"We decided together": a qualitative study about women with HIV navigating infant-feeding decisions with the father of their children.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that women with HIV breastfeed for a minimum of one year. In contrast, United Kingdom (UK) guidelines encourage formula feeding, but breastfeeding can be supported under certain circumstances. Infant-feeding decisions often involve personal and social networks. Currently, little research addresses how individuals with HIV in high-income countries navigate infant-feeding decisions with the father of their children. METHODS: Semi-structured remote interviews were conducted with UK-based individuals with a confirmed HIV positive diagnosis who were pregnant or one-year postpartum, and two partners. Using purposive sampling, pregnant and postpartum participants were recruited through HIV NHS clinics and community-based organisations, and where possible, fathers were recruited via them. Data were analysed using thematic analysis and organised using NVivo 12. RESULTS: Of the 36 women interviewed, 28 were postpartum. The majority were of Black African descent (n = 22) and born outside the UK. The key factors in women navigating HIV and infant-feeding discussions with respect to their baby's father were the latter's: (1) awareness of woman's HIV status; (2) relationship with the woman; (3) confidence in infant-feeding decision; (4) support and opinion about woman's infant-feeding intentions. Most women made a joint decision with biological fathers when in a long-term (> one year) relationship with them. Single women tended not to discuss their infant-feeding decision with the father of their child, often for safety reasons. CONCLUSION: Women in ongoing relationships with the father of their child valued their support and opinions regarding infant-feeding. In contrast, single women chose not to involve the father for reasons of privacy and safety. Clinical teams and community-based organisations should support mothers in discussing infant-feeding decisions regardless of relationship status. When appropriate, they should also support discussions with their partners, but remain sensitive to circumstances where this may put women at risk.

Evidence for Access: Systematic Scoping Review of Access Systems in General Practice.

BACKGROUND: Access to GP appointments is increasingly challenging in many high-income countries, with an overstretched workforce and rising demand. Various access systems have been developed and evaluated internationally. AIM: We aimed to systematically consolidate the current international evidence base related to different types of GP access systems. DESIGN AND SETTING: A scoping review examining international literature. METHOD: Literature searches were run across relevant databases in May 2022. Title, abstract and full text screenings were carried out. Data from included studies were extracted and mapped to synthesise the components and aims within different GP access systems. RESULTS: 49 studies were included in the review. The majority of these were set in the UK. Some access systems featured heavily in the literature, such as Advanced Access, telephone triage and online consultations, and others less so. There were two key strategies adopted by systems which related to either changing appointment capacity or modifying patient pathways. Components related to these strategies are summarised and illustrated as a schematic representation. Most rationales behind access systems were practice, rather than patient, focused. 'Add on' systems and aims for efficiency became more popular in recent years. CONCLUSION: The synthesis provides a useful tool in understanding access systems' aims, design, and implementation. With focus on alleviating demand, patient-focused outcomes appear to be under investigated and potentially overlooked during design and implementation. More recently, digital services are promoted as offering patient choice and convenience. But a context where demand outweighs resources challenges the premise that extending choice is possible.

A multimethod study of NHS 111 online.

Background: NHS 111 online offers 24-hour access to health assessment and triage. Objectives: This study examined pathways to care, differential access and use, and workforce impacts of NHS 111 online. This study compared NHS 111 with Healthdirect (Haymarket, Australia) virtual triage. Design: Interviews with 80 staff and stakeholders in English primary, urgent and emergency care, and 41 staff and stakeholders associated with Healthdirect. A survey of 2754 respondents, of whom 1137 (41.3%) had used NHS 111 online and 1617 (58.7%) had not. Results: NHS 111 online is one of several digital health-care technologies and was not differentiated from the NHS 111 telephone service or well understood. There is a similar lack of awareness of Healthdirect virtual triage. NHS 111 and Healthdirect virtual triage are perceived as creating additional work for health-care staff and inappropriate demand for some health services, especially emergency care. One-third of survey respondents reported that they had not used any NHS 111 service (telephone or online). Older people and those with less educational qualifications are less likely to use NHS 111 online. Respondents who had used NHS 111 online reported more use of other urgent care services and make more cumulative use of services than those who had not used NHS 111 online. Users of NHS 111 online had higher levels of self-reported eHealth literacy. There were differences in reported preferences for using NHS 111 online for different symptom presentations. Conclusions: Greater clarity about what the NHS 111 online service offers would allow better signposting and reduce confusion. Generic NHS 111 services are perceived as creating additional work in the primary, urgent and emergency care system. There are differences in eHealth literacy between users and those who have not used NHS 111 online, and this suggests that 'digital first' policies may increase health inequalities. Limitations: This research bridged the pandemic from 2020 to 2021; therefore, findings may change as services adjust going forward. Surveys used a digital platform so there is probably bias towards some level of e-Literacy, but this also means that our data may underestimate the digital divide. Future work: Further investigation of access to digital services could address concerns about digital exclusion. Research comparing the affordances and cost-benefits of different triage and assessment systems for users and health-care providers is needed. Research about trust in virtual assessments may show how duplication can be reduced. Mixed-methods studies looking at outcomes, impacts on work and costs, and ways to measure eHealth literacy, can inform the development NHS 111 online and opportunities for further international shared learning could be pursued. Study registration: This study is registered at the research registry (UIN 5392). Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research Programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 11, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

NHS 111 services help people who need health advice or care by telephone (using the 111 number) and online (using the web on a smartphone or a computer). Demand for general practitioner and emergency care services keeps increasing, and there are concerns that sometimes people do not use the right services for the health problems that they have. NHS 111 can direct people to services and give advice that helps them carry out more self-care. Previous research suggests that not everyone finds online services easy to use. There is a worry that NHS 111 services may increase work for other health services. Our research used interviews and surveys to find out about the NHS 111 online service. We interviewed 80 people working in or with NHS services to find out about their experiences of NHS 111 online. There was low awareness of NHS 111 online, partly because there are so many other computer technologies and different services available. Interviewees often mixed-up NHS 111 online with the 111 telephone service. People are confused about where to get help. Interviewees also said that NHS 111 creates 'extra work', especially for emergency departments (accident and emergency). We interviewed 41 staff and stakeholders linked with a similar system used in Australia, called Healthdirect, and they had similar concerns. Our survey found that people who had used NHS 111 online were younger and had higher levels of education. People who had used NHS 111 online also had higher eHealth literacy (they were more able to access and understand online health services); however, they were also sicker, reported having more long-term conditions and used more health services. Our research suggests that we need to reduce confusion about what NHS 111 online does, get rid of unnecessary extra work and see whether or not it improves access to care for everyone.

Scaling-up and future sustainability of a national reproductive genetic carrier screening program.

An understanding of factors influencing implementation is essential to realise the benefits of population-based reproductive genetic carrier screening programs. The aim of this study was to synthesise data collected during the Australian Reproductive Genetic Carrier Screening Project (Mackenzie's Mission) to track how priorities shifted over time and identify important factors during scaling-up and for sustainment. We used a multi-method qualitative approach to integrate longitudinal project data collected from 10 project committees with 16 semi-structured interviews conducted with study team members. Both datasets were analysed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify constructs of interest within early, mid-point, and future implementation phases. Several CFIR constructs were present across implementation. The complexity of implementation presented challenges that were overcome through a quality-designed and packaged product, formal and informal networks and communication, and access to knowledge and information. Addressing the diverse consumer needs through resources and increasing community and non-genetic speciality engagement remained a priority throughout and for future sustainment. Going forward, further addressing program complexities and securing funding were emphasised. By applying an implementation framework, findings from this study may be useful for future effort towards building and/or sustaining reproductive genetic carrier screening programs.

Emergency department staff views of NHS 111 First: qualitative interview study in England.

BACKGROUND: NHS 111 is a phone and online urgent care triage and assessment system that aims to reduce UK ED demand. In 2020, 111 First was introduced to triage patients before entry to the ED and to offer direct booking for patients needing ED or urgent care into same-day arrival time slots. 111 First continues to be used post pandemic, but concerns about patient safety, delays or inequities in accessing care have been voiced. This paper examines ED and urgent care centre (UCC) staff experiences of NHS 111 First. METHOD: Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with ED/UCC practitioners across England between October 2020 and July 2021 as part of a larger multimethod study examining the impact of NHS 111 online. We purposively recruited from areas with high need/demand likely to be using NHS 111 services. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded inductively by the primary researcher. We coded all items to capture experiences of 111 First within the full project coding tree and from this constructed two explanatory themes which were refined by the wider research team. RESULTS: We recruited 27 participants (10 nurses, 9 doctors and 8 administrator/managers) working in ED/UCCs serving areas with high deprivation and mixed sociodemographic profiles. Participants reported local triage/streaming systems predating 111 First continued to operate so that, despite prebooked arrival slots at the ED, all attendances were funnelled into a single queue. This was described by participants as a source of frustration for staff and patients. Interviewees perceived remote algorithm-based assessments as less robust than in-person assessments which drew on more nuanced clinical expertise. DISCUSSION: While remote preassessment of patients before they present at ED is attractive, existing triage and streaming systems based on acuity, and staff views about the superiority of clinical acumen, are likely to remain barriers to the effective use of 111 First as a demand management strategy.

The place of digital triage in a complex healthcare system: An interview study with key stakeholders in Australia's national provider.

Background: Digital triage tools such as telephone advice and online symptom checkers are now commonplace in health systems internationally. Research has focused on consumers' adherence to advice, health outcomes, satisfaction, and the degree to which these services manage demand for general practice or emergency departments. Such studies have had mixed findings, leaving equivocal the role of these services in healthcare. Objective: We examined stakeholders' perspectives on Healthdirect, Australia's national digital triage provider, focusing on its role in the health system, and barriers to operation, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Key stakeholders took part in semi-structured interviews conducted online in the third quarter of 2021. Transcripts were coded and thematically analysed. Results: Participants (n = 41) were Healthdirect staff (n = 13), employees of Primary Health Networks (PHNs; n = 12), clinicians (n = 9), shareholder representatives (n = 4), consumer representatives (n = 2) and other policymakers (n = 1). Eight themes emerged from the analysis: (1) information and guidance in navigating the system, (2) efficiency through appropriate care, (3) value for consumers? (4) the difficulties in triage at a distance, (5) competition and the unfulfilled promise of integration, (6) challenges in promoting Healthdirect, (7) monitoring and evaluating digital triage services and (8) rapid change, challenge and opportunity from COVID-19. Conclusion: Stakeholders varied in their views of the purpose of Healthdirect's digital triage services. They identified challenges in lack of integration, competition, and the limited public profile of the services, issues largely reflective of the complexity of the policy and health system landscape. There was acknowledgement of the value of the services during the COVID-19 pandemic, and an expectation of them realising greater potential in the wake of the rapid uptake of telehealth.

How do patients and other members of the public engage with the orphan drug development? A narrative qualitative synthesis.

BACKGROUND: The diversity of patient experiences of orphan drug development has until recently been overlooked, with the existing literature reporting the experience of some patients and not others. The current evidence base (the best available current research) is dominated by quantitative surveys and patient reported outcome measures defined by researchers. Where research that uses qualitative methods of data collection and analysis has been conducted, patient experiences have been studied using content analysis and automatic textual analysis, rather than in-depth qualitative analytical methods. Systematic reviews of patient engagement in orphan drug development have also excluded qualitative studies. The aim of this paper is to review qualitative literature about how patients and other members of the public engage with orphan drug development. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of qualitative papers describing a range of patient engagement practices and experiences were identified and screened. Included papers were appraised using a validated tool (CASP), supplemented by reporting guidance (COREQ), by two independent researchers. RESULTS: 262 papers were identified. Thirteen papers reported a range of methods of qualitative data collection. Many conflated patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) with qualitative research. Patients were typically recruited via their physician or patient organisations. We identified an absence of overarching philosophical or methodological frameworks, limited details of informed consent processes, and an absence of recognisable methods of data analysis. Our narrative synthesis suggests that patients and caregivers need to be involved in all aspects of trial design, including the selection of clinical endpoints that capture a wider range of outcomes, the identification of means to widen access to trial participation, the development of patient facing materials to optimise their decision making, and patients included in the dissemination of trial results. CONCLUSIONS: This narrative qualitative synthesis identified the explicit need for methodological rigour in research with patients with rare diseases (e.g. appropriate and innovative use of qualitative methods or PPIE, rather than their conflation); strenuous efforts to capture the perspectives of under-served, under-researched or seldom listened to communities with experience of rare diseases (e.g. creative recruitment and wider adoption of post-colonial practices); and a re-alignment of the research agenda (e.g. the use of co-design to enable patients to set the agenda, rather than respond to what they are being offered).

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.

The remarkable invisibility of NHS 111 online.

In 2017, the NHS 111 telephone service was augmented by an online service. This is an exemplar of 'digital-first', the push to enrol digital technologies to deliver services, and is viewed by policymakers as an important vehicle for managing demand for overburdened health services. This article reports the qualitative component of a larger multi-method study of NHS 111 online. Qualitative telephone interviews with 80 staff and stakeholders implicated in primary, urgent and emergency care service delivery explored the impact of NHS 111 online on health-care work. The analysis presented here draws on Susie Scott's work on the 'sociology of nothing' and theories of the marked and unmarked, which we reached for when confronted by the remarkable invisibility of this seemingly core NHS service in the wider landscape of health care. Despite the apparently high use by patients and the public (30 million visits over 6 months in the 2020 pandemic), we were surprised to find very low awareness among our interviewees. Confusion about nomenclature, an exceedingly crowded digital field (littered with alternative technologies and ways of accessing care) and constant change in service provision provide some cogent reasons for this invisibility, and sociology helps explain our data about this digital technology.

Infrastructure challenges to doing health research "where populations with the most disease live" in Covid times-a response to Rai et al. (2021).

BACKGROUND: The failure of randomised controlled trials to adequately reflect areas of highest health need have been repeatedly highlighted. This has implications for the validity and generalisability of findings, for equity and efficiency, but also for research capacity-building. Rai et al. (BMC Med Res Methodol 21:80, 2021) recently argued that the poor alignment between UK clinical research activity (specifically multi-centre RCTs) and local prevalence of disease was, in part, the outcome of behaviour and decision-making by Chief Investigators involved in trial research. They argued that a shift in research culture was needed. Following our recent multi-site mixed methods evaluative study about NHS 111 online we identify some of the additional structural barriers to delivering health research "where populations with the most disease live", accounting for the Covid-19 disruption to processes and delivery. METHODS: The NHS 111 study used a mixed-method research design, including interviews with healthcare staff and stakeholders within the primary, urgent and emergency health care system, and a survey of users and potential users of the NHS 111 online service. This paper draws on data collated by the research team during site identification and selection, as we followed an action research cycle of planning, action, observation and reflection. The process results were discussed among the authors, and grouped into the two themes presented. RESULTS: We approached 22 primary and secondary care sites across England, successfully recruiting half of these. Time from initial approach to first participant recruitment in successful sites ranged from one to ten months. This paper describes frontline bureaucratic barriers to research delivery and recruitment in the local Clinical Research Network system and secondary care sites carrying large research portfolios, alongside the adaptive practices of research practitioners that mitigate these. CONCLUSIONS: This paper augments the recommendations of Rai et al., describing delays encountered during the COVID-19 pandemic, and suggesting in addition to cultural change, it may be additionally important to dismantle infrastructural barriers and improve support to research teams so they can conduct health research "where populations with the most disease live".

UK healthcare services for people with fibromyalgia: results from two web-based national surveys (the PACFiND study).

BACKGROUND: The UK's "Getting It Right First Time" programme recommends that management of people with fibromyalgia should centre on primary care. However, it remains unclear as to how best to organise health systems to deliver services to optimise patient outcomes. AIM: To profile UK healthcare services for people with fibromyalgia: provision of National Health Services (NHS) and use of non-NHS services by people with fibromyalgia. METHODS: Two online open surveys (A and B) incorporating questions about diagnosis, treatment and management of fibromyalgia and gaps in healthcare services were conducted between 11th September 2019 and 3rd February 2020. These were targeted to NHS healthcare professionals consulting with people with fibromyalgia (Survey A) and people ≥16 years diagnosed with fibromyalgia using non-NHS services to manage their condition (Survey B). Descriptive statistics were used to report quantitative data. Thematic analysis was undertaken for qualitative data. RESULTS: Survey A received 1701 responses from NHS healthcare professionals across the UK. Survey B received 549 responses from people with fibromyalgia. The results show that NHS services for people with fibromyalgia are highly disparate, with few professionals reporting care pathways in their localities. Diagnosing fibromyalgia is variable among NHS healthcare professionals and education and pharmacotherapy are mainstays of NHS treatment and management. The greatest perceived unmet need in healthcare for people with fibromyalgia is a lack of available services. From the pooled qualitative data, three themes were developed: 'a troublesome label', 'a heavy burden' and 'a low priority'. Through the concept of candidacy, these themes provide insight into limited access to healthcare for people with fibromyalgia in the UK. CONCLUSION: This study highlights problems across the NHS in service provision and access for people with fibromyalgia, including several issues less commonly discussed; potential bias towards people with self-diagnosed fibromyalgia, challenges facing general practitioners seeking involvement of secondary care services for people with fibromyalgia, and a lack of mental health and multidisciplinary holistic services to support those affected. The need for new models of primary and community care that offer timely diagnosis, interventions to support self-management with access to specialist services if needed, is paramount.

Black, Asian and minority ethnic women's experiences of maternity services in the UK: A qualitative evidence synthesis.

AIMS: Black, Asian and minority ethnic women are at higher risk of dying during pregnancy, childbirth and postnatally and of experiencing premature birth, stillbirth or neonatal death compared with their White counterparts. Discrimination against women from ethnic minorities is known to negatively impact women's ability to speak up, be heard and their experiences of care. This evidence synthesis analysed Black, Asian and minority ethnic women's experiences of UK maternity services in light of these outcomes. DESIGN: We conducted a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis using the method of Thomas and Harden. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive search in AMED, Cinahl, Embase, Medline, PubMed and PsycINFO, alongside research reports from UK maternity charities, was undertaken from 2000 until May 2021. Eligible studies included qualitative research about antenatal, intrapartum and postnatal care, with ethnic minority women in maternity settings of the UK NHS. REVIEW METHODS: Study quality was graded using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. Our synthesis highlights how discriminatory practices and communication failures in UK NHS maternity services are failing ethnic minority women. CONCLUSION: This synthesis finds evidence of mistreatment and poor care for ethnic minority women in the UK maternity system that may contribute to the poor outcomes reported by MBRRACE. Woman-centred midwifery care is reported as positive for all women but is often experienced as an exception by ethnic minority women in the technocratic birthing system. IMPACT: Ethnic minority women report positive experiences when in receipt of woman-centred midwifery care. Woman-centred midwifery care is often the exception in the overstretched technocratic UK birthing system. Mistreatment and poor care reported by many ethnic minority women in the UK could inform the inequalities of outcomes identified in the MBRRACE report.

Challenges of safeguarding via remote consulting during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic required general practice to rapidly adapt to remote consultations and assessment of patients, creating new, and exacerbating existing, vulnerabilities for many patients. AIM: To explore GP perspectives and concerns about safeguarding practice during the pandemic, focusing on challenges and opportunities created by remote consultation. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative interview study. METHOD: Eighteen GPs from Oxford, London, Southampton, Liverpool, Manchester, and Reading were interviewed between June and November 2020, using a flexible topic guide and fictional vignettes to explore child and adult safeguarding scenarios. Interviews were audio-recorded, thematically coded, and analysed. RESULTS: GPs worried about missing observational information during remote consultations and that conversations might not be private or safe. Loss of continuity and pooled triage lists were seen as further weakening safeguarding opportunities. GPs experienced remote consulting as more 'transactional', with reduced opportunities to explore 'other reasons' including new safeguarding needs. However, they also recognised that remote consulting created opportunities for some vulnerable patients. While supporting known vulnerable patients was difficult, identifying new or unknown vulnerabilities was harder still. Most reported that remote consulting during COVID-19 was harder, riskier, and emotionally draining, contributing to increased GP anxiety and reduced job satisfaction. CONCLUSION: The GPs interviewed raised important concerns about how to identify and manage safeguarding in the context of remote consultations. Current guidance recommends face-to-face consultation for safeguarding concerns, but pressure to use remote forms of access (within or beyond the pandemic) and the fact that safeguarding needs may be unknown makes this an issue that warrants urgent attention.

What would it take to meaningfully attend to ethnicity and race in health research? Learning from a trial intervention development study.

The lack of ethnic diversity in health research participation is a multi-dimensional problem. Racism and intersectional disadvantage compel us to use racial and ethnic categories to explore health, but race theorists warn that these can be essentialising and pathologising. Yet, the alternative, the pursuit of colour-blindness, can render the impact of race and ethnicity on health invisible. This paper describes the attempt to recruit an ethnically diverse sample to inform the development of an intervention for stroke patients. The study revealed deep uncertainties and tensions, which we use to re-examine our own positionalities and perspectives. We focus on the experiences of researchers and participants to show how 'usual' research practices are unwittingly exclusionary and promote 'methodological whiteness' (The British Journal of Sociology, 2017, 68, S214). Calls for greater diversity in research are frequently made, yet health research remains tainted by the use of problematic epistemological starting points, rendering participation by minoritised people uneasy. Medical sociologists, especially those engaged in clinical trials, have a vital role to play in recalibrating health research to attend to ethnicity and race. This requires us to reflect on our practices, to recognise where we are complicit in replicating social inequalities and to actively engage with communities to produce more inclusive research.

Paragons, Mavericks and Innovators-A typology of orthopaedic surgeons' professional identities. A comparative case study of evidence-based practice.

Clinical guidelines, as vehicles for evidence-based practice (EBP) attempt to standardize health-care practice, reduce variation and increase quality. However, their use for surgery has been contested, and often resisted. This article examines professional responses to EBP in hip replacement surgery using data from case study observations and interviews in three English orthopaedic departments. A professional identity perspective is adopted to explain how standardization through EBP, represents an empirical phenomenon around which surgeons enact their identities as Paragons, Mavericks or Innovators, to enhance legitimacy and stratify themselves in their response to EBP. Attention is drawn to variation between Paragon surgeons working in university (teaching) hospitals and Maverick and Innovator types located in general hospitals, and the ways this interacts with adoption of EBP. The typology shows how practice variation is related to surgeons' tendencies to align to characteristic types, with distinct social processes, power and prestige, and which are in turn influenced by organizational context. The dynamics of EBP and professional identity continues to limit attempts to standardize surgical practice. The typology contributes to the understanding of failures to follow EBP, as associated with the identities individuals create and negotiate, and with identity narratives used to legitimize differing responses to EBP.

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.

Qualitative study: patients' enduring concerns about discussing internet use in general practice consultations.

OBJECTIVES: To examine patients' accounts of their use of the internet before seeing a general practitioner (GP) using thematic analysis of semistructured interviews. DESIGN: Qualitative semistructured interview study with transcripts analysed thematically. SETTING: Primary care patients consulting with 10 GPs working at 7 GP practices of varying sizes and at a range of locations around London and the Southeast of England. PARTICIPANTS: 28 adult patients: 16 women and 12 men ranging in age from 18 to 75 from a range of self-defined ethnic backgrounds. Participants were selected based on instances when the patients reported having used the internet before the consultation, when patients referred to the internet in the consultation or when the physician used the internet or made reference to it during the consultation. RESULTS: Patients report that they can find health information online that they believe is reliable and helpful for both themselves and their GP. However, they report uncertainty about how to share internet-based findings and reluctance to disclose their efforts at researching health issues online for fear of appearing disrespectful or interfering with the flow of the consultation. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the democratisation of access to information about health due via the internet, patients continue to experience their use of the internet for health information as a sensitive and potentially problematic topic. The onus may well be on GPs to raise the likelihood (without judgement) that patients will have looked things up before consulting and invite them to talk about what they found.