Access and triage in contemporary general practice: A novel theory of digital candidacy.

To access contemporary healthcare, patients must find and navigate a complex socio-technical network of human and digital actors linked in multi-modal pathways. Asynchronous, digitally-mediated triage decisions have largely replaced synchronous conversations between humans. In this paper, we draw on a large qualitative dataset from a multi-site study of remote and digital technologies in general practice to understand widening inequities of access. We theorise our data by bringing together traditional candidacy theory (in particular, concepts of self-assessment, help-seeking, adjudication and negotiation) and socio-technical and technology structuration theories (in particular, concepts of user configuration, articulation, distanciation, disembedding, and recursivity), thus producing a novel theory of digital candidacy. We propose that both human and technological actors (in different ways) embody social structures which affect how they 'act' in social situations. Digital technologies contain inbuilt assumptions about users' capabilities, needs, rights, and skills. Patients' ability to self-assess as sick, access digital platforms, self-advocate, and navigate multiple stages in the pathway, including adapting to and compensating for limitations in the technology, vary widely and are markedly patterned by disadvantage. Not every patient can craft an accurate digital facsimile on which the subsequent adjudication decision will be made; those who create incomplete, flawed or unpersuasive digital facsimiles may be deprioritised or misdirected. Staff who know about such patients may use articulation measures to ensure a personalised and appropriate access package, but they cannot identify or fully mitigate all such cases. The decisions and actions of human and technological agents at the time of an attempt to access care can significantly influence, disrupt, and reconstitute candidacy both immediately and recursively over time, and also recursively shape the system itself. These findings underscore the need for services to be (co-)designed with attention to the exclusionary tendencies of digital technologies and technology-supported processes and pathways.

Patient safety in remote primary care encounters: multimethod qualitative study combining Safety I and Safety II analysis.

BACKGROUND: Triage and clinical consultations increasingly occur remotely. We aimed to learn why safety incidents occur in remote encounters and how to prevent them. SETTING AND SAMPLE: UK primary care. 95 safety incidents (complaints, settled indemnity claims and reports) involving remote interactions. Separately, 12 general practices followed 2021-2023. METHODS: Multimethod qualitative study. We explored causes of real safety incidents retrospectively ('Safety I' analysis). In a prospective longitudinal study, we used interviews and ethnographic observation to produce individual, organisational and system-level explanations for why safety and near-miss incidents (rarely) occurred and why they did not occur more often ('Safety II' analysis). Data were analysed thematically. An interpretive synthesis of why safety incidents occur, and why they do not occur more often, was refined following member checking with safety experts and lived experience experts. RESULTS: Safety incidents were characterised by inappropriate modality, poor rapport building, inadequate information gathering, limited clinical assessment, inappropriate pathway (eg, wrong algorithm) and inadequate attention to social circumstances. These resulted in missed, inaccurate or delayed diagnoses, underestimation of severity or urgency, delayed referral, incorrect or delayed treatment, poor safety netting and inadequate follow-up. Patients with complex pre-existing conditions, cardiac or abdominal emergencies, vague or generalised symptoms, safeguarding issues, failure to respond to previous treatment or difficulty communicating seemed especially vulnerable. General practices were facing resource constraints, understaffing and high demand. Triage and care pathways were complex, hard to navigate and involved multiple staff. In this context, patient safety often depended on individual staff taking initiative, speaking up or personalising solutions. CONCLUSION: While safety incidents are extremely rare in remote primary care, deaths and serious harms have resulted. We offer suggestions for patient, staff and system-level mitigations.

Quality framework for remote antenatal care: qualitative study with women, healthcare professionals and system-level stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: High-quality antenatal care is important for ensuring optimal birth outcomes and reducing risks of maternal and fetal mortality and morbidity. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the usual provision of antenatal care, with much care shifting to remote forms of provision. We aimed to characterise what quality would look like for remote antenatal care from the perspectives of those who use, provide and organise it. METHODS: This UK-wide study involved interviews and an online survey inviting free-text responses with: those who were or had been pregnant since March 2020; maternity professionals and managers of maternity services and system-level stakeholders. Recruitment used network-based approaches, professional and community networks and purposively selected hospitals. Analysis of interview transcripts was based on the constant comparative method. Free-text survey responses were analysed using a coding framework developed by researchers. FINDINGS: Participants included 106 pregnant women and 105 healthcare professionals and managers/stakeholders. Analysis enabled generation of a framework of the domains of quality that appear to be most relevant to stakeholders in remote antenatal care: efficiency and timeliness; effectiveness; safety; accessibility; equity and inclusion; person-centredness and choice and continuity. Participants reported that remote care was not straightforwardly positive or negative across these domains. Care that was more transactional in nature was identified as more suitable for remote modalities, but remote care was also seen as having potential to undermine important aspects of trusting relationships and continuity, to amplify or create new forms of structural inequality and to create possible risks to safety. CONCLUSIONS: This study offers a provisional framework that can help in structuring thinking, policy and practice. By outlining the range of domains relevant to remote antenatal care, this framework is likely to be of value in guiding policy, practice and research.