Search

Background: Mode of access to primary care changed during the COVID-19 pandemic; remote consultations became more widespread. With remote consultations likely to continue in UK primary care, it is important to understand people's perceptions of remote consultations and identify potential resulting inequalities. Aim: To assess satisfaction with remote GP consultations in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic and identify demographic variation in satisfaction levels. Design and setting: A cross-sectional survey from the second phase of a large UK-based study, which was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Method: In total, 1426 adults who self-reported having sought help from their doctor in the past 6 months completed an online questionnaire (February to March 2021). Items included satisfaction with remote consultations and demographic variables. Associations were analysed using multivariable regression. Results: A novel six-item scale of satisfaction with remote GP consultations had good psychometric properties. Participants with higher levels of education had significantly greater satisfaction with remote consultations than participants with mid-level qualifications (B = −0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] = −1.41 to −0.23) or those with low or no qualifications (B = −1.65, 95% CI = −2.29 to −1.02). People living in Wales reported significantly higher satisfaction compared with those living in Scotland (B = −1.94, 95% CI = −3.11 to −0.78), although caution is warranted due to small group numbers. Conclusion: These findings can inform the use and adaptation of remote consultations in primary care. Adults with lower educational levels may need additional support to improve their experience and ensure equitable care via remote consultations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Previous research has identified that lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and queer (LGBTQ+) social care service users have concerns and/or negative experiences of their care due to staff views and attitudes about them/their sexual and gender identities. This has resulted in a number of barriers and challenges for the delivery of social care to this population. However, there is a little research relating to what types of evidence-based interventions can help overcome these barriers, enhance knowledge and promote positive attitude change in staff. The objective of this review was to systematically review current literature on interventions targeted at staff views and attitudes of LGBTQ+ older people in care and identify gaps in knowledge to inform a future theory of change and identify potential interventions to address these., Methods and Analysis: This scoping review will be conducted in line with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. We will conduct a comprehensive search of electronic databases (ie, Social Services Abstracts, Social Care online, Sociological Abstracts, PsycINFO, Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, ASSIA and Web of Science) focused on both health and social care literature to identify peer-reviewed literature as well as targeted online searches of potentially relevant grey literature. We will include literature published in the past 20 years (2003-2023) that report interventions to address care staff attitudes of LGBTQ+ populations older than 50 years who are receiving adult social care in a broad range of healthcare, residential or home settings. Citations will be screened by two independent researchers for inclusion and relevant data extracted using a bespoke template. Data will be analysed narratively and summarised to identify gaps in knowledge and aid in developing a theory of change., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethics approval is not required. Findings will be disseminated via publication in a peer-reviewed journal., Review Registration: A priori registration on Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/v76ws., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To identify the core components of successful early warning systems for detecting and initiating action in response to clinical deterioration in paediatric inpatients., Methods: A hermeneutic systematic literature review informed by translational mobilisation theory and normalisation process theory was used to synthesise 82 studies of paediatric and adult early warning systems and interventions to support the detection of clinical deterioration and escalation of care. This method, which is designed to develop understanding, enabled the development of a propositional model of an optimal afferent component early warning system., Results: Detecting deterioration and initiating action in response to clinical deterioration in paediatric inpatients involves several challenges, and the potential failure points in early warning systems are well documented. Track and trigger tools (TTT) are commonly used and have value in supporting key mechanisms of action but depend on certain preconditions for successful integration into practice. Several supplementary interventions have been proposed to improve the effectiveness of early warning systems but there is limited evidence to recommend their wider use, due to the weight and quality of the evidence; the extent to which systems are conditioned by the local clinical context; and the need to attend to system component relationships, which do not work in isolation. While it was not possible to make empirical recommendations for practice, the review methodology generated theoretical inferences about the core components of an optimal system for early warning systems. These are presented as a propositional model conceptualised as three subsystems: detection, planning and action., Conclusions: There is a growing consensus of the need to think beyond TTTs in improving action to detect and respond to clinical deterioration. Clinical teams wishing to improve early warning systems can use the model to consider systematically the constellation of factors necessary to support detection, planning and action and consider how these arrangements can be implemented in their local context., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42015015326., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)