Search

Background: Health services are increasingly using digital tools to deliver care, and online consultations are being widely adopted in primary care settings. The intended consequences of online consultations are to increase patient access to care and increase the efficiency of care.Aim: To identify and understand the unintended consequences of online consultations in primary care.Design and Setting: Qualitative interview study in eight general practices using online consultation tools in South West and North West England between February 2019 and January 2020.Method: Thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with 19 patients and 18 general practice staff.Results: Consequences of online consultations were identified that restricted patient access to care by making it difficult for some patients to communicate effectively with a GP and disadvantaging digitally-excluded patients. This stemmed from patient uncertainty about how their queries were dealt with, and whether practices used online consultations as their preferred method for patients to contact the practice. Consequences were identified that limited increases in practice efficiency by creating additional work, isolation, and dissatisfaction for some staff.Conclusion: Unintended consequences often present operational challenges that are foreseeable and partly preventable. However, these challenges must be recognised and solutions resourced sufficiently. Not everyone may benefit and local decisions will need to be made about trade-offs. Process changes tailored to local circumstances are critical to making effective use of online consultation tools. Unintended consequences also present clinical challenges that result from asynchronous communication. Online consultation tools favour simple, well-formulated information exchange that leads to diffuse relationships and a more transactional style of medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Diagnostic error is a global patient safety priority. Objectives To estimate the incidence, origins and avoidable harm of diagnostic errors in English general practice. Diagnostic errors were defined as missed opportunities to make a correct or timely diagnosis based on the evidence available (missed diagnostic opportunities, MDOs). Method Retrospective medical record reviews identified MDOs in 21 general practices. In each practice, two trained general practitioner reviewers independently conducted case note reviews on 100 randomly selected adult consultations performed during 2013-2014. Consultations where either reviewer identified an MDO were jointly reviewed. Results Across 2057 unique consultations, reviewers agreed that an MDO was possible, likely or certain in 89 cases or 4.3% (95% CI 3.6% to 5.2%) of reviewed consultations. Inter-reviewer agreement was higher than most comparable studies (Fleiss' kappa=0.63). Sixty-four MDOs (72%) had two or more contributing process breakdowns. Breakdowns involved problems in the patient-practitioner encounter such as history taking, examination or ordering tests (main or secondary factor in 61 (68%) cases), performance and interpretation of diagnostic tests (31; 35%) and follow-up and tracking of diagnostic information (43; 48%). 37% of MDOs were rated as resulting in moderate to severe avoidable patient harm. Conclusions Although MDOs occurred in fewer than 5% of the investigated consultations, the high numbers of primary care contacts nationally suggest that several million patients are potentially at risk of avoidable harm from MDOs each year. Causes of MDOs were frequently multifactorial, suggesting the need for development and evaluation of multipronged interventions, along with policy changes to support them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The number of individuals with a visual impairment in the UK was estimated a few years ago to be around 1.8 million. People can be visually impaired from birth, childhood, early adulthood or later in life. Those with visual impairment are subject to health inequities and increased risk for patient safety incidents in comparison to the general population. They are also known to be at an increased risk of experiencing medication errors compared to those without visual impairment. In view of this, this review aims to understand the issues of medication safety for VI people. Methods/design: Four electronic bibliographic databases will be searched: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo and CINAHL. Our search strategy will include search combinations of two key blocks of terms. Studies will not be excluded based on design. Included studies will be empirical studies. They will include studies that relate to both medication safety and visual impairment. Two reviewers (SG and LR) will screen all the titles and abstracts. SG, LR, RM, SCS and PL will perform study selection and data extraction using standard forms. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion or third party adjudication. Data to be collected will include study characteristics (year, objective, research method, setting, country), participant characteristics (number, age, gender, diagnoses), medication safety incident type and characteristics. Discussion: The review will summarise the literature relating to medication safety and visual impairment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The inadequate provision of language interpretation for people with limited English proficiency (LEP) is a determinant of poor health, yet interpreters are underused. This research explores the experiences of National Health Service (NHS) staff providing primary care for people seeking asylum, housed in contingency accommodation during COVID-19. This group often have LEP and face multiple additional barriers to healthcare access. Language discrimination is used as a theoretical framework. The potential utility of this concept is explored as a way of understanding and addressing inequities in care., Design: Qualitative research using semistructured interviews and inductive thematic analysis., Setting: An NHS primary care service for people seeking asylum based in contingency accommodation during COVID-19 housing superdiverse residents speaking a wide spectrum of languages., Participants: Ten staff including doctors, nurses, mental health practitioners, healthcare assistants and students participated in semistructured online interviews. Some staff were redeployed to this work due to the pandemic., Results: All interviewees described patients' LEP as significant. Inadequate provision of interpretation services impacted the staff's ability to provide care and compromised patient safety. Discrimination, such as that based on migration status, was recognised and challenged by staff. However, inequity based on language was not articulated as discrimination. Instead, insufficient and substandard interpretation was accepted as the status quo and workarounds used, such as gesticulating or translation phone apps. The theoretical lens of language discrimination shows how this propagates existing social hierarchies and further disadvantages those with LEP., Conclusions: This research provides empirical evidence of how the inadequate provision of interpreters forces the hand of healthcare staff to use shortcuts. Although this innovative 'tinkering' allows staff to get the job done, it risks normalising structural gaps in care provision for people with LEP. Policy-makers must rethink their approach to interpretation provision which prioritises costs over quality. We assert that the concept of language discrimination is a valuable framework for clinicians to better identify and articulate unfair treatment on the grounds of LEP., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)