Search

Background: Social determinants of health (SDOH) are the non-medical factors that impact health. Although geographical measures of deprivation are used, individual measures of social risk could identify those most at risk and generate more personalised care and targeted referrals to community resources. We know SDOH are important to health care, but it is not yet known whether their collection via the electronic health record (EHR) is acceptable and useful from the patient perspective. Aim: To synthesise relevant literature to explore patient perspectives on integrating information about SDOH into primary care EHRs, and the opportunities and challenges of its implementation in a general practice setting. Design & setting: Systematic review of primary care-based qualitative and mixed-method studies using thematic framework analysis. Method: Key databases were searched for articles reporting patient perspectives of SDOH collection within the primary care EHR. Qualitative and mixed-methods studies written in English were included. A framework analysis was conducted to identify themes. Results: From 14 included studies, the following five main themes were identified: rationale for SDOH screening and the anticipated outcomes; impact of the provider-patient relationship on patient perceptions; data, which included privacy concerns; screening process and referral; and recommendations for future research. Conclusion: Integration of information on SDOH into the EHR appears acceptable to patients. This review has added to the discussion of whether and how to implement SDOH screening and referral programmes into UK primary care systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Research activity usually improves outcomes by being translated into practice. However, there is developing evidence that research activity itself may improve the overall performance of health care organisations. However, evidence that these relationships represent a causal impact of research activity is less clear. Additionally, the bulk of the existing evidence relates to hospital settings, and it is not known if those relationships would also be found in general practice, where most patient contacts occur., Aim: We sought to (a) test whether there were significant relationships between research activity in general practice and organisational performance (b) test whether those relationships were plausibly causal., Design and Setting: We analysed national data between 2008 and 2019 using cross sectional and longitudinal analyses, on general practices in England., Methods: We used cross-sectional, panel and instrumental variable analyses to explore relationships between research activity (including measures from the NIHR Clinical Research Network and the Royal College of General Practitioners) and practice performance (including clinical quality of care, patient reported experience of care, prescribing quality and hospital admissions) Results: In cross-sectional analyses, research activity was positively associated with several measures of practice performance, including clinical quality of care, patient reported experience of care, and reduced hospital admissions. The associations were generally modest in magnitude. However, longitudinal analyses did not support a reliable causal relationship., Conclusion: Similar to findings from hospital settings, research activity in general practice is associated with practice performance. There is less evidence that research is causing those improvements, although this may reflect the limited level of research activity in most practices. We identified no negative impacts, suggesting that research activity is a potential marker of quality and something that high quality practices can deliver alongside their core responsibilities., (Copyright © 2024, The Authors.)

Background: UK general practice has been described as being in crisis. A shortage and exodus of GPs is an urgent and challenging problem, attracting significant media attention, widespread public debate, and policy action., Aim: Our review aims to examine which aspects of the healthcare system affect GP workforce sustainability, how, why, and for whom., Method: A realist review is an interpretive, theory-driven approach to evidence synthesis, that brings together data from quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods research, and the wider grey literature (e.g., policy documentation). Using this data allows us to examine a diverse range of evidence with a clear focus on understanding factors which support (or hinder) GP workforce sustainability, how these are shaped by contexts, and the mechanisms that underpin them. We identify important individual and system-level contexts that may be amenable to change., Results: We present our emerging findings in the form of a programme theory which explores human connection with patients, colleagues, and across organisations, gaining intellectual enrichment and learning systems comprising socially-situated knowledge. Relational continuity is key across these, supporting GP workforce sustainability. Challenges include standardisation, alienation and professional loneliness, inflexible organisation, and restrictive technologies., Conclusion: Our research generates new knowledge about the interdependencies between contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes. The findings can inform strategies and interventions intended to support, facilitate, and assist the GP workforce in delivering equitable and effective patient care. We identify critical gaps in knowledge and prioritise the expectations for scope and nature of future GP work and retention strategies., (© British Journal of General Practice 2024.)

Background: Total triage (TT) has the potential to achieve more equitable access to primary care, to improve the overall quality of care, and enhance health outcomes. TT has gained increasing attention from the public, policymakers, and academics., Aim: To examine relevant scientific literature regarding the implementation of TT, the reported opportunities and challenges for patients and staff, and implications for practice., Method: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Scopus were searched for articles and grey literature between 2013 and February 2023. Included documents described the implementation of TT during in-hours general practice and provided perspectives from patients/staff. Patients and stakeholders were involved throughout each stage of the review process. Findings were synthesised using a framework approach., Results: In total, 23 documents were included at full-text screening. Analysis highlights a range of TT approaches, sometimes conflating remote and TT systems. TT was seen to both increase and reduce workload. Consistently, patient and staff views worsened with TT use. TT can increase barriers to care access with potential to exacerbate inverse care laws across the UK. Critical knowledge gaps included patient co-production in TT systems and the role of reception teams to adapt systems to meet patients' needs., Conclusion: TT can influence patient access, safety, and equity. The approach may also generate profoundly different working styles for general practice. This review adds to current debates surrounding patient access and TT, and consequences for staff/patients. The findings can be used to aid practices when navigating the new GP contract and the implementation of new TT approaches., (© British Journal of General Practice 2024.)

Background: Social determinants of health (SDOH) are the non-medical factors that impact health. Although geographical measures of deprivation are used, individual measures of social risk could identify those most at risk and generate more personalised care and targeted referrals to community resources. We know SDOH are important to health care, but it is not yet known whether their collection via the electronic health record (EHR) is acceptable and useful from the patient perspective., Aim: To synthesise relevant literature to explore patient perspectives on integrating information about SDOH into primary care EHRs, and the opportunities and challenges of its implementation in a general practice setting., Design & Setting: Systematic review of primary care-based qualitative and mixed-method studies using thematic framework analysis., Method: Key databases were searched for articles reporting patient perspectives of SDOH collection within the primary care EHR. Qualitative and mixed-methods studies written in English were included. A framework analysis was conducted to identify themes., Results: From 14 included studies, the following five main themes were identified: rationale for SDOH screening and the anticipated outcomes; impact of the provider-patient relationship on patient perceptions; data, which included privacy concerns; screening process and referral; and recommendations for future research., Conclusion: Integration of information on SDOH into the EHR appears acceptable to patients. This review has added to the discussion of whether and how to implement SDOH screening and referral programmes into UK primary care systems., (Copyright © 2024, The Authors.)

Background: There is evidence that engaging in research is directly associated with better performance. If this relationship is to be strengthened, it is necessary to understand the mechanisms which might underlie that relationship., Aim: To explore the perspectives of staff and wider stakeholders about mechanisms by which research activity might impact on the performance of general practices., Design & Setting: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with general practice professionals and wider stakeholders in England., Method: Individual interviews with 41 purposively sampled staff in 'research ready' or 'research active' general practices and 21 other stakeholders. Interviews were independently coded by three researchers using a Framework approach., Results: Participants described potential 'direct' and 'indirect' impacts on their work. 'Direct' impacts included research changing practice work (eg, additional records searches for particular conditions), bringing in additional resources (eg, access to investigations or staff) and improving relationships with patients. 'Indirect' impacts included job satisfaction (eg, perception of practice as a centre of excellence and innovation, and the variety afforded by research activity reducing burnout) and staff recruitment (increasing the attractiveness of the practice as a place to work). Respondents identified few negative impacts., Conclusions: Staff and stakeholders identified a range of potential impacts of research activity on practice performance, with impacts on their working lives most salient. Negative impacts were not generally raised. Nevertheless, respondents generally discussed potential impacts rather than providing specific examples of those impacts. This may reflect the type of research activity conducted in general practice, often led by external collaborators., (Copyright © 2024, The Authors.)