The impact of patient and public involvement in chronic respiratory disease research: the ConectAR experience.

ConectAR has demonstrated the feasibility and value of involving patients with chronic respiratory diseases and caregivers as co-researchers, actively considering their perspectives from project inception to implementation and dissemination https://bit.ly/3Oq13se.

Validating a framework to guide the implementation of high-quality virtual primary care: an international eDelphi study protocol.

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need to support primary care organisations in implementing safe and high-quality virtual consultations. We have previously performed qualitative research to capture the views of 1600 primary care physicians across 20 countries on the main benefits and challenges of using virtual consultations. Subsequently, a prototype of a framework to guide the implementation of high-quality virtual primary care was developed. AIM: To explore general practitioners' perspectives on the appropriateness and relevance of each component of the framework's prototype, to further refine it and optimise its practical use in primary care facilities. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Participants will be primary care physicians with active experience providing virtual care, recruited through convenience and snowball sampling. This study will use a systematic and iterative online Delphi research approach (eDelphi), with a minimum of three rounds. A pre-round will be used to circulate items for initial feedback and adjustment. In subsequent rounds, participants will be asked to rate the relevance of the framework's components. Consensus will be defined as >70% of participants agreeing/strongly agreeing or disagreeing/strongly disagreeing with a component. Data will be collected using structured online questionnaires. The primary outcome of the study will be a list of the essential components to be incorporated in the final version of the framework. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received ethical approval conceded by the Imperial College London Science, Engineering and Technology Research Ethics Committee (SETREC) (reference no .6559176/2023). Anonymous results will be made available to the public, academic organisations and policymakers.

Attendance at remote versus in-person outpatient appointments in an NHS Trust.

INTRODUCTION: With the growing use of remote appointments within the National Health Service, there is a need to understand potential barriers of access to care for some patients. In this observational study, we examined missed appointments rates, comparing remote and in-person appointments among different patient groups. METHODS: We analysed adult outpatient appointments at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust in Northwest London in 2021. Rates of missed appointments per patient were compared between remote versus in-person appointments using negative binomial regression models. Models were stratified by appointment type (first or a follow-up). RESULTS: There were 874,659 outpatient appointments for 189,882 patients, 29.5% of whom missed at least one appointment. Missed rates were 12.5% for remote first appointments and 9.2% for in-person first appointments. Remote and in-person follow-up appointments were missed at similar rates (10.4% and 10.7%, respectively). For remote and in-person appointments, younger patients, residents of more deprived areas, and patients of Black, Mixed and 'other' ethnicities missed more appointments. Male patients missed more in-person appointments, particularly at younger ages, but gender differences were minimal for remote appointments. Patients with long-term conditions (LTCs) missed more first appointments, whether in-person or remote. In follow-up appointments, patients with LTCs missed more in-person appointments but fewer remote appointments. DISCUSSION: Remote first appointments were missed more often than in-person first appointments, follow-up appointments had similar attendance rates for both modalities. Sociodemographic differences in outpatient appointment attendance were largely similar between in-person and remote appointments, indicating no widening of inequalities in attendance due to appointment modality.

Exploring the relationship between government stringency and preventative social behaviours during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom.

We constructed a preventive social behaviours (PSB) Index using survey questions that were aligned with WHO recommendations, and used linear regression to assess the impact of reported COVID-19 deaths (RCD), people's confidence of government handling of the pandemic (CGH) and government stringency (GS) in the United Kingdom (UK) over time on the PSB index. We used repeated, nationally representative, cross-sectional surveys in the UK over the course of 41 weeks from 1st April 2020 to January 28th, 2021, including a total of 38,092 participants. The PSB index was positively correlated with the logarithm of RCD (R: 0.881, p < .001), CGH (R: 0.592, p < .001) and GS (R: 0.785, p < .001), but was not correlated with time (R: -0.118, p = .485). A multivariate linear regression analysis suggests that the log of RCD (coefficient: 0.125, p < .001), GS (coefficient: 0.010, p = .019), and CGH (coefficient: 0.0.009, p < .001) had a positive and significant impact on the PSB Index, while time did not affect it significantly. These findings suggest that people's behaviours could have been affected by multiple factors during the pandemic, with the number of COVID-19 deaths being the largest contributor towards an increase in protective behaviours in our model.

Identifying benefits and concerns with using digital health services during COVID-19: Evidence from a hospital-based patient survey.

Despite large-scale adoption during COVID-19, patient perceptions on the benefits and potential risks with receiving care through digital technologies have remained largely unexplored. A quantitative content analysis of responses to a questionnaire (N = 6766) conducted at a multi-site acute trust in London (UK), was adopted to identify commonly reported benefits and concerns. Patients reported a range of promising benefits beyond immediate usage during COVID-19, including ease of access; support for disease and care management; improved timeliness of access and treatment; and better prioritisation of healthcare resources. However, in addition to known risks such as data security and inequity in access, our findings also illuminate some less studied concerns, including perceptions of compromised safety; negative impacts on patient-clinician relationships; and difficulties in interpreting health information provided through electronic health records and mHealth apps. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.

The role of primary health care in long-term care facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic in 30 European countries: a retrospective descriptive study (Eurodata study).

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Primary health care (PHC) supported long-term care facilities (LTCFs) in attending COVID-19 patients. The aim of this study is to describe the role of PHC in LTCFs in Europe during the early phase of the pandemic. METHODS: Retrospective descriptive study from 30 European countries using data from September 2020 collected with an ad hoc semi-structured questionnaire. Related variables are SARS-CoV-2 testing, contact tracing, follow-up, additional testing, and patient care. RESULTS: Twenty-six out of the 30 European countries had PHC involvement in LTCFs during the COVID-19 pandemic. PHC participated in initial medical care in 22 countries, while, in 15, PHC was responsible for SARS-CoV-2 test along with other institutions. Supervision of individuals in isolation was carried out mostly by LTCF staff, but physical examination or symptom's follow-up was performed mainly by PHC. CONCLUSION: PHC has participated in COVID-19 pandemic assistance in LTCFs in coordination with LTCF staff, public health officers, and hospitals.

Primary care practitioners' priorities for improving the timeliness of cancer diagnosis in primary care: a European cluster-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosing cancer at an early stage increases the likelihood of survival, and more advanced cancers are more difficult to treat successfully. Primary care practitioners (PCPs) play a key role in timely diagnosis of cancer. PCPs' knowledge of their own patient populations and health systems could help improve the planning of more effective approaches to earlier cancer recognition and referral. How PCPs act when faced with patients who may have cancer is likely to depend on how their health systems are organised, and this may be one explanation for the wide variation on cancer survival rates across Europe. OBJECTIVES: To identify and characterise clusters of countries whose PCPs perceive the same factors as being important in improving the timeliness of cancer diagnosis. METHODS: A cluster analysis of qualitative data from an online survey was carried out. PCPs answered an open-ended survey question on how the speed of diagnosis of cancer in primary care could be improved. Following coding and thematic analysis, we identified the number of times per country that an item in a theme was mentioned. k-means clustering identified clusters of countries whose PCPs perceived the same themes as most important. Post-hoc testing explored differences between these clusters. SETTING: Twenty-five primary care centres in 20 European countries. Each centre was asked to recruit at least 50 participants. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care practitioners of each country. RESULTS: In all, 1,351 PCPs gave free-text answers. We identified eighteen themes organising the content of the responses. Based on the frequency of the themes, k-means clustering identified three groups of countries. There were significant differences between clusters regarding the importance of: access to tests (p = 0.010); access to specialists (p = 0.014), screening (p < 0.001); and finances, quotas & limits (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study identified three distinct clusters of European countries within which PCPs had similar views on the factors that would improve the timeliness of cancer diagnosis. Further work is needed to understand what it is about the clusters that have produced these patterns, allowing healthcare systems to share best practice and to reduce disparities.

Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats Analysis of the Use of Digital Health Technologies in Primary Health Care in the Sub-Saharan African Region: Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Digital health technologies (DHTs) have become increasingly commonplace as a means of delivering primary care. While DHTs have been postulated to reduce inequalities, increase access, and strengthen health systems, how the implementation of DHTs has been realized in the sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) health care environment remains inadequately explored. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to capture the multidisciplinary experiences of primary care professionals using DHTs to explore the strengths and weaknesses, as well as opportunities and threats, regarding the implementation and use of DHTs in SSA primary care settings. METHODS: A combination of qualitative approaches was adopted (ie, focus groups and semistructured interviews). Participants were recruited through the African Forum for Primary Care and researchers' contact networks using convenience sampling and included if having experience with digital technologies in primary health care in SSA. Focus and interviews were conducted, respectively, in November 2021 and January-March 2022. Topic guides were used to cover relevant topics in the interviews, using the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats framework. Transcripts were compiled verbatim and systematically reviewed by 2 independent reviewers using framework analysis to identify emerging themes. The COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research) checklist was used to ensure the study met the recommended standards of qualitative data reporting. RESULTS: A total of 33 participants participated in the study (n=13 and n=23 in the interviews and in focus groups, respectively; n=3 participants participated in both). The strengths of using DHTs ranged from improving access to care, supporting the continuity of care, and increasing care satisfaction and trust to greater collaboration, enabling safer decision-making, and hastening progress toward universal health coverage. Weaknesses included poor digital literacy, health inequalities, lack of human resources, inadequate training, lack of basic infrastructure and equipment, and poor coordination when implementing DHTs. DHTs were perceived as an opportunity to improve patient digital literacy, increase equity, promote more patient-centric design in upcoming DHTs, streamline expenditure, and provide a means to learn international best practices. Threats identified include the lack of buy-in from both patients and providers, insufficient human resources and local capacity, inadequate governmental support, overly restrictive regulations, and a lack of focus on cybersecurity and data protection. CONCLUSIONS: The research highlights the complex challenges of implementing DHTs in the SSA context as a fast-moving health delivery modality, as well as the need for multistakeholder involvement. Future research should explore the nuances of these findings across different technologies and settings in the SSA region and implications on health and health care equity, capitalizing on mixed-methods research, including the use of real-world quantitative data to understand patient health needs. The promise of digital health will only be realized when informed by studies that incorporate patient perspective at every stage of the research cycle.

Perceptions of chief clinical information officers on the state of electronic health records systems interoperability in NHS England: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: In the era of electronic health records (EHR), the ability to share clinical data is a key facilitator of healthcare delivery. Since the introduction of EHRs, this aspect has been extensively studied from the perspective of healthcare providers. Less often explored are the day-to-day challenges surrounding the procurement, deployment, maintenance, and use of interoperable EHR systems, from the perspective of healthcare administrators, such as chief clinical information officers (CCIOs). OBJECTIVE: Our study aims to capture the perceptions of CCIOs on the current state of EHR interoperability in the NHS, its impact on patient safety, the perceived facilitators and barriers to improving EHR interoperability, and what the future of EHR development in the NHS may entail. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted between November 2020 - October 2021. Convenience sampling was employed to recruit NHS England CCIOs. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. A thematic analysis was performed by two independent researchers to identify emerging themes. RESULTS: Fifteen CCIOs participated in the study. Participants reported that limited EHR interoperability contributed to the inability to easily access and transfer data into a unified source, thus resulting in data fragmentation. The resulting lack of clarity on patients' health status negatively impacts patient safety through suboptimal care coordination, duplication of efforts, and more defensive practice. Facilitators to improving interoperability included the recognition of the need by clinicians, patient expectations, and the inherent centralised nature of the NHS. Barriers included systems usability difficulties, and institutional, data management, and financial-related challenges. Looking ahead, participants acknowledged that realising that vision across the NHS would require a renewed focus on mandating data standards, user-centred design, greater patient involvement, and encouraging inter-organisational collaboration. CONCLUSION: Tackling poor interoperability will require solutions both at the technical level and in the wider policy context. This will involve demanding interoperability functionalities from the outset in procurement contracts, fostering greater inter-organisation cooperation on implementation strategies, and encouraging systems vendors to prioritise interoperability in their products. Only by comprehensively addressing these challenges would the full potential promised by the use of fully interoperable EHRs be realised.

The Impact of Virtual Consultations on the Quality of Primary Care: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The adoption of virtual consultations, catalyzed by the COVID-19 pandemic, has transformed the delivery of primary care services. Owing to their rapid global proliferation, there is a need to comprehensively evaluate the impact of virtual consultations on all aspects of care quality. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the impact of virtual consultations on the quality of primary care. METHODS: A total of 6 databases were searched. Studies that evaluated the impact of virtual consultations, for any disease, were included. Title and abstract screening and full-text screening were performed by 2 pairs of investigators. Risk of bias was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. A narrative synthesis of the results was performed. RESULTS: In total, 30 studies (5,469,333 participants) were included in this review. Our findings suggest that virtual consultations are equally effective to or more effective than face-to-face care for the management of certain conditions, including mental illness, excessive smoking, and alcohol consumption. Overall, 4 studies indicated positive impacts on some aspects of patient-centeredness; however, a negative impact was noted on patients' perceived autonomy support (ie, the degree to which people perceive those in positions of authority to be autonomy supportive). Virtual consultations may reduce waiting times, lower patient costs, and reduce rates of follow-up in secondary and tertiary care settings. Evidence for the impact on clinical safety is extremely limited. Evidence regarding equity was considerably mixed. Overall, it appears that virtual care is more likely to be used by younger, female patients, with disparities among other subgroups depending on contextual factors. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review demonstrated that virtual consultations may be as effective as face-to-face care and have a potentially positive impact on the efficiency and timeliness of care; however, there is a considerable lack of evidence on the impacts on patient safety, equity, and patient-centeredness, highlighting areas where future research efforts should be devoted. Capitalizing on real-world data, as well as clinical trials, is crucial to ensure that the use of virtual consultations is tailored according to patient needs and is inclusive of the intended end users. Data collection methods that are bespoke to the primary care context and account for patient characteristics are necessary to generate a stronger evidence base to inform future virtual care policies.

Clinical pathway of COVID-19 patients in primary health care in 30 European countries: Eurodata study.

BACKGROUND: Most COVID-19 patients were treated in primary health care (PHC) in Europe. OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate the scope of PHC workflow during the COVID-19 pandemic emphasising similarities and differences of patient's clinical pathways in Europe. METHODS: Descriptive, cross-sectional study with data acquired through a semi-structured questionnaire in PHC in 30 European countries, created ad hoc and agreed upon among all researchers who participated in the study. GPs from each country answered the approved questionnaire. Main variable: PHC COVID-19 acute clinical pathway. All variables were collected from each country as of September 2020. RESULTS: COVID-19 clinics in PHC facilities were organised in 8/30. Case detection and testing were performed in PHC in 27/30 countries. RT-PCR and lateral flow tests were performed in PHC in 23/30, free of charge with a medical prescription. Contact tracing was performed mainly by public health authorities. Mandatory isolation ranged from 5 to 14 days. Sick leave certification was given exclusively by GPs in 21/30 countries. Patient hotels or other resources to isolate patients were available in 12/30. Follow-up to monitor the symptoms and/or new complementary tests was made mainly by phone call (27/30). Chest X-ray and phlebotomy were performed in PHC in 18/30 and 23/30 countries, respectively. Oxygen and low-molecular-weight heparin were available in PHC (21/30). CONCLUSION: In Europe PHC participated in many steps to diagnose, treat and monitor COVID-19 patients. Differences among countries might be addressed at European level for the management of future pandemics.

Factors associated with enrolment into a national COVID-19 pulse oximetry remote monitoring programme in England: a retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Hypoxaemia is an important predictor of severity in individuals with COVID-19 and can present without symptoms. The COVID Oximetry @home (CO@h) programme was implemented across England in November, 2020, providing pulse oximeters to higher-risk people with COVID-19 to enable early detection of deterioration and the need for escalation of care. We aimed to describe the clinical and demographic characteristics of individuals enrolled onto the programme and to assess whether there were any inequalities in enrolment. METHODS: This retrospective observational study was based on data from a cohort of people resident in England recorded as having a positive COVID-19 test between Oct 1, 2020, and May 3, 2021. The proportion of participants enrolled onto the CO@h programmes in the 7 days before and 28 days after a positive COVID-19 test was calculated for each clinical commissioning group (CCG) in England. Two-level hierarchical multivariable logistic regression with random intercepts for each CCG was run to identify factors predictive of being enrolled onto the CO@h programme. FINDINGS: CO@h programme sites were reported by NHS England as becoming operational between Nov 21 and Dec 31, 2020. 1 227 405 people resident in 72 CCGs had a positive COVID-19 test between the date of programme implementation and May 3, 2021, of whom 19 932 (1·6%) were enrolled onto the CO@h programme. Of those enrolled, 14 441 (72·5%) were aged 50 years or older or were identified as clinically extremely vulnerable (ie, having a high-risk medical condition). Higher odds of enrolment onto the CO@h programme were found in older individuals (adjusted odds ratio 2·21 [95% CI 2·19-2·23], p<0·001, for those aged 50-64 years; 3·48 [3·33-3·63], p<0·001, for those aged 65-79 years; and 2·50 [2·34-2·68], p<0·001, for those aged ≥80 years), in individuals of non-White ethnicity (1·35 [1·28-1·43], p<0·001, for Asian individuals; 1·13 [1·04-1·22], p=0·005, for Black individuals; and 1·17 [1·03-1·32], p=0·015, for those of mixed ethnicity), in those who were overweight (1·31 [1·26-1·37], p<0·001) or obese (1·69 [1·63-1·77], p<0·001), or in those identified as clinically extremely vulnerable (1·58 [1·51-1·65], p<0·001), and lower odds were reported in those from the least socioeconomically deprived areas compared with those from the most socioeconomically deprived areas (0·75 [0·69-0·81]; p<0·001). INTERPRETATION: Nationally, uptake of the CO@h programme was low, with clinical judgment used to determine eligibility. Preferential enrolment onto the pulse oximetry monitoring programme was observed in people known to be at the highest risk of developing severe COVID-19. FUNDING: NHS England, National Institute for Health Research, and The Wellcome Trust.

Evaluating the impact of a pulse oximetry remote monitoring programme on mortality and healthcare utilisation in patients with COVID-19 assessed in emergency departments in England: a retrospective matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: To identify the impact of enrolment onto a national pulse oximetry remote monitoring programme for COVID-19 (COVID-19 Oximetry @home; CO@h) on health service use and mortality in patients attending Emergency Departments (EDs). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective matched cohort study of patients enrolled onto the CO@h pathway from EDs in England. We included all patients with a positive COVID-19 test from 1 October 2020 to 3 May 2021 who attended ED from 3 days before to 10 days after the date of the test. All patients who were admitted or died on the same or following day to the first ED attendance within the time window were excluded. In the primary analysis, participants enrolled onto CO@h were matched using demographic and clinical criteria to participants who were not enrolled. Five outcome measures were examined within 28 days of first ED attendance: (1) Death from any cause; (2) Any subsequent ED attendance; (3) Any emergency hospital admission; (4) Critical care admission; and (5) Length of stay. RESULTS: 15 621 participants were included in the primary analysis, of whom 639 were enrolled onto CO@h and 14 982 were controls. Odds of death were 52% lower in those enrolled (95% CI 7% to 75%) compared with those not enrolled onto CO@h. Odds of any ED attendance or admission were 37% (95% CI 16% to 63%) and 59% (95% CI 32% to 91%) higher, respectively, in those enrolled. Of those admitted, those enrolled had 53% (95% CI 7% to 76%) lower odds of critical care admission. There was no significant impact on length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that for patients assessed in ED, pulse oximetry remote monitoring may be a clinically effective and safe model for early detection of hypoxia and escalation. However, possible selection biases might limit the generalisability to other populations.

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.

Assessment of Clinical Information Quality in Digital Health Technologies: International eDelphi Study.

BACKGROUND: Digital health technologies (DHTs), such as electronic health records and prescribing systems, are transforming health care delivery around the world. The quality of information in DHTs is key to the quality and safety of care. We developed a novel clinical information quality (CLIQ) framework to assess the quality of clinical information in DHTs. OBJECTIVE: This study explored clinicians' perspectives on the relevance, definition, and assessment of information quality dimensions in the CLIQ framework. METHODS: We used a systematic and iterative eDelphi approach to engage clinicians who had information governance roles or personal interest in information governance; the clinicians were recruited through purposive and snowball sampling techniques. Data were collected using semistructured online questionnaires until consensus was reached on the information quality dimensions in the CLIQ framework. Responses on the relevance of the dimensions were summarized to inform decisions on retention of the dimensions according to prespecified rules. Thematic analysis of the free-text responses was used to revise definitions and the assessment of dimensions. RESULTS: Thirty-five clinicians from 10 countries participated in the study, which was concluded after the second round. Consensus was reached on all dimensions and categories in the CLIQ framework: informativeness (accuracy, completeness, interpretability, plausibility, provenance, and relevance), availability (accessibility, portability, security, and timeliness), and usability (conformance, consistency, and maintainability). A new dimension, searchability, was introduced in the availability category to account for the ease of finding needed information in the DHTs. Certain dimensions were renamed, and some definitions were rephrased to improve clarity. CONCLUSIONS: The CLIQ framework reached a high expert consensus and clarity of language relating to the information quality dimensions. The framework can be used by health care managers and institutions as a pragmatic tool for identifying and forestalling information quality problems that could compromise patient safety and quality of care. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057430.

Perceptions of Quality of Care Among Users of a Web-Based Patient Portal: Cross-sectional Survey Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Web-based patient portals enable patients access to, and interaction with, their personal electronic health records. However, little is known about the impact of patient portals on quality of care. Users of patient portals can contribute important insights toward addressing this knowledge gap. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to describe perceived changes in the quality of care among users of a web-based patient portal and to identify the characteristics of patients who perceive the greatest benefit of portal use. METHODS: A cross-sectional web-based survey study was conducted to understand patients' experiences with the Care Information Exchange (CIE) portal. Patient sociodemographic data were collected, including age, sex, ethnicity, educational level, health status, geographic location, motivation to self-manage, and digital health literacy (measured by the eHealth Literacy Scale). Patients with experience using CIE, who specified both age and sex, were included in these analyses. Relevant survey items (closed-ended questions) were mapped to the Institute of Medicine's 6 domains of quality of care. Users' responses were examined to understand their perceptions of how portal use has changed the overall quality of their care, different aspects of care related to the 6 domains of care quality, and patient's satisfaction with care. Multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed to identify patient characteristics associated with perceived improvements in overall care quality and greater satisfaction with care. RESULTS: Of 445 CIE users, 38.7% (n=172) reported that the overall quality of their care was better; 3.2% (n=14) said their care was worse. In the patient centeredness domain, 61.2% (273/445) of patients felt more in control of their health care, and 53.9% (240/445) felt able to play a greater role in decision-making. Regarding timeliness, 40.2% (179/445) of patients reported they could access appointments, diagnoses, and treatment more quickly. Approximately 30% of CIE users reported better care related to the domains of effectiveness (123/445, 27.6%), safety (138/445, 31%), and efficiency (174/445, 28.6%). Regarding equity, patients self-reporting higher digital health literacy (odds ratio 2.40, 95% CI 1.07-5.42; P=.03) and those belonging to ethnic minority groups (odds ratio 2.27, 95% CI 1.26-3.73; P<.005) were more likely to perceive improvements in care quality. Across ethnic groups, Asian and British Asian patients perceived the greatest benefits. Increased frequency of CIE use also predicted perceived better care quality and greater satisfaction with care. CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of CIE users perceived better care quality and greater satisfaction with care, although many portal users reported no change. The most favorable perceived improvements related to the domain of patient centeredness. With national policy directed toward addressing health disparities, patient portals could be valuable in improving care quality for ethnic minority groups. Future research should test the causal relationship between patient portal use and care quality.

The Impact of Electronic Health Record Interoperability on Safety and Quality of Care in High-Income Countries: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Electronic health records (EHRs) and poor system interoperability are well-known issues in the use of health information technologies in most high-income countries worldwide. Despite the abundance of literature exploring their relationship, their practical implications on patient safety and quality of care remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine how EHR interoperability affects patient safety, or other dimensions of care quality, in high-income health care settings. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted using 4 web-based medical journal repositories and grey literature sources. The publications included were published in English between 2010 and 2022, pertaining to EHR use, interoperability, and patient safety or care quality in high-income settings. Screening was completed by 3 researchers in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Risk of bias assessments were performed using the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions and the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tools. The findings were presented as a narrative synthesis and mapped based on the Institute of Medicine's framework for health care quality. RESULTS: A total of 12 studies met the inclusion criteria to be included in our review. The findings were categorized into 6 common outcome measure categories: patient safety events, medication safety, data accuracy and errors, care effectiveness, productivity, and cost savings. EHR interoperability positively influenced medication safety, reduced patient safety events, and reduced costs. Improvements in time saving and clinical workflow are mixed. However, true measures of effect are difficult to determine with certainty because of the heterogeneity in the outcome measures used and notable variation in study quality. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of EHR interoperability on the quality and safety of care remain unclear and reflect extensive heterogeneity in the interventions, designs, and outcome measures used. The establishment of common health information technology research outcome measures would support higher-quality research on the topic. Future research efforts should focus on both the positive and negative impacts of interoperable EHR interventions and explore patient perspectives, given the growing trend for patient involvement and stewardship over their own electronic clinical data. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020209285; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=209285. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044941.

Remote COVID-19 Assessment in Primary Care (RECAP) risk prediction tool: derivation and real-world validation studies.

BACKGROUND: Accurate assessment of COVID-19 severity in the community is essential for patient care and requires COVID-19-specific risk prediction scores adequately validated in a community setting. Following a qualitative phase to identify signs, symptoms, and risk factors, we aimed to develop and validate two COVID-19-specific risk prediction scores. Remote COVID-19 Assessment in Primary Care-General Practice score (RECAP-GP; without peripheral oxygen saturation [SpO2]) and RECAP-oxygen saturation score (RECAP-O2; with SpO2). METHODS: RECAP was a prospective cohort study that used multivariable logistic regression. Data on signs and symptoms (predictors) of disease were collected from community-based patients with suspected COVID-19 via primary care electronic health records and linked with secondary data on hospital admission (outcome) within 28 days of symptom onset. Data sources for RECAP-GP were Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre (RCGP-RSC) primary care practices (development set), northwest London primary care practices (validation set), and the NHS COVID-19 Clinical Assessment Service (CCAS; validation set). The data source for RECAP-O2 was the Doctaly Assist platform (development set and validation set in subsequent sample). The two probabilistic risk prediction models were built by backwards elimination using the development sets and validated by application to the validation datasets. Estimated sample size per model, including the development and validation sets was 2880 people. FINDINGS: Data were available from 8311 individuals. Observations, such as SpO2, were mostly missing in the northwest London, RCGP-RSC, and CCAS data; however, SpO2 was available for 1364 (70·0%) of 1948 patients who used Doctaly. In the final predictive models, RECAP-GP (n=1863) included sex (male and female), age (years), degree of breathlessness (three point scale), temperature symptoms (two point scale), and presence of hypertension (yes or no); the area under the curve was 0·80 (95% CI 0·76-0·85) and on validation the negative predictive value of a low risk designation was 99% (95% CI 98·1-99·2; 1435 of 1453). RECAP-O2 included age (years), degree of breathlessness (two point scale), fatigue (two point scale), and SpO2 at rest (as a percentage); the area under the curve was 0·84 (0·78-0·90) and on validation the negative predictive value of low risk designation was 99% (95% CI 98·9-99·7; 1176 of 1183). INTERPRETATION: Both RECAP models are valid tools to assess COVID-19 patients in the community. RECAP-GP can be used initially, without need for observations, to identify patients who require monitoring. If the patient is monitored and SpO2 is available, RECAP-O2 is useful to assess the need for treatment escalation. FUNDING: Community Jameel and the Imperial College President's Excellence Fund, the Economic and Social Research Council, UK Research and Innovation, and Health Data Research UK.