Using information and communication technologies to consult with patients in Victorian primary care: the views of general practitioners

[Teleconsultation for preoperative evaluation and informed consent-Are we ready for a paradigm shift?]

In Germany, approximately 17 million anaesthesiological procedures and, consequently, roughly the same number of preoperative consultations are conducted each year. So far, these have predominantly taken place in person. However, recent developments in technology, medical-legal aspects, and politics, combined with the catalyzing effect of the pandemic situation, have led to a significant boost in telemedicine. In the field of anaesthesia, there are new approaches to implementing telemedicine in the pre- and postoperative setting. This article focuses on the preoperative setting and presents general requirements for a teleconsultation as preoperative evaluation, the current state of technology, and medical-legal aspects.

Predictors of patients' acceptance of video consultation in general practice during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic applying the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology model

Background

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has led to an increase in remote consultations in health care. This study aimed to assess the acceptance of video consultation as an alternative to face-to-face in-office visits in general practice (GP) and to investigate its drivers and barriers.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted in Germany during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic from December 2020 to April 2021. Participants were recruited among patients in 16 GP surgeries. Assessed were sociodemographic and medical data as well as information and communications technology related data. Acceptance of video consultation and its predictors were determined using a modified questionnaire based on a short version of the renowned unified theory of acceptance and use of technology model.

Results

In total, 371 participants were included in the data analysis. Acceptance of video consultation was moderate. A hierarchical regression revealed acceptance was significantly predicted by the PHQ-2, taking no regular medication, computer proficiency, knowledge about digital health care solutions, no prior use of video consultation, and the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology predictors performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and social influence. The extended unified theory of acceptance and use of technology model explained significantly more variance than the restricted unified theory of acceptance and use of technology model in acceptance of video consultation.

Conclusions

In this study computer proficiency, existing knowledge about digital health care solutions and depressive symptoms functioned as drivers to acceptance, no prior use of video consultation could be identified as a potential barrier. Patients with regular medication have been particularly receptive to video consultation. The study confirmed the validity of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology model in determining acceptance of video consultation. Considering that there is growing demand and acceptance for different approaches to engage with health care providers, additional steps should be taken to establish video consultation as a genuine alternative.

A mixed-method study on the provision of remote consultations for non-communicable disease patients during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Latvia: lessons for the future

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged the ability of healthcare systems to ensure the continuity of health services for patients with non-communicable diseases (NCDs). The issue of remote consultations has emerged. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, remote consultations were not routinely provided or covered by public health funding in Latvia. This study aimed to describe the dynamics of consultations and the volume of remote consultations provided for patients with particular NCD and explore clinicians’ experiences of providing remote consultations during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Latvia.

Methods

A mixed-method study focusing on the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Latvia in Spring 2020 was conducted. Quantitative data from the National Health Services were analysed to assess the dynamics of consultations for patients with selected NCDs. Qualitative data were collected through 34 semi-structured interviews with general practitioners (GPs) and specialists and were analysed using an inductive thematic analysis. Purposive maximum variation sampling was used for participant selection.

Results

During the period with the strongest restrictions of scheduled on-site consultations, a decrease in the total number of consultations was observed for a variety of NCDs. A significant proportion of consultations in this period were provided remotely. GPs provided approximately one-third of cancer-related consultations and almost half of consultations for the other selected conditions remotely. Among specialists, endocrinologists had the highest proportion of remote consultations (up to 72.0%), while urologists had the lowest (16.4%). Thematic analysis of the semi-structured interviews revealed five themes: 1) Adjusting in a time of confusion and fear, 2) Remote consultations: safety versus availability, 3) Sacrifice and loss of privacy, 4) Advantages and disadvantages of communication technologies, and 5) Different form of communication and a health literacy challenge.

Conclusions

During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Latvia, disruptions to health care services decreased the total number of consultations for patients with NCDs provided by both GPs and specialists. In this period, remote consultations proved to be an important instrument for ensuring the continuity of health care for patients with NCDs, and the necessity to develop a well-designed system for telemedicine in Latvia was highlighted.

Patients' and clinicians' perspectives on the primary care consultations for acute respiratory infections during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: an eight-country qualitative study in Europe

Background

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients’ and clinicians’ perceptions of healthcare-seeking behaviour and delivery of care is unclear. The pandemic accelerated the use of remote care, and understanding its benefits and drawbacks may inform its implementation during current and future healthcare emergencies.

Aim

To explore patients’ and primary care professionals’ (PCPs) experiences of primary care delivery in the first wave of the pandemic.

Design & setting

Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews in primary care in eight European countries (England, Ireland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Greece, Poland, Sweden, and Germany).

Method

A total of 146 interviews were conducted with 80 PCPs and 66 patients consulting for respiratory tract infection (RTI) symptoms, in eight European countries. Data were collected between April and July 2020, and analysed using thematic analysis.

Results

It was found that patients accepted telemedicine when PCPs spent time to understand and address their concerns, but a minority preferred in-person consultations. PCPs felt that remote consultations created emotional distance between themselves and patients, and they reported having to manage diverse COVID-19-related medical and social concerns.

Conclusion

Remote consultations for RTI symptoms may be acceptable long term if both groups are happy to use this format, but it is important that PCPs take time to address patients’ concerns and provide safety-netting advice.

Digital health opportunities to improve Primary Health Care in the context of COVID-19: A Scoping Review (Preprint)

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic brought social, economic, and health impacts, requiring fast adaptation of health systems. Although information and communication technologies were essential for achieving this objective, the extent to which health systems incorporated this technology is unknown.

Objective

The aim of this study was to map the use of digital health strategies in primary health care worldwide and their impact on quality of care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

We performed a scoping review based on the Joanna Briggs Institute manual and guided by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) Extension for Scoping Reviews. A systematic and comprehensive three-step search was performed in June and July 2021 in multidisciplinary health science databases and the gray literature. Data extraction and eligibility were performed by two authors independently and interpreted using thematic analysis.

Results

A total of 44 studies were included and six thematic groups were identified: characterization and geographic distribution of studies; nomenclatures of digital strategies adopted; types of information and communication technologies; characteristics of digital strategies in primary health care; impacts on quality of care; and benefits, limitations, and challenges of digital strategies in primary health care. The impacts on organization of quality of care were investigated by the majority of studies, demonstrating the strengthening of (1) continuity of care; (2) economic, social, geographical, time, and cultural accessibility; (3) coordination of care; (4) access; (5) integrality of care; (6) optimization of appointment time; (7) and efficiency. Negative impacts were also observed in the same dimensions, such as reduced access to services and increased inequity and unequal use of services offered, digital exclusion of part of the population, lack of planning for defining the role of professionals, disarticulation of actions with real needs of the population, fragile articulation between remote and face-to-face modalities, and unpreparedness of professionals to meet demands using digital technologies.

Conclusions

The results showed the positive and negative impacts of remote strategies on quality of care in primary care and the inability to take advantage of the potential of technologies. This may demonstrate differences in the organization of fast and urgent implementation of digital strategies in primary health care worldwide. Primary health care must strengthen its response capacity, expand the use of information and communication technologies, and manage challenges using scientific evidence since digital health is important and must be integrated into public service.

Exploring patients' and clinicians' experiences of video consultations in primary care: a systematic scoping review

Background

Video consultation (VC) is an emerging consultation mode in general practice. The challenges and benefits of implementing it are not necessarily realised until it is in use, and being experienced by patients and clinicians. To date, there has been no review of the evidence about how patients and clinicians experience VC in general practice.

Aim

The study aimed to explore both patients' and clinicians' experiences of VCs in primary care.

Design & setting

A systematic scoping review was carried out of empirical studies.

Method

All major databases were searched for empirical studies of any design, published from 1 January 2010 to 11 October 2018 in the English language. Studies were included where synchronous VCs occurred between a patient and a clinician in a primary care setting. Outcomes of interest related to experience of use. The quality of included studies were assessed. Findings were analysed using narrative synthesis.

Results

Seven studies were included in the review. Patients reported being satisfied with VC, describing reduced waiting times and travel costs as a benefit. For patients and clinicians, VC was not deemed appropriate for all presentations and all situations, and a face-to-face consultation was seen as preferable where this was possible.

Conclusion

The findings of this scoping review show that primary care patients and clinicians report both positive and negative experiences when using VCs, and these experiences are, to a certain extent, context dependent. VC is potentially more convenient for patients, but is not considered superior to a face-to-face consultation. Accounts of experience are useful in the planning and implementation of any VC service.

Health workers' perceptions and experiences of using mHealth technologies to deliver primary healthcare services: a qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Mobile health (mHealth), refers to healthcare practices supported by mobile devices, such as mobile phones and tablets. Within primary care, health workers often use mobile devices to register clients, track their health, and make decisions about care, as well as to communicate with clients and other health workers. An understanding of how health workers relate to, and experience mHealth, can help in its implementation.

OBJECTIVES

To synthesise qualitative research evidence on health workers' perceptions and experiences of using mHealth technologies to deliver primary healthcare services, and to develop hypotheses about why some technologies are more effective than others.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index in January 2018. We searched Global Health in December 2015. We screened the reference lists of included studies and key references and searched seven sources for grey literature (16 February to 5 March 2018). We re-ran the search strategies in February 2020. We screened these records and any studies that we identified as potentially relevant are awaiting classification.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that used qualitative data collection and analysis methods. We included studies of mHealth programmes that were part of primary healthcare services. These services could be implemented in public or private primary healthcare facilities, community and workplace, or the homes of clients. We included all categories of health workers, as well as those persons who supported the delivery and management of the mHealth programmes. We excluded participants identified as technical staff who developed and maintained the mHealth technology, without otherwise being involved in the programme delivery. We included studies conducted in any country.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed abstracts, titles and full-text papers according to the inclusion criteria. We found 53 studies that met the inclusion criteria and sampled 43 of these for our analysis. For the 43 sampled studies, we extracted information, such as country, health worker category, and the mHealth technology. We used a thematic analysis process. We used GRADE-CERQual to assess our confidence in the findings.

MAIN RESULTS

Most of the 43 included sample studies were from low- or middle-income countries. In many of the studies, the mobile devices had decision support software loaded onto them, which showed the steps the health workers had to follow when they provided health care. Other uses included in-person and/or text message communication, and recording clients' health information. Almost half of the studies looked at health workers' use of mobile devices for mother, child, and newborn health. We have moderate or high confidence in the following findings. mHealth changed how health workers worked with each other: health workers appreciated being more connected to colleagues, and thought that this improved co-ordination and quality of care. However, some described problems when senior colleagues did not respond or responded in anger. Some preferred face-to-face connection with colleagues. Some believed that mHealth improved their reporting, while others compared it to "big brother watching". mHealth changed how health workers delivered care: health workers appreciated how mHealth let them take on new tasks, work flexibly, and reach clients in difficult-to-reach areas. They appreciated mHealth when it improved feedback, speed and workflow, but not when it was slow or time consuming. Some health workers found decision support software useful; others thought it threatened their clinical skills. Most health workers saw mHealth as better than paper, but some preferred paper. Some health workers saw mHealth as creating more work. mHealth led to new forms of engagement and relationships with clients and communities: health workers felt that communicating with clients by mobile phone improved care and their relationships with clients, but felt that some clients needed face-to-face contact. Health workers were aware of the importance of protecting confidential client information when using mobile devices. Some health workers did not mind being contacted by clients outside working hours, while others wanted boundaries. Health workers described how some community members trusted health workers that used mHealth while others were sceptical. Health workers pointed to problems when clients needed to own their own phones. Health workers' use and perceptions of mHealth could be influenced by factors tied to costs, the health worker, the technology, the health system and society, poor network access, and poor access to electricity: some health workers did not mind covering extra costs. Others complained that phone credit was not delivered on time. Health workers who were accustomed to using mobile phones were sometimes more positive towards mHealth. Others with less experience, were sometimes embarrassed about making mistakes in front of clients or worried about job security. Health workers wanted training, technical support, user-friendly devices, and systems that were integrated into existing electronic health systems. The main challenges health workers experienced were poor network connections, access to electricity, and the cost of recharging phones. Other problems included damaged phones. Factors outside the health system also influenced how health workers experienced mHealth, including language, gender, and poverty issues. Health workers felt that their commitment to clients helped them cope with these challenges.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our findings propose a nuanced view about mHealth programmes. The complexities of healthcare delivery and human interactions defy simplistic conclusions on how health workers will perceive and experience their use of mHealth. Perceptions reflect the interplay between the technology, contexts, and human attributes. Detailed descriptions of the programme, implementation processes and contexts, alongside effectiveness studies, will help to unravel this interplay to formulate hypotheses regarding the effectiveness of mHealth.

The potential of alternatives to face-to-face consultation in general practice, and the impact on different patient groups: a mixed-methods case study

Background

There is international interest in the potential role of different forms of communication technology to provide an alternative to face-to-face consultations in health care. There has been considerable rhetoric about the need for general practices to offer consultations by telephone, e-mail or internet video. However, little is understood about how, under what conditions, for which patients and in what ways these approaches may offer benefits to patients and practitioners in general practice.

Objectives

Our objectives were to review existing evidence about alternatives to face-to-face consultation; conduct a scoping exercise to identify the ways in which general practices currently provide these alternatives; recruit eight general practices as case studies for focused ethnographic research, exploring how practice context, patient characteristics, type of technology and the purpose of the consultation interact to determine the impact of these alternatives; and synthesise the findings in order to develop a website resource about the implementation of alternatives to face-to-face consultations and a framework for subsequent evaluation.

Design

Mixed-methods case study.

Setting

General practices in England and Scotland with varied experience of implementing alternatives to face-to-face consultations.

Participants

Patients and practice staff.

Interventions

Alternatives to face-to-face consultations include telephone consultations, e-mail, e-consultations and internet video.

Main outcome measures

How context influenced the implementation and impact of alternatives to the face-to-face consultation; the rationale for practices to introduce alternatives; the use of different forms of consultation by different patient groups; and the intended benefits/outcomes.

Review methods

The conceptual review used an approach informed by realist review, a method for synthesising research evidence regarding complex interventions.

Results

Alternatives to the face-to-face consultation are not in mainstream use in general practice, with low uptake in our case study practices. We identified the underlying rationales for the use of these alternatives and have shown that different stakeholders have different perspectives on what they hope to achieve through the use of alternatives to the face-to-face consultation. Through the observation of real-life use of different forms of alternative, we have a clearer understanding of how, under what circumstances and for which patients alternatives might have a range of intended benefits and potential unintended adverse consequences. We have also developed a framework for future evaluation.

Limitations

The low uptake of alternatives to the face-to-face consultation means that our research participants might be deemed to be early adopters. The case study approach provides an in-depth examination of a small number of sites, each using alternatives in different ways. The findings are therefore hypothesis-generating, rather than hypothesis-testing.

Conclusions

The current low uptake of alternatives, lack of clarity about purpose and limited evidence of benefit may be at odds with current policy, which encourages the use of alternatives. We have highlighted key issues for practices and policy-makers to consider and have made recommendations about priorities for further research to be conducted, before or alongside the future roll-out of alternatives to the face-to-face consultation, such as telephone consulting, e-consultation, e-mail and video consulting.

Future work

We have synthesised our findings to develop a framework and recommendations about future evaluation of the use of alternatives to face-to-face consultations.

Funding details

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Use of text messaging in general practice: a mixed methods investigation on GPs' and patients' views

BACKGROUND

Text messaging has become more prevalent in general practice as a tool with which to communicate with patients.

AIM

The main objectives were to assess the extent, growth, and perceived risks and benefits of text messaging by GPs to communicate with patients, and assess patients' attitudes towards receiving text messages from their GP.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A mixed methods study, using surveys, a review, and a focus group, was conducted in both urban and rural practices in the south-west of Ireland.

METHOD

A telephone survey of 389 GPs was conducted to ascertain the prevalence of text messaging. Subsequently, the following were also carried out: additional telephone surveys with 25 GPs who use text messaging and 26 GPs who do not, a written satisfaction survey given to 78 patients, a review of the electronic information systems of five practices, and a focus group with six GPs to ascertain attitudes towards text messaging.

RESULTS

In total, 38% (n = 148) of the surveyed GPs used text messaging to communicate with patients and 62% (n = 241) did not. Time management was identified as the key advantage of text messaging among GPs who used it (80%; n = 20) and those who did not (50%; n = 13). Confidentiality was reported as the principal concern among both groups, at 32% (n = 8) and 69% (n = 18) respectively. Most patients (99%; n = 77) were happy to receive text messages from their GP. The GP focus group identified similar issues and benefits in terms of confidentiality and time management. Data were extracted from the IT systems of five consenting practices and the number of text messages sent during the period from January 2013 to March 2016 was generated. This increased by 40% per annum.

CONCLUSION

Collaborative efforts are required from relevant policymakers to address data protection and text messaging issues so that GPs can be provided with clear guidelines to protect patient confidentiality.

Text messaging between clinicians and patients - Hve we got thngs unda cntrl?

INTRODUCTION Patients are interested in receiving text messages (texts) related to their health care. However, anecdotes are emerging of associated problems and it is possible that many of the potential pitfalls are not recognised. AIM To assess clinicians' attitudes and behaviours towards text messaging (texting) with patients. METHODS A voluntary, anonymous, online survey was created and distributed to general practitioners and physiotherapists in New Zealand and to Sports Medicine Fellows and Sports Medicine Registrars in New Zealand and Australia. RESULTS In total, 322 clinicians completed the survey. Texting behaviours relating to accuracy, privacy and security were identified. A range of sensitive and important medical information was frequently conveyed and at times forwarded to third parties. The clinicians generally felt uneasy communicating this way and some felt pressured into it. Most thought that guidelines are insufficient and that they had not received sufficient education on the issues. Most were interested in further education. CONCLUSION This study has demonstrated frequent texting between clinicians and patients. It has highlighted potential risks to the privacy, accuracy and security of medical information. Current guidelines and education may be insufficient. Clinicians were interested in receiving readily available best practice guidelines and education regarding texting.

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.