Exploring the experiences and preferences of South Asian patients' of primary care in England since COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Remote (digital and/or telephone) access and consultation models are being driven by national policy with the goal being that the National Health Service operate on a remote-first (digital-first) basis by 2029. Previous research has suggested that remote methods of access to care and consulting may act to widen health inequalities for certain patients and/or groups such as those from ethnic minorities. South Asian (SA) patients comprise the largest ethnic minority group in England. Understanding the experiences and needs of this group is critical to ensuring that general practice can deliver equitable, quality health care. METHODS: Qualitative study. 37 participants (from Indian, Pakistani and/or Bangladeshi background) were recruited to take part in either in-person preferred language focus groups or remote semistructured interviews in the English language. Thematic analysis was conducted to identify themes in the qualitative data. FINDINGS: Three major interlinked themes were identified: (1) reduced access, (2) reduced patient choice and (3) quality and safety concerns. The findings highlight access issues split by (i) general issues with appointment access via any remote means and (ii) specific issues related to language barriers creating additional barriers to access and care. Some patients valued the convenience of remote access but also raised concerns regarding appointment availability and reduced patient choice. Face-to-face consultations were preferable but less available. The findings underscore how participants perceived remote care to be of lesser quality and less safe. Concerns were greatest for those with limited English proficiency (LEP), with the removal of non-verbal aspects of communication and 'hands-on' care leading to perceptions of reduced psycho-social safety. CONCLUSION: SA patients' experiences of remote-led primary care access and care delivery were negative with only a minority viewing it positively and for certain limited scenarios. Face-to-face models of care remain the preferred mode of consultation, particularly for those with LEP. Hybrid models of access offer patients the greatest choice, and are likely to meet the varying needs of the South-Asian patient population going forwards. The remote first approach to primary care may be achievable as a service ideal, but its limitations need to be recognised and accounted for to ensure that primary care can be an equitable service, both now and in the future. PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Members of the public were involved in all phases of research in the study. This included co-working in partnership throughout the study including, reviewing patient-facing documents, recruiting participants, data facilitation, translation work, interpretation of the data and co-authors on this manuscript. The key to the success of our study was collaborative teamwork, which involved experienced members of the public with SA cultural knowledge working together with and integral to the research team for all components.

Patient safety in marginalised groups: a narrative scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Marginalised groups ('populations outside of mainstream society') experience severe health inequities, as well as increased risk of experiencing patient safety incidents. To date however no review exists to identify, map and analyse the literature in this area in order to understand 1) which marginalised groups have been studied in terms of patient safety research, 2) what the particular patient safety issues are for such groups and 3) what contributes to or is associated with these safety issues arising. METHODS: Scoping review. Systematic searches were performed across six electronic databases in September 2019. The time frame for searches of the respective databases was from the year 2000 until present day. RESULTS: The searches yielded 3346 articles, and 67 articles were included. Patient safety issues were identified for fourteen different marginalised patient groups across all studies, with 69% (n = 46) of the studies focused on four patient groups: ethnic minority groups, frail elderly populations, care home residents and low socio-economic status. Twelve separate patient safety issues were classified. Just over half of the studies focused on three issues represented in the patient safety literature, and in order of frequency were: medication safety, adverse outcomes and near misses. In total, 157 individual contributing or associated factors were identified and mapped to one of seven different factor types from the Framework of Contributory Factors Influencing Clinical Practice within the London Protocol. Patient safety issues were mostly multifactorial in origin including patient factors, health provider factors and health care system factors. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights that marginalised patient groups are vulnerable to experiencing a variety patient safety issues and points to a number of gaps. The findings indicate the need for further research to understand the intersectional nature of marginalisation and the multi-dimensional nature of patient safety issues, for groups that have been under-researched, including those with mental health problems, communication and cognitive impairments. Such understanding provides a basis for working collaboratively to co-design training, services and/or interventions designed to remove or at the very least minimise these increased risks. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable for a scoping review.

Black and minority ethnic group involvement in health and social care research: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is growing internationally, but little is known about black and minority ethnic (BME) involvement and the factors influencing their involvement in health and social care research. OBJECTIVES: To characterize and critique the empirical literature on BME-PPI involvement in health and social care research. SEARCH STRATEGY: Systematic searches of six electronic bibliographic databases were undertaken, utilizing both MeSH and free-text terms to identify international empirical literature published between 1990 and 2016. INCLUSION CRITERIA: All study designs that report primary data that involved BME groups in health or social care research. Screening was conducted by two reviewers. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data extraction and quality appraisal were performed independently. Data extraction focused on the level(s) of PPI involvement and where PPI activity occurred in the research cycle. Studies were quality-assessed using the guidelines for measuring the quality and impact of user involvement in research. Data were analysed using a narrative approach. MAIN RESULTS: Forty-five studies were included with the majority undertaken in the USA focusing on African Americans and indigenous populations. Involvement most commonly occurred during the research design phase and least in data analysis and interpretation. CONCLUSION: This is the first systematic review investigating BME involvement in health and social care research internationally. While there is a widespread support for BME involvement, this is limited to particular phases of the research and particular ethnic subgroups. There is a need to understand factors that influence BME involvement in all parts of the research cycle.

Does the impact of case management vary in different subgroups of multimorbidity? Secondary analysis of a quasi-experiment.

BACKGROUND: Health systems must transition from catering primarily to acute conditions, to meet the increasing burden of chronic disease and multimorbidity. Case management is a popular method of integrating care, seeking to accomplish this goal. However, the intervention has shown limited effectiveness. We explore whether the effects of case management vary in patients with different types of multimorbidity. METHODS: We extended a previously published quasi-experiment (difference-in-differences analysis) with 2049 propensity matched case management intervention patients, adding an additional interaction term to determine subgroup effects (difference-in-difference-in-differences) by different conceptualisations of multimorbidity: 1) Mental-physical comorbidity versus others; 2) 3+ chronic conditions versus <3; 3) Discordant versus concordant conditions; 4) Cardiovascular/metabolic cluster conditions only versus others; 5) Mental health-associated cluster conditions only versus others; 6) Musculoskeletal disorder cluster conditions only versus others 7) Charlson index >5 versus others. Outcome measures included a variety of secondary care utilisation and cost measures. RESULTS: The majority of conceptualisations suggested little to no difference in effect between subgroups. Where results were significant, the vast majority of effect sizes identified in either direction were very small. The trend across the majority of the results appeared to show very slight increases of admissions with treatment for the most complex patients (highest risk). The exceptions to this, patients with a Charlson index >5 may benefit slightly more from case management with decreased ACSC admissions (effect size (ES): −0.06) and inpatient re-admissions (30 days, ES: −0.05), and patients with only cardiovascular/metabolic cluster conditions may benefit slightly more with decreased inpatient non-elective admissions (ES: −0.12). Only the three significant estimates for the musculoskeletal disorder cluster met the minimum requirement for at least a 'small' effect. Two of these estimates in particular were very large. This cluster represented only 0.5% of the total patients analysed, however, so is hugely vulnerable to the effects of outliers, and makes us very cautious of interpreting these as 'real' effects. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate no appropriate multimorbidity subgroup at which to target the case management intervention in terms of secondary care utilisation/cost outcomes. The most complex, highest risk patients may legitimately require hospitalisation, and the intensified management may better identify these unmet needs. End of life patients (e.g. Charlson index >5)/those with only conditions particularly amenable to primary care management (e.g. cardiovascular/metabolic cluster conditions) may benefit very slightly more than others.

Managing diagnostic uncertainty in primary care: a systematic critical review.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic uncertainty is one of the largest contributory factors to the occurrence of diagnostic errors across most specialties in medicine and arguably uncertainty is greatest in primary care due to the undifferentiated symptoms primary care physicians are often presented with. Physicians can respond to diagnostic uncertainty in various ways through the interplay of a series of cognitive, emotional and ethical reactions. The consequences of such uncertainty however can impact negatively upon the primary care practitioner, their patients and the wider healthcare system. Understanding the nature of the existing empirical literature in relation to managing diagnostic uncertainty in primary medical care is a logical and necessary first step in order to understand what solutions are already available and/or to aid the development of any training or feedback aimed at better managing this uncertainty. This review is the first to characterize the existing empirical literature on managing diagnostic uncertainty in primary care. METHODS: Sixteen databases were systematically searched from inception to present with no restrictions. Hand searches of relevant websites and reference lists of included studies were also conducted. Two authors conducted abstract/article screening and data extraction. PRISMA guidelines were adhered to. RESULTS: Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. A narrative and conceptual synthesis was undertaken under the premises of critical reviews. Results suggest that studies have focused on internal factors (traits, skills and strategies) associated with managing diagnostic uncertainty with only one external intervention identified. Cognitive factors ranged from the influences of epistemological viewpoints to practical approaches such as greater knowledge of the patient, utilizing resources to hand and using appropriate safety netting techniques. Emotional aspects of uncertainty management included clinicians embracing uncertainty and working with provisional diagnoses. Ethical aspects of uncertainty management centered on communicating diagnostic uncertainties with patients. Personality traits and characteristics influenced each of the three domains. CONCLUSIONS: There is little empirical evidence on how uncertainty is managed in general practice. However we highlight how the extant literature can be conceptualised into cognitive, emotional and ethical aspects of uncertainty which may help clinicians be more aware of their own biases as well as provide a platform for future research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration: CRD42015027555.

Understanding clinical prediction models as 'innovations': a mixed methods study in UK family practice.

BACKGROUND: Well-designed clinical prediction models (CPMs) often out-perform clinicians at estimating probabilities of clinical outcomes, though their adoption by family physicians is variable. How family physicians interact with CPMs is poorly understood, therefore a better understanding and framing within a context-sensitive theoretical framework may improve CPM development and implementation. The aim of this study was to investigate why family physicians do or do not use CPMs, interpreting these findings within a theoretical framework to provide recommendations for the development and implementation of future CPMs. METHODS: Mixed methods study in North West England that comprised an online survey and focus groups. RESULTS: One hundred thirty eight respondents completed the survey, which found the main perceived advantages to using CPMs were that they guided appropriate treatment (weighted rank [r] = 299; maximum r = 414 throughout), justified treatment decisions (r = 217), and incorporated a large body of evidence (r = 156). The most commonly reported barriers to using CPMs were lack of time (r = 163), irrelevance to some patients (r = 161), and poor integration with electronic health records (r = 147). Eighteen clinicians participated in two focus groups (i.e. nine in each), which revealed 13 interdependent themes affecting CPM use under three overarching domains: clinician factors, CPM factors and contextual factors. Themes were interdependent, indicating the tensions family physicians experience in providing evidence-based care for individual patients. CONCLUSIONS: The survey and focus groups showed that CPMs were valued when they supported clinical decision making and were robust. Barriers to their use related to their being time-consuming, difficult to use and not always adding value. Therefore, to be successful, CPMs should offer a relative advantage to current working, be easy to implement, be supported by training, policy and guidelines, and fit within the organisational culture.

Experiences of UK health-care services for people with Multiple Sclerosis: a systematic narrative review.

BACKGROUND: Multiple Sclerosis (MS) is a chronic, degenerative condition with an estimated UK prevalence of 100 000. Contact with health-care services is frequent and long-term; however, little research has investigated the experiences of health care for MS in the UK. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic narrative review was to critically review qualitative studies reporting patients' experiences of health-care services in the UK. SEARCH STRATEGY: EMBASE, CINAHL, Medline, psychINFO and MS Society databases were searched with no date restrictions using search terms denoting 'Multiple Sclerosis', 'health-care services', 'patient', 'experience' and 'qualitative research'. Snowballing and hand searching of journals were used. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Studies were included if they used qualitative methods of data collection and analysis to investigate adult patient's experiences of health-care services for MS in the UK. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted independently and analysed jointly by two reviewers. Studies were appraised for the quality of evidence described using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme's qualitative tool. Due to the breadth of areas covered, the data were too heterogeneous for a synthesis and are presented as a narrative review. MAIN RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Five studies were included. Studies primarily investigated diagnosis or palliative care. Themes of importance were the emotional experience of health care, continuity of care and access to services, and support from health-care professionals. Studies were mainly poor quality and focussed on a homogenous sample. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the first review of the UK evidence base of experiences of health care for MS. Future research should investigate experiences of care after diagnosis in a more varied sample of participants.

PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Qualitative systematic reviews are increasing in popularity in evidence based health care. Difficulties have been reported in conducting literature searches of qualitative research using the PICO search tool. An alternative search tool, entitled SPIDER, was recently developed for more effective searching of qualitative research, but remained untested beyond its development team. METHODS: In this article we tested the 'SPIDER' search tool in a systematic narrative review of qualitative literature investigating the health care experiences of people with Multiple Sclerosis. Identical search terms were combined into the PICO or SPIDER search tool and compared across Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE and EBSCO CINAHL Plus databases. In addition, we added to this method by comparing initial SPIDER and PICO tools to a modified version of PICO with added qualitative search terms (PICOS). RESULTS: Results showed a greater number of hits from the PICO searches, in comparison to the SPIDER searches, with greater sensitivity. SPIDER searches showed greatest specificity for every database. The modified PICO demonstrated equal or higher sensitivity than SPIDER searches, and equal or lower specificity than SPIDER searches. The modified PICO demonstrated lower sensitivity and greater specificity than PICO searches. CONCLUSIONS: The recommendations for practice are therefore to use the PICO tool for a fully comprehensive search but the PICOS tool where time and resources are limited. Based on these limited findings the SPIDER tool would not be recommended due to the risk of not identifying relevant papers, but has potential due to its greater specificity.

Behaviour change and social blinkers? The role of sociology in trials of self-management behaviour in chronic conditions.

Individual-focused self-management interventions are one response to both an ageing society and the purported increase in chronic conditions. They tend to draw on psychological theories in self-management interventions, but over-reliance on these theories can reinforce a narrow focus on specified attitudinal and behavioural processes, omitting aspects of living with a chronic condition. While advances have been made in health behaviour change theory and practice, scant attention has been paid to the social, with the question of social context remaining under-theorised and under-explored empirically. This is particularly noticeable in trials of behaviour change interventions for self-management. The common sociological critique is that these ignore context and thus no explanation can be given as to why, for whom and under what circumstances a treatment works. Conversely, sociologists are criticised for offering no positive suggestions as to how context can be taken into account and for over-emphasising context with the risk of inhibiting innovation. This article provides an overview of these issues and provides examples of how context can be incorporated into the rigid method of trials of self-management for chronic conditions. We discuss modifications to both trial interventions and design that make constructive use of the concept of context.

Patient experiences of an online consultation system: a qualitative study in English primary care post-COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Online consultation systems (OCSs) allow patients to contact their healthcare teams online. Since 2020 they have been rapidly rolled out in primary care following policy initiatives and the COVID-19 pandemic. In-depth research of patients' experiences using OCSs is lacking. AIM: Explore patients' experiences of using an OCS. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative study in English GP practices using the Patchs OCS (www.Patchs.ai) from March 2020 to July 2022. METHOD: Thematic analysis of 25 patient interviews and 21 467 written comments from 11 851 patients who used the OCS from nine and 240 GP practices, respectively. RESULTS: Patients cited benefits of using the OCS as speed, flexibility, and efficiency. Nevertheless, some patients desired a return to traditional consultation methods. GP practices often did not clearly advertise the OCS or use it as patients expected, which caused frustration. Patients reported advantages of having a written record of consultations and the opportunity to communicate detailed queries in free text. Views differed on how the OCS influenced clinical safety and discussions of sensitive topics. Patients who struggled to communicate in traditional consultations often preferred using the OCS, and male patients reported being more likely to use it. CONCLUSION: Globally, this is the largest in-depth study of patient experiences of an OCS. It contributes new knowledge that the patient experience of using OCSs can be influenced by previously unreported patient characteristics and the conditions they consult about. Further, it contributes recommendations on the design and implementation of the OCS in practice.

A study to explore the usefulness of a mobile health application to support people with mild cognitive and/or communication impairment due to dementia and their carers.

Background: Mobile apps for health (mHealth) have the potential to support people living with dementia. However, dementia is a complex and progressive condition that imposes specific constraints on the introduction/use of mhealth. Few studies have explored mHealth adoption and use within the complexity of everyday domestic settings. This study used an existing App co-designed with people living with mild cognitive and communication impairment (PWMCCI) due to learning disabilities and examined the usefulness for PWMICCI due to dementia and their carers. Methods: A qualitative study of people with dementia and their carers. Data were collected in a phased approach to identify the potential need for, as well as the usability and utility of the app. Analysis employed the Domestication of Technology Model (DTM) to explore, in a novel way mHealth, in this user group(s). Results: Most participants did not adopt the mHealth during the study period but some (n = 2) did routinely as it fulfilled a unique, unmet need. The use of DTM highlighted the complexities of dementia, pressure on carers and duplication of effort created barriers to app adoption and use in the long term. Conclusions: The ability of mHealth to support PWMCCI due to dementia and/or their carers may have potential. Users were motivated to try the technology but for any potential to be fully realised, the interplay between complexity of the condition including its progressive nature, demand on carers and nature of the technology needs to be more fully understood. Such issues place unique constraints around the size and window of opportunities for mHealth in this user group.

Challenges and adaptations to public involvement with marginalised groups during the COVID-19 pandemic: commentary with illustrative case studies in the context of patient safety research.

Patient and public involvement (PPI) is integral to research on patient safety in the NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre (NIHR GMPSTRC), and is central to our patient safety research within our theme focusing on people in marginalised groups. Due to the impact of COVID-19, researchers had to adapt how they do PPI. For marginalised groups, remote working and digital adaptations (the key adaptations made in accessing and utilising health services in the United Kingdom during COVID-19) can potentially lead to further marginalisation of people already marginalised and provide new barriers to others. This editorial showcases three case examples of PPI with marginalised groups during COVID-19, these are with: (1) adults with vision impairments, (2) adults and carers with lived experience of self-harm and/ or suicide and (3) adults with lived experience of homelessness. In these case examples, we focus on challenges relating to key aspects of PPI during the pandemic. First, setting up a PPI advisory group and secondly maintaining relationships and effective PPI with a pre-existing advisory group. We contrast these examples using more traditional ways of 'doing PPI' i.e. involving public contributors in various stages of the research cycle, with a more fully 'co-produced' approach to research when developing a new patient safety intervention. Important considerations for PPI with marginalised groups during COVID-19 include: how to avoid exacerbating the digital divide when using video conferencing for PPI, the need for enhanced awareness around flexibility and resources, and the value of working closely with specialist charities to enable adaptations that are sensitive to the changed circumstances and needs of PPI contributors.

The National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational research Centre (GMPSTRC) carries out research to improve patient safety. We work in partnership with patients and members of the public to plan, manage, design, and carry out the research. This is labelled as patient and public involvement. A key area of GMPSTRC research focuses on people who may be marginalised from healthcare and potentially suffer increased patient safety risks relative to the general population. COVID-19 impacted on research in multiple ways, notably how researchers work with members of the public. Remote working via the use of internet enabled technology has now become more commonplace, although this raises concerns about digital exclusion and how to address barriers when face-to-face PPI is not possible. This article showcases three examples of how researchers and public contributors with lived experience have adapted to working together during the COVID-19 pandemic. These case examples are: (1) setting up a public involvement group for developing an intervention to reduce medication errors for adults with vision impairments; (2) working with a pre-existing group of public contributors who are adults and carers with lived experience of self-harm and/or suicide; and (3) working with a charity called Groundswell who train and support researchers with lived experience of homelessness. Challenges during COVID-19 have been making video conferencing meetings accessible to members who have a range of different needs, and addressing the digital divide by allowing members flexibility in how they contribute to research. The article provides examples of how these challenges were addressed.

Co-designing an Adaption of a Mobile App to Enhance Communication, Safety, and Well-being Among People Living at Home With Early-Stage Dementia: Protocol for an Exploratory Multiple Case Study.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing interest in using mobile apps to support communication, safety, and well-being. Evidence directly from people with dementia regarding the usability, usefulness, and relevance of mobile apps is limited. OBJECTIVE: This paper describes the protocol of a study that will evaluate an app designed for supporting communication, safety, and well-being among people living with dementia. The study aims to understand if the app can enhance safety through improved communication among users. METHODS: The study will use participatory qualitative methods over 3 cycles of evaluation with co-designers (service users, their families, and care practitioners). The study will be developed in partnership with a specialist home care service in England. Purposive case selection will be performed to ensure that the cases exemplify differences in experiences. The app will be evaluated in a walk-through workshop by people living with early-stage dementia and then trialed at home by up to 12 families in a try-out cycle. An amended version will be evaluated in a final walk-through workshop during cycle 3. Data will be collected from at least 4 data sources during the try-out phase and analyzed thematically. An explanatory multiple case study design will be used to synthesize and present the evidence from the three cycles, drawing on the Normalization Process Theory to support the interpretation of the findings. RESULTS: The study is ready to be implemented, but it was paused to protect vulnerable individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. The findings will be particularly relevant for understanding how to support vulnerable people living in the community during social distancing and the period following the pandemic as well as for providing insight into the challenges of social isolation that arise from living with dementia. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluating a mobile app for enhancing communication, safety, and well-being among people living with dementia contributes to the key ambitions enshrined in policy and practice-championing the use of digital technology and supporting people with dementia to live safely in their own homes. The study will involve co-designers living with dementia, so that the voices of service users can be used to highlight the benefits and challenges of assistive technology and shape the future development of apps that enhance safety by improving communication. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/19543.

Comparative 4-year risk and type of hospital admission among homeless and housed emergency department attendees: longitudinal study of hospital records in England 2013-2018.

OBJECTIVES: People experiencing homelessness are frequent users of secondary care. Currently, there is no study of potentially preventable admissions for homeless patients in England. We aim to estimate the number of potentially preventable hospital admissions for homeless patients and compare to housed patients with similar characteristics. DESIGN: Retrospective matched cohort study. SETTING: Hospitals in England. PARTICIPANTS: 16 161 homeless patients and 74 780 housed patients aged 16-75 years who attended an emergency department (ED) in England in 2013/2014, matched on the basis of age, sex, ED attended and primary diagnosis. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Annual counts of admissions, emergency admissions, ambulatory care-sensitive (ACS) emergency admissions, acute ACS emergency admissions and chronic ACS emergency admissions over the following 4 years (2014/2015-2017/2018). We additionally compare the prevalence of specific ACS conditions for homeless and housed patients. RESULTS: Mean admissions per 1000 patients per year were 470 for homeless patients and 230 for housed patients. Adjusted for confounders, annual admissions were 1.79 times higher (incident rate ratio (IRR)=1.79; 95% CI 1.69 to 1.90), emergency admissions 2.08 times higher (IRR=2.08; 95% CI 1.95 to 2.21) and ACS admissions 1.65 times higher (IRR=1.65; 95% CI 1.51 to 1.80), compared with housed patients. The effect was greater for acute (IRR=1.78; 95% CI 1.64 to 1.93) than chronic (IRR=1.45; 95% CI 1.27 to 1.66) ACS conditions. ACS conditions that were relatively more common for homeless patients were cellulitis, convulsions/epilepsy and chronic angina. CONCLUSIONS: Homeless patients use hospital services at higher rates than housed patients, particularly emergency admissions. ACS admissions of homeless patients are higher which suggests some admissions may be potentially preventable with improved access to primary care. However, these admissions comprise a small share of total admissions.

Assessing the utility of a differential diagnostic generator in UK general practice: a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Despite growing positive evidence supporting the potential utility of differential diagnostic generator (DDX) tools, uptake has been limited in terms of geography and settings and calls have been made to test such tools in wider routine clinical settings. This study aims to evaluate the feasibility and utility of clinical use of Isabel, an electronic DDX tool, in a United Kingdom (UK) general practice setting. METHODS: Mixed methods. Feasibility and utility were assessed prospectively over a 6-month period via: usage statistics, survey as well as interview data generated from clinicians before and after Isabel was available for clinical use. Normalisation process theory (NPT) was utilised as a sensitising concept in the data collection and analysis of the qualitative data. RESULTS: Usage was extremely limited (n = 18 searches). Most potential users did not utilise the program and of those that did (n = 6), usage was restricted and did not alter subsequent patient management. Baseline interview findings indicated some prior awareness of DDX tools and ambivalent views with regards to potential utility. Post-use interviews supported analytic data and indicated low usage due to a range of endogenous (professional) and exogenous (organisational) factors. CONCLUSIONS: In its current form, this small exploratory study suggests that Isabel is a tool that is unlikely to be utilised on a routine basis in primary care, but may have potential utility for diagnostic support in (1) education/training and (2) rare and diagnostically complex cases.

Visual impairment and medication safety: a protocol for a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The number of individuals with a visual impairment in the UK was estimated a few years ago to be around 1.8 million. People can be visually impaired from birth, childhood, early adulthood or later in life. Those with visual impairment are subject to health inequities and increased risk for patient safety incidents in comparison to the general population. They are also known to be at an increased risk of experiencing medication errors compared to those without visual impairment. In view of this, this review aims to understand the issues of medication safety for VI people. METHODS/DESIGN: Four electronic bibliographic databases will be searched: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo and CINAHL. Our search strategy will include search combinations of two key blocks of terms. Studies will not be excluded based on design. Included studies will be empirical studies. They will include studies that relate to both medication safety and visual impairment. Two reviewers (SG and LR) will screen all the titles and abstracts. SG, LR, RM, SCS and PL will perform study selection and data extraction using standard forms. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion or third party adjudication. Data to be collected will include study characteristics (year, objective, research method, setting, country), participant characteristics (number, age, gender, diagnoses), medication safety incident type and characteristics. DISCUSSION: The review will summarise the literature relating to medication safety and visual impairment.

Trading off accuracy and explainability in AI decision-making: findings from 2 citizens' juries.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate how the general public trades off explainability versus accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) systems and whether this differs between healthcare and non-healthcare scenarios. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Citizens' juries are a form of deliberative democracy eliciting informed judgment from a representative sample of the general public around policy questions. We organized two 5-day citizens' juries in the UK with 18 jurors each. Jurors considered 3 AI systems with different levels of accuracy and explainability in 2 healthcare and 2 non-healthcare scenarios. Per scenario, jurors voted for their preferred system; votes were analyzed descriptively. Qualitative data on considerations behind their preferences included transcribed audio-recordings of plenary sessions, observational field notes, outputs from small group work and free-text comments accompanying jurors' votes; qualitative data were analyzed thematically by scenario, per and across AI systems. RESULTS: In healthcare scenarios, jurors favored accuracy over explainability, whereas in non-healthcare contexts they either valued explainability equally to, or more than, accuracy. Jurors' considerations in favor of accuracy regarded the impact of decisions on individuals and society, and the potential to increase efficiency of services. Reasons for emphasizing explainability included increased opportunities for individuals and society to learn and improve future prospects and enhanced ability for humans to identify and resolve system biases. CONCLUSION: Citizens may value explainability of AI systems in healthcare less than in non-healthcare domains and less than often assumed by professionals, especially when weighed against system accuracy. The public should therefore be actively consulted when developing policy on AI explainability.

Incidence, origins and avoidable harm of missed opportunities in diagnosis: longitudinal patient record review in 21 English general practices.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic error is a global patient safety priority. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the incidence, origins and avoidable harm of diagnostic errors in English general practice. Diagnostic errors were defined as missed opportunities to make a correct or timely diagnosis based on the evidence available (missed diagnostic opportunities, MDOs). METHOD: Retrospective medical record reviews identified MDOs in 21 general practices. In each practice, two trained general practitioner reviewers independently conducted case note reviews on 100 randomly selected adult consultations performed during 2013-2014. Consultations where either reviewer identified an MDO were jointly reviewed. RESULTS: Across 2057 unique consultations, reviewers agreed that an MDO was possible, likely or certain in 89 cases or 4.3% (95% CI 3.6% to 5.2%) of reviewed consultations. Inter-reviewer agreement was higher than most comparable studies (Fleiss' kappa=0.63). Sixty-four MDOs (72%) had two or more contributing process breakdowns. Breakdowns involved problems in the patient-practitioner encounter such as history taking, examination or ordering tests (main or secondary factor in 61 (68%) cases), performance and interpretation of diagnostic tests (31; 35%) and follow-up and tracking of diagnostic information (43; 48%). 37% of MDOs were rated as resulting in moderate to severe avoidable patient harm. CONCLUSIONS: Although MDOs occurred in fewer than 5% of the investigated consultations, the high numbers of primary care contacts nationally suggest that several million patients are potentially at risk of avoidable harm from MDOs each year. Causes of MDOs were frequently multifactorial, suggesting the need for development and evaluation of multipronged interventions, along with policy changes to support them.

Patient and public involvement in doctoral research: reflections and experiences of the PPI contributors and researcher.

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY: There is evidence in the literature showing that involving patients and the public in health research can have a positive influence on quality, relevance and impact of research. However, patients and the public are not always involved in all stages of the research. There is often no explanation as to why they were only involved in some stages of the research and not others. Additionally, there is often no description of researchers' or PPI contributor's experiences of involvement. This also raises another issue which is a lack of recording of impact such involvement can have on the research process and the people involved in the research. In this paper, we present what PPI in a doctoral research should look like by providing a detailed description of how involvement occurred from pre-funding to dissemination stages of the research process. We provide some practical examples of how this was done and how involving patients made a difference to the research project. Finally, we present reflections from the patient and public contributors and the researcher on involvement in this project along with some recommendations for future doctoral and postdoctoral researchers considering involving public/patient contributors in their research. ABSTRACT: Background Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) has received considerable attention in the last two decades and working in partnership and co-design have now become a prerequisite in health services research in the UK. However, there is a lack of evidence and consistency in recording PPI and related activities. Researchers and PPI contributors are encouraged to record and reflect on the impact of PPI on research. There is significant variation in the way PPI contributors are involved, and it is often limited to some stages of the research cycle than others, without any reflections on the decision-making process for such involvement or any transferable learning. This has resulted in failure to provide a narrative of the research journey including researchers' and PPI contributors' personal reflections of involvement. Therefore, this paper provides an exemplar of what PPI in a doctoral research context should look like by providing a detailed account of how PPI was embedded in a doctoral research project, the PPI contributors and researcher's reflections and key recommendations for involving people specifically in doctoral research.Methods A reflective approach was taken using data from PPI contributor and researcher notes, e-mail correspondence, meeting notes. Data is presented narratively to reflect on the experiences of involvement throughout the research cycle.Results Undertaking PPI enhanced the quality and relevance of the doctoral research, contributed to the recruitment of study participants, data analysis and dissemination. Building trust and relationships with PPI contributors was key to continued involvement throughout the life of the project and beyond. There is a need to adopt flexible approaches rather than a one-size-fits-all model when working with PPI contributors. Reflections by PPI contributors and the researcher emphasises that involvement was a rewarding experience.Conclusions This paper contributes to the wider literature by providing an exemplar of how PPI can be embedded in doctoral research and demonstrates the value of PPI to the research process and the individuals involved. We also present recommendations on how PPI can be incorporated by doctoral and postdoctoral researchers when planning PPI in their research project.

Diagnosis of physical and mental health conditions in primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: To date, research on the indirect impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the health of the population and the health-care system is scarce. We aimed to investigate the indirect effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on general practice health-care usage, and the subsequent diagnoses of common physical and mental health conditions in a deprived UK population. METHODS: We did a retrospective cohort study using routinely collected primary care data that was recorded in the Salford Integrated Record between Jan 1, 2010, and May 31, 2020. We extracted the weekly number of clinical codes entered into patient records overall, and for six high-level categories: symptoms and observations, diagnoses, prescriptions, operations and procedures, laboratory tests, and other diagnostic procedures. Negative binomial regression models were applied to monthly counts of first diagnoses of common conditions (common mental health problems, cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and cancer), and corresponding first prescriptions of medications indicative of these conditions. We used these models to predict the expected numbers of first diagnoses and first prescriptions between March 1 and May 31, 2020, which were then compared with the observed numbers for the same time period. FINDINGS: Between March 1 and May 31, 2020, 1073 first diagnoses of common mental health problems were reported compared with 2147 expected cases (95% CI 1821 to 2489) based on preceding years, representing a 50·0% reduction (95% CI 41·1 to 56·9). Compared with expected numbers, 456 fewer diagnoses of circulatory system diseases (43·3% reduction, 95% CI 29·6 to 53·5), and 135 fewer type 2 diabetes diagnoses (49·0% reduction, 23·8 to 63·1) were observed. The number of first prescriptions of associated medications was also lower than expected for the same time period. However, the gap between observed and expected cancer diagnoses (31 fewer; 16·0% reduction, -18·1 to 36·6) during this time period was not statistically significant. INTERPRETATION: In this deprived urban population, diagnoses of common conditions decreased substantially between March and May 2020, suggesting a large number of patients have undiagnosed conditions. A rebound in future workload could be imminent as COVID-19 restrictions ease and patients with undiagnosed conditions or delayed diagnosis present to primary and secondary health-care services. Such services should prioritise the diagnosis and treatment of these patients to mitigate potential indirect harms to protect public health. FUNDING: National Institute of Health Research.