Search

Background: Online consultation systems (OCSs) allow patients to contact their healthcare teams online. Since 2020 they have been rapidly rolled out in primary care following policy initiatives and the COVID-19 pandemic. In-depth research of patients' experiences using OCSs is lacking., Aim: Explore patients' experiences of using an OCS., Design and Setting: Qualitative study in English GP practices using the Patchs OCS (www.Patchs.ai) from March 2020 to July 2022., Method: Thematic analysis of 25 patient interviews and 21 467 written comments from 11 851 patients who used the OCS from nine and 240 GP practices, respectively., Results: Patients cited benefits of using the OCS as speed, flexibility, and efficiency. Nevertheless, some patients desired a return to traditional consultation methods. GP practices often did not clearly advertise the OCS or use it as patients expected, which caused frustration. Patients reported advantages of having a written record of consultations and the opportunity to communicate detailed queries in free text. Views differed on how the OCS influenced clinical safety and discussions of sensitive topics. Patients who struggled to communicate in traditional consultations often preferred using the OCS, and male patients reported being more likely to use it., Conclusion: Globally, this is the largest in-depth study of patient experiences of an OCS. It contributes new knowledge that the patient experience of using OCSs can be influenced by previously unreported patient characteristics and the conditions they consult about. Further, it contributes recommendations on the design and implementation of the OCS in practice., (© The Authors.)

Background: The reconfiguration of specialist hospital services, with service provision concentrated in a reduced number of sites, is one example of major system change (MSC) for which there is evidence of improved patient outcomes. This paper explores the reconfiguration of specialist oesophago-gastric (OG) cancer surgery services in a large urban area of England (Greater Manchester, GM), with a focus on the role of history in this change process and how reconfiguration was achieved after previous failed attempts., Methods: This study draws on qualitative research from a mixed-methods evaluation of the reconfiguration of specialist cancer surgery services in GM. Forty-six interviews with relevant stakeholders were carried out, along with ~160 hours of observations at meetings and the acquisition of ~300 pertinent documents. Thematic analysis using deductive and inductive approaches was undertaken, guided by a framework of 'simple rules' for MSC., Results: Through an awareness of, and attention to, history, leaders developed a change process which took into account previous unsuccessful reconfiguration attempts, enabling them to reduce the impact of potentially challenging issues. Interviewees described attending to issues involving competition between provider sites, change leadership, engagement with stakeholders, and the need for a process of change resilient to challenge., Conclusion: Recognition of, and response to, history, using a range of perspectives, enabled this reconfiguration. Particularly important was the way in which history influenced and informed other aspects of the change process and the influence of stakeholder power. This study provides further learning about MSC and the need for a range of perspectives to enable understanding. It shows how learning from history can be used to enable successful change., (© 2022 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.)

Background: Online consultations (OCs) allow patients to contact their care providers on the web. Worldwide, OCs have been rolled out in primary care rapidly owing to policy initiatives and COVID-19. There is a lack of evidence regarding how OC design and implementation influence care quality., Objective: We aimed to synthesize research on the impacts of OCs on primary care quality, and how these are influenced by system design and implementation., Methods: We searched databases from January 2010 to February 2022. We included quantitative and qualitative studies of real-world OC use in primary care. Quantitative data were transformed into qualitative themes. We used thematic synthesis informed by the Institute of Medicine domains of health care quality, and framework analysis informed by the nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability framework. Strength of evidence was judged using the GRADE-CERQual approach., Results: We synthesized 63 studies from 9 countries covering 31 OC systems, 14 (22%) of which used artificial intelligence; 41% (26/63) of studies were published from 2020 onward, and 17% (11/63) were published after the COVID-19 pandemic. There was no quantitative evidence for negative impacts of OCs on patient safety, and qualitative studies suggested varied perceptions of their safety. Some participants believed OCs improved safety, particularly when patients could describe their queries using free text. Staff workload decreased when sufficient resources were allocated to implement OCs and patients used them for simple problems or could describe their queries using free text. Staff workload increased when OCs were not integrated with other software or organizational workflows and patients used them for complex queries. OC systems that required patients to describe their queries using multiple-choice questionnaires increased workload for patients and staff. Health costs decreased when patients used OCs for simple queries and increased when patients used them for complex queries. Patients using OCs were more likely to be female, younger, and native speakers, with higher socioeconomic status. OCs increased primary care access for patients with mental health conditions, verbal communication difficulties, and barriers to attending in-person appointments. Access also increased by providing a timely response to patients' queries. Patient satisfaction increased when using OCs owing to better primary care access, although it decreased when using multiple-choice questionnaire formats., Conclusions: This is the first theoretically informed synthesis of research on OCs in primary care and includes studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. It contributes new knowledge that, in addition to having positive impacts on care quality such as increased access, OCs also have negative impacts such as increased workload. Negative impacts can be mitigated through appropriate OC system design (eg, free text format), incorporation of advanced technologies (eg, artificial intelligence), and integration into technical infrastructure (eg, software) and organizational workflows (eg, timely responses)., Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020191802; https://tinyurl.com/2p84ezjy., (©Sarah Darley, Tessa Coulson, Niels Peek, Susan Moschogianis, Sabine N van der Veer, David C Wong, Benjamin C Brown. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 24.10.2022.)

Introduction: The paradox of representation in public involvement in research is well recognized, whereby public contributors are seen as either too naïve to meaningfully contribute or too knowledgeable to represent 'the average patient'. Given the underlying assumption that expertise undermines contributions made, more expert contributors who have significant experience in research can be a primary target of criticism. We conducted a secondary analysis of a case of expert involvement and a case of lived experience, to examine how representation was discussed in each., Methods: We analysed a case of a Lived Experience Advisory Panel (LEAP) chosen for direct personal experience of a topic and a case of an expert Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) panel. Secondary analysis was of multiple qualitative data sources, including interviews with the LEAP contributors and researchers, Panel evaluation data and documentary analysis of researcher reports of Panel impacts. Analysis was undertaken collaboratively by the author team of contributors and researchers., Results: Data both from interviews with researchers and reported observations by the Panel indicated that representation was a concern for researchers in both cases. Consistent with previous research, this challenge was deployed in response to contributors requesting changes to researcher plans. However, we also observed that when contributor input could be used to support research activity, it was described unequivocally as representative of 'the patient view'. We describe this as researchers holding a confirmation logic. By contrast, contributor accounts enacted a synthesis logic, which emphasized multiplicity of viewpoints and active dialogue. These logics are incompatible in practice, with the confirmation logic constraining the potential for the synthesis logic to be achieved., Conclusion: Researchers tend to enact a confirmation logic that seeks a monophonic patient voice to legitimize decisions. Contributors are therefore limited in their ability to realize a synthesis logic that would actively blend different types of knowledge. These different logics hold different implications regarding representation, with the synthesis logic emphasizing diversity and negotiation, as opposed to the current system in which 'being representative' is a quality attributed to contributors by researchers., Patient or Public Contribution: Patient contributors are study coauthors, partners in analysis and reporting., (© 2022 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)