Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Satisfaction with remote consultations in primary care during COVID-19: a population survey of UK adults

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Implementation of remote consulting in UK primary care following the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods longitudinal study

          Background To reduce contagion of COVID-19, in March 2020 UK general practices implemented predominantly remote consulting via telephone, video, or online consultation platforms. Aim To investigate the rapid implementation of remote consulting and explore impact over the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Design and setting Mixed-methods study in 21 general practices in Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire. Method Longitudinal observational quantitative analysis compared volume and type of consultation in April to July 2020 with April to July 2019. Negative binomial models were used to identify if changes differed among different groups of patients. Qualitative data from 87 longitudinal interviews with practice staff in four rounds investigated practices’ experience of the move to remote consulting, challenges faced, and solutions. A thematic analysis utilised Normalisation Process Theory. Results There was universal consensus that remote consulting was necessary. This drove a rapid change to 90% remote GP consulting (46% for nurses) by April 2020. Consultation rates reduced in April to July 2020 compared to 2019; GPs and nurses maintained a focus on older patients, shielding patients, and patients with poor mental health. Telephone consulting was sufficient for many patient problems, video consulting was used more rarely, and was less essential as lockdown eased. SMS-messaging increased more than three-fold. GPs were concerned about increased clinical risk and some had difficulties setting thresholds for seeing patients face-to-face as lockdown eased. Conclusion The shift to remote consulting was successful and a focus maintained on vulnerable patients. It was driven by the imperative to reduce contagion and may have risks; post-pandemic, the model will need adjustment.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the symptomatic diagnosis of cancer: the view from primary care

            The entire landscape of cancer management in primary care, from case identification to the management of people living with and beyond cancer, is evolving rapidly in the face of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. 1 In a climate of fear and mandated avoidance of all but essential clinical services, delays in patient, population, and health-care system responses to suspected cancer symptoms seem inevitable. Screening, case identification, and referral in symptomatic cancer diagnosis have all been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. UK national cancer screening programmes—accounting for approximately 5% of all cancer diagnoses each year—have been suspended. 2 Consequently, early diagnoses from screening will be delayed and symptom-based diagnosis of cancer will become more important. 3 Unfortunately, postponing screening sends a message to the public and primary care that cancer can wait. Timely presentation to primary care of patients with symptoms is driven by a combination of appraising symptoms as warranting attention, perceived or actual ability to consult a health-care professional, perceived consequences of seeking help, and priority over competing goals. 4 It is probable that patients with well recognised red flag symptoms, such as a new lump or rectal bleeding, will continue to present to primary care. With COVID-19 at the forefront, however, vague cancer symptoms such as fatigue, change in bowel habit, and weight loss might be dismissed by the patient as trivial. 5 Respiratory symptoms, including persistent cough, might be attributed to COVID-19 and not acted on. Patients might be reluctant to present because of fear of interacting with others, limited capacity to use video or teleconsultations, and concerns about wasting the doctor's time.6, 7 For family doctors, the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting all aspects of normal working life, including a reduced workforce due to illness and self-isolation, and the reduced availability of appointments and investigations in primary and secondary care. The huge shift to telephone triage and video consultations might result in missed cues, reduced examination findings, and loss of the clinician's gut feeling. Remote consulting might also be less suited to vulnerable patients and individuals from low socioeconomic backgrounds than to patients from high socioeconomic settings, compounding inequalities already apparent in early cancer diagnosis. 8 If patients with cancer symptoms do present to primary care, there is no consensus on how they should be managed during the pandemic, or safety-netted. When patients are referred, they are likely to be triaged or delayed. 9 For example, the cancellation of all but emergency endoscopy will inevitably prolong the time to diagnosis of gastrointestinal cancers. Management and follow-up of patients with cancer is also affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Many patients with cancer, especially those undergoing chemotherapy, radical radiotherapy, and immunotherapy, are at greater risk from the symptoms and sequelae of COVID-19. The National Health Service guidelines state that patients will want to discuss whether the benefits of continuing active cancer treatment outweigh the risks of potentially being seriously unwell if they contract COVID-19, which is a role that could well fall to primary care. 9 The UK cancer charity Macmillan Cancer Support reports that a quarter of calls to its support line are from patients with cancer who are anxious about COVID-19. 10 Although cancer charities provide a vital support role, primary care needs to support the physical and mental health of patients for whom potentially lifesaving cancer treatments are being postponed. Cancer treatments are a priority in the health-care system, but as health-care become increasingly occupied with caring for patients with COVID-19, these patients will inevitably take precedence. Patients needing immediate care are receiving treatment, but when possible, treatments will be delayed. Guidance to help make these difficult decisions might be variable, inconsistent, and hurried, with the inevitable risk to patient outcomes. In this situation, the psychological effect on patients and clinical staff will be enormous. The COVID-19 pandemic has implications for primary care and the crisis has highlighted potential solutions for dealing with future global health threats. Although these are unprecedented times, it is probable that the use of remote consultations will grow. Increased flexibility in accessing health care might serve to advantage some population groups, but risks disadvantaging others. If done well, remote consulting could benefit previously underserved patient populations (ie, individuals living in remote areas). Behavioural interventions to encourage the timely symptomatic diagnosis of cancer are important. Public awareness campaigns should signal that early help-seeking is welcome and legitimate, and might use social media and community networks that have grown in response to COVID-19. Clinicians should be aware of so-called diagnostic overshadowing from COVID-19 and remember that patients might have markedly delayed presentation already and need additional support navigating the next steps in terms of their referral and safety-netting. If cancer is suspected, clinicians should not be deterred from referring patients urgently because of COVID-19 or other future global health threats. However, health-care professionals might have to accept triage and risk stratification of patients with potentially serious disease. Biomarker and machine-learning approaches might support prioritisation of patients who are at greatest risk, diverting health-care resources towards managing patients who are seriously ill. When patients are diagnosed with cancer, or are living with or beyond cancer, providers of primary care might have to accept enhanced roles in supporting decisions on cancer treatment, palliative care, and advanced planning around resuscitation and preferred places of care. When normal service resumes at a population and health-service level, there will be a huge backlog of patients with potential cancer symptoms needing urgent assessment. Planning for recovery should commence as soon as possible. © 2020 Bacho/shutterstock.com 2020 Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Telehealth consultations in general practice during a pandemic lockdown: survey and interviews on patient experiences and preferences

              Background During the first COVID-19 pandemic ‘lockdown’ in Aotearoa/New Zealand (March–May 2020, in which strict ‘stay at home’ measures were introduced), general practices were advised to use telephone and video consultations (telehealth) wherever possible instead of the usual in-person visits. This was a sudden change for most practices and patients. This research aimed to explore how patients accessed general practice during lockdown and evaluate their experiences with telehealth, to inform how telehealth could be most effectively used in the future. Methods Using a mixed-method approach, we undertook an online survey and in-depth interviews with adults (> 18 years) who had contact with practices during lockdown, recruited through social media and email lists. We present descriptive statistics from the survey data (n = 1010) and qualitative analysis of interview data (n = 38) and open-ended survey questions, using a framework of access to health care, from the patient’s perspective. Results In general, patients reported high satisfaction with telehealth in general practice during lockdown. Telehealth was convenient and allowed patients to safely access health care without having to weigh-up the fear of COVID-19 infection against the need to be seen. Telehealth worked best for routine and familiar health issues and when rapport was established between patients and clinicians. This was easier with a pre-existing clinical relationship, but not impossible without one. Telehealth was less suitable when a physical examination was needed, when the diagnosis was unknown or for patients who had a strong preference to be seen in-person. Conclusions Even in this disruptive lockdown period, that prompted an unexpected and rapid implementation of telehealth services in general practices, most patients had positive experiences with telehealth. In the future, patients want the choice of consultation type to match their needs, circumstances, and preferences. Technological issues and funding barriers may need to be addressed, and clear communication for both patients and clinicians is needed about key aspects of telehealth (e.g. cost, appropriateness, privacy). Maintaining telehealth as an option post-lockdown has the potential to increase timely and safe access to primary health care for many patients. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-020-01336-1.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Research associate
                Role: Research associate – statistics
                Role: Principal research fellow in statistics
                Role: Research associate
                Role: Research fellow/senior trial manager
                Role: Consultant cancer screening lead
                Role: Research assistant – data manager
                Role: Member of Health and Care Research Wales Public Involvement Community
                Role: Research associate
                Role: Professor of social sciences & public health
                Role: Senior research & evaluation manager (behavioural evidence & interventions)
                Role: Professor and director of population health & social care
                Role: Principal research fellow
                Role: Professor of cancer behavioural science
                Role: Research & evaluation manager (behavioural evidence & interventions)
                Role: Professor of psychology and lead for cancer care
                Role: Professor of health psychology
                Journal
                Br J Gen Pract
                Br J Gen Pract
                bjgp
                bjgp
                The British Journal of General Practice
                Royal College of General Practitioners
                0960-1643
                1478-5242
                February 2024
                23 January 2024
                23 January 2024
                : 74
                : 739
                : e96-e103
                Affiliations
                PRIME Centre Wales, Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff.
                Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff.
                Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff.
                PRIME Centre Wales, Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff.
                Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff.
                Public Health Wales; senior lecturer, Cardiff University, Cardiff.
                Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff.
                Public Involvement Community, Health and Care Research Wales Support Centre, Cardiff.
                Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff.
                DECIPHer (Centre for Development, Evaluation, Complexity and Implementation in Public Health Improvement), School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff.
                Social & Behavioural Research, Cancer Research UK, London.
                Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff.
                Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff.
                Centre for Cancer Screening, Prevention and Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London; reader of cancer screening & early diagnosis, School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King’s College London, London.
                Social & Behavioural Research, Cancer Research UK, London.
                School of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford.
                Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff.
                Author notes
                CORRESPONDENCE Kate Brain Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF10 3AT, UK. Email: brainke@ 123456cardiff.ac.uk
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9782-2080
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3239-8415
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5235-6517
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6136-070X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7608-4699
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7684-0506
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6136-3978
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1004-036X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8679-3619
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4025-9132
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8604-4490
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0947-1840
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9296-9748
                Article
                10.3399/BJGP.2023.0092
                10824329
                38253548
                3db52e5b-2fa8-49d9-b760-7098949d1520
                © The Authors

                This article is Open Access: CC BY 4.0 licence ( http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 17 February 2023
                : 21 April 2023
                : 21 August 2023
                Categories
                Research

                demographic factors,general practice,primary health care,remote consultations,telemedicine,telehealth

                Comments

                Comment on this article