Training needs for staff providing remote services in general practice: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Contemporary general practice includes many kinds of remote encounter. The rise in telephone, video and online modalities for triage and clinical care requires clinicians and support staff to be trained, both individually and as teams, but evidence-based competencies have not previously been produced for general practice. AIM: To identify training needs, core competencies, and learning methods for staff providing remote encounters. DESIGN AND SETTING: Mixed-methods study in UK general practice. METHOD: Data were collated from longitudinal ethnographic case studies of 12 general practices; a multi-stakeholder workshop; interviews with policymakers, training providers, and trainees; published research; and grey literature (such as training materials and surveys). Data were coded thematically and analysed using theories of individual and team learning. RESULTS: Learning to provide remote services occurred in the context of high workload, understaffing, and complex workflows. Low confidence and perceived unmet training needs were common. Training priorities for novice clinicians included basic technological skills, triage, ethics (for privacy and consent), and communication and clinical skills. Established clinicians' training priorities include advanced communication skills (for example, maintaining rapport and attentiveness), working within the limits of technologies, making complex judgements, coordinating multi-professional care in a distributed environment, and training others. Much existing training is didactic and technology focused. While basic knowledge was often gained using such methods, the ability and confidence to make complex judgements were usually acquired through experience, informal discussions, and on-the-job methods such as shadowing. Whole-team training was valued but rarely available. A draft set of competencies is offered based on the findings. CONCLUSION: The knowledge needed to deliver high-quality remote encounters to diverse patient groups is complex, collective, and organisationally embedded. The vital role of non-didactic training, for example, joint clinical sessions, case-based discussions, and in-person, whole-team, on-the-job training, needs to be recognised.

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.

Growing old in China in socioeconomic and epidemiological context: systematic review of social care policy for older people.

BACKGROUND: From 2020 to 2050, China's population aged ≥65 years old is estimated to more than double from 172 million (12·0%) to 366 million (26·0%). Some 10 million have Alzheimer's disease and related dementias, to approach 40 million by 2050. Critically, the population is ageing fast while China is still a middle-income country. METHODS: Using official and population-level statistics, we summarise China's demographic and epidemiological trends relevant to ageing and health from 1970 to present, before examining key determinants of China's improving population health in a socioecological framework. We then explore how China is responding to the care needs of its older population by carrying out a systematic review to answer the question: 'what are the key policy challenges to China achieving an equitable nationwide long-term care system for older people?'. Databases were screened for records published between 1st June 2020 and 1st June 2022 in Mandarin Chinese or English, reflecting our focus on evidence published since introduction of China's second long-term care insurance pilot phase in 2020. RESULTS: Rapid economic development and improved access to education has led to widescale internal migration. Changing fertility policies and household structures also pose considerable challenges to the traditional family care model. To deal with increasing need, China has piloted 49 alternative long-term care insurance systems. Our findings from 42 studies (n = 16 in Mandarin) highlight significant challenges in the provision of quality and quantity of care which suits the preference of users, varying eligibility for long-term care insurance and an inequitable distribution of cost burden. Key recommendations include increasing salaries to attract and retain staff, introduction of mandatory financial contributions from employees and a unified standard of disability with regular assessment. Strengthening support for family caregivers and improving smart old age care capacity can also support preferences to age at home. CONCLUSIONS: China has yet to establish a sustainable funding mechanism, standardised eligibility criteria and a high-quality service delivery system. Its long-term care insurance pilot studies provide useful lessons for other middle-income countries facing similar challenges in terms of meeting the long-term care needs of their rapidly growing older populations.

Remote care in UK general practice: baseline data on 11 case studies.

Background: Accessing and receiving care remotely (by telephone, video or online) became the default option during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, but in-person care has unique benefits in some circumstances. We are studying UK general practices as they try to balance remote and in-person care, with recurrent waves of COVID-19 and various post-pandemic backlogs. Methods: Mixed-methods (mostly qualitative) case study across 11 general practices. Researchers-in-residence have built relationships with practices and become familiar with their contexts and activities; they are following their progress for two years via staff and patient interviews, documents and ethnography, and supporting improvement efforts through co-design. In this paper, we report baseline data. Results: Reflecting our maximum-variety sampling strategy, the 11 practices vary in size, setting, ethos, staffing, population demographics and digital maturity, but share common contextual features-notably system-level stressors such as high workload and staff shortages, and UK's technical and regulatory infrastructure. We have identified both commonalities and differences between practices in terms of how they: 1] manage the 'digital front door' (access and triage) and balance demand and capacity; 2] strive for high standards of quality and safety; 3] ensure digital inclusion and mitigate wider inequalities; 4] support and train their staff (clinical and non-clinical), students and trainees; 5] select, install, pilot and use technologies and the digital infrastructure which support them; and 6] involve patients in their improvement efforts. Conclusions: General practices' responses to pandemic-induced disruptive innovation appear unique and situated. We anticipate that by focusing on depth and detail, this longitudinal study will throw light on why a solution that works well in one practice does not work at all in another. As the study unfolds, we will explore how practices achieve timely diagnosis of urgent or serious illness and manage continuity of care, long-term conditions and complex needs.

We describe early results from the Remote by Default 2 study, which is following 11 UK general practices for two years as they introduce various kinds of remote appointment booking and clinical consultations. We have been using interviews and ethnography (watching real-world activities), and analysing documents (such as practice reports and websites) to prepare case studies of the 11 practices, which vary widely in size, ethos, geographical location, practice population and digital maturity. Our initial interviews identified the following cross-cutting themes, which showed both commonalities and differences across the 11 practices: - The 'digital front door' (patients gaining access using digital portals), which was used to a greater or lesser extent in all practices; some found these systems frustrating and inefficient.- Quality and safety. Staff were concerned about the risk of missing an important diagnosis when consulting remotely, and felt that digitisation could threaten continuity of care.- Digital inclusion. All practices were keen to ensure that patients who lacked digital devices or skills were not disadvantaged; this goal was achieved in different ways (and to different degrees) in different settings.- Staff support and training. Some practices are finding current workload unsustainable due to (among other things) rising patient demand, unfilled staff posts, a post-pandemic backlog of unmet need, and task-shifting from secondary care. Digitisation appears to have increased workload in most practices.- Technologies and infrastructure. The IT infrastructure in each practice had grown in a particular way over time, and was in this sense 'path-dependent' (hence, not easily changed). In conclusion, different practices are responding to the 'disruptive innovation' of digital technologies in very different ways, reflecting their different practice populations, settings and priorities. We plan to follow the above themes over time and explore additional themes including the experience and role of patients.

Protocol: Remote care as the 'new normal'? Multi-site case study in UK general practice.

Background: Following a pandemic-driven shift to remote service provision, UK general practices offer telephone, video or online consultation options alongside face-to-face. This study explores practices' varied experiences over time as they seek to establish remote forms of accessing and delivering care. Methods: This protocol is for a mixed-methods multi-site case study with co-design and national stakeholder engagement. 11 general practices were selected for diversity in geographical location, size, demographics, ethos, and digital maturity. Each practice has a researcher-in-residence whose role is to become familiar with its context and activity, follow it longitudinally for two years using interviews, public-domain documents and ethnography, and support improvement efforts. Research team members meet regularly to compare and contrast across cases. Practice staff are invited to join online learning events. Patient representatives work locally within their practice patient involvement groups as well as joining an online patient learning set or linking via a non-digital buddy system. NHS Research Ethics Approval has been granted. Governance includes a diverse independent advisory group with lay chair. We also have policy in-reach (national stakeholders sit on our advisory group) and outreach (research team members sit on national policy working groups). Results anticipated: We expect to produce rich narratives of contingent change over time, addressing cross-cutting themes including access, triage and capacity; digital and wider inequities; quality and safety of care (e.g. continuity, long-term condition management, timely diagnosis, complex needs); workforce and staff wellbeing (including non-clinical staff, students and trainees); technologies and digital infrastructure; patient perspectives; and sustainability (e.g. carbon footprint). Conclusion: By using case study methods focusing on depth and detail, we hope to explain why digital solutions that work well in one practice do not work at all in another. We plan to inform policy and service development through inter-sectoral network-building, stakeholder workshops and topic-focused policy briefings.

The pandemic required general practices to introduce remote (phone, video and email) consultations. That policy undoubtedly saved lives at the time but there are also clear benefits of face-to-face consultations in some circumstances, and the exact role of remote care still needs to be worked out. Despite best efforts, remote care tends to worsen health inequities (people who were poor or less well educated are less able to access and navigate the system and secure the type of appointment they need or prefer). Workstream 1: We will look at 11 GP surgeries across England, Scotland and Wales. We have selected a variety of sites: urban and rural, serving a range of different communities. Each surgery has a different approach to technology. A researcher from our team will work alongside surgery staff to learn what methods and technologies each practice uses to deliver care. They will gather information (mostly qualitative) about how different technological solutions are playing out over time. Workstream 2: Many people experience barriers to accessing care when it is done through technology. This could be because they lack understanding of how to do it, don't have the right equipment, can't afford data, or other reasons. We will ask patients about their experiences and work with them and staff to develop ideas about how to overcome barriers. Workstream 3: We will take what we have learnt in Workstreams 1 and 2 to make suggestions to inform national stakeholders and to influence policymakers. Patients and members of the public helped shape the research design. They continue to help guide our research by reading our reports, giving us their opinions and advising on how best to share our research so everyone can benefit from what we have learnt. Our governance panel is chaired by a member of the public.