UK newspapers 'on the warpath': media analysis of general practice remote consulting in 2021

Impact of the clinically oriented roles of a general practice receptionist: a systematic review with narrative synthesis

BACKGROUND

Modern general practice is characterised by increased demand and growing multidisciplinarity, including ring-fenced funding for additional non-clinical roles. For practice receptionists, however, training has remained unchanged for decades despite primary care being under greater pressure than ever, with receptionists becoming a growing focal point for abuse and unprecedented numbers leaving the role.

AIM

To present the evidence of the range of tasks that receptionists continue to perform, describing their impact on primary care delivery and how the role might be better supported.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review of research conducted in the UK.

METHOD

A systematic review of evidence contained in the major medical databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, ASSIA, Cochrane Library, and Embase) from January 2000 to March 2024 was conducted, including hand searches of the bibliographies of included studies.

RESULTS

In total, 29 studies were identified that grouped into three themes: service delivery, patient attitudes, and receptionist experience. The theme 'service delivery' confirms the continuing role of receptionists in providing administrative support alongside the clinical tasks of prioritising patients for consultations, facilitating repeat prescriptions, and communicating blood test results. The theme 'patient attitudes' describes how patients lacked trust in receptionists, who were viewed as unqualified and unnecessarily obstructive. Finally, in considering receptionist experience, the contrast between their confidence in performing administrative roles and the anxiety induced from the clinically related tasks was described, particularly the mounting pressure from patients to meet their preferences for clinician appointments.

CONCLUSION

Although confident performing administrative tasks, receptionists described uncertainty and anxiety when providing clinically oriented support or managing patients when their requests for appointments could not be met. More appropriate training or professionalisation might improve staff retainment.

Exploring the GP-patient relationship: a historical narration

The relationship between patients and their doctor is a fundamental concept-particularly within general practice. Many patients and general practitioners (GPs) have a 'common-sense' recognition of the interpersonal connection, usually over time, that makes a relationship meaningful. GPs have consistently striven to emphasise the importance of this connection. While much research has explored the components and influences affecting intersubjective connections, less attention has focused on how the historical, professional, sociopolitical and philosophical contexts have influenced their experience and portrayal. However, recent claims of a crisis in UK general practice resulting from declining relational encounters suggest these are important considerations. In this paper, episodic narration (chronicling) is used to explore five different ages of UK general practice: the emergent period (1815-1948); the expansion of coverage (1949-1965); the professionalisation of general practice (1966-1988); the age of marketisation and neoliberalisation (1989-2004); and the age of technology and fragmentation (2004-present day). A range of sources illustrate micro and macro viewpoints within each period-personal reflections, professional publications, political directives or policies, and representations from the fields of art and literature. This allows for a deeper exploration of contextual influences on the codification and enactment of GP-patient relationships over time and their interpretation and perception. Significant epidemiological and biomedical realities and their respective social interpretation(s), the socioprofessional nature of the GP, that is, their role, societal position and framework of practice, and broader sociopolitical and philosophical factors are explored. Ideological frameworks (from socialism to free market policies and neoliberalism) were particularly important. These determine approaches to funding, service/provider structures, and regulation and governance, which incentivise, enable, or inhibit choices and behaviours among individuals and society, thus impacting the enactment of the GP-patient relationship. If meaningful GP-patient connections are valuable and desirable-as GPs consistently claim they are-we require an honest discussion about the contexts necessary to enable and retain them.

Factors affecting cancer care delivery in primary care: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

One role of primary care is to support people living with and beyond cancer, the number of whom is increasing worldwide. This study aimed to identify factors affecting cancer care provision within English primary care after the start of the coronavirus pandemic, during high healthcare service demand, and a depleted workforce.

METHODS

An exploratory qualitative descriptive approach was used to collect data via remote semi-structured interviews with primary care staff after gaining informed consent. Interview transcripts were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Fifteen primary care staff were interviewed (11 general practitioners, 3 practice nurses, and 1 physician associate). Factors affecting cancer care delivery in primary care were: (i) patient level: acceptance of healthcare and understanding of cancer; (ii) clinician level: personal experience with cancer and knowledge; (iii) general practice level: care coordinators and cancer registers, and (iv) system level: lack of healthcare resourcing and political inaction.

CONCLUSIONS

The ability of primary care to deliver cancer care is affected by multiple factors at various levels. Future studies should identify the implementation strategies of local and national policies to better understand how to improve cancer care education, practice-level infrastructure, evidence-based workforce planning, and healthcare resourcing.

Media depictions of primary care teleconsultation safety: a thematic analysis of UK newspapers

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated the widespread roll-out of teleconsultations across primary care services in the UK. The media's depiction of remote consultations, especially regarding their safety, is not well established. These insights are important: newspapers' coverage of healthcare-related news can influence public perception, national policy, and clinicians' job satisfaction.

AIM

To explore how the national newspapers in the UK depicted both the direct and indirect consequences of the remote-first approach on patient safety.

DESIGN AND SETTING

We performed thematic analysis of newspaper articles that discussed patient safety in primary care teleconsultations, which were published between 21 January 2021 and 22 April 2022.

METHOD

We identified relevant articles using the LexisNexis Academic UK database. We categorised data from these articles into codes before developing these into emergent themes through an iterative process.

RESULTS

Across the 57 articles identified, the main safety concern identified was missed and/or delayed diagnoses over tele-appointment(s), while isolated cases of inappropriate prescribing were also reported. The media reported that the transition to a remote-first approach reduced the accessibility to primary care appointments for some groups (especially patients with lower digital literacy or access) and heightened the burden on other healthcare services; in particular, there were reports of patient care being compromised across NHS emergency departments.

CONCLUSION

The print media predominantly reported negative impacts of remote consultations on patient safety, particularly involving missed and/ or delayed diagnoses. Our work highlights the importance of further exploration into the safety of remote consultations, and the impact of erroneous media reporting on policies and policymakers.

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.

Digital First Primary Care for those with multiple long-term conditions: a rapid review of the views of stakeholders

Background

General practices are facing challenges such as rising patient demand and difficulties recruiting and retaining general practitioners. Greater use of digital technology has been advocated as a way of mitigating some of these challenges and improving patient access. This includes Digital First Primary Care, when a patient's first contact with primary care is through a digital route, either through a laptop or smartphone. The use of Digital First Primary Care has been expedited since COVID-19. There is little evidence of staff experiences of using Digital First Primary Care with more complex patients, such as those with multiple long-term conditions.

Objective

To understand the experiences of those with multiple long-term conditions of Digital First Primary Care from the perspectives of healthcare professionals and stakeholders.

Design

This was a qualitative evaluation, comprised of four distinct work packages: Work package 1: Locating the study within the wider context, engaging with literature, and co-designing the study approach and research questions with patients. Work package 2: Interviews with health professionals working across general practice and key expert topic stakeholders, including academics and policy-makers. Work package 3: Analysis of data and generation of themes, and testing findings with patients. Work package 4: Synthesis, reporting and dissemination.

Results

The study commenced in January 2021 and in total 28 interviews were conducted with 14 health professionals and 15 stakeholders between January and August 2022. From the perspective of health professionals, Digital First Primary Care approaches could enable patients to speak with a clinician more quickly than traditional approaches. Those with multiple long-term conditions could submit healthcare readings from home, though health professionals felt patients may struggle navigating digital systems not designed to capture the nuances associated with living with multiple conditions. Clinicians expressed preferences for seeing patients face-to-face, particularly those with multiple long-term conditions, to identify non-verbal cues about a patient's health. Digital First Primary Care approaches provided an opportunity for clinicians to engage with the carers of patients living with multiple long-term conditions, yet there were concerns around obtaining consent and confidentiality. There remain debates among stakeholders about the nature and extent to which Digital First Primary Care impacts on staff workload.

Limitations

At the time of data collection, general practices were facing considerable pressure to deliver care and respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. While it was originally intended that the study would include interviews with patients with multiple long-term conditions and their carers, none of the general practices that took part in the study were willing and/or able to recruit patients and carers in the time available.

Conclusions

The rapid implementation of Digital First Primary Care, at a time of immense pressures, meant there has been little time for considering the impact on patients, including those with multiple long-term conditions. The impacts on care continuity depended largely on how surgeries implemented their approaches. Staff and stakeholders felt that Digital First Primary Care, as an additional route for accessing primary care, could be useful for patients with multiple long-term conditions but not at the expense of face-to-face consultations.

Future work

Future research obtaining patient and carer views of digital-first approaches, understanding the impacts on carers and how approaches are designed with patients with more complex conditions in mind, is essential.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 16/138/31) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 21. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Remote and technology-mediated working during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative exploration of the experiences of nurses working in general practice (the GenCo Study)

AIM

To explore how nurses working in general practice experienced remote and technology-mediated working during the COVID-19 pandemic.

DESIGN

Exploratory qualitative study with nursing team members working in general practices in England and national nurse leaders.

METHODS

Data were collected between April and August 2022. Forty participants took part in either semi-structured interviews or focus groups. Data were analysed using Framework Analysis informed by the PERCS (Planning and Evaluating Remote Consultation Services) Framework. University of York ethics approval [HSRGC/2021/458/I] and Health Research Authority approval were obtained [IRAS:30353. Protocol number: R23982. Ref 21/HRA/5132. CPMS: 51834]. The study was funded by The General Nursing Council for England and Wales Trust.

RESULTS

Participants continued to deliver a significant proportion of patient care in-person. However, remote and technology-mediated care could meet patients' needs and broaden access in some circumstances. When remote and technology-mediated working were used this was often part of a blended model which was expected to continue. This could support some workforce issues, but also increase workload. Participants did not always have access to remote technology and were not involved in decision-making about what was used and how this was implemented. They rarely used video consultations, which were not seen to add value in comparison to telephone consultations. Some participants expressed concern that care had become more transactional than therapeutic and there were potential safety risks.

CONCLUSION

The study explored how nurses working in general practice during the COVID-19 pandemic engaged with remote and technology-mediated working. It identifies specific issues of access to technology, workload, hybrid working, disruption to therapeutic relationships, safety risks and lack of involvement in decision-making. Changes were implemented quickly with little strategic input from nurses. There is now an opportunity to reflect and build on what has been learned in relation to remote and technology-mediated working to ensure the future development of safe and effective nursing care in general practice.

IMPACT

The paper contributes to understanding of remote and technology-mediated working by nurses working in general practice during the COVID-19 pandemic and indicates to employers and policy makers how this can be supported moving forward.

REPORTING METHOD

Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (O'Brien et al., 2014).

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This was a workforce study so there was no patient or public contribution.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND PATIENT CARE

The paper highlights specific issues which have implications for the development of remote, technology-mediated and blended working for nurses in general practice, care quality and patient safety. These require full attention to ensure the future development of safe and effective nursing care in general practice moving forward.

Reducing health inequalities through general practice: a realist review and action framework

Background

Socio-economic inequalities in health have been in the public agenda for decades. General practice has an influential role to play in mitigating the impact of inequalities especially regarding chronic conditions. At the moment, general practice is dealing with serious challenges in relation to workforce shortages, increasing workload and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is important to identify effective ways so that general practice can play its role in reducing health inequalities.

Objectives

We explored what types of interventions and aspects of routine care in general practice decrease or increase inequalities in health and care-related outcomes. We focused on cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. We explored for whom these interventions and aspects of care work best, why, and in what circumstances. Our main objective was to synthesise this evidence into specific guidance for healthcare professionals and decision-makers about how best to achieve equitable general practice.

Design

Realist review.

Main outcome measures

Clinical or care-related outcomes by socio-economic group, or other PROGRESS-Plus criteria.

Review methods

Realist review based on Pawson's five steps: (1) locating existing theories, (2) searching for evidence, (3) selecting articles, (4) extracting and organising data and (5) synthesising the evidence.

Results

Three hundred and twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria and 159 of them were selected for the evidence synthesis. Evidence about the impact of general practice interventions on health inequalities is limited. To reduce health inequalities, general practice needs to be: • connected so that interventions are linked and coordinated across the sector; • intersectional to account for the fact that people's experience is affected by many of their characteristics; • flexible to meet patients' different needs and preferences; • inclusive so that it does not exclude people because of who they are; • community-centred so that people who receive care engage with its design and delivery. These qualities should inform action across four domains: structures like funding and workforce distribution, organisational culture, everyday regulated procedures involved in care delivery, interpersonal and community relationships.

Limitations

The reviewed evidence offers limited detail about the ways and the extent to which specific interventions increase or decrease inequalities in general practice. Therefore, we focused on the underpinning principles that were common across interventions to produce higher-level, transferrable conclusions about ways to achieve equitable care.

Conclusions

Inequalities in general practice result from complex processes across four different domains that include structures, ideas, regulated everyday procedures, and relationships among individuals and communities. To achieve equity, general practice needs to be connected, intersectional, flexible, inclusive and community-centred.

Future work

Future work should focus on how these five essential qualities can be better used to shape the organisational development of future general practice.

Study registration

This trial is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020217871.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR130694) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 7. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.