Search

Introduction Digital technology is increasingly being adopted within primary healthcare services to improve service delivery and health outcomes; however, the scope for digital innovation within primary care services in rural areas is currently unknown. This systematic review aims to synthesise existing research on the use and integration of digital health technology within primary care services for rural populations across the world.Methods and analysis A systematic approach to the search strategy will be conducted. Relevant medical and healthcare-focused electronic databases will be searched using key search terms between January 2013 and December 2023. Searches will be conducted using specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. A systematic study selection and data extraction process will be implemented, using standardised templates. Outcomes will be reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses- Protocol statement guidelines. Quality assessment and risk of bias appraisal will be conducted using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval will not be required because there is no individual patient data collected or reviewed. The finding of this review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. Outcomes will help to understand existing knowledge and identify gaps in delivering digital healthcare services, while also providing potential future practice and policy recommendations.PROSPERO registration number CRD42023477233.

Abstract Background General practitioners (GPs) should regularly review patients’ medications and, if necessary, deprescribe, as inappropriate polypharmacy may harm patients’ health. However, deprescribing can be challenging for physicians. This study investigates GPs’ deprescribing decisions in 31 countries. Methods In this case vignette study, GPs were invited to participate in an online survey containing three clinical cases of oldest-old multimorbid patients with potentially inappropriate polypharmacy. Patients differed in terms of dependency in activities of daily living (ADL) and were presented with and without history of cardiovascular disease (CVD). For each case, we asked GPs if they would deprescribe in their usual practice. We calculated proportions of GPs who reported they would deprescribe and performed a multilevel logistic regression to examine the association between history of CVD and level of dependency on GPs’ deprescribing decisions. Results Of 3,175 invited GPs, 54% responded (N = 1,706). The mean age was 50 years and 60% of respondents were female. Despite differences across GP characteristics, such as age (with older GPs being more likely to take deprescribing decisions), and across countries, overall more than 80% of GPs reported they would deprescribe the dosage of at least one medication in oldest-old patients (> 80 years) with polypharmacy irrespective of history of CVD. The odds of deprescribing was higher in patients with a higher level of dependency in ADL (OR =1.5, 95%CI 1.25 to 1.80) and absence of CVD (OR =3.04, 95%CI 2.58 to 3.57). Interpretation The majority of GPs in this study were willing to deprescribe one or more medications in oldest-old multimorbid patients with polypharmacy. Willingness was higher in patients with increased dependency in ADL and lower in patients with CVD.

Objectives To determine the epidemiology of healthcare harm observable in general practice records.Design Retrospective cohort records review study.Setting 72 general practice clinics were randomly selected from all 988 New Zealand clinics stratified by rurality and size; 44 clinics consented to participate.Participants 9076 patient records were randomly selected from participating clinics.Intervention Eight general practitioners examined patient records (2011–2013) to identify harms, harm severity and preventability. Analyses were weighted to account for the stratified sampling design and generalise findings to all New Zealand patients.Main outcome measures Healthcare harm, severity and preventability.Results Reviewers identified 2972 harms affecting 1505 patients aged 0–102 years. Most patients (82.0%, weighted) experienced no harm. The estimated incidence of harm was 123 per 1000 patient-years. Most harms (2160; 72.7%, 72.4% weighted) were minor, 661 (22.2%, 22.8% weighted) were moderate, and 135 (4.5%, 4.4% weighted) severe. Eleven patients died, five following a preventable harm. Of the non-fatal harms, 2411 (81.6%, 79.4% weighted) were considered not preventable. Increasing age and number of consultations were associated with increased odds of harm. Compared with patients aged ≤49 years, patients aged 50–69 had an OR of 1.77 (95% CI 1.61 to 1.94), ≥70 years OR 3.23 (95% CI 2.37 to 4.41). Compared with patients with ≤3 consultations, patients with 4–12 consultations had an OR of 7.14 (95% CI 5.21 to 9.79); ≥13 consultations OR 30.06 (95% CI 21.70 to 41.63).Conclusions Strategic balancing of healthcare risks and benefits may improve patient safety but will not necessarily eliminate harms, which often arise from standard care. Reducing harms considered ‘not preventable’ remains a laudable challenge.