Search

Abstract Background CA-125 testing is a recommended first line investigation for women presenting with possible symptoms of ovarian cancer in English primary care, to help determine whether further investigation for ovarian cancer is needed. It is currently not known how well the CA-125 test performs in ovarian cancer detection for patients from different ethnic groups. Methods A retrospective cohort study utilising English primary care data linked to the national cancer registry was undertaken. Women aged ≥ 40 years with a CA-125 test between 2010 and 2017 were included. Logistic regression predicted one-year ovarian cancer incidence by ethnicity, adjusting for age, deprivation status, and comorbidity score. The estimated incidence of ovarian cancer by CA-125 level was modelled for each ethnic group using restricted cubic splines. Results The diagnostic performance of CA-125 differed for women from different ethnicities. In an unadjusted analysis, predicted CA-125 levels for Asian and Black women were higher than White women at corresponding probabilities of ovarian cancer. The higher PPVs for White women compared to Asian or Black women were eliminated by inclusion of covariates. Conclusion The introduction of ethnicity-specific thresholds may increase the specificity and PPVs of CA-125 in ovarian cancer detection at the expense of sensitivity, particularly for Asian and Black women. As such, we cannot recommend the use of ethnicity-specific thresholds for CA-125.

Abstract BackgroundGeneral medical practitioners and other staff at primary care medical practices have an important role in facilitating patient access to online services in the National Health Service in England. These services range from online ordering of repeat prescriptions to conducting online consultations with health care professionals. We have defined “digital facilitation” as that range of processes, procedures, and personnel that seeks to support patients in their uptake and use of online services. ObjectiveWe report how we have synthesized the evidence from a mixed methods study of digital facilitation in primary care in England. The study’s objectives were to identify, characterize, and explore the benefits and challenges of different models of digital facilitation in general medical practices in England and to design a framework for evaluation of the effectiveness and costs of digital facilitation interventions. MethodsOur study comprised scoping review of literature, survey of staff in general practices, survey of patients, and ethnography at case study practices plus stakeholder interviews. We compiled a triangulation matrix of the findings from individual work packages through an iterative process whereby each work package’s results were first analyzed separately and were then cumulatively combined across work packages in 3 successive workshops. From the resulting matrix, we developed a program theory and an implementation theory and constructed a framework for evaluations of digital facilitation in primary care. The final step of the synthesis process was to discuss the results with national and regional National Health Service stakeholders. ResultsTriangulation yielded a combined set of findings summarized within 11 thematic groupings: 3 setting the scene within which digital facilitation takes place, and 8 related to different types of digital facilitation, their implementation, and effectiveness. Some thematic groupings were evident in the findings of all 4 of the research work packages; others were not addressed in all the work packages but were evident from those where they were addressed. Throughout the synthesis, there were no instances where findings from one work package contradicted the findings of another. Findings either reinforced each other or offered complementary or additional insights. The discussion at the stakeholder meeting held at the end of the study resulted in the research team clarifying some findings but not changing any of them. ConclusionsDigital facilitation can take many forms, though much of what is currently done in primary care practices in England is reactive and passive. Clear lines of responsibility, digital tools and platforms that work well for patients and practice staff, and investment in staff time and training are all needed if digital facilitation is to deliver on its promise. We propose a framework for future evaluations of the effectiveness and costs of digital facilitation interventions.

ABSTRACT Objective To investigate if pre‐existing mental health morbidity (MHM) might influence help‐seeking and willingness to undergo diagnostic investigations for potential colorectal cancer (CRC) symptoms. Methods An online vignette survey was completed by 1307 adults aged > 50 years recruited through Prolific, a UK panel provider. Participants self‐reported any chronic physical or MHM. After having been presented with vignettes describing new onset symptoms (rectal bleeding or change in bowel habit), participants answered questions on symptom attribution and attitudes to investigations. Using multivariable logistic regression we examined the association between MHM and symptom attribution, intended help‐seeking, and willingness to undergo investigations, controlling for socio‐demographic factors and physical morbidities. Results Self‐reported MHM (reported by 14% of participants) was not associated with cancer symptom attribution (29% of participants with or without MHM mentioned cancer as a possible reason for rectal bleeding and 14% for change in bowel habit). Individuals with self‐reported MHM were less likely to contact a GP if experiencing a change in bowel habit (19% vs. 39%; adjusted (a)OR = 0.34, 95% CI 0.19–0.60) and to mention rectal bleeding to their GP (83% vs. 89%, aOR = 0.49, 95% CI 0.26–0.94). Although most participants would be willing to undergo a colonoscopy for these high‐risk symptoms, those with depression/anxiety were less willing (90% vs. 96%; aOR: 0.37, 95% CI 0.16–0.87). Conclusions Individuals with self‐reported MHM are less likely to seek help and less willing to undergo investigations for high‐risk symptoms. Targeted support, for example, through additional mental health nurses, might facilitate prompt cancer diagnosis for the large group of people with MHM.

Background General practice is facing an unprecedented challenge in managing the consequences of the pandemic. In the midst of a policy drive to balance remote and in-person service provision, substantial workload pressures remain, together with increasing prevalence of long-term conditions, and declining staff numbers and morale. To address these challenges, some practices in the UK have been delivering video and hybrid group consultations (VHGCs) providing clinical care to multiple patients at the same time. Despite positive initial findings and enthusiasm, there are still gaps in our understanding of the influence VHGCs have on patient experience, healthcare utilisation, quality, safety, equity and affordability. Objectives To generate an in-depth understanding of VHGCs for chronic conditions in general practice, surface assumptions and sociotechnical dynamics, inform practice and extend theorisation. Methods Mixed-methods, multi-site research study using co-design and participatory methods, from qualitative, quantitative and cost-related perspectives. WP1 includes a national, cross-sectional survey on VHGC provision across the UK. In WP2 we will engage patients and general practice staff in co-design workshops to develop VHGC models with emphasis on digital inclusion and equity. In WP3 we will carry out a mixed-methods process evaluation in up to 10 GP practices across England (5 sites already running VHGCs and 5 comparison sites). Qualitative methods will include interviews, focus groups and ethnographic observation to examine the experiences of patients, carers, clinical and non-clinical NHS staff, commissioners and policy-makers. Quantitative methods will examine the impact of VHGCs on healthcare utilisation in primary and secondary care, patient satisfaction, engagement and activation. We will also assess value for money of group and individual care models from a health economics perspective. Conclusions We aim to develop transferable learning on sociotechnical change in healthcare delivery, using VHGCs as an exemplar of technology-supported innovation. Findings will also inform the design of a future study.

Background Current National Health Service policy in England encourages enhanced digital access in primary care service provision. In this study, we investigate ‘digital facilitation’ – that range of processes, procedures and personnel which seeks to support National Health Service primary care patients in their uptake and use of online services. Objectives Identify, characterise and explore the potential benefits and challenges associated with different models of digital facilitation currently in use in general practice which are aimed at improving patient access to online services in general practice in England. Use the resulting intelligence to design a framework for future evaluations of the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of such interventions. Explore how patients with mental health conditions experience digital facilitation and gauge their need for this support. Design Observational mixed-methods study (literature review, surveys, ethnographic observation and interviews); formal synthesis of findings. Setting General practice in four regions of England. Participants Practice survey: 156 staff. Patient survey: 3051 patients. Mental health survey: 756 patients. General practitioner patient survey: 3 million responders. Ethnographic case-studies: 8 practices; interviews with 36 staff, 33 patients and 10 patients with a mental health condition. Stakeholder interviews: 19 participants. Intervention Digital facilitation as undertaken in general practice. Main outcome measures Patient and practice staff reported use of, and views of, digital facilitation. Data sources Surveys, qualitative research; national General Practitioner Patient Survey (2019–22). Review methods Scoping-review methodology applied to academic and grey literature published 2015–20. Results While we did find examples of digital facilitation in routine practice, these often involved using passive or reactive modes of support. The context of COVID, and the necessary acceleration (at that time) of the move to a digital-first model of primary care, shaped the way digital facilitation was delivered. There was lack of clarity over where the responsibility for facilitation efforts lay; it was viewed as the responsibility of ‘others’. Patients living with mental health conditions had similar needs and experiences regarding digital facilitation to other patients. Limitations The context of the COVID pandemic placed limitations on the project. Fewer practices responded to the practice survey than anticipated; reconfiguration of general practices to support COVID measures was a key consideration during non-participant observation with social distancing and other measures still in place during fieldwork. Conclusions Digital facilitation, while not a widely recognised concept, is important in supporting the move to a National Health Service with enhanced digital opportunities and enhanced digital access. General practice staff are allocating resources to provide such efforts in general practices in England. The establishment of clear lines of responsibility, the development of digital tools and platforms that work for patients and practice staff, and investment in staff time and training are needed if digital facilitation is to support the intended digital revolution. Future work We did not find one single dominant or preferred model of digital facilitation which might reasonably be considered to form the basis of an intervention to be tested. Rather, there is a need to co-develop such an intervention with patients, general practice staff and relevant policy experts. We outline a framework for a future evaluation of such an intervention. Study registration This study is registered as ResearchRegistry6523 (www.researchregistry.com/browse-the-registry#home/?view_2_search=Di-Facto&view_2_page=1) and PROSPERO CRD42020189019 (www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=189019). 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: NIHR128268) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 32. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary Background Online services are common in the National Health Service. This research looked at ‘digital facilitation’ in general practices. Digital facilitation is about supporting National Health Service patients in their use of online services. We aimed to understand how much digital facilitation is being used by general practices. We also looked at how digital facilitation happens and if it affects the number of people using online services. Methods We looked at previous research to help us understand what approaches have been used to support patients to use online services. We used surveys to ask staff at general practices what they were already doing, and to ask patients about their experiences. We observed digital facilitation in general practices and spoke to patients and staff to help us understand the benefits and challenges of different approaches. We combined findings from the three stages outlined above to identify key aspects of digital facilitation. All stages of our research included discussions with the project’s patient advisory group. Key findings We found that digital facilitation is seen as important and has many forms. Most general practices are using passive and reactive types of facilitation. An example of passive facilitation, initiated by the service but not involving direct inter-personal interaction, is the use of text messaging relating to ordering of repeat prescriptions online. An example of reactive facilitation is providing a response to a patient-initiated query regarding online access. There is clear scope to develop a more proactive approach to facilitation that actively engages patients. Our research highlights a lack of clarity over who is responsible for digital facilitation. Different people (patients, staff, policy-makers) often think that the responsibility lies with others. Investment in digital facilitation is needed. Tools and platforms for digital facilitation that meet patients’ and general practices’ needs should be developed. Scientific summary Background The NHS is facing the increasing demands of a growing and ageing population, technological progress and changing public expectations. Current NHS policy in England encourages enhanced digital opportunities and enhanced digital access in primary care provision. Drivers behind this move include the assumption that online services lead to improved choice, convenience, and ease of access for users, improved triage systems and streamlining of service delivery. In this research, we addressed ‘digital facilitation’ [digital facilitation (DF)] – ‘that range of processes, procedures and personnel which seeks to support NHS patients in their uptake and use of online services’. We investigated the provision by general practices to support access to NHS online primary care services by their registered patients and carers of those patients. Support in accessing and using services is required at all stages: initial registration for online services; subsequent continued use; and navigating the wide range of NHS online provision. Hence, it is important to understand the extent to which approaches to DF are applied, how they are applied, the impact such efforts have on uptake of online services, and how such uptake may affect patient health and access to healthcare information and services. Aims Identify, characterise and explore the potential benefits and challenges associated with different models of DF currently in use in general practice in England which are aimed at improving patient access to online primary care services. Use the resulting intelligence to design a framework for future evaluations of the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of such interventions. Explore how patients with mental health conditions experience DF and gauge their need for this support. Methods The project comprised four interlinked elements. Initially we undertook a scoping review and narrative synthesis of published literature, seeking to understand and characterise the range, effectiveness and cost effectiveness of models of DF for improving access to online services within health. Searches of academic databases and grey literature published between 2015 and 2020 were undertaken, including snowballing from the publications they cited. We surveyed general practice staff and patients (with an additional boost sample of patients living with mental health conditions, which was in direct response to a National Institute for Health and Care Research commissioning brief) and undertook analyses of data from the national General Practice Patient Survey (GPPS). The practice staff questionnaire included items addressing which online services were being used and what steps had been implemented in practices to promote and support the use of such services. We implemented a sequential mixed mode when inviting staff from 500 general practices to complete the survey online or on paper. The patient questionnaire addressed patients’ familiarity and confidence with information technology (IT) and internet use, their awareness and uptake of online services, and their experiences of any support provided by their practice. Questionnaires were sent by post with the option of replying online or by post. We also analysed responses to questions from the English national GPPSs (2019–22) concerning awareness and use of online booking of appointments, ordering repeat prescriptions and accessing medical records, and additionally the use of online consultations. Logistic regression models were used to examine how the awareness and use of online services, the awareness and use of facilitation efforts, and experience of other support varied by patient characteristics. We undertook a qualitative exploration of DF comprising two elements: focused ethnographic case studies in general practices, and an interview study with key stakeholders. Focused ethnography was used to explore, in-depth, the use of DF in general practices. Eight general practice case study sites were recruited to provide variation in terms of their DF offering, and in terms of a range of practice characteristics (practice setting, deprivation status and size, and the age profile of registered patients). We undertook: non-participant observation of the process of DF and how practice staff and patients/carers interact with different types of DF, semistructured interviews with staff members and patients in each practice, and collected secondary analysis of documentation pertaining to digital services or facilitation within the practice. This was augmented by 10 interviews with patients living with mental health conditions from the case study sites; these sought to explore their experiences of DF. The interview study with key stakeholders sought understanding of the broader context and wider drivers of DF in primary care. We conducted semistructured interviews with stakeholders providing a level of insight beyond individual practices, including policy-makers, commissioners and third- sector organisations. Data from the focused ethnographic case studies and stakeholder interviews were analysed together using thematic analysis. We conducted a synthesis of the evidence generated by each element of the study. We employed Weiss’s approach to theory-based evaluation as a theoretical framework. A pragmatic, iterative and cumulative approach was applied to synthesising the findings from all elements and to developing programme and implementation theories. We triangulated findings, summarising the results in a matrix, which evolved into thematic groupings as the study progressed and as evidence from our work packages (WPs) became available. Findings were brought together in a series of three workshop meetings of researchers and patient/public participants as individual WPs were completed. The synthesis process concluded following an online discussion with national and regional stakeholders. We used the synthesised findings to identify the key aspects of a framework aimed at informing future research on DF. Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) was embedded throughout this research, from the original conception through to the design and conduct of the research, and the synthesis and interpretation of findings. Our team has benefited from a patient co-investigator, a dedicated PPIE co-ordinator, and an actively engaged Patient Advisory Group (PAG). All WPs have worked with the PAG to ensure the research is patient focused and addresses patient needs. The PAG was augmented with additional members with lived experience of mental health conditions to ensure that the additional work focused on patients living with mental health conditions was appropriately framed. Members of the PAG were fully involved as equal voices alongside the research team in the synthesis workshops. Results The synthesis of findings from the literature review, surveys and qualitative work resulted in the identification of 11 thematic groups (distinct from, but incorporating, the results of the qualitative thematic analysis): 3 scene-setting themes relating to the context in which DF takes place, and 8 themes related to types of DF, their implementation and effectiveness. Scene-setting themes: The first theme related to the value and purpose of digital services. The qualitative exploration found that the need for, and value of, digital services are not always clear and that there is a lack of shared understanding or belief about what digital services should achieve. The second theme related to conflation of the digital environment with other routes to access. For example, the qualitative exploration found that digital services can both enable access and be a barrier to access, and that patient priorities are often to navigate the system to access health care, making access a more important concept than DF to many. The third theme related to the impact of the COVID pandemic. Many practices responding to the practice survey reported increased digital service offerings and reduced provision of traditional forms of access. The exception to this was in relation to online appointment booking, where 44% of responding practices reported that they had offered this service pre-pandemic but did not do so at the time of the survey. Furthermore, in the qualitative exploration we found that the pandemic was associated with some initiatives being halted that have not subsequently resumed. Digital facilitation themes: The fourth theme related to how people define and identify DF. While, as a research team, we proposed a definition of digital facilitation, it is not yet a widely recognised concept and the qualitative exploration found that it was often difficult to have a working definition for DF given that it is movable and relative to a person’s circumstance. The fifth theme related to the types of DF. In our literature review, we found a focus on interventions that require practices to actively support patients to use digital services. This was in striking contrast with our practice survey where we found that the majority of practices reported passive and reactive modes of facilitation (e.g. 88% of practices used text messages or e-mails for DF and 91% provided ad hoc support to patients). The sixth theme relates to the differing foci of DF on initial sign-up versus supporting sustained use over time. The majority of research found in our review focused on initial sign-up. While in the patient survey we did find that registration was a substantial barrier (20% of responders to the patient survey cited not knowing how to register or finding registration too difficult as a reason for not using online services), the qualitative exploration found that supporting patients to register was often still reactive. Furthermore, although recognising that DF could go beyond initial sign-up, some practices felt that this was their only required contribution to the task of extending digital access. The seventh theme relates to who delivers facilitation. There was a mismatch between existing evidence identified in WP1, which suggested that general practitioners (GPs) and nurses undertake most facilitation, and our survey and qualitative findings that most facilitation efforts were conducted by receptionists and administrative staff. We also found a ‘bystander effect’, with patients, different staff groups and stakeholders all assuming that responsibility for DF lies elsewhere. The eighth and ninth themes related to the enablers and barriers of DF, respectively. Findings from our qualitative work were consistent with much of what emerged from the literature review. Enablers of DF include someone having specific responsibility for such efforts, with associated funding, time and other resources, platforms that enable easy registration and use, and a clear rationale for the digital services that can be understood by practice and patient (i.e. products that have a ‘good fit’ with what is needed). Barriers to effective facilitation include confusion about who is responsible for DF and why; practices using a variety of digital platforms; lack of consideration for the individual circumstances of patients; and assumptions being made about what people can and cannot do digitally based on stereotypes. In our patient survey, we found very low awareness of DF activities (apart from use of e-mail and text messages). Few (13%) responders to the patient survey reported being given help to use online services, but when that help was given, it was generally rated as useful. The 10th theme focuses on digital access and DF for patient subgroups. Age emerged as a common important dimension across the WPs. The literature review identified that older people may particularly benefit from direct, human support in accessing digital services. In the practice survey, most practices reported targeting older adults. However, in the patient survey we found that older patients were less likely to be aware of or make use of DF and were less likely to be told about or receive help to use digital services. In the qualitative work we found that the age of the individual is perceived to have an impact on both staff and patients’ digital knowledge, understanding, experience and confidence. Responders to the patient survey who were from ethnic minorities had long-term health conditions, did not speak English as a first language, or were in receipt of repeat prescriptions, were more likely to report awareness of and use of (passive) facilitation than other patients. But these groups were also less likely to be told about online services or to have received help to use them. The findings of our work focusing on patients living with mental health conditions were largely concordant with the findings of the main patient survey and qualitative research. There were some differences in the way that specific mental health conditions impacted on individuals’ contact with their practice, and consequently in the use by such individuals of digital services and in their need for DF. Responders in the patient survey mental health sample were more likely to report using digital services and to being aware of DF efforts than were responders to the main survey, but this was largely explained by differences in the sample demographics. The final theme considered the effectiveness of DF. There was no evidence around the cost effectiveness of DF, and the limited existing evidence on effectiveness almost entirely focused on initial sign-up of services. Reflecting this, our qualitative exploration found that some practices focused on the number of patients signed up to a service as evidence of the effectiveness of their facilitation efforts. Conclusions Digital facilitation is important in the context of the move to an NHS-enhanced digital opportunities and enhanced digital access in primary care service provision. Staff are spending time and effort to provide DF in general practices in England. Digital facilitation is viewed to have value and potential to increase the uptake of online services. Digital facilitation can take many forms, though most such efforts are reactive and passive. There is clear scope to develop a more proactive approach to facilitation that actively engages patients. There is currently a disconnect between the expectations and perceptions of what DF is happening and its potential effectiveness, and the reality seen in everyday practice. This is related to a lack of clarity over the responsibility for delivering DF and pressures on the time of general practice staff. Establishing clear lines of responsibility, and the development of digital tools and platforms that work for patients and practice staff, will both be needed, alongside investment in staff time and training, if DF is to deliver on the intended digital revolution. This project set out to explore DF that was already underway, with the potential of identifying good practice. However, we did not find an example of what might form a complete, practical intervention package. Future research should therefore focus on: co-development, involving patients and general practice staff, of DF, seeking to ensure a responsive and adaptive approach improving the presentation of practice websites for patient engagement with the intent of increasing uptake of digital tools and reducing the need for DF the best approaches to tailoring DF to different patient groups and identifying which patient groups are most likely to benefit from such efforts ensuring that the digital exclusion of certain groups, including, but not limited to, older patients, is investigated monitoring the sustained use of online services, not merely initial sign-up. Study registration This study is registered as ResearchRegistry6523 (www.researchregistry.com/browse-the-registry#home/?view_2_search=Di-Facto&view_2_page=1) and PROSPERO CRD42020189019 (www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=189019). 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: NIHR128268) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 32. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

BackgroundHealth service policy in many jurisdictions is driving greater investment into digital primary care services. While some patients and practices may benefit, there are concerns that not all are able or wish to access primary care services online. “Digital facilitation” is the “range of processes, procedures, and personnel seeking to support patients in their uptake and use of online services” and may address such concerns. ObjectiveAs part of a multimethod research program, we undertook surveys of practice staff and patients to gain insight into the support being offered by practices and explore patients’ experiences of this support. MethodsGeneral practices from 4 regions of England were sent a questionnaire exploring the modes of digital facilitation offered, the personnel involved in its delivery, and views on the motivations and drivers for providing support. Moreover, 12,822 patients registered with 62 general practices (predominantly those providing practice survey responses) were sent a questionnaire exploring their experiences of any support offered by their practice to use online services. ResultsAlmost one-third of practices (156/500, 31.2%) responded to the practice survey, with most reporting using passive modes of digital facilitation (eg, display, leaflets, and SMS text messages) and few using active modes (eg, offering tablets or computers or using practice champions). However, 90.9% (130/143) reported providing ad hoc support. Practices agreed that it was the responsibility of both the practice (105/144, 72.9%) and the wider National Health Service (118/143, 82.5%) to support patients in using online services and that providing such support benefited the practice (126/144, 87.5%) and their patients (132/144, 91.7%). Nearly a quarter of the patients (3051/12,822, 23.8%) responded to the patient survey, with few (522/3051, 17.11% or less) reporting awareness of any modes of digital facilitation apart from text messages and emails (1205/3051, 39.5%) and only 13.36% (392/2935) reporting receiving support to use online services. Adjusted logistic regression analyses showed that older patients had a lower likelihood of 4 outcomes: being aware of, or of using, digital facilitation efforts, or being told about or being helped to use online services (all P

BackgroundOnline appointment booking is a commonly used tool in several industries. There is limited evidence about the benefits and challenges of using online appointment booking in health care settings. Potential benefits include convenience and the ability to track appointments, although some groups of patients may find it harder to engage with online appointment booking. We sought to understand how patients in England used and experienced online appointment booking. ObjectiveThis study aims to describe and compare the characteristics of patients in relation to their use of online appointment booking in general practice and investigate patients’ views regarding online appointment booking arrangements. MethodsThis was a mixed methods study set in English general practice comprising a retrospective analysis of the General Practice Patient Survey (GPPS) and semistructured interviews with patients. Data used in the retrospective analysis comprised responses to the 2018 and 2019 GPPS analyzed using mixed-effects logistic regression. Semistructured interviews with purposively sampled patients from 11 general practices in England explored experiences of and views on online appointment booking. Framework analysis was used to allow for comparison with the findings of the retrospective analysis. ResultsThe retrospective analysis included 1,327,693 GPPS responders (2018-2019 combined). We conducted 43 interviews with patients with a variety of experiences and awareness of online appointment booking; of these 43 patients, 6 (14%) were from ethnic minority groups. In the retrospective analysis, more patients were aware that online appointment booking was available (581,224/1,288,341, 45.11%) than had experience using it (203,184/1,301,694, 15.61%). There were deprivation gradients for awareness and use and a substantial decline in both awareness and use in patients aged >75 years. For interview participants, age and life stage were factors influencing experiences and perceptions, working patients valued convenience, and older patients preferred to use the telephone. Patients with long-term conditions were more aware of (odds ratio [OR] 1.43, 95% CI 1.41-1.44) and more likely to use (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.63-1.67) online appointment booking. Interview participants with long-term conditions described online appointment booking as useful for routine nonurgent appointments. Patients in deprived areas were clustered in practices with low awareness and use of online appointment booking among GPPS respondents (OR for use 0.65, 95% CI 0.64-0.67). Other key findings included the influence of the availability of appointments online and differences in the registration process for accessing online booking. ConclusionsWhether and how patients engage with online appointment booking is influenced by the practice with which they are registered, whether they live with long-term conditions, and their deprivation status. These factors should be considered in designing and implementing online appointment booking and have implications for patient engagement with the wider range of online services offered in general practice.

Objective The increase in reliance on online services for general practice has the potential to increase inequalities within some populations. Patients with a mental health condition are one such group. Digital facilitation is defined as a range of processes, procedures, and people, which seek to support NHS patients in using online services. This study aimed to examine the views and experiences of digital facilitation in primary care amongst patients living with a mental health condition. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients living with a mental health condition, recruited from general practices across England participating in the Di-Facto study. Thematic analysis was conducted on interview transcripts. Results Interviews were conducted with ten participants with a mental health condition, recruited from five general practices. Three themes were identified: (1) familiarity with online services; (2) experiences of those using online services; (3) the need for digital facilitation. The need for digital facilitation was identified in the registration for online services, and in trusting online services. Conclusions Online services offer convenience for patients, but registration for the use of such services remains a potential area of difficulty. Participants had difficulties with registering for online services and had concerns about trust in using them. Support offered by general practices in using online services needs to be varied and adaptable to meet the needs of individual patients.

Abstract Background The National Health Service (NHS) and general practice are increasingly adopting digital services. These services can impact both positively and negatively upon patient experiences, and access to digital services is not equal amongst all groups. Within a wider project examining digital facilitation (the Di-Facto study) our team conducted a patient survey amongst English primary care practices aiming to investigate patient views of what supports uptake and use of web-based services. This paper reports on the analysis of the free-text responses from the patient survey. Methods The Di-Facto patient survey was distributed to practices in eight clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) in England between 2021–2022. We examined free-text responses to two questions relating to access to primary care web-based and support for web-based services. We used qualitative reflexive thematic analysis based on a six-stage process to analyse responses. Results Of the 3051 patients who responded to the Di-Facto survey, 2246 provided a free-text response. We present our findings in two major themes: systems and structures and their impact on use of web-based services, and ‘what works for me’, a description of how respondents described what worked, or did not work in terms of their interactions with web-based services. Respondents described how the technology, such as poor practice website design, confusion over multiple digital apps, data security and concerns about eConsultation offerings impacted on use of web-based services. Respondents described practice level barriers, such as a lack of or inconsistent provision, which prevented optimal use of web-based services. Respondents described personal and technical barriers that impacted on their use of digital services, and described which web-based services worked well for them. Respondents felt that web-based services were not a replacement for face-to-face interactions with a doctor. Conclusions This analysis of free-text responses from a large patient survey highlights the system, practice, and person level barriers and facilitators to use of digital services in primary care. With an increasing push towards digital solutions in NHS primary care, practices should consider the design, rollout and communication of their web-based services to support patient access.

Abstract Background Electronic clinical decision support tools (eCDS) are increasingly available to assist General Practitioners (GP) with the diagnosis and management of a range of health conditions. It is unclear whether the use of eCDS tools has an impact on GP workload. This scoping review aimed to identify the available evidence on the use of eCDS tools by health professionals in general practice in relation to their impact on workload and workflow. Methods A scoping review was carried out using the Arksey and O’Malley methodological framework. The search strategy was developed iteratively, with three main aspects: general practice/primary care contexts, risk assessment/decision support tools, and workload-related factors. Three databases were searched in 2019, and updated in 2021, covering articles published since 2009: Medline (Ovid), HMIC (Ovid) and Web of Science (TR). Double screening was completed by two reviewers, and data extracted from included articles were analysed. Results The search resulted in 5,594 references, leading to 95 full articles, referring to 87 studies, after screening. Of these, 36 studies were based in the USA, 21 in the UK and 11 in Australia. A further 18 originated from Canada or Europe, with the remaining studies conducted in New Zealand, South Africa and Malaysia. Studies examined the use of eCDS tools and reported some findings related to their impact on workload, including on consultation duration. Most studies were qualitative and exploratory in nature, reporting health professionals’ subjective perceptions of consultation duration as opposed to objectively-measured time spent using tools or consultation durations. Other workload-related findings included impacts on cognitive workload, “workflow” and dialogue with patients, and clinicians’ experience of “alert fatigue”. Conclusions The published literature on the impact of eCDS tools in general practice showed that limited efforts have focused on investigating the impact of such tools on workload and workflow. To gain an understanding of this area, further research, including quantitative measurement of consultation durations, would be useful to inform the future design and implementation of eCDS tools.

Background: The range and scope of electronic health record (EHR) data assets in the UK has recently increased, which has been mainly in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Summarising and comparing the large primary care resources will help researchers to choose the data resources most suited to their needs. Aim: To describe the current landscape of UK EHR databases and considerations of access and use of these resources relevant to researchers. Design & setting: Narrative review of EHR databases in the UK. Method: Information was collected from the Health Data Research Innovation Gateway, publicly available websites and other published data, and from key informants. The eligibility criteria were population-based open-access databases sampling EHRs across the whole population of one or more countries in the UK. Published database characteristics were extracted and summarised, and these were corroborated with resource providers. Results were synthesised narratively. Results: Nine large national primary care EHR data resources were identified and summarised. These resources are enhanced by linkage to other administrative data to a varying extent. Resources are mainly intended to support observational research, although some can support experimental studies. There is considerable overlap of populations covered. While all resources are accessible to bona fide researchers, access mechanisms, costs, timescales, and other considerations vary across databases. Conclusion: Researchers are currently able to access primary care EHR data from several sources. Choice of data resource is likely to be driven by project needs and access considerations. The landscape of data resources based on primary care EHRs in the UK continues to evolve.

BackgroundThe use of web-based services within primary care (PC) in the National Health Service in England is increasing, with medically underserved populations being less likely to engage with web-based services than other patient groups. Digital facilitation—referring to a range of processes, procedures, and personnel that seek to support patients in the uptake and use of web-based services—may be a way of addressing these challenges. However, the models and impact of digital facilitation currently in use are unclear. ObjectiveThis study aimed to identify, characterize, and differentiate between different approaches to digital facilitation in PC; establish what is known about the effectiveness of different approaches; and understand the enablers of digital facilitation. MethodsAdopting scoping review methodology, we searched academic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) and gray literature published between 2015 and 2020. We conducted snowball searches of reference lists of included articles and articles identified during screening as relevant to digital facilitation, but which did not meet the inclusion criteria because of article type restrictions. Titles and abstracts were independently screened by 2 reviewers. Data from eligible studies were analyzed using a narrative synthesis approach. ResultsA total of 85 publications were included. Most (71/85, 84%) were concerned with digital facilitation approaches targeted at patients (promotion of services, training patients to improve their technical skills, or other guidance and support). Further identified approaches targeted PC staff to help patients (eg, improving staff knowledge of web-based services and enhancing their technical or communication skills). Qualitative evidence suggests that some digital facilitation may be effective in promoting the uptake and use of web-based services by patients (eg, recommendation of web-based services by practice staff and coaching). We found little evidence that providing patients with initial assistance in registering for or accessing web-based services leads to increased long-term use. Few studies have addressed the effects of digital facilitation on health care inequalities. Those that addressed this suggested that providing technical training for patients could be effective, at least in part, in reducing inequalities, although not entirely. Factors affecting the success of digital facilitation include perceptions of the usefulness of the web-based service, trust in the service, patients’ trust in providers, the capacity of PC staff, guidelines or regulations supporting facilitation efforts, and staff buy-in and motivation. ConclusionsDigital facilitation has the potential to increase the uptake and use of web-based services by PC patients. Understanding the approaches that are most effective and cost-effective, for whom, and under what circumstances requires further research, including rigorous evaluations of longer-term impacts. As efforts continue to increase the use of web-based services in PC in England and elsewhere, we offer an early typology to inform conceptual development and evaluations. Trial RegistrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020189019; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=189019

BackgroundThe serum biomarker cancer antigen 125 (CA125) is widely used as an investigation for possible ovarian cancer in symptomatic women presenting to primary care. However, its diagnostic performance in this setting is unknown. We evaluated the performance of CA125 in primary care for the detection of ovarian and non-ovarian cancers.Methods and findingsWe studied women in the United Kingdom Clinical Practice Research Datalink with a CA125 test performed between 1 May 2011-31 December 2014. Ovarian and non-ovarian cancers diagnosed in the year following CA125 testing were identified from the cancer registry. Women were categorized by age: ConclusionsCA125 is a useful test for ovarian cancer detection in primary care, particularly in women ≥50 years old. Clinicians should also consider non-ovarian cancers in women with high CA125 levels, especially if ovarian cancer has been excluded, in order to prevent diagnostic delay. Our results enable clinicians and patients to determine the estimated probability of ovarian cancer and all cancers at any CA125 level and age, which can be used to guide individual decisions on the need for further investigation or referral.

Background: The increasing difficulty experienced by general practices in meeting patient demand is leading to new approaches being tried, including greater use of telephone consulting. Objectives: To evaluate a ‘telephone first’ approach, in which all patients requesting a general practitioner (GP) appointment are asked to speak to a GP on the telephone first. Methods: The study used a controlled before-and-after (time-series) approach using national reference data sets; it also incorporated economic and qualitative elements. There was a comparison between 146 practices using the ‘telephone first’ approach and control practices in England with regard to GP Patient Survey scores and secondary care utilisation (Hospital Episode Statistics). A practice manager survey was used in the ‘telephone first’ practices. There was an analysis of practice data and the patient surveys conducted in 20 practices using the ‘telephone first’ approach. Interviews were conducted with 43 patients and 49 primary care staff. The study also included an analysis of costs. Results: Following the introduction of the ‘telephone first’ approach, the average number of face-to-face consultations in practices decreased by 38% [95% confidence interval (CI) 29% to 45%; p

Background: UK general practice faces a workforce crisis, with general practitioner (GP) shortages, organisational change, substantial pressures across the whole health-care system and an ageing population with increasingly complex health needs. GPs require lengthy training, so retaining the existing workforce is urgent and important. Objectives: (1) To identify the key policies and strategies that might (i) facilitate the retention of experienced GPs in direct patient care or (ii) support the return of GPs following a career break. (2) To consider the feasibility of potentially implementing those policies and strategies. Design: This was a comprehensive, mixed-methods study. Setting: This study took place in primary care in England. Participants: General practitioners registered in south-west England were surveyed. Interviews were with purposively selected GPs and primary care stakeholders. A RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM) panel comprised GP partners and GPs working in national stakeholder organisations. Stakeholder consultations included representatives from regional and national groups. Main outcome measures: Systematic review – factors affecting GPs’ decisions to quit and to take career breaks. Survey – proportion of GPs likely to quit, to take career breaks or to reduce hours spent in patient care within 5 years of being surveyed. Interviews – themes relating to GPs’ decision-making. RAM – a set of policies and strategies to support retention, assessed as ‘appropriate’ and ‘feasible’. Predictive risk modelling – predictive model to identify practices in south-west England at risk of workforce undersupply within 5 years. Stakeholder consultation – comments and key actions regarding implementing emergent policies and strategies from the research. Results: Past research identified four job-related ‘push’ factors associated with leaving general practice: (1) workload, (2) job dissatisfaction, (3) work-related stress and (4) work–life balance. The survey, returned by 2248 out of 3370 GPs (67%) in the south-west of England, identified a high likelihood of quitting (37%), taking a career break (36%) or reducing hours (57%) within 5 years. Interviews highlighted three drivers of leaving general practice: (1) professional identity and value of the GP role, (2) fear and risk associated with service delivery and (3) career choices. The RAM panel deemed 24 out of 54 retention policies and strategies to be ‘appropriate’, with most also considered ‘feasible’, including identification of and targeted support for practices ‘at risk’ of workforce undersupply and the provision of formal career options for GPs wishing to undertake portfolio roles. Practices at highest risk of workforce undersupply within 5 years are those that have larger patient list sizes, employ more nurses, serve more deprived and younger populations, or have poor patient experience ratings. Actions for national organisations with an interest in workforce planning were identified. These included collection of data on the current scope of GPs’ portfolio roles, and the need for formal career pathways for key primary care professionals, such as practice managers. Limitations: The survey, qualitative research and modelling were conducted in one UK region. The research took place within a rapidly changing policy environment, providing a challenge in informing emergent policy and practice. Conclusions: This research identifies the basis for current concerns regarding UK GP workforce capacity, drawing on experiences in south-west England. Policies and strategies identified by expert stakeholders after considering these findings are likely to be of relevance in addressing GP retention in the UK. Collaborative, multidisciplinary research partnerships should investigate the effects of rolling out some of the policies and strategies described in this report. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016033876 and UKCRN ID number 20700. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Background: There has been an increased focus towards improving quality of care within the NHS in the last 15 years; as part of this, there has been an emphasis on the importance of patient feedback within policy, through National Service Frameworks and the Quality and Outcomes Framework. The development and administration of large-scale national patient surveys to gather representative data on patient experience, such as the national GP Patient Survey in primary care, has been one such initiative. However, it remains unclear how the survey is used by patients and what impact the data may have on practice. Objectives: Our research aimed to gain insight into how different patients use surveys to record experiences of general practice; how primary care staff respond to feedback; and how to engage primary care staff in responding to feedback. Methods: We used methods including quantitative survey analyses, focus groups, interviews, an exploratory trial and an experimental vignette study. Results: (1) Understanding patient experience data. Patients readily criticised their care when reviewing consultations on video, although they were reluctant to be critical when completing questionnaires. When trained raters judged communication during a consultation to be poor, a substantial proportion of patients rated the doctor as ‘good’ or ‘very good’. Absolute scores on questionnaire surveys should be treated with caution; they may present an overoptimistic view of general practitioner (GP) care. However, relative rankings to identify GPs who are better or poorer at communicating may be acceptable, as long as statistically reliable figures are obtained. Most patients have a particular GP whom they prefer to see; however, up to 40% of people who have such a preference are unable regularly to see the doctor of their choice. Users of out-of-hours care reported worse experiences when the service was run by a commercial provider than when it was run by a not-for profit or NHS provider. (2) Understanding patient experience in minority ethnic groups. Asian respondents to the GP Patient Survey tend to be registered with practices with generally low scores, explaining about half of the difference in the poorer reported experiences of South Asian patients than white British patients. We found no evidence that South Asian patients used response scales differently. When viewing the same consultation in an experimental vignette study, South Asian respondents gave higher scores than white British respondents. This suggests that the low scores given by South Asian respondents in patient experience surveys reflect care that is genuinely worse than that experienced by their white British counterparts. We also found that service users of mixed or Asian ethnicity reported lower scores than white respondents when rating out-of-hours services. (3) Using patient experience data. We found that measuring GP–patient communication at practice level masks variation between how good individual doctors are within a practice. In general practices and in out-of-hours centres, staff were sceptical about the value of patient surveys and their ability to support service reconfiguration and quality improvement. In both settings, surveys were deemed necessary but not sufficient. Staff expressed a preference for free-text comments, as these provided more tangible, actionable data. An exploratory trial of real-time feedback (RTF) found that only 2.5% of consulting patients left feedback using touch screens in the waiting room, although more did so when reminded by staff. The representativeness of responding patients remains to be evaluated. Staff were broadly positive about using RTF, and practices valued the ability to include their own questions. Staff benefited from having a facilitated session and protected time to discuss patient feedback. Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate the importance of patient experience feedback as a means of informing NHS care, and confirm that surveys are a valuable resource for monitoring national trends in quality of care. However, surveys may be insufficient in themselves to fully capture patient feedback, and in practice GPs rarely used the results of surveys for quality improvement. The impact of patient surveys appears to be limited and effort should be invested in making the results of surveys more meaningful to practice staff. There were several limitations of this programme of research. Practice recruitment for our in-hours studies took place in two broad geographical areas, which may not be fully representative of practices nationally. Our focus was on patient experience in primary care; secondary care settings may face different challenges in implementing quality improvement initiatives driven by patient feedback. Recommendations for future research include consideration of alternative feedback methods to better support patients to identify poor care; investigation into the factors driving poorer experiences of communication in South Asian patient groups; further investigation of how best to deliver patient feedback to clinicians to engage them and to foster quality improvement; and further research to support the development and implementation of interventions aiming to improve care when deficiencies in patient experience of care are identified. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.

Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) curves are being used to identify Minimally Important Change (MIC) thresholds on scales that measure a change in health status. In quasi-continuous patient reported outcome measures, such as those that measure changes in chronic diseases with variable clinical trajectories, sensitivity and specificity are often valued equally. Notwithstanding methodologists agreeing that these should be valued equally, different approaches have been taken to estimating MIC thresholds using ROC curves.We aimed to compare the different approaches used with a new approach, exploring the extent to which the methods choose different thresholds, and considering the effect of differences on conclusions in responder analyses.Using graphical methods, hypothetical data, and data from a large randomised controlled trial of manual therapy for low back pain, we compared two existing approaches with a new approach that is based on the addition of the sums of squares of 1-sensitivity and 1-specificity.There can be divergence in the thresholds chosen by different estimators. The cut-point selected by different estimators is dependent on the relationship between the cut-points in ROC space and the different contours described by the estimators. In particular, asymmetry and the number of possible cut-points affects threshold selection.Choice of MIC estimator is important. Different methods for choosing cut-points can lead to materially different MIC thresholds and thus affect results of responder analyses and trial conclusions. An estimator based on the smallest sum of squares of 1-sensitivity and 1-specificity is preferable when sensitivity and specificity are valued equally. Unlike other methods currently in use, the cut-point chosen by the sum of squares method always and efficiently chooses the cut-point closest to the top-left corner of ROC space, regardless of the shape of the ROC curve.

Introduction: In 2009, the English Department of Health appointed 16 integrated care pilots which aimed to provide better integrated care. We report the quantitative results from a multi-method evaluation of six of the demonstration projects which used risk profiling tools to identify older people at risk of emergency hospital admission, combined with intensive case management for people identified as at risk. The interventions focused mainly on delivery system redesign and improved clinical information systems, two key elements of Wagner's Chronic Care Model. Methods: Questionnaires to staff and patients. Difference-in-differences analysis of secondary care utilisation using data on 3,646 patients and 17,311 matched controls, and changes in overall secondary care utilisation. Results: Most staff thought that care for their patients had improved. More patients reported having a care plan but they found it significantly harder to see a doctor or nurse of their choice and felt less involved in decisions about their care. Case management interventions were associated with a 9% increase in emergency admissions. We found some evidence of imbalance between cases and controls which could have biased this estimate, but simulations of the possible effect of unobserved confounders showed that it was very unlikely that the sites achieved their goal of reducing emergency admissions. However, we found significant reductions of 21% and 22% in elective admissions and outpatient attendance in the six months following an intervention, and overall inpatient and outpatient costs were significantly reduced by 9% during this period. Area level analyses of whole practice populations suggested that overall outpatient attendances were significantly reduced by 5% two years after the start of the case management schemes. Conclusion: Case management may result in improvements in some aspects of care and has the potential to reduce secondary care costs. However, to improve patient experience, case management approaches need to be introduced in a way which respects patients' wishes, for example the ability to see a familiar doctor or nurse.