Digitally enabled primary care : the emperor’s new clothes?

Digital technologies are seen as a key part of a modernised NHS that offers quick, convenient, and acceptable care that makes better use of clinician time.1 The NHS Long Term Plan2 asserts that digitally enabled primary care will go ‘mainstream’ across the NHS and corresponding changes have been made to the new GP contract with all practices expected to offer online consultation by April 2020 at the latest. But will digitally enabled primary care offer the solutions to the challenges facing general practice

What do we need to consider when planning, implementing and researching the use of alternatives to face-to-face consultations in primary healthcare?

Objectives: Communications technologies are variably utilised in healthcare. Policymakers globally have espoused the potential benefits of alternatives to face-to-face consultations, but research is in its infancy. The aim of this essay is to provide thinking tools for policymakers, practitioners and researchers who are involved in planning, implementing and evaluating alternative forms of consultation in primary care. Methods: We draw on preparations for a focussed ethnographic study being conducted in eight general practice settings in the UK, knowledge of the literature, qualitative social science and Cochrane reviews. In this essay we consider different types of patients, and also reflect on how the work, practice and professional identities of different members of staff in primary care might be affected. Results: Elements of practice are inevitably lost when consultations are no longer face-to-face, and we know little about the impact on core aspects of the primary care relationship. Resistance to change is normal and concerns about the introduction of alternative methods of consultation are often expressed using proxy reasons; for example, concerns about patient safety. Any planning or research in the field of new technologies should be attuned to the potential for unintended consequences. Conclusions: Implementation of alternatives to the face-to-face consultation is more likely to succeed if approached as co-designed initiatives that start with the least controversial and most promising changes for the practice. Researchers and evaluators should explore actual experiences of the different consultation types amongst patients and the primary care team rather than hypothetical perspectives

How effective are digital interventions in increasing flu vaccination amongst pregnant women? A systematic review protocol

Pregnant women and their unborn babies are at increased risk of complications as a result of flu, yet uptake of the flu vaccination in the UK remains low. Digital interventions have proven effectiveness in changing health behaviour, but their effectiveness in increasing flu vaccination amongst pregnant women has not been examined. This protocol details the design and methodology of a systematic review and meta-analysis, examining the effectiveness of digital interventions in increasing flu vaccination amongst pregnant women. Methods: Bibliographic databases will be searched using appropriate search terms related to vaccination, pregnancy and flu. Randomised, non-randomised, quasi randomised controlled trials and other quantitative study designs will be eligible for inclusion, and studies will present the rate of flu vaccination amongst pregnant women of digital interventions compared to non-digital interventions, or usual care. No date or study country restrictions will be put on included studies, but studies will be published in English. Discussion: This is the first known systematic review to examine the effectiveness of digital interventions in increasing the rate of flu vaccination amongst pregnant women. This review has the potential to inform whether digital interventions are an appropriate and successful method of increasing flu vaccination amongst pregnant women, and to determine which mode of digital intervention is most effective. Trial registration: This systematic review is registered on the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO). Registration number pending

Email for clinical communication between healthcare professionals

Background Email is a popular and commonly-used method of communication, but its use in healthcare is not routine. Where email communication has been utilised in health care, its purposes have included use for clinical communication between healthcare professionals, but the effects of using email in this way are not known. This review assesses the use of email for two-way clinical communication between healthcare professionals. Objectives To assess the effects of healthcare professionals using email to communicate clinical information, on healthcare professional outcomes, patient outcomes, health service performance, and service efficiency and acceptability, when compared to other forms of communicating clinical information. Search methods We searched: the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 1 2010), MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1950 to January 2010), EMBASE (OvidSP) (1980 to January 2010), PsycINFO (1967 to January 2010), CINAHL (EbscoHOST) (1982 to February 2010), and ERIC (CSA) (1965 to January 2010). We searched grey literature: theses/dissertation repositories, trials registers and Google Scholar (searched July 2010). We used additional search methods: examining reference lists, contacting authors. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials, quasi-randomised trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series studies examining interventions in which healthcare professionals used email for communicating clinical information, and that took the form of 1) unsecured email 2) secure email or 3) web messaging. All healthcare professionals, patients and caregivers in all settings were considered. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, assessed the included studies' risk of bias, and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. We report all measures as per the study report. Main results We included one randomised controlled trial involving 327 patients and 159 healthcare providers at baseline. It compared an email to physicians containing patient-specific osteoporosis risk information and guidelines for evaluation and treatment with usual care (no email). This study was at high risk of bias for the allocation concealment and blinding domains. The email reminder changed health professional actions significantly, with professionals more likely to provide guideline-recommended osteoporosis treatment (bone density measurement and/or osteoporosis medication) when compared with usual care. The evidence for its impact on patient behaviours/actions was inconclusive. One measure found that the electronic medical reminder message impacted patient behaviour positively: patients had a higher calcium intake, and two found no difference between the two groups. The study did not assess primary health service outcomes or harms. Authors' conclusions As only one study was identified for inclusion, the results are inadequate to inform clinical practice in regard to the use of email for clinical communication between healthcare professionals. Future research needs to use high-quality study designs that take advantage of the most recent developments in information technology, with consideration of the complexity of email as an intervention, and costs

An exploration of what motivates people to participate in oral history projects

Aim To make the stories about former long-stay institutions available to a wider audience, preserve the history and improve societal attitudes to people with learning disabilities. Method Three groups of people with links to the institution were interviewed using a semi-structured approach (n=40). Participants were asked why they felt it was important to tell their story. Findings Responses were organised under three themes: being heard, preservation and education. A range of motivations exists for why people choose or conversely choose not to participate in oral history projects. Conclusion Having knowledge and understanding of these factors can help potential researchers to recruit and retain those whose stories are a vital link between the past and the future

Patient and public involvement mobile workshops - convenient involvement for the un-usual suspects

Background Patient and public involvement in research is a quickly-evolving area, with investigators developing new approaches in recent years. One concern about patient and public involvement is that it only appeals to certain individuals. When designing research into online GP services – a topic relevant to the general population – we recognised the importance of involving members of the public with a broad range of backgrounds who may not have the time, resources and inclination to volunteer normally. Methods We devised a strategy that aimed to involve members of the public from varied backgrounds, who would not typically be able to be involved. We ran a series of one-off mobile workshops at existing organisations where potential volunteers were already in situ. The workshops were kept short, making them convenient and easily accessible. Volunteers were also paid, to ensure taking part was appealing. Results We ran a series of 4 workshops involving 26 members of the public with office workers, supermarket staff, gym members (and their friends) and parents attending a toddler group. Overall the workshops were successful, as they enabled us to gain varied perspectives from volunteers with a broad range of backgrounds, many of whom had not previously been involved in research. A key challenge was making initial contact with members of approached organisations. This indicates that it may be beneficial to consider how to make the workshops appealing, not just onan individual level, but at an organisational level too. A carefully planned design worked as it enabled large amounts of input in a limited amount of time, apart from one workshop (the parent group) due to practical reasons. This highlighted some limitations of this approach that could be addressed by adapting the workshop design, according to the organisation with which they are being run. Conclusion Running one-off mobile workshops at already existing organisations allowed us to involve members of the public from a broad range of backgrounds, who would not typically volunteer to be involved in research. This was particularly suitable as the topic we were designing research for – booking GP appointments – is relevant to the general public

Exploring the potential of email as a method of consultation in English general practice

Background Email is a popular and commonly used method of communication, though not widely used in the healthcare setting. In England, policy has pushed for the introduction of email as a method of consultation in general practice. However, there is very little evidence available on its use in England and professional bodies have taken a neutral or negative stance to its use. The aim of this study was to explore the potential for email as a method of consultation in English general practice, and describe the key factors that may influence its normalisation. Methods A mixed methods approach was used. A systematic review was carried out to identify the extent of the experimental evidence base. An interview study was carried out with patient and professional (GPs, practice managers) participants who had used email for consultation, to establish their experiences and opinions, and to identify barriers and facilitators to its use. Normalisation process theory was used in interpreting the interview study results, so that the factors influencing normalisation might be identified. Results The review found that the existing evidence base for email consultation is poor and as such it is not possible to draw conclusions as to the effect of email as an intervention. The interview study identified that email consultation largely arose as a result of patient demand, and it brought advantages for both groups. However there were problems associated with it and these related largely to the uncertainties surrounding its use. Conclusions Email consultation is not a normalised method of consultation in English general practice despite the positive factors that patients and professionals associate with its use. It lacks a regulatory framework, which makes it difficult to use. Formal guidance on how to approach its use is required, along with methodologically rigorous research upon which policymakers and practitioners can base their decision making

Digital communication between clinician and patient in General Practice and the impact on marginalised groups : a realist review

Background Increasingly, the NHS is embracing the use of digital communication technology for communication between clinicians and patients. Policymakers deem digital clinical communication as presenting a solution to the capacity issues currently faced by general practice. There is some concern that these technologies may exacerbate existing inequalities in accessing health care. It is not known what impact they may have on groups who are already marginalised in their ability to access general practice. Aim To assess the potential impact of the availability of digital clinician–patient communication on marginalised groups’ access to general practice in the UK. Design and setting Realist review in general practice. Method A four-step realist review process was used: to define the scope of the review; to search for and scrutinise evidence; to extract and synthesise evidence; and to develop a narrative, including hypotheses. Results Digital communication has the potential to overcome the following barriers for marginalised groups: practical access issues, previous negative experiences with healthcare service/staff, and stigmatising reactions from staff and other patients. It may reduce patient-related barriers by offering anonymity and offers advantages to patients who require an interpreter. It does not impact on inability to communicate with healthcare professionals or on a lack of candidacy. It is likely to work best in the context of a pre-existing clinician–patient relationship. Conclusion Digital communication technology offers increased opportunities for marginalised groups to access health care. However, it cannot remove all barriers to care for these groups. It is likely that they will remain disadvantaged relative to other population groups after their introduction

Utilisation of pharmacy-based sexual and reproductive health services : a quantitative retrospective study

Objectives: To explore the utilisation of pharmacy-based sexual and reproductive health services (SRHS) in order to optimise delivery and identify barriers to access. Methods: The health provider Umbrella offers six SRHS from over 120 pharmacies in Birmingham (England). In this retrospective study, data collected between August 2015 and August 2018 were used to analyse uptake, user characteristics and attendance patterns according to day of the week. Results: A total of 60 498 requests for a pharmacy service were included in the analysis. Emergency contraception (50.4%), condoms (33.1%) and STI self-sampling kits (9.6%) accounted for more than 90% of all requests. A lower uptake of services was observed for the contraceptive injection (0.6%), oral contraception (5.4%) and chlamydia treatment (1.0%). Services were most likely to be requested by those self-identifying as female (85.6%), and those aged 16–24 years (53.8%). Based on available ethnicity data (n=54 668), most requests for a service were made by White/White British individuals (43.4%) and Asian/Asian British people (23.1%). The largest number of services were delivered on Mondays (20.9%) and the lowest on Sundays (5.0%). A high proportion of requests for services on Saturdays (57.0%), Sundays (67.6%) and Mondays (54.4%) were made by females presenting for emergency contraception. Conclusion: The evaluation of healthcare utilisation is important to help refine and optimise the delivery of services. However, information relating to pharmacy-based SRHS is scarce and often limited to a single type of service provision. Overall, a wide range of pharmacy-based services were accessed by a diverse range of people, suggesting that pharmacies are a suitable provider of many SRHS. However, the routinely collected data analysed in the study had several limitations restricting the analysis. Sexual health providers should ensure they collect data which are as comprehensive as is possible in order to help understand the utilisation of services