What helps patients access web-based services in primary care? Free-text analysis of patient responses to the Di-Facto questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: The National Health Service (NHS) and general practice are increasingly adopting digital services. These services can impact both positively and negatively upon patient experiences, and access to digital services is not equal amongst all groups. Within a wider project examining digital facilitation (the Di-Facto study) our team conducted a patient survey amongst English primary care practices aiming to investigate patient views of what supports uptake and use of web-based services. This paper reports on the analysis of the free-text responses from the patient survey. METHODS: The Di-Facto patient survey was distributed to practices in eight clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) in England between 2021-2022. We examined free-text responses to two questions relating to access to primary care web-based and support for web-based services. We used qualitative reflexive thematic analysis based on a six-stage process to analyse responses. RESULTS: Of the 3051 patients who responded to the Di-Facto survey, 2246 provided a free-text response. We present our findings in two major themes: systems and structures and their impact on use of web-based services, and 'what works for me', a description of how respondents described what worked, or did not work in terms of their interactions with web-based services. Respondents described how the technology, such as poor practice website design, confusion over multiple digital apps, data security and concerns about eConsultation offerings impacted on use of web-based services. Respondents described practice level barriers, such as a lack of or inconsistent provision, which prevented optimal use of web-based services. Respondents described personal and technical barriers that impacted on their use of digital services, and described which web-based services worked well for them. Respondents felt that web-based services were not a replacement for face-to-face interactions with a doctor. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis of free-text responses from a large patient survey highlights the system, practice, and person level barriers and facilitators to use of digital services in primary care. With an increasing push towards digital solutions in NHS primary care, practices should consider the design, rollout and communication of their web-based services to support patient access.

Informing the development of a scoring system for National Health Service Clinical Impact Awards; a Delphi process and simulated scoring exercise.

Objectives: To establish principles informing a new scoring system for the UK's Clinical Impact Awards and pilot a system based on those principles. Design: A three-round online Delphi process was used to generate consensus from experts on principles a scoring system should follow. We conducted a shadow scoring exercise of 20 anonymised, historic applications using a new scoring system incorporating those principles. Setting: Assessment of clinical excellence awards for senior doctors and dentists in England and Wales. Participants: The Delphi panel comprised 45 members including clinical excellence award assessors and representatives of professional bodies. The shadow scoring exercise was completed by 24 current clinical excellence award assessors. Main outcome measures: The Delphi panel rated the appropriateness of a series of items. In the shadow scoring exercise, a novel scoring system was used with each of five domains rated on a 0-10 scale. Results: Consensus was achieved around principles that could underpin a future scoring system; in particular, a 0-10 scale with the lowest point on the scale reflecting someone operating below the expectations of their job plan was agreed as appropriate. The shadow scoring exercise showed similar levels of reliability between the novel scoring system and that used historically, but with potentially better distinguishing performance at higher levels of performance. Conclusions: Clinical excellence awards represent substantial public spending and thus far the deployment of these funds has lacked a strong evidence base. We have developed a new scoring system in a robust manner which shows improvements over current arrangements.

What and how can we learn from complex global problems for antimicrobial resistance policy? A comparative study combining historical and foresight approaches.

OBJECTIVES: To (i) develop a methodology for using historical and comparative perspectives to inform policy and (ii) provide evidence for antimicrobial-resistance (AMR) policymaking by drawing on lessons from climate change and tobacco control. METHODS: Using a qualitative design, we systematically examined two other complex, large-scale policy issues-climate change and tobacco control-to identify what relevance to AMR can be learned from how these issues have evolved over time. During 2018-2020, we employed a five-stage approach to conducting an exploratory study involving a review of secondary historical analysis, identification of drivers of change, prioritisation of the identified drivers, scenario generation and elicitation of possible policy responses. We sought to disrupt more 'traditional' policy and research spaces to create an alternative where, stimulated by historical analysis, academics (including historians) and policymakers could come together to challenge norms and practices and think creatively about AMR policy design. RESULTS: An iterative process of analysis and engagement resulted in lessons for AMR policy concerning persistent evidence gaps and uncertainty, the need for cross-sector involvement and a collective effort through global governance, the demand for new interventions through more investment in research and innovation, and recognising the dynamic relationship between social change and policy to change people's attitudes and behaviours are crucial towards tackling AMR. CONCLUSION: We draw on new methodological lessons around the pragmatism of future- and policy-oriented approaches incorporating robust historical and comparative analysis. The study demonstrates proof of concept and offers a reproducible method to advance further methodology, including transferrable policies that could tackle health problems, such as AMR.

Investigating Clinical Excellence and Impact Awards (INCEA): a qualitative study into how current assessors and other key stakeholders define and score excellence.

OBJECTIVES: The National Clinical Excellence Awards (NCEAs) in England and Wales were designed, as a form of performance-related pay, to reward high-performing senior doctors and dentists. To inform future scoring of applications and subsequent schemes, we sought to understand how current assessors and other stakeholders would define excellence, differentiate between levels of excellence and ensure unbiased definitions and scoring. DESIGN: Semistructured qualitative interview study. PARTICIPANTS: 25 key informants were identified from Advisory Committee on Clinical Excellence Awards subcommittees, and relevant professional organisations in England and Wales. Informants were purposively sampled to achieve variety in gender and ethnicity. FINDINGS: Participants reported that NCEAs had a role in incentivising doctors to strive for excellence. They were consistent in identifying 'clinical excellence' as involving making an exceptional difference to patients and the National Health Service, and in going over and above the expectations associated with the doctor's job plan. Informants who were assessors reported: encountering challenges with the current scoring scheme when seeking to ensure a fair assessment; recognising tendencies to score more or less leniently; and the potential for conscious or unconscious bias in assessments. Particular groups of doctors, including women, doctors in some specialties and settings, doctors from minority ethnic groups, and doctors who work less than full time, were described as being less likely to self-nominate, lacking support in making applications or lacking motivation to apply on account of a perceived likelihood of not being successful. Practical suggestions were made for improving support and training for applicants and assessors. CONCLUSIONS: Participants in this qualitative study identified specific concerns in respect of the current approaches adopted in applying for and in assessing NCEAs, pointing to the importance of equity of opportunity to apply, the need for regular training for assessors, and to improved support for applicants and potential applicants.

'If you want to go far, go together'-community-based behaviour change interventions to improve antibiotic use: a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative evidence.

INTRODUCTION: A large proportion of the burden of infections with antibiotic-resistant bacteria is linked to community-associated infections. This suggests that interventions set in community settings are needed. Currently there is a gap in understanding the potential of such interventions across all geographies. This systematic review aimed to synthesize the evidence on the value of community-based behaviour change interventions to improve antibiotic use. These are any interventions or innovations to services intended to stimulate behaviour changes among the public towards correct antibiotic use, delivered in a community setting and online. METHODS: Systematic searches of studies published after 2001 were performed in several databases. Of 14 319 articles identified, 73 articles comprising quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Findings showed positive emerging evidence of the benefits of community-based behaviour change interventions to improve antibiotic use, with multifaceted interventions offering the highest benefit. Interventions that combine educational aspects with persuasion may be more effective than solely educational interventions. The review uncovered difficulties in assessing this type of research and highlights the need for standardized approaches in study design and outcomes measurements. There is emerging, but limited, indication on these interventions' cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Policy makers should consider the potential of community-based behaviour change interventions to tackle antimicrobial resistance (AMR), complementing the clinical-based approaches. In addition to the direct AMR benefits, these could serve also as a means of (re)building trust, due to their inclusive participation leading to greater public ownership and use of community channels.

Family doctors' roles and perceptions on antibiotic consumption and antibiotic resistance in Romania: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a major global health issue, bringing significant health burden and costs to societies. Increased antibiotic consumption (ABC) is linked to AMR emergence. Some of the known drivers of ABC are antibiotics over-prescription by physicians and their misuse by patients. Family doctors are recognised as important stakeholders in the control of ABC as they prescribe antibiotics and are considered a reliable source of medical information by patients. Therefore, it is important to explore their perceptions, especially in Romania, which has the highest ABC among European Union Member States. Furthermore, there is no published research exploring Romanian family doctors' perceptions regarding this phenomenon. METHODS: This was a qualitative study with data collection via semi-structured interviews among 12 family doctors. Manifest and latent content analysis was used to gain an in-depth understanding of their perceptions. Findings were mapped onto the domains of the Behaviour Change Wheel to facilitate a theory driven systematization and analysis. RESULTS: Two main subthemes emerged: i) factors affecting ABC and prescribing and ii) potential interventions to tackle ABC and antibiotic resistance. The factors were further grouped in those that related to the perceived behaviour of family doctors or patients as well as those that had to do with the various systems, local contexts and the COVID-19 pandemic. An overarching theme: 'family doctors in Romania see their role differently when it comes to antibiotic resistance and perceive the lack of patient education or awareness as one of the major drivers of ABC' was articulated. The main findings suggested that the perceived factors span across the capability, opportunity and motivational domains of the behaviour change wheel and could be addressed through a variety of interventions - some identified by the participants. Findings can also be viewed through cultural lenses which shed further light on the family doctor- patient dynamic when it comes to antibiotics use. CONCLUSION: Potential interventions to tackle identified factors emerged, revolving mostly on efforts to educate patients or the public. This exploratory research provides key perspectives and facilitates further research on potential interventions to successfully address AMR in Romania or similar settings.

Misconceiving patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) as primarily a reporting requirement rather than a quality improvement tool: perceptions of independent healthcare sector stakeholders in the UK.

BACKGROUND: The independent healthcare sector in the UK collects PROMs for several surgical procedures, but implementation has been challenging. We aimed to understand the enablers and barriers to PROMs implementation in the independent healthcare sector in the UK. METHOD: Between January and May 2021, we remotely conducted semi-structured interviews with hospital consultants, hospital managers and other clinical staff using a topic guide developed from an implementation science framework called the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). RESULTS: We interviewed 6 hospital consultants, 5 hospital managers, and 3 other clinical staff (1 nurse and 2 physiotherapists) across 8 hospitals. Common barriers included: the perception that PROMs are predominantly a reporting requirement rather than a quality improvement tool, absence of feedback mechanisms for PROMs data for clinicians, poor awareness of PROMs among healthcare professionals and the public, absence of direction or commitment from leadership, and limited support from hospital consultants. Common enablers included: regular feedback of PROMs data to clinicians, designating roles and responsibilities, formally embedding PROMs collection into patient pathways, and involvement of hospital consultants in developing strategies to improve PROMs uptake. CONCLUSION: To support PROMs implementation, independent hospitals need to develop long-term organisational strategies that involve sustained leadership commitment, goals or targets, training opportunities to staff, and regular feedback of PROMs data at clinical or governance meetings. The primary purpose of PROMs needs to be reframed to independent healthcare sector stakeholders as a quality improvement tool rather than a reporting requirement.

Digital Facilitation to Support Patient Access to Web-Based Primary Care Services: Scoping Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: The use of web-based services within primary care (PC) in the National Health Service in England is increasing, with medically underserved populations being less likely to engage with web-based services than other patient groups. Digital facilitation-referring to a range of processes, procedures, and personnel that seek to support patients in the uptake and use of web-based services-may be a way of addressing these challenges. However, the models and impact of digital facilitation currently in use are unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify, characterize, and differentiate between different approaches to digital facilitation in PC; establish what is known about the effectiveness of different approaches; and understand the enablers of digital facilitation. METHODS: Adopting scoping review methodology, we searched academic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) and gray literature published between 2015 and 2020. We conducted snowball searches of reference lists of included articles and articles identified during screening as relevant to digital facilitation, but which did not meet the inclusion criteria because of article type restrictions. Titles and abstracts were independently screened by 2 reviewers. Data from eligible studies were analyzed using a narrative synthesis approach. RESULTS: A total of 85 publications were included. Most (71/85, 84%) were concerned with digital facilitation approaches targeted at patients (promotion of services, training patients to improve their technical skills, or other guidance and support). Further identified approaches targeted PC staff to help patients (eg, improving staff knowledge of web-based services and enhancing their technical or communication skills). Qualitative evidence suggests that some digital facilitation may be effective in promoting the uptake and use of web-based services by patients (eg, recommendation of web-based services by practice staff and coaching). We found little evidence that providing patients with initial assistance in registering for or accessing web-based services leads to increased long-term use. Few studies have addressed the effects of digital facilitation on health care inequalities. Those that addressed this suggested that providing technical training for patients could be effective, at least in part, in reducing inequalities, although not entirely. Factors affecting the success of digital facilitation include perceptions of the usefulness of the web-based service, trust in the service, patients' trust in providers, the capacity of PC staff, guidelines or regulations supporting facilitation efforts, and staff buy-in and motivation. CONCLUSIONS: Digital facilitation has the potential to increase the uptake and use of web-based services by PC patients. Understanding the approaches that are most effective and cost-effective, for whom, and under what circumstances requires further research, including rigorous evaluations of longer-term impacts. As efforts continue to increase the use of web-based services in PC in England and elsewhere, we offer an early typology to inform conceptual development and evaluations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020189019; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=189019.

United Kingdom: Health System Review.

This analysis provides a review of developments in financing, governance, organisation and delivery, health reforms and performance of the health systems in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has enjoyed a national health service with access based on clinical need, and not ability to pay for over 70 years. This has provided several important benefits including protection against the financial consequences of ill-health, redistribution of wealth from rich to poor, and relatively low administrative costs. Despite this, the United Kingdom continues to lag behind many other comparable high-income countries in key measures including life expectancy, infant mortality and cancer survival. Total health spending in the United Kingdom is slightly above the average for Europe, but it is below many other comparable high-income countries such as Germany, France and Canada. The United Kingdom also has relatively lower levels of doctors, nurses, hospital beds and equipment than many other comparable high-income countries. Wider social determinants of health also contribute to poor outcomes, and the United Kingdom has one of the highest levels of income inequality in Europe. Devolution of responsibility for health care services since the late 1990s to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has resulted in divergence in policies between countries, including in prescription charges, and eligibility for publicly funded social care services. However, more commonalities than differences remain between these health care systems. The United Kingdom initially experienced one of the highest death rates associated with COVID-19; however, the success and speed of the United Kingdom's vaccination programme has since improved the United Kingdom's performance in this respect. Principal health reforms in each country are focusing on facilitating cross-sectoral partnerships and promoting integration of services in a manner that improves the health and well-being of local populations. These include the establishment of integrated care systems in England, integrated joint boards in Scotland, regional partnership boards in Wales and integrated partnership boards in Northern Ireland. Policies are also being developed to align the social care funding model closer to the National Health Service funding model. These include a cap on costs over an individual's lifetime in England, and a national care service free at the point of need in Scotland and Wales. Currently, and for the future, significant investment is needed to address major challenges including a growing backlog of elective care, and staffing shortfalls exacerbated by Brexit.

Shared decision making between older people with multimorbidity and GPs: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM), utilising the expertise of both patient and clinician, is a key feature of good-quality patient care. Multimorbidity can complicate SDM, yet few studies have explored this dynamic for older patients with multimorbidity in general practice. AIM: To explore factors influencing SDM from the perspectives of older patients with multimorbidity and GPs, to inform improvements in personalised care. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative study. General practices (rural and urban) in Devon, England. METHOD: Four focus groups: two with patients (aged ≥65 years with multimorbidity) and two with GPs. Data were coded inductively by applying thematic analysis. RESULTS: Patient acknowledgement of clinician medicolegal vulnerability in the context of multimorbidity, and their recognition of this as a barrier to SDM, is a new finding. Medicolegal vulnerability was a unifying theme for other reported barriers to SDM. These included expectations for GPs to follow clinical guidelines, challenges encountered in applying guidelines and in communicating clinical uncertainty, and limited clinician self-efficacy for SDM. Increasing consultation duration and improving continuity were viewed as facilitators. CONCLUSION: Clinician perceptions of medicolegal vulnerability are recognised by both patients and GPs as a barrier to SDM and should be addressed to optimise delivery of personalised care. Greater awareness of multimorbidity guidelines is needed. Educating clinicians in the communication of uncertainty should be a core component of SDM training. The incorrect perception that most clinicians already effectively facilitate SDM should be addressed to improve the uptake of personalised care interventions.

United Kingdom: health system summary

This Health System Summary is based on the United Kingdom: Health System Review (HiT) published in 2022. Health System Summaries use a concise format to communicate central features of country health systems and analyze available evidence on the organization, financing and delivery of health care. They also provide insights into key reforms and the varied challenges testing the performance of the health system.

United Kingdom: health system review

This analysis provides a review of developments in financing, governance, organisation and delivery, health reforms and performance of the health systems in the United Kingdom.

Securing a sustainable and fit-for-purpose UK health and care workforce.

Approximately 13% of the total UK workforce is employed in the health and care sector. Despite substantial workforce planning efforts, the effectiveness of this planning has been criticised. Education, training, and workforce plans have typically considered each health-care profession in isolation and have not adequately responded to changing health and care needs. The results are persistent vacancies, poor morale, and low retention. Areas of particular concern highlighted in this Health Policy paper include primary care, mental health, nursing, clinical and non-clinical support, and social care. Responses to workforce shortfalls have included a high reliance on foreign and temporary staff, small-scale changes in skill mix, and enhanced recruitment drives. Impending challenges for the UK health and care workforce include growing multimorbidity, an increasing shortfall in the supply of unpaid carers, and the relative decline of the attractiveness of the National Health Service (NHS) as an employer internationally. We argue that to secure a sustainable and fit-for-purpose health and care workforce, integrated workforce approaches need to be developed alongside reforms to education and training that reflect changes in roles and skill mix, as well as the trend towards multidisciplinary working. Enhancing career development opportunities, promoting staff wellbeing, and tackling discrimination in the NHS are all needed to improve recruitment, retention, and morale of staff. An urgent priority is to offer sufficient aftercare and support to staff who have been exposed to high-risk situations and traumatic experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. In response to growing calls to recognise and reward health and care staff, growth in pay must at least keep pace with projected rises in average earnings, which in turn will require linking future NHS funding allocations to rises in pay. Through illustrative projections, we show that, to sustain annual growth in the workforce at approximately 2·4%, increases in NHS expenditure of 4% annually in real terms will be required. Above all, a radical long-term strategic vision is needed to ensure that the future NHS workforce is fit for purpose.