Safety implications of remote assessments for suspected COVID-19: qualitative study in UK primary care.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of remote triage and assessment early in the pandemic raised questions about patient safety. We sought to capture patients and clinicians' experiences of the management of suspected acute COVID-19 and generate wider lessons to inform safer care. SETTING AND SAMPLE: UK primary healthcare. A subset of relevant data was drawn from five linked in-pandemic qualitative studies. The data set, on a total of 87 participants recruited via social media, patient groups and snowballing, comprised free text excerpts from narrative interviews (10 survivors of acute COVID-19), online focus groups (20 patients and 30 clinicians), contributions to a Delphi panel (12 clinicians) and fieldnotes from an online workshop (15 patients, clinicians and stakeholders). METHODS: Data were uploaded onto NVivo. Coding was initially deductive and informed by WHO and Institute of Medicine frameworks of quality and safety. Further inductive analysis refined our theorisation using a wider range of theories-including those of risk, resilience, crisis management and social justice. RESULTS: In the early weeks of the pandemic, patient safety was compromised by the driving logic of 'stay home' and 'protect the NHS', in which both patients and clinicians were encouraged to act in a way that helped reduce pressure on an overloaded system facing a novel pathogen with insufficient staff, tools, processes and systems. Furthermore, patients and clinicians observed a shift to a more transactional approach characterised by overuse of algorithms and decision support tools, limited empathy and lack of holistic assessment. CONCLUSION: Lessons from the pandemic suggest three key strategies are needed to prevent avoidable deaths and inequalities in the next crisis: (1) strengthen system resilience (including improved resourcing and staffing; support of new tools and processes; and recognising primary care's role as the 'risk sink' of the healthcare system); (2) develop evidence-based triage and scoring systems; and (3) address social vulnerability.

Why do GPs rarely do video consultations? qualitative study in UK general practice.

BACKGROUND: Fewer than 1% of UK general practice consultations occur by video. AIM: To explain why video consultations are not more widely used in general practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: Analysis of a sub-sample of data from three mixed-method case studies of remote consultation services in various UK settings from 2019-2021. METHOD: The dataset included interviews and focus groups with 121 participants from primary care (33 patients, 55 GPs, 11 other clinicians, nine managers, four support staff, four national policymakers, five technology industry). Data were transcribed, coded thematically, and then analysed using the Planning and Evaluating Remote Consultation Services (PERCS) framework. RESULTS: With few exceptions, video consultations were either never adopted or soon abandoned in general practice despite a strong policy push, short-term removal of regulatory and financial barriers, and advances in functionality, dependability, and usability of video technologies (though some products remained 'fiddly' and unreliable). The relative advantage of video was perceived as minimal for most of the caseload of general practice, since many presenting problems could be sorted adequately and safely by telephone and in-person assessment was considered necessary for the remainder. Some patients found video appointments convenient, appropriate, and reassuring but others found a therapeutic presence was only achieved in person. Video sometimes added value for out-of-hours and nursing home consultations and statutory functions (for example, death certification). CONCLUSION: Efforts to introduce video consultations in general practice should focus on situations where this modality has a clear relative advantage (for example, strong patient or clinician preference, remote localities, out-of-hours services, nursing homes).

Planning and Evaluating Remote Consultation Services: A New Conceptual Framework Incorporating Complexity and Practical Ethics.

Establishing and running remote consultation services is challenging politically (interest groups may gain or lose), organizationally (remote consulting requires implementation work and new roles and workflows), economically (costs and benefits are unevenly distributed across the system), technically (excellent care needs dependable links and high-quality audio and images), relationally (interpersonal interactions are altered), and clinically (patients are unique, some examinations require contact, and clinicians have deeply-held habits, dispositions and norms). Many of these challenges have an under-examined ethical dimension. In this paper, we present a novel framework, Planning and Evaluating Remote Consultation Services (PERCS), built from a literature review and ongoing research. PERCS has 7 domains-the reason for consulting, the patient, the clinical relationship, the home and family, technologies, staff, the healthcare organization, and the wider system-and considers how these domains interact and evolve over time as a complex system. It focuses attention on the organization's digital maturity and digital inclusion efforts. We have found that both during and beyond the pandemic, policymakers envisaged an efficient, safe and accessible remote consultation service delivered through state-of-the art digital technologies and implemented via rational allocation criteria and quality standards. In contrast, our empirical data reveal that strategic decisions about establishing remote consultation services, allocation decisions for appointment type (phone, video, e-, face-to-face), and clinical decisions when consulting remotely are fraught with contradictions and tensions-for example, between demand management and patient choice-leading to both large- and small-scale ethical dilemmas for managers, support staff, and clinicians. These dilemmas cannot be resolved by standard operating procedures or algorithms. Rather, they must be managed by attending to here-and-now practicalities and emergent narratives, drawing on guiding principles applied with contextual judgement. We complement the PERCS framework with a set of principles for informing its application in practice, including education of professionals and patients.

GPs' use and understanding of the benefits and harms of treatments for long-term conditions: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: To support shared decision making and improve the management of polypharmacy, it is recommended that GPs take into account quantitative information on the benefits and harms of treatments (QIRx). Quantitative evidence shows GPs' knowledge of this is low. AIM: To explore GPs' attitudes to and understanding of QIRx for long-term conditions. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative interview study in UK general practice. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were carried out with 15 GPs. Audiorecordings were transcribed verbatim and a framework approach was used for analysis. RESULTS: Participants described knowing or using QIRx for only a few treatments. There was awareness of this knowledge deficit coupled with low confidence in statistical terminology. Some GPs perceived an absence of this information as an important barrier to optimal care, while others were content to follow guidelines. In the absence of this knowledge, other strategies were described to individualise treatment decisions. The idea of increasing the use of QIRx appealed to most participants, with imagined benefits for patients and themselves. However, potential barriers were described: a need for accessible information that can be understood and integrated into real-world practice, system factors, and communication challenges. CONCLUSION: GPs were aware of their knowledge deficit with regard to an understanding of QIRx. Most participants were positive about the idea of increasing their use of QIRx in practice but described important challenges, which need to be considered when designing solutions.

What items should be included in an early warning score for remote assessment of suspected COVID-19? qualitative and Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: To develop items for an early warning score (RECAP: REmote COVID-19 Assessment in Primary Care) for patients with suspected COVID-19 who need escalation to next level of care. METHODS: The study was based in UK primary healthcare. The mixed-methods design included rapid review, Delphi panel, interviews, focus groups and software development. Participants were 112 primary care clinicians and 50 patients recovered from COVID-19, recruited through social media, patient groups and snowballing. Using rapid literature review, we identified signs and symptoms which are commoner in severe COVID-19. Building a preliminary set of items from these, we ran four rounds of an online Delphi panel with 72 clinicians, the last incorporating fictional vignettes, collating data on R software. We refined the items iteratively in response to quantitative and qualitative feedback. Items in the penultimate round were checked against narrative interviews with 50 COVID-19 patients. We required, for each item, at least 80% clinician agreement on relevance, wording and cut-off values, and that the item addressed issues and concerns raised by patients. In focus groups, 40 clinicians suggested further refinements and discussed workability of the instrument in relation to local resources and care pathways. This informed design of an electronic template for primary care systems. RESULTS: The prevalidation RECAP-V0 comprises a red flag alert box and 10 assessment items: pulse, shortness of breath or respiratory rate, trajectory of breathlessness, pulse oximeter reading (with brief exercise test if appropriate) or symptoms suggestive of hypoxia, temperature or fever symptoms, duration of symptoms, muscle aches, new confusion, shielded list and known risk factors for poor outcome. It is not yet known how sensitive or specific it is. CONCLUSIONS: Items on RECAP-V0 align strongly with published evidence, clinical judgement and patient experience. The validation phase of this study is ongoing. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04435041.

The NASSS-CAT Tools for Understanding, Guiding, Monitoring, and Researching Technology Implementation Projects in Health and Social Care: Protocol for an Evaluation Study in Real-World Settings.

BACKGROUND: Projects to implement health care and social care innovations involving technologies are typically ambitious and complex. Many projects fail. Greenhalgh et al's nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability (NASSS) framework was developed to analyze the varied outcomes of such projects. OBJECTIVE: We sought to extend the NASSS framework to produce practical tools for understanding, guiding, monitoring, and researching technology projects in health care or social care settings. METHODS: Building on NASSS and a complexity assessment tool (CAT), the NASSS-CAT tools were developed (in various formats) in seven co-design workshops involving 50 stakeholders (industry executives, technical designers, policymakers, managers, clinicians, and patients). Using action research, they were and are being tested prospectively on a sample of case studies selected for variety in conditions, technologies, settings, scope and scale, policy context, and project goals. RESULTS: The co-design process resulted in four tools, available as free downloads. NASSS-CAT SHORT is a taster to introduce the instrument and gauge interest. NASSS-CAT LONG is intended to support reflection, due diligence, and preliminary planning. It maps complexity through stakeholder discussion across six domains, using free-text open questions (designed to generate a rich narrative and surface uncertainties and interdependencies) and a closed-question checklist; this version includes an action planning section. NASSS-CAT PROJECT is a 35-item instrument for monitoring how subjective complexity in a technology implementation project changes over time. NASSS-CAT INTERVIEW is a set of prompts for conducting semistructured research or evaluation interviews. Preliminary data from empirical case studies suggest that the NASSS-CAT tools can potentially identify, but cannot always help reconcile, contradictions and conflicts that block projects' progress. CONCLUSIONS: The NASSS-CAT tools are a useful addition to existing implementation tools and frameworks. Further support of the implementation projects is ongoing. We are currently producing digital versions of the tools, and plan (subject to further funding) to establish an online community of practice for people interested in using and improving the tools, and hold workshops for building cross-project collaborations. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/16861.

New indicators and indexes for benchmarking university-industry-government innovation in medical and life science clusters: results from the European FP7 Regions of Knowledge HealthTIES project.

BACKGROUND: While the European Union is striving to become the 'Innovation Union', there remains a lack of quantifiable indicators to compare and benchmark regional innovation clusters. To address this issue, a HealthTIES (Healthcare, Technology and Innovation for Economic Success) consortium was funded by the European Union's Regions of Knowledge initiative, research and innovation funding programme FP7. HealthTIES examined whether the health technology innovation cycle was functioning differently in five European regional innovation clusters and proposed regional and joint actions to improve their performance. The clusters included BioCat (Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain), Medical Delta (Leiden, Rotterdam and Delft, South Holland, Netherlands), Oxford and Thames Valley (United Kingdom), Life Science Zürich (Switzerland), and Innova Észak-Alföld (Debrecen, Hungary). METHODS: Appreciation of the 'triple helix' of university-industry-government innovation provided the impetus for the development of two quantifiable innovation indexes and related indicators. The HealthTIES H-index is calculated for disease and technology platforms based on the h-index proposed by Hirsch. The HealthTIES Innovation Index is calculated for regions based on 32 relevant quantitative and discriminative indicators grouped into 12 categories and 3 innovation phases, namely 'Input' (n = 12), 'Innovation System' (n = 9) and 'Output' (n = 11). RESULTS: The HealthTIES regions had developed relatively similar disease and technology platform profiles, yet with distinctive strengths and weaknesses. The regional profiles of the innovation cycle in each of the three phases were surprisingly divergent. Comparative assessments based on the indicators and indexes helped identify and share best practice and inform regional and joint action plans to strengthen the competitiveness of the HealthTIES regions. CONCLUSION: The HealthTIES indicators and indexes provide useful practical tools for the measurement and benchmarking of university-industry-government innovation in European medical and life science clusters. They are validated internally within the HealthTIES consortium and appear to have a degree of external prima facie validity. Potentially, the tools and accompanying analyses can be used beyond the HealthTIES consortium to inform other regional governments, researchers and, possibly, large companies searching for their next location, analyse and benchmark 'triple helix' dynamics within their own networks over time, and to develop integrated public-private and cross-regional research and innovation strategies in Europe and beyond.

Maximising value from a United Kingdom Biomedical Research Centre: study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Biomedical Research Centres (BRCs) are partnerships between healthcare organisations and universities in England. Their mission is to generate novel treatments, technologies, diagnostics and other interventions that increase the country's international competitiveness, to rapidly translate these innovations into benefits for patients, and to improve efficiency and reduce waste in healthcare. As NIHR Oxford BRC (Oxford BRC) enters its third 5-year funding period, we seek to (1) apply the evidence base on how best to support the various partnerships in this large, multi-stakeholder research system and (2) research how these partnerships play out in a new, ambitious programme of translational research. METHODS: Organisational case study, informed by the principles of action research. A cross-cutting theme, 'Partnerships for Health, Wealth and Innovation' has been established with multiple sub-themes (drug development, device development, business support and commercialisation, research methodology and statistics, health economics, bioethics, patient and public involvement and engagement, knowledge translation, and education and training) to support individual BRC research themes and generate cross-theme learning. The 'Partnerships' theme will support the BRC's goals by facilitating six types of partnership (with patients and citizens, clinical services, industry, across the NIHR infrastructure, across academic disciplines, and with policymakers and payers) through a range of engagement platforms and activities. We will develop a longitudinal progress narrative centred around exemplar case studies, and apply theoretical models from innovation studies (Triple Helix), sociology of science (Mode 2 knowledge production) and business studies (Value Co-creation). Data sources will be the empirical research studies within individual BRC research themes (who will apply separately for NHS ethics approval), plus documentary analysis and interviews and ethnography with research stakeholders. This study has received ethics clearance through the University of Oxford Central University Research Ethics Committee. DISCUSSION: We anticipate that this work will add significant value to Oxford BRC. We predict accelerated knowledge translation; closer alignment of the innovation process with patient priorities and the principles of responsible, ethical research; reduction in research waste; new knowledge about the governance and activities of multi-stakeholder research partnerships and the contexts in which they operate; and capacity-building that reflects the future needs of a rapidly-evolving health research system.

Meeting pragmatism halfway: making a pragmatic clinical trial protocol.

Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) are today an increasingly prominent means of measuring the 'effectiveness' of healthcare interventions in 'real world' clinical settings, in order to produce evidence on which to base regulatory and clinical decision-making. Although several sociological studies have shown persuasively how PCTs are co-constructed within particular healthcare systems in which they are based, they have tended to focus on relatively later stages in careers of trials. The paper contributes to literature by considering how the 'real world' of the UK National Health Service (NHS) is incorporated into the design of a research protocol. Drawing on a meeting held just prior to patient recruitment for a PCT in maternal health, the paper analyses a trial collective's efforts to purify the messy domain of NHS clinical care into the orderly confines of the protocol (Law 2004), which meant satisfying demands for both scientific and social robustness (c.f. Nowotny et al. 2001). The findings show how efforts to inscribe robustness into the PCT protocol were themselves mediated through epistemic and regulatory conventions surrounding protocols as devices in healthcare research. Finally it is argued that meetings constitute an important epistemic instrument through which to settle various emerging tensions in PCT protocol design.

Accounting for Impact? The Journal Impact Factor and the Making of Biomedical Research in the Netherlands.

The range and types of performance metrics has recently proliferated in academic settings, with bibliometric indicators being particularly visible examples. One field that has traditionally been hospitable towards such indicators is biomedicine. Here the relative merits of bibliometrics are widely discussed, with debates often portraying them as heroes or villains. Despite a plethora of controversies, one of the most widely used indicators in this field is said to be the Journal Impact Factor (JIF). In this article we argue that much of the current debates around researchers' uses of the JIF in biomedicine can be classed as 'folk theories': explanatory accounts told among a community that seldom (if ever) get systematically checked. Such accounts rarely disclose how knowledge production itself becomes more-or-less consolidated around the JIF. Using ethnographic materials from different research sites in Dutch University Medical Centers, this article sheds new empirical and theoretical light on how performance metrics variously shape biomedical research on the 'shop floor.' Our detailed analysis underscores a need for further research into the constitutive effects of evaluative metrics.