Investigating Patient Use and Experience of Online Appointment Booking in Primary Care: Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Online appointment booking is a commonly used tool in several industries. There is limited evidence about the benefits and challenges of using online appointment booking in health care settings. Potential benefits include convenience and the ability to track appointments, although some groups of patients may find it harder to engage with online appointment booking. We sought to understand how patients in England used and experienced online appointment booking. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe and compare the characteristics of patients in relation to their use of online appointment booking in general practice and investigate patients' views regarding online appointment booking arrangements. METHODS: This was a mixed methods study set in English general practice comprising a retrospective analysis of the General Practice Patient Survey (GPPS) and semistructured interviews with patients. Data used in the retrospective analysis comprised responses to the 2018 and 2019 GPPS analyzed using mixed-effects logistic regression. Semistructured interviews with purposively sampled patients from 11 general practices in England explored experiences of and views on online appointment booking. Framework analysis was used to allow for comparison with the findings of the retrospective analysis. RESULTS: The retrospective analysis included 1,327,693 GPPS responders (2018-2019 combined). We conducted 43 interviews with patients with a variety of experiences and awareness of online appointment booking; of these 43 patients, 6 (14%) were from ethnic minority groups. In the retrospective analysis, more patients were aware that online appointment booking was available (581,224/1,288,341, 45.11%) than had experience using it (203,184/1,301,694, 15.61%). There were deprivation gradients for awareness and use and a substantial decline in both awareness and use in patients aged >75 years. For interview participants, age and life stage were factors influencing experiences and perceptions, working patients valued convenience, and older patients preferred to use the telephone. Patients with long-term conditions were more aware of (odds ratio [OR] 1.43, 95% CI 1.41-1.44) and more likely to use (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.63-1.67) online appointment booking. Interview participants with long-term conditions described online appointment booking as useful for routine nonurgent appointments. Patients in deprived areas were clustered in practices with low awareness and use of online appointment booking among GPPS respondents (OR for use 0.65, 95% CI 0.64-0.67). Other key findings included the influence of the availability of appointments online and differences in the registration process for accessing online booking. CONCLUSIONS: Whether and how patients engage with online appointment booking is influenced by the practice with which they are registered, whether they live with long-term conditions, and their deprivation status. These factors should be considered in designing and implementing online appointment booking and have implications for patient engagement with the wider range of online services offered in general practice.

Improving patients', carers' and primary care healthcare professionals' experiences of discharge communication from specialist palliative care to community settings: a protocol for a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Patients who have benefited from specialist intervention during periods of acute/complex palliative care needs often transition from specialist-to-primary care once such needs have been controlled. Effective communication between services is central to co-ordination of care to avoid the potential consequences of unmet needs, fragmented care, and poor patient and family experience. Discharge communications are a key component of care transitions. However, little is known about the experiences of those primarily receiving these communications, to include patients', carers' and primary care healthcare professionals. This study aims to have a better understanding of how the discharge communications from specialist palliative care services to primary care are experienced by patients, carers, and healthcare professionals, and how these communications might be improved to support effective patient-centred care. METHODS: This is a 15-month qualitative study. We will interview 30 adult patients and carers and 15 healthcare professionals (n = 45). We will seek a range of experiences of discharge communication by using a maximum variation approach to sampling, including purposively recruiting people from a range of demographic backgrounds from 4-6 specialist palliative care services (hospitals and hospices) as well as 5-7 general practices. Interview data will be analysed using a reflexive thematic approach and will involve input from the research and advisory team. Working with clinicians, commissioners, and PPI representatives we will co-produce a list of recommendations for discharge communication from specialist palliative care. DISCUSSION: Data collection may be limited by the need to be sensitive to participants' wellbeing needs. Study findings will be shared through academic publications and presentations. We will draft principles for how specialist palliative care clinicians can best communicate discharge with patients, carers, and primary care clinicians. These will be shared with clinicians, policy makers, commissioners, and PPI representatives and key stakeholders and organisations (e.g. Hospice UK) and on social media. Key outputs will be recommendations for a specialist palliative care discharge proforma. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered in ISRCTN Registry on 29.12.2023 ref: ISRCTN18098027.

Evaluation of different models of general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments: a mixed-methods realist evaluation.

Background: Emergency healthcare services are under intense pressure to meet increasing patient demands. Many patients presenting to emergency departments could be managed by general practitioners in general practitioner-emergency department service models. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness, safety, patient experience and system implications of the different general practitioner-emergency department models. Design: Mixed-methods realist evaluation. Methods: Phase 1 (2017-8), to understand current practice: rapid realist literature review, national survey and follow-up key informant interviews, national stakeholder event and safety data analysis. Phase 2 (2018-21), to collect and analyse qualitative (observations, interviews) and quantitative data (time series analysis); cost-consequences analysis of routine data; and case site data for 'marker condition' analysis from a purposive sample of 13 case sites in England and Wales. Phase 3 (2021-2), to conduct mixed-methods analysis for programme theory and toolkit development. Results: General practitioners commonly work in emergency departments, but delivery models vary widely in terms of the scope of the general practitioner role and the scale of the general practitioner service. We developed a taxonomy to describe general practitioner-emergency department service models (Integrated with the emergency department service, Parallel within the emergency department, Outside the emergency department on the hospital site) and present a programme theory as principal output of the study to describe how these service models were observed to operate. Routine data were of variable quality, limiting our analysis. Time series analysis demonstrated trends across intervention sites for: increased time spent in the emergency department; increased emergency department attendances and reattendances; and mixed results for hospital admissions. Evidence on patient experience was limited but broadly supportive; we identified department-level processes to optimise the safety of general practitioner-emergency department models. Limitations: The quality, heterogeneity and extent of routine emergency department data collection during the study period limited the conclusions. Recruitment was limited by criteria for case sites (time series requirements) and individual patients (with 'marker conditions'). Pandemic and other pressures limited data collection for marker condition analysis. Data collected and analysed were pre pandemic; new approaches such as 'telephone first' and their relevance to our findings remains unexplored. Conclusion: Findings suggest that general practitioner-emergency department service models do not meet the aim of reducing the overall emergency department waiting times and improving patient flow with limited evidence of cost savings. Qualitative data indicated that general practitioners were often valued as members of the wider emergency department team. We have developed a toolkit, based on our findings, to provide guidance for implementing and delivering general practitioner-emergency department services. Future work: The emergency care data set has since been introduced across England to help standardise data collection to facilitate further research. We would advocate the systematic capture of patient experience measures and patient-reported outcome measures as part of routine care. More could be done to support the development of the general practitioner in emergency department role, including a core set of competencies and governance structure, to reflect the different general practitioner-emergency department models and to evaluate the effectiveness and cost effectiveness to guide future policy. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017069741. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 15/145/04) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 10. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Hospital emergency departments are under huge pressure. Patients are waiting many hours to be seen, some with problems that general practitioners could deal with. To reduce waiting times and improve patient care, arrangements have been put in place for general practitioners to work in or alongside emergency departments (general practitioner­emergency department models). We studied the different ways of working to find out what works well, how and for whom. We brought together a lot of information. We reviewed existing evidence, sent out surveys to 184 emergency departments, spent time in the emergency departments observing how they operated and interviewing 106 staff in 13 hospitals and 24 patients who visited those emergency departments. We also looked at statistical information recorded by hospitals. Two public contributors were involved from the beginning, and we held two stakeholder events to ensure the relevance of our research to professionals and patients. Getting reliable figures to compare the various general practitioner­emergency department set-ups (inside, parallel to or outside the emergency department) was difficult. Our findings suggest that over time more people are coming to emergency departments and overall waiting times did not generally improve due to general practitioner­emergency department models. Evidence that general practitioners might admit fewer patients to hospital was mixed, with limited findings of cost savings. Patients were generally supportive of the care they received, although we could not speak to as many patients as we planned. The skills and experience of general practitioners were often valued as members of the wider emergency department team. We identified how the care provided was kept safe with: strong leaders, good communication between different types of staff, highly trained and experienced nurses responsible for streaming and specific training for general practitioners on how they were expected to work. We have produced a guide to help professionals develop and improve general practitioner­emergency department services and we have written easy-to-read summaries of all the articles we published.

General practice management after transition events: protocol for an experience-based co-design study.

BACKGROUND: Discharge from hospital is a critical part of the patient journey, particularly for older patients with multi-morbidity and polypharmacy. General practice has a key role in managing the post-discharge course of patients. A communication intervention for use in General Practice in the immediate post-discharge period has great potential to improve shared decision making, enhancing patient experiences of post-discharge care. AIM: General Practice Management After Transition Events (GP-MATE) aims to produce a tool for older patients and their carers (GP-MATE) which will assist better communication with their general practice about their care after discharge, thereby improving patient safety outcomes. DESIGN & SETTING: Experience-Based Co-Design (EBCD) study involving general practices across the West Midlands. METHOD: A slightly modified approach to EBCD will be followed to create GP-MATE. A focused ethnography undertaken at general practices will provide an understanding of practices' systems for post-discharge management of older patients. Semi-structured video interviews with recently discharged older patients or their carers will be edited into a trigger film. Finally, co-design workshops with older people, carers and healthcare staff working in general practices will take place with participants from three regions across England. CONCLUSION: EBCD will be used to take a patient centric approach towards creating GP-MATE; patients' and carers' priorities will be directly reflected within the tool. GP-MATE will be a low-cost intervention which improves health literacy, empowering patients to fill the emerging gap in continuity in the post-discharge period and enhancing patient experiences of post discharge care.

Programme theories to describe how different general practitioner service models work in different contexts in or alongside emergency departments (GP-ED): realist evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Addressing increasing patient demand and improving ED patient flow is a key ambition for NHS England. Delivering general practitioner (GP) services in or alongside EDs (GP-ED) was advocated in 2017 for this reason, supported by £100 million (US$130 million) of capital funding. Current evidence shows no overall improvement in addressing demand and reducing waiting times, but considerable variation in how different service models operate, subject to local context. METHODS: We conducted mixed-methods analysis using inductive and deductive approaches for qualitative (observations, interviews) and quantitative data (time series analyses of attendances, reattendances, hospital admissions, length of stay) based on previous research using a purposive sample of 13 GP-ED service models (3 inside-integrated, 4 inside-parallel service, 3 outside-onsite and 3 with no GPs) in England and Wales. We used realist methodology to understand the relationship between contexts, mechanisms and outcomes to develop programme theories about how and why different GP-ED service models work. RESULTS: GP-ED service models are complex, with variation in scope and scale of the service, influenced by individual, departmental and external factors. Quantitative data were of variable quality: overall, no reduction in attendances and waiting times, a mixed picture for hospital admissions and length of hospital stay. Our programme theories describe how the GP-ED service models operate: inside the ED, integrated with patient flow and general ED demand, with a wider GP role than usual primary care; outside the ED, addressing primary care demand with an experienced streaming nurse facilitating the 'right patients' are streamed to the GP; or within the ED as a parallel service with most variability in the level of integration and GP role. CONCLUSION: GP-ED services are complex . Our programme theories inform recommendations on how services could be modified in particular contexts to address local demand, or whether alternative healthcare services should be considered.

A mixed-methods systematic review investigating the use of digital health interventions to provide palliative and end-of-life care for patients in low- and middle-income countries.

Background: The need for palliative care is rising globally with 76% of those who are in need living in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Digital health interventions (DHIs) have been identified as a means of making palliative care more widely accessible. This review summarizes the range and characteristics of DHIs used to deliver palliative care in LMICs and sought to identify factors that influence their implementation and utilization. Objectives: This review aims to summarize the range and characteristics of DHIs used to deliver palliative care in LMICs and identify factors that influence their implementation and utilization. Design: Mixed-method systematic review incorporating both quantitative and qualitative data. Data sources and methods: All studies focusing on DHIs for patients who need palliative care (adults/children) and their caregivers (patient and caregiver centred) in LMICs and published in English were identified through a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases. Data synthesis and analysis were carried out following the convergent integrated approach based on the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for mixed-methods systematic reviews. Results: Fifteen studies were included (three qualitative, four mixed-methods and eight quantitative studies). Telemedicine/mHealth was the most reported DHI utilized in LMICs in delivering palliative care. Patients and caregivers benefited from using DHIs in many ways including increased access to care with reduced discomfort, travel time and risk of health care-associated infections. Health care providers also reported that using DHI such as telemedicine enables them to provide care in a more effective and efficient way. Four factors were identified as the main barriers to implementation: resource constraints; literacy, training and skills; governance, operational and communication issues and technical issues. Conclusion: DHIs, such as telemedicine, have the potential to enhance accessibility to palliative care in LMICs, particularly in rural areas. Comprehensive strategies for their use are required to address the identified barriers.

Understanding the inclusion and participation of adults from Black African Diaspora Communities (BAFDC) in health and care research in the UK: a realist review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: People from Black African Diaspora Communities (BAFDC) experience poorer health outcomes, have many long-term conditions and are persistently under-represented in health and care research. There is limited focus on programmes, or interventions that support inclusion and participation of people from BAFDC in research. Through coproduction, this realist review seeks to provide a programme theory explaining what context and mechanisms may be required, to produce outcomes that facilitate inclusion and participation for people from BAFDC in health and care research, in the UK. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A group of people from BAFDC with lived and professional experience, representing all levels of the health and care research system, will coproduce a realist review with a team of African-Caribbean, white British and white British of Polish origin health and care researchers. They will follow Pawson's five steps: (1) shaping the scope of the review; (2) searching for evidence; (3) document selection and appraisal; (4) data extraction and (5) data synthesis. The coproduction group will help to map the current landscape, identifying key issues that may inhibit or facilitate inclusion. Data will be extracted, analysed and synthesised following realist logic analysis, identifying and explaining how context and mechanisms are conceptualised in the literature and the types of contextual factors that exist and impact on inclusion and participation. Findings will be reported in accordance with Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis Evolving Standards . ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The coproduction group will agree an ethical approach considering accountability, responsibility and power dynamics, by establishing a terms of reference, taking a reflexive approach and coproducing an ethical framework. Findings will be disseminated to BAFDC and the research community through arts-based methods, peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations, agreeing a coproduced strategy for dissemination. Ethical review is not required. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024517124.

Co-producing an online patient public community research hub: a qualitative study exploring the perspectives of national institute for health research (NIHR) research champions in England.

BACKGROUND: Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) should be embedded as part of researchers' everyday practice. However, this can be challenging. Creating a digital presence for PPIE as part of Higher Education Institutes' (HEIs) infrastructure may be one way of supporting this. This can support how information is made available to patients and members of the public, but relatively little is known about how HEIs can best do this. Our aim was to develop a university website for patients and members of the public to learn about ways to get actively involved in research and be able to access the results of health and social care research. METHODS: This project involved working as partners with five National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Research Champions. NIHR Research Champions are volunteers who raise awareness and share experiences about health and social care research. Content of a prototype Patient Public Community Research Hub website was co-produced with the Research Champions, and then 15 NIHR Research Champions from across England were asked for their views about the website. FINDINGS: The information collected told us that the Patient Public Community Research Hub was viewed as being beneficial for increasing visibility of PPIE opportunities and sharing the findings of studies though needs further work: to make the information more user-friendly; to improve the methods for directing people to the site and to create new ways of connecting with people. It provides a foundation for further co-development and evaluation. A set of recommendations has been developed that may be of benefit to other HEIs and organisations who are committed to working with patients and members of the public.

Sharing the results of health and care research studies with patients and members of the public could be improved. In many cases, patients and members of the public do not receive the results of studies they have taken part in. As well, it should also be easy for patients and members of the public to find out about opportunities to get involved with researchers in the development of their research. Universities have an important role to play in providing opportunities for patients and members of the public to be involved in the development of research studies, as well as sharing the findings of their studies. Creating an online patient public community research hub for this purpose was co-produced with National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Research Champions. The aims of this research were to find out what research volunteers within the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), in the UK, would like to find on a university website about health and care research. This research aimed to understand how best to raise awareness about how people can get involved in research. It also aimed to understand how best to share information about research, with patients and members of the public, from a university website. Five NIHR Research Champions from diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds (including younger and older people) helped to develop a set of webpages on a university website, called the Patient Public Community Research Hub. Once the initial online hub was created, online interviews were held with another 15 NIHR Research Champions. The interviews were to help the researcher to understand what they thought about the Patient Public Community Research Hub. The results from the interviews were analysed and grouped into themes. The themes helped to tell us what NIHR Research Champions felt patients and members of the public would want to see on the Patient Public Community Research Hub and what areas needed improving. A co-produced set of recommendations was created with the NIHR Research Champions who helped to shape the Patient Public Community Research Hub. The recommendations are for researchers, other organisations, or services to use. These recommendations along with the findings may help to improve how information gets shared about the results of research and ways in which patients and members of the public can get involved.

GPs' views on emergency care treatment plans: an online survey.

BACKGROUND: A holistic approach to emergency care treatment planning is needed to ensure that patients' preferences are considered should their clinical condition deteriorate. To address this, emergency care and treatment plans (ECTPs) have been introduced. Little is known about their use in general practice. AIM: To find out GPs' experiences of, and views on, using ECTPs. DESIGN & SETTING: Online survey of GPs practising in England. METHOD: A total of 841 GPs were surveyed using the monthly online survey provided by medeConnect, a market research company. RESULTS: Forty-one per cent of responders' practices used Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) plans for ECTP, 8% used other ECTPs, and 51% used Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) forms. GPs were the predominant professional group completing ECTPs in the community. There was broad support for a wider range of community-based health and social care professionals being able to complete ECTPs. There was no system for reviewing ECTPs in 20% of responders' practices. When compared with using a DNACPR form, GPs using a ReSPECT form for ECTP were more comfortable having conversations about emergency care treatment with patients (odds ratio [OR] = 1.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.1 to 2.69) and family members (OR =1.85, 95% CI = 1.19 to 2.87). CONCLUSION: The potential benefits and challenges of widening the pool of health and social care professionals initiating and/or completing the ECTP process needs consideration. ReSPECT plans appear to make GPs more comfortable with ECTP discussions, supporting their implementation. Practice-based systems for reviewing ECTP decisions should be strengthened.

The cost of implementing the COVID-19 shielding policy in Wales.

BACKGROUND: The EVITE Immunity study investigated the effects of shielding Clinically Extremely Vulnerable (CEV) people during the COVID-19 pandemic on health outcomes and healthcare costs in Wales, United Kingdom, to help prepare for future pandemics. Shielding was intended to protect those at highest risk of serious harm from COVID-19. We report the cost of implementing shielding in Wales. METHODS: The number of people shielding was extracted from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank. Resources supporting shielding between March and June 2020 were mapped using published reports, web pages, freedom of information requests to Welsh Government and personal communications (e.g. with the office of the Chief Medical Officer for Wales). RESULTS: At the beginning of shielding, 117,415 people were on the shielding list. The total additional cost to support those advised to stay home during the initial 14 weeks of the pandemic was £13,307,654 (£113 per person shielded). This included the new resources required to compile the shielding list, inform CEV people of the shielding intervention and provide medicine and food deliveries. The list was adjusted weekly over the 3-month period (130,000 people identified by June 2020). Therefore the cost per person shielded lies between £102 and £113 per person. CONCLUSION: This is the first evaluation of the cost of the measures put in place to support those identified to shield in Wales. However, no data on opportunity cost was available. The true costs of shielding including its budget impact and opportunity costs need to be investigated to decide whether shielding is a worthwhile policy for future health emergencies.

Uptake and Use of Care Companion, a Web-Based Information Resource for Supporting Informal Carers of Older People: Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Informal carers play a major role in supporting relatives and friends who are sick, disabled, or frail. Access to information, guidance, and support that are relevant to the lives and circumstances of carers is critical to carers feeling supported in their role. When unmet, this need is known to adversely affect carer resilience and well-being. To address this problem, Care Companion was co-designed with current and former carers and stakeholders as a free-to-use, web-based resource to provide access to a broad range of tailored information, including links to local and national resources. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the real-world uptake and use of Care Companion in 1 region of England (with known carer population of approximately 100,000), with local health, community, and social care teams being asked to actively promote its use. METHODS: The study had a convergent parallel, mixed methods design and drew on the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) framework. Data included metrics from carers' use of Care Companion, surveys completed by users recruited through general practice, and interviews with carers and health and social care providers regarding their views about Care Companion and their response to it. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Interview data were analyzed thematically and synthesized to create overarching themes. The qualitative findings were used for in-depth exploration and interpretation of quantitative results. RESULTS: Despite awareness-raising activities by relevant health, social care, and community organizations, there was limited uptake with only 556 carers (0.87% of the known carer population of 100,000) registering to use Care Companion in total, with median of 2 (mean 7.2; mode 2) visits per registered user. Interviews with carers (n=29) and stakeholders (n=12) identified 7 key themes that influenced registration, use, and perceived value: stakeholders' signposting of carers to Care Companion, expectations about Care Companion, activity levels and conflicting priorities, experience of using Care Companion, relevance to personal circumstances, social isolation and networks, and experience with digital technology. Although many interviewed carers felt that it was potentially useful, few considered it as being of direct relevance to their own circumstances. For some, concerns about social isolation and lack of hands-on support were more pressing issues than the need for information. CONCLUSIONS: The gap between the enthusiastic views expressed by carers during Care Companion's co-design and the subsequent low level of uptake and user experience observed in this evaluation suggests that the co-design process may have lacked a sufficiently diverse set of viewpoints. Numerous factors were identified as contributing to Care Companion's level of use, some of which might have been anticipated during its co-design. More emphasis on the development and implementation, including continuing co-design support after deployment, may have supported increased use.

Rationale for the shielding policy for clinically vulnerable people in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Shielding aimed to protect those predicted to be at highest risk from COVID-19 and was uniquely implemented in the UK during the first year of the pandemic from March 2020. As the first stage in the EVITE Immunity evaluation (Effects of shielding for vulnerable people during COVID-19 pandemic on health outcomes, costs and immunity, including those with cancer:quasi-experimental evaluation), we generated a logic model to describe the programme theory underlying the shielding intervention. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: We reviewed published documentation on shielding to develop an initial draft of the logic model. We then discussed this draft during interviews with 13 key stakeholders involved in putting shielding into effect in Wales and England. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically to inform a final draft of the logic model. RESULTS: The shielding intervention was a complex one, introduced at pace by multiple agencies working together. We identified three core components: agreement on clinical criteria; development of the list of people appropriate for shielding; and communication of shielding advice. In addition, there was a support programme, available as required to shielding people, including food parcels, financial support and social support. The predicted mechanism of change was that people would isolate themselves and so avoid infection, with the primary intended outcome being reduction in mortality in the shielding group. Unintended impacts included negative impact on mental and physical health and well-being. Details of the intervention varied slightly across the home nations of the UK and were subject to minor revisions during the time the intervention was in place. CONCLUSIONS: Shielding was a largely untested strategy, aiming to mitigate risk by placing a responsibility on individuals to protect themselves. The model of its rationale, components and outcomes (intended and unintended) will inform evaluation of the impact of shielding and help us to understand its effect and limitations.

Clinician-led secondary triage in England's urgent care delivery: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Clinician-led secondary triage, following primary triage by the NHS 111 phone line, is central to England's urgent care system. However, little is known about how secondary triage influences the urgency attributed to patients' needs. AIM: To describe patterns of secondary triage outcomes and call-related factors (such as call length and time of call) associated with upgrading/downgrading of primary triage outcomes. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional analysis of secondary triage call records from four urgent care providers in England using the same digital triage system to support clinicians' decision making. METHOD: Statistical analyses (mixed-effects regression) of approximately 200 000 secondary triage call records were undertaken. RESULTS: Following secondary triage, 12% of calls were upgraded (including 2% becoming classified as emergencies) from the primary triage urgency. The highest odds of upgrade related to chest pain (odds ratio [OR] 2.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.34 to 3.07) and breathlessness (OR 1.62, 95% CI = 1.42 to 1.85; reference: abdominal pain) presentations. However, 74% of calls were downgraded; notably, 92% (n = 33 394) of calls classified at primary triage as needing clinical attention within 1 h were downgraded. Secondary triage outcomes were associated with operational factors (day/time of call), and most substantially with the clinician conducting triage. CONCLUSION: Non-clinician primary triage has significant limitations, highlighting the importance of secondary triage in the English urgent care system. It may miss key symptoms that are subsequently triaged as requiring immediate care, while also being too risk averse for most calls leading to downgrading of urgency. There is unexplained inconsistency between clinicians, despite all using the same digital triage system. Further research is needed to improve the consistency and safety of urgent care triage.

General practice experiences for parents of children with intellectual disability: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Parents of children diagnosed with intellectual disability are at increased risk of mental and physical health difficulties compared with other parents. They are likely to regularly seek medical treatment for their health concerns from general practice as well as on behalf of their child with intellectual disability, yet there is limited evaluation of the role general practice plays for this patient group. AIM: To explore parents' experiences of general practice support when caring for a child with intellectual disability. DESIGN & SETTING: Systematic review of studies reporting experiences of general practice as described by parents who care for children with intellectual disability. METHOD: Databases were searched using a pre-defined search strategy. Studies were included based on detailed inclusion criteria, title, abstract, and full-text screening. Quality assessment was conducted using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). A narrative synthesis was conducted. RESULTS: A total of nine studies were identified. There was a clear absence of data on parents' own health experience and consultation in general practice. Findings related to navigating general practice on behalf of their child's health including accessibility of general practice and positive and negative experiences of GPs. CONCLUSION: Findings from this review highlight priority areas for research, including further exploration of parents' perspectives on seeking support specifically for their own health concerns, while caring for a child with intellectual disability, to bring more awareness and understanding of the role general practice plays in supporting the health of this carer group. This review also considers implications for clinical services, including tailoring appointments for this patient group as a priority for continuity of care, which may result in improved experiences of general practice and encourage better communication.

Challenges experienced by GPs when providing palliative care in the UK: a systematic qualitative literature review.

BACKGROUND: GPs in the UK will face increased palliative care demands in the coming years. Understanding what makes providing palliative care difficult for GPs is an important step to planning future services, but currently there is an absence of synthesised literature addressing this area. AIM: To identify the range of issues that affect GPs' provision of palliative care. DESIGN & SETTING: A qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis of studies exploring GPs' experiences of providing palliative care in the UK. METHOD: Four databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL [Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature]) were searched on 1 June 2022 to identify relevant primary qualitative literature published between 2008 and 2022. RESULTS: Twelve articles were included in the review. The following four themes were identified that affect GPs' experiences of providing palliative care: lack of resources to support palliative care provision; fragmented multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach; challenging communication with patients and carers; and inadequate training to address the complexities of palliative care. Pressures caused by increasing workloads and a lack of staffing combined with difficulty accessing specialist teams impeded GPs' provision of palliative care. Further challenges were deficiencies in GP training, and a lack of patient understanding or unwillingness to engage in palliative care discussions. CONCLUSION: A multifaceted approach focusing on increased resources, improved training, and a seamless interface between services, including improved access to specialist palliative teams when necessary, is needed to address the difficulties that GPs face in palliative care. Regular in-house MDT discussion of palliative cases and exploration of community resources could generate a supportive environment for GPs.

Online support groups for carers of people living with dementia: An investigation of videoconferencing support groups in lockdown.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to explore the experiences of carers of people living with dementia who participated in videoconferencing support groups during the COVID-19 pandemic to investigate their preferences and experiences with online, hybrid, and face-to-face support. METHODS: This convergent mixed methods design study utilised an online questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. Interviews took place over videoconferencing software and were analysed through thematic analysis. Participants were recruited from support groups based in the UK and Ireland. RESULTS: 39 carers of people living with dementia completed the questionnaire and 16 carers participated in interviews. Participants found videoconferencing support groups more convenient, but face-to-face groups more enjoyable. Participants who had found it difficult to access face-to-face groups prior to COVID-19 expressed more positive perceptions of videoconference-based groups. Many felt that hybrid groups would make it easier for more people to attend. However, some carers described lacking the resources and technological skills to participate in online support groups effectively. Some suggested making IT training available may improve the capacity of carers to access support online. CONCLUSION: Videoconferencing support groups can be an appropriate way of supporting carers of people with dementia, especially for those who do not have access to face-to-face support groups. However, face-to-face support remains important to carers and should be made available when it can be implemented safely. Hybrid support groups could allow for increased accessibility while still providing the option of face-to-face contact for those who prefer it or are not adept with technology.

Role and response of primary healthcare services in community end-of-life care during COVID-19: Qualitative study and recommendations for primary palliative care delivery.

BACKGROUND: The need for end-of-life care in the community increased significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Primary care services, including general practitioners and community nurses, had a critical role in providing such care, rapidly changing their working practices to meet demand. Little is known about primary care responses to a major change in place of care towards the end of life, or the implications for future end-of-life care services. AIM: To gather general practitioner and community nurse perspectives on factors that facilitated community end-of-life care during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to use this to develop recommendations to improve future delivery of end-of-life care. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study with thematic analysis, followed by refinement of themes and recommendations in consultation with an expert advisory group. PARTICIPANTS: General practitioners (n = 8) and community nurses (n = 17) working in primary care in the UK. RESULTS: General practitioner and community nurse perspectives on factors critical to sustaining community end-of-life care were identified under three themes: (1) partnership working is key, (2) care planning for end-of-life needs improvement, and (3) importance of the physical presence of primary care professionals. Drawing on participants' experiences and behaviour change theory, recommendations are proposed to improve end-of-life care in primary care. CONCLUSIONS: To sustain and embed positive change, an increased policy focus on primary care in end-of-life care is required. Targeted interventions developed during COVID-19, including online team meetings and education, new prescribing systems and unified guidance, could increase capacity and capability of the primary care workforce to deliver community end-of-life care.

Do Healthy People Engage With Education About Death, Dying and Advance Care Planning? An Early Evaluation of the Omega Course.

Background: Death can be difficult to address personally, to discuss and to plan for. Since 2016 The Omega Course (Omega) has educated local people in Kenilworth, UK, about death and dying; broaching these issues and teaching communication skills whilst enabling social interaction. It aspires to produce practical outcomes with positive implications for end of life (EoL) planning and future neighbourhood care within the town. Aim: To investigate the impact of Omega on the attitudes and actions of participants. Method: Anonymous questionnaires, distributed by Qualtrics, or by post if preferred, were sent to 62 participants of Omega aged 22-94 two and a half years post course institution. Thematic analysis and inferential statistics were used. Results: 23 replies (37%) scored changes across 4 areas; barriers to discussion, ease discussing death, fears about death and future planning capability. All showed a significant beneficial change using a Paired Sample t-test (P< .01). Respondents noted common fears of death and dying, barriers to discussing the topic and planning for it. The course helped to allay fear, enabled discussion and encouraged planning for death and EoL. Respondents rated the course as 9.1/10 for achieving its aims. They appreciated discussing death and dying in a supportive environment and found the approach effective in developing their skills and changing attitudes. Conclusion: Omega has the potential to change attitudes towards death; promoting discussion, planning, and tackling misconceptions.