need to be incorporated into the software if the CDSS is to be clinically useful. Therefore, we aimed to understand health professional views on the value of an asthma diagnosis CDSS and the barriers and facilitators for use in UK primary care. METHODS: We recruited doctors and nurses working in UK primary care who had experience of assessing respiratory symptoms and diagnosing asthma. Qualitative interviews were used to explore clinicians' experiences of making a diagnosis of asthma and understand views on a CDSS to support asthma diagnosis. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed thematically. RESULTS: 16 clinicians (nine doctors, seven nurses) including 13 participants with over 10 years experience, contributed interviews. Participants saw the potential for a CDSS to support asthma diagnosis in primary care by structuring consultations, identifying relevant information from health records, and having visuals to communicate findings to patients. Being evidence based, regularly updated, integrated with software, quick and easy to use were considered important for a CDSS to be successfully implemented. Experienced clinicians were unsure a CDSS would help their routine practice, particularly in straightforward diagnostic scenarios, but thought a CDSS would be useful for trainees or less experienced colleagues. CONCLUSIONS: To be adopted into clinical practice, clinicians were clear that a CDSS must be validated, integrated with existing software, and quick and easy to use.

Patient views on asthma diagnosis and how a clinical decision support system could help: A qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Making a diagnosis of asthma can be challenging for clinicians and patients. A clinical decision support system (CDSS) for use in primary care including a patient-facing mode, could change how information is shared between patients and healthcare professionals and improve the diagnostic process. METHODS: Participants diagnosed with asthma within the last 5 years were recruited from general practices across four UK regions. In-depth interviews were used to explore patient experiences relating to their asthma diagnosis and to understand how a CDSS could be used to improve the diagnostic process for patients. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using a thematic approach. RESULTS: Seventeen participants (12 female) undertook interviews, including 14 individuals and 3 parents of children with asthma. Being diagnosed with asthma was generally considered an uncertain process. Participants felt a lack of consultation time and poor communication affected their understanding of asthma and what to expect. Had the nature of asthma and the steps required to make a diagnosis been explained more clearly, patients felt their understanding and engagement in asthma self-management could have been improved. Participants considered that a CDSS could provide resources to support the diagnostic process, prompt dialogue, aid understanding and support shared decision-making. CONCLUSION: Undergoing an asthma diagnosis was uncertain for patients if their ideas and concerns were not addressed by clinicians and were influenced by a lack of consultation time and limitations in communication. An asthma diagnosis CDSS could provide structure and an interface to prompt dialogue, provide visuals about asthma to aid understanding and encourage patient involvement. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Prespecified semistructured interview topic guides (young person and adult versions) were developed by the research team and piloted with members of the Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) group. Findings were regularly discussed within the research group and with PPI colleagues to aid the interpretation of data.

Using self-determination theory in research and evaluation in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity (the co-existence of two or more long-term conditions within an individual) is a complex management challenge, with a very limited evidence base. Theories can help in the design and operationalization of complex interventions. OBJECTIVE: This article proposes self-determination theory (SDT) as a candidate theory for the development and evaluation of interventions in multimorbidity. METHODS: We provide an overview of SDT, its use in research to date, and its potential utility in complex interventions for patients with multimorbidity based on the new MRC framework. RESULTS: SDT-based interventions have mainly focused on health behaviour change in the primary prevention of disease, with limited use in primary care and chronic conditions management. However, SDT may be a useful candidate theory in informing complex intervention development and evaluation, both in randomized controlled trials and in evaluations of 'natural experiments'. We illustrate how it could be used multimorbidity interventions in primary care by drawing on the example of CARE Plus (a primary care-based complex intervention for patients with multimorbidity in deprived areas of Scotland). CONCLUSIONS: SDT may have utility in both the design and evaluation of complex interventions for multimorbidity. Further research is required to establish its usefulness, and limitations, compared with other candidate theories. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Our funded research programme, of which this paper is an early output, has a newly embedded patient and public involvement group of four members with lived experience of long-term conditions and/or of being informal carers. They read and commented on the draft manuscript and made useful suggestions on the text. They will be fully involved at all stages in the rest of the programme of research.

Polypharmacy and emergency readmission to hospital after critical illness: a population-level cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy is common and closely linked to drug interactions. The impact of polypharmacy has not been previously quantified in survivors of critical illness who have reduced resilience to stressors. Our aim was to identify factors associated with preadmission polypharmacy and ascertain whether polypharmacy is an independent risk factor for emergency readmission to hospital after discharge from a critical illness. METHODS: A population-wide cohort study consisting of patients admitted to all Scottish general ICUs between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2013, whom survived their ICU stay. Patients were stratified by presence of preadmission polypharmacy, defined as being prescribed five or more regular medications. The primary outcome was emergency hospital readmission within 1 yr of discharge from index hospital stay. RESULTS: Of 23 844 ICU patients, 29.9% were identified with polypharmacy (n=7138). Factors associated with polypharmacy included female sex, increasing age, and social deprivation. Emergency 1-yr hospital readmission was significantly higher in the polypharmacy cohort (51.8% vs 35.8%, P<0.001). After confounder adjustment, patients with polypharmacy had a 22% higher hazard of emergency 1-yr readmission (adjusted hazard ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 1.16-1.28, P<0.001). On a linear scale of polypharmacy each additional prescription conferred a 3% increase in hazard of emergency readmission by 1 yr (adjusted hazard ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 1.02-1.03, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This national cohort study of ICU survivors demonstrates that preadmission polypharmacy is an independent risk factor for emergency readmission. In an ever-growing era of polypharmacy, this risk factor may represent a substantial burden in the at-risk post-intensive care population.

Theorising survivorship after intensive care: A systematic review of patient and family experiences.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVE: This systematic literature review explores and maps what we know about survivorship to understand how survivorship can be theoretically defined. BACKGROUND: Survivorship of critical illness has been identified as a challenge for the 21st Century. Whilst the use of the term 'survivorship' is now common in critical care, it has been borrowed from the cancer literature where the discourse on what survivorship means in a cancer context is ongoing and remains largely descriptive. In the absence of a theoretical understanding, the term 'survivorship' is often used in critical illness in a generic way, limiting our understanding of what survivorship is. The current COVID-19 pandemic adds to an urgency of understanding what intensive care unit (ICU) survivorship might mean, given the emerging long-term consequences of this patient cohort. We set out to explore how survivorship after critical illness is being conceptualised and what the implications might be for clinical practice and research. DESIGN: Integrated systematic literature review. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. PRISMA guidelines were followed and a PRISMA checklist for reporting systematic reviews completed. RESULTS: The three main themes around which the reviewed studies were organised are: (a) healthcare system; (b) ICU survivors' families; and (c) ICU survivor's identity. These three themes feed into an overarching core theme of 'ICU Survivorship Experiences'. These themes map our current knowledge of what happens when a patient survives a critical illness and where we are in understanding ICU survivorship. CONCLUSION: We mapped in this systematic review the different pieces of the jigsaw that emerge following critical illness to understand and see the bigger picture of what happens after patients survive critical illness. It is evident that existing research has mapped these connections, but what we have not managed to do yet is defining what survivorship is theoretically. We offer a preliminary definition of survivorship as a process but are aware that this definition needs to be developed further with patients and families.

Predicting risk of unplanned hospital readmission in survivors of critical illness: a population-level cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Intensive care unit (ICU) survivors experience high levels of morbidity after hospital discharge and are at high risk of unplanned hospital readmission. Identifying those at highest risk before hospital discharge may allow targeting of novel risk reduction strategies. We aimed to identify risk factors for unplanned 90-day readmission, develop a risk prediction model and assess its performance to screen for ICU survivors at highest readmission risk. METHODS: Population cohort study linking registry data for patients discharged from general ICUs in Scotland (2005-2013). Independent risk factors for 90-day readmission and discriminant ability (c-index) of groups of variables were identified using multivariable logistic regression. Derivation and validation risk prediction models were constructed using a time-based split. RESULTS: Of 55 975 ICU survivors, 24.1% (95%CI 23.7% to 24.4%) had unplanned 90-day readmission. Pre-existing health factors were fair discriminators of readmission (c-index 0.63, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.64) but better than acute illness factors (0.60) or demographics (0.54). In a subgroup of those with no comorbidity, acute illness factors (0.62) were better discriminators than pre-existing health factors (0.56). Overall model performance and calibration in the validation cohort was fair (0.65, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.66) but did not perform sufficiently well as a screening tool, demonstrating high false-positive/false-negative rates at clinically relevant thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: Unplanned 90-day hospital readmission is common. Pre-existing illness indices are better predictors of readmission than acute illness factors. Identifying additional patient-centred drivers of readmission may improve risk prediction models. Improved understanding of risk factors that are amenable to intervention could improve the clinical and cost-effectiveness of post-ICU care and rehabilitation.

Involving users and carers in the assessment of preregistration nursing students' clinical nursing practice: a strategy for patient empowerment and quality improvement?

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To examine (1) nursing lecturers' and (2) preregistration nursing students' perspectives of user and carer involvement in the formal assessment of preregistration nursing students' clinical practice. BACKGROUND: The involvement of service users and carers in the assessment of clinical practice in nursing education is a recent phenomenon. The Nursing and Midwifery Council Standards in the UK clearly reflect a shift in thinking from paternalistic approaches to person-centred approaches. This shift in thinking includes service user and carer involvement in student nursing assessment and there is evidence that this is being developed in several countries. DESIGN: Located in the interpretive paradigm, data from a two-staged, multicentre qualitative study are presented. METHODS: Interpretive analysis of semi-structured, one to one interviews with nursing lecturers (n = 15) and focus groups with nursing students (n = 51) across 11 Higher Educational Institutions. RESULTS: There is a strong commitment for working alongside service users and carers in the education and training of nursing students; however, involving service users and carers in formal practice assessment is identified as more challenging compared with other areas of service user/carer involvement. Service user/carers should provide feedback/review or comment, but not necessarily formal, summative 'assessment'. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base for involving users and carers in assessment is limited. Involvement of users and carers in providing feedback to nursing students is welcomed. However, concerns exist about the preparedness of users and carers for formal clinical assessment. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Discussion and clarification with clinical mentors and user and carer groups is necessary to understand if they agree with the policy direction of user and carer involvement in the assessment of nursing students. Quality assurance concerns are raised by students and lecturers when involving user and carer in assessing nursing students' clinical skills. Mentors are seen as key to this process, but little is known about their perspectives.

Patients' views on primary care multidisciplinary teams in Scotland: a mixed-methods evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Expanding primary care multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) was a key component of the 2018 Scottish GP contract, with more than 4700 MDT staff appointed since then. AIM: To explore patients' views on primary care MDT expansion in Scotland. DESIGN & SETTING: A mixed-methods evaluation, which included a postal survey and semi-structured telephone interviews with patients in Scotland. METHOD: A survey was undertaken of patients who had recently consulted a GP in deprived urban, affluent urban, and remote and rural areas, assessing awareness of five MDT roles and attitudes towards receptionist signposting. In addition, 30 individual interviews were conducted, exploring patients' MDT-care experiences. RESULTS: Of 1053 survey responders, most were unaware of the option of MDT rather than GP consultations for three out of five roles (69% unaware of link worker appointments; 69% mental health nurse; and 58% pharmacist). Reception signposting was less popular in deprived urban areas (34% unhappy versus 29% in remote and rural versus 21% affluent urban; P<0.001), and in patients with multimorbidity (31% unhappy versus 24% in non-multimorbid; P<0.05). Just over two-thirds of interviewees had multimorbidity and almost all reported positive MDT-care experiences. However, MDT care was generally seen as a supplement rather than a substitute for GP care. Around half of patients expressed concerns about reception signposting. These patients were more likely to also express concerns about GP access in general. Both of these concerns were more common in deprived urban areas than in remote and rural or affluent urban areas. CONCLUSION: MDT care has expanded in Scotland with limited patient awareness. Although patients understand its potential value, many are unhappy with reception signposting to first-contact MDT care, especially those in deprived urban areas living with multimorbidity. This represents a barrier to the aims of the new GP contract.

Primary care transformation in Scotland: a qualitative study of GPs' and multidisciplinary team members' views.

BACKGROUND: The Scottish Government's vision to transform primary care includes expansion of the primary care multidisciplinary team (MDT), formalised in the new GP contract in April 2018. AIM: To explore practitioners' views on the expansion of MDT working in Scotland. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative study with GPs and a range of MDT staff working in three different population settings in Scotland. METHOD: In-depth semi-structured interviews were carried out by telephone with 8 GPs and 19 MDT staff between May and June 2022. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was conducted to identify commonalities and divergences in the interviews. RESULTS: Internal challenges facing MDT staff included adapting to the fast pace of primary care, building new relationships, training and professional development needs, line management issues, and monitoring and evaluation of performance. External challenges included the ongoing effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, lack of time, difficulties with hybrid working, and low staff morale. Most GPs reported that expansion of their roles as expert medical specialists had not yet happened because their workload had not decreased (and in many cases had increased). In deprived areas, insufficient resources to deal with the high numbers of patients with complex multimorbidity remained a key issue. Interviewees in remote and rural settings felt the new contract did not take into account the unique challenges of providing primary care services in such areas, and recruitment and accommodation were cited as particular problems. CONCLUSION: Although there has been substantial expansion of the primary care MDT, which most GPs welcome, many challenges to effective implementation remain that must be addressed if transformation of primary care in Scotland is to become a reality.

Patients' experiences of GP consultations following the introduction of the new GP contract in Scotland: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: The new Scottish GP contract commenced in April 2018 with a stated aim of mitigating health inequalities. AIM: To determine the health characteristics and experiences of patients consulting GPs in deprived urban (DU), affluent urban (AU), and remote and rural (RR) areas of Scotland. DESIGN AND SETTING: In 2022, a postal survey of a random sample of adult patients from 12 practices who had consulted a GP within the previous 30 days was undertaken. METHOD: Patient characteristics and consultation experiences in the three areas (DU, AU, RR) were evaluated using validated measures including the Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) Measure and Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI). RESULTS: In total, 1053 responses were received. In DU areas, multimorbidity was more common (78% versus 58% AU versus 68% RR, P<0.01), complex presentations (where the consultation addressed both psychosocial and physical problems) were more likely (16% versus 10% AU versus 11% RR, P<0.05), and more consultations were conducted by telephone (42% versus 31% AU versus 31% RR, P<0.01). Patients in DU areas reported lower satisfaction (82% DU completely, very, or fairly satisfied versus 90% AU versus 86% RR, P<0.01), lower perceived GP empathy (mean CARE score 38.9 versus 42.1 AU versus 40.1 RR, P<0.05), lower enablement (mean PEI score 2.6 versus 3.2 AU versus 2.8 RR, P<0.01), and less symptom improvement (P<0.01) than those in AU or RR areas. Face-to-face consultations were associated with significantly higher satisfaction, enablement, and perceived GP empathy than telephone consultations in RR areas (all P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Four years after the start of the new GP contract in Scotland, patients' experiences of GP consultations suggest that the inverse care law persists.

Primary care transformation in Scotland: a qualitative evaluation of the views of patients.

BACKGROUND: The new Scottish GP contract introduced in April 2018 aims to improve quality of care through expansion of the multidisciplinary team (MDT) to enable GPs to spend more time as expert medical generalists with patients with complex needs. AIM: To explore patients' views on the changes in general practice in Scotland since the inception of the new contract. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative study with 30 patients (10 living in urban deprived areas, 10 living in urban affluent/mixed urban areas, and 10 living in remote and rural areas). METHOD: In-depth semi-structured interviews with thematic analysis. RESULTS: Patients were generally unaware of the new GP contract, attributing recent changes in general practice to the COVID-19 pandemic. Ongoing concerns included access to GP consultations (especially face-to-face ones), short consultation length with GPs, and damage to continuity of care and the GP-patient relationship. Most patients spoke positively about consultations with MDT staff but still wanted to see a known GP for health concerns that they considered potentially serious. These issues were especially concerning for patients with multiple complex problems, particularly those from deprived areas. CONCLUSION: Following the introduction of the new Scottish GP contract, patients in this study's sample were accepting of first contact care from the MDT but still wanted continuity of care and longer face-to-face consultations with GPs. These findings suggest that the expert generalist role of the GP is not being adequately supported by the new contract, especially in deprived areas, though further quantitative research is required to confirm this.

A qualitative study of primary care professionals' views of case finding for depression in patients with diabetes or coronary heart disease in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Routinely conducting case finding (also commonly referred to as screening) in patients with chronic illness for depression in primary care appears to have little impact. We explored the views and experiences of primary care nurses, doctors and managers to understand how the implementation of case finding/screening might impact on its effectiveness. METHODS: Two complementary qualitative focus group studies of primary care professionals including nurses, doctors and managers, in five primary care practices and five Community Health Partnerships, were conducted in Scotland. RESULTS: We identified several features of the way case finding/screening was implemented that may lead to systematic under-detection of depression. These included obstacles to incorporating case finding/screening into a clinical review consultation; a perception of replacing individualised care with mechanistic assessment, and a disconnection for nurses between management of physical and mental health. Far from being a standardised process that encouraged detection of depression, participants described case finding/screening as being conducted in a way which biased it towards negative responses, and for nurses, it was an uncomfortable task for which they lacked the necessary skills to provide immediate support to patients at the time of diagnosis. CONCLUSION: The introduction of case finding/screening for depression into routine chronic illness management is not straightforward. Routinized case finding/screening for depression can be implemented in ways that may be counterproductive to engagement (particularly by nurses), with the mental health needs of patients living with long term conditions. If case finding/screening or engagement with mental health problems is to be promoted, primary care nurses require more training to increase their confidence in raising and dealing with mental health issues and GPs and nurses need to work collectively to develop the relational work required to promote cognitive participation in case finding/screening.

Primary care transformation in Scotland: qualitative evaluation of the views of national senior stakeholders and cluster quality leads.

BACKGROUND: Primary care transformation in Scotland aims to improve population health, reduce health inequalities, and reduce GP workload. Two key strategies (formalised in April 2018 in the new Scottish GP contract [Scottish General Medical Services contract], although started in early 2016) are the expansion of the multidisciplinary team (MDT) and GP cluster working. AIM: To explore progress in the implementation of the GP contract in Scotland in terms of the MDT and cluster working. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative study with key national primary care stakeholders (PCSs) (n = 6) and cluster quality leads (CQLs) in clusters serving urban high deprivation areas (n = 4), urban mixed areas (n = 4), and remote and rural areas (n = 4). METHOD: Semi-structured interviews with thematic analysis. RESULTS: There was general support for the initial aims of the new GP contract but all interviewees felt that progress on both MDT expansion and cluster working was slow, even before the pandemic. None of the CQLs (and few PCSs) felt that GP workload had reduced significantly, nor that the care of patients with complex needs had improved. Lack of time and poorly developed relationships were key barriers, as was a lack of relevant primary care data, and additional support (including guidance, administration, training, and protected time). CONCLUSION: Key PCSs and CQLs in different areas of Scotland report limited progress in primary care transformation, only partly related to the pandemic. There is a need for better workforce planning and support if the new GP contract is to succeed in transforming primary care in Scotland.

Health inequalities, multimorbidity and primary care in Scotland.

Scotland has an ageing population and the widest health inequalities in Western Europe. Multiple health conditions develop ∼10-15 years earlier in deprived areas than in affluent areas. General practice is central to the effective and safe management of such complex multiple health conditions, but the inverse care law has permeated deprived communities ('Deep End' general practices) for the past 50 years. A new, radical, Scottish GP contract was introduced in April 2018, which has a vision to improve quality of care through cluster working and expansion of the multidisciplinary team (MDT), enabling GPs to deliver 'expert generalism' to patients with complex needs. It states a specific intention to address health inequalities and also to support the integration of health and social care. Here, we discuss recent evidence for whether the ambition of the new GP contract, to reduce health inequalities, is being achieved.

GP-led adapted comprehensive geriatric assessment for frail older people: a multi-methods evaluation of the 'Living Well Assessment' quality improvement project in Scotland.

BACKGROUND: Evidence to support comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in primary care for frail older people is limited. AIM: To evaluate a GP-led adapted CGA quality improvement project. DESIGN & SETTING: Multi-methods evaluation in a large practice in Midlothian in Scotland. METHOD: The intervention was conducted by 10 GPs in a practice of approximately 11 000 patients, initially in the patient's home, and then remotely (by telephone or video consultation) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Evaluation included a patient questionnaire, and qualitative interviews with GPs delivering the Living Well Assessment (LWA), analysed by thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 165/220 (75%) patients responded to the survey, of which 86% reported a 'very good experience' of the LWA. The method of delivery did not significantly influence this although most (58%) stated a preference for face-to-face consultation. For the 31% who preferred remote LWA, most (23%) preferred telephone to video consultation (8%). Problems in remote consultations related to technical issues (video), poor vision (video), or deafness (telephone or video). GPs felt that home-based LWAs had real benefits but switching to remote during the pandemic had proven feasible. Concerns included potential increase in GP workload owing to the LWA and whether it was an efficient use of GPs' time. CONCLUSION: GP-led adapted CGA was feasible in a large practice, even during the pandemic, and highly valued by frail patients. Questions regarding efficient use of GPs' time, effectiveness in terms of important patient outcomes and impact, and cost-effectiveness, requires further investigation in a larger study.

Evaluating primary care transformation: synthesis of findings from UK pilot project reviews.

BACKGROUND: Pilot 'new models' of primary care have been funded across the UK since 2015, through various national transformation funds. Reflections and syntheses of evaluation findings provide an additional layer of insight into 'what works' in transforming primary care. AIM: To identify good practice in policy design, implementation, and evaluation for primary care transformation. DESIGN & SETTING: A thematic analysis of existing pilot evaluations in England, Wales, and Scotland. METHOD: Ten studies presenting evaluations of three national pilot studies - the Vanguard programme in England, the Pacesetter programme in Wales, and the National Evaluation of New Models of Primary Care in Scotland - were thematically analysed, and findings synthesised in order to identify lessons learnt and good practice. RESULTS: Common themes emerged across studies in all three countries at project and policy level, which can support or inhibit new models of care. At project level, these included the following: working with all stakeholders, including communities and front-line staff; providing the time, space, and support necessary for the project to succeed; agreeing on clear objectives from the outset; and support for data collection, evaluation, and shared learning. At policy level, more fundamental challenges related to the parameters for pilot projects, in particular, the typically short-term nature of funding, with an expectation of results within 2-3 years. Changing expectations about outcome measures or project guidance part-way through project implementation was also identified as a key challenge. CONCLUSION: Primary care transformation requires coproduction and a rich, contextual understanding of local needs and complexities. However, a mismatch between policy objectives (care redesign to better meet patient needs) and policy parameters (short timeframes) is often a significant challenge to success.

Challenges in implementing GP clusters in Scotland: a qualitative study comparing the views of senior primary care stakeholders in 2016 with those in 2021.

BACKGROUND: Formation of GP clusters began in Scotland in April 2016 as part of a new Scottish GP contract. They aim to improve the care quality for local populations (intrinsic role) and the integration of health and social care (extrinsic role). AIM: To compare predicted challenges of cluster implementation in 2016 with reported challenges in 2021. DESIGN & SETTING: Qualitative study of senior national stakeholders in primary care in Scotland. METHOD: Qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with 12 senior primary care national stakeholders in 2016 (n = 6) and 2021 (n = 6). RESULTS: Predicted challenges in 2016 included balancing intrinsic and extrinsic roles, providing sufficient support, maintaining motivation and direction, and avoiding variation between clusters. Progress of clusters in 2021 was perceived as suboptimal and was reported to vary significantly across the country, reflecting differences in local infrastructure. Practical facilitation (data, administrative support, training, project improvement support, and funded time) and strategic guidance from the Scottish Government was felt to be lacking. GP engagement with clusters was felt to be hindered by the significant time and workforce pressures facing primary care. These barriers were considered as collectively contributing to cluster lead 'burnout' and loss of momentum, exacerbated by inadequate opportunities for shared learning between clusters across Scotland. Such barriers preceded, but were perpetuated by, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: Apart from the COVID-19 pandemic, many of the challenges reported by stakeholders in 2021 were predicted in 2016. Accelerating progress in cluster working will require renewed investment and support applied consistently across the country.

Does a screening checklist for complex health and social care needs have potential clinical usefulness for predicting unplanned hospital readmissions in intensive care survivors: development and prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Intensive care (ICU) survivors are at high risk of long-term physical and psychosocial problems. Unplanned hospital readmission rates are high, but the best way to triage patients for interventions is uncertain. We aimed to develop and evaluate a screening checklist to help predict subsequent readmissions or deaths. DESIGN: A checklist for complex health and social care needs (CHSCNs) was developed based on previous research, comprising six items: multimorbidity; polypharmacy; frequent previous hospitalisations; mental health issues; fragile social circumstances and impaired activities of daily living. Patients were considered to have CHSCNs if two or more were present. We prospectively screened all ICU discharges for CHSCNs for 12 months. SETTING: ICU, Royal Infirmary, Edinburgh, UK. PARTICIPANTS: ICU survivors over a 12-month period (1 June 2018 and 31 May 2019). INTERVENTIONS: None. OUTCOME MEASURE: Readmission or death in the community within 3 months postindex hospital discharge. RESULTS: Of 1174 ICU survivors, 937 were discharged alive from the hospital. Of these 253 (27%) were classified as having CHSCNs. In total 28% (266/937) patients were readmitted (N=238) or died (N=28) within 3 months. Among CHSCNs patients 45% (n=115) patients were readmitted (N=105) or died (N=10). Patients without CHSCNs had a 22% readmission (N=133) or death (N=18) rate. The checklist had: sensitivity 43% (95% CI 37% to 49%), specificity 79% (95% CI 76% to 82%), positive predictive value 45% (95% CI 41% to 51%), and negative predictive value 78% (95% CI 76% to 80%). Relative risk of readmission/death for patients with CHSCNs was 2.06 (95% CI 1.69 to 2.50), indicating a pretest to post-test probability change of 28%-45%. The checklist demonstrated high inter-rater reliability (percentage agreement ≥87% for all domains; overall kappa, 0.84). CONCLUSIONS: Early evaluation of a screening checklist for CHSCNs at ICU discharge suggests potential clinical usefulness, but this requires further evaluation as part of a care pathway.

Acceptability, benefits, and challenges of video consulting: a qualitative study in primary care.

BACKGROUND: People increasingly communicate online, using visual communication mediums such as Skype and FaceTime. Growing demands on primary care services mean that new ways of providing patient care are being considered. Video consultation (VC) over the internet is one such mode. AIM: To explore patients' and clinicians' experiences of VC. DESIGN AND SETTING: Semi-structured interviews in UK primary care. METHOD: Primary care clinicians were provided with VC equipment. They invited patients requiring a follow-up consultation to an online VC using the Attend Anywhere web-based platform. Participating patients required a smartphone, tablet, or video-enabled computer. Following VCs, semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients (n = 21) and primary care clinicians (n = 13), followed by a thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants reported positive experiences of VC, and stated that VC was particularly helpful for them as working people and people with mobility or mental health problems. VCs were considered superior to telephone consultations in providing visual cues and reassurance, building rapport, and improving communication. Technical problems, however, were common. Clinicians felt, for routine use, VCs must be more reliable and seamlessly integrated with appointment systems, which would require upgrading of current NHS IT systems. CONCLUSION: The visual component of VCs offers distinct advantages over telephone consultations. When integrated with current systems VCs can provide a time-saving alternative to face-to-face consultations when formal physical examination is not required, especially for people who work. Demand for VC services in primary care is likely to rise, but improved technical infrastructure is required to allow VC to become routine. However, for complex or sensitive problems face-to-face consultations remain preferable.

Comparing the content and quality of video, telephone, and face-to-face consultations: a non-randomised, quasi-experimental, exploratory study in UK primary care.

BACKGROUND: Growing demands on primary care services have led to policymakers promoting video consultations (VCs) to replace routine face-to-face consultations (FTFCs) in general practice. AIM: To explore the content, quality, and patient experience of VC, telephone (TC), and FTFCs in general practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: Comparison of audio-recordings of follow-up consultations in UK primary care. METHOD: Primary care clinicians were provided with video-consulting equipment. Participating patients required a smartphone, tablet, or computer with camera. Clinicians invited patients requiring a follow-up consultation to choose a VC, TC, or FTFC. Consultations were audio-recorded and analysed for content and quality. Participant experience was explored in post-consultation questionnaires. Case notes were reviewed for NHS resource use. RESULTS: Of the recordings, 149/163 were suitable for analysis. VC recruits were younger, and more experienced in communicating online. FTFCs were longer than VCs (mean difference +3.7 minutes, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.1 to 5.2) or TCs (+4.1 minutes, 95% CI = 2.6 to 5.5). On average, patients raised fewer problems in VCs (mean 1.5, standard deviation [SD] 0.8) compared with FTFCs (mean 2.1, SD 1.1) and demonstrated fewer instances of information giving by clinicians and patients. FTFCs scored higher than VCs and TCs on consultation-quality items. CONCLUSION: VC may be suitable for simple problems not requiring physical examination. VC, in terms of consultation length, content, and quality, appeared similar to TC. Both approaches appeared less 'information rich' than FTFC. Technical problems were common and, though patients really liked VC, infrastructure issues would need to be addressed before the technology and approach can be mainstreamed in primary care.