E-nursing homes: transforming access to nurses in nursing homes in response to the staffing crisis.

The UK is facing a nationwide staffing crisis within adult social care, due to difficulties in recruiting and retaining registered nurses. Current interpretation of legislation means nursing homes must always have the physical presence of a registered nurse on duty within the home. With the shortage of registered nurses increasing, reliance on agency workers is commonplace, a practice impacting service cost and continuity of care. Lack of innovation to tackle this issue means the question of how to transform service delivery to combat staffing shortages is open for debate. The potential for technology to augment the provision of care was highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this article the authors present one possible solution focused on the provision of digital nursing care within nursing homes. Anticipated benefits include enhanced accessibility of nursing roles, reduced risk of viral spread and opportunities for upskilling staff. However, challenges include the current interpretation of legislation.

Meaningful patient and public involvement in digital health innovation, implementation and evaluation: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: The importance of meaningfully involving patients and the public in digital health innovation is widely acknowledged, but often poorly understood. This review, therefore, sought to explore how patients and the public are involved in digital health innovation and to identify factors that support and inhibit meaningful patient and public involvement (PPI) in digital health innovation, implementation and evaluation. METHODS: Searches were undertaken from 2010 to July 2020 in the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus and ACM Digital Library. Grey literature searches were also undertaken using the Patient Experience Library database and Google Scholar. RESULTS: Of the 10,540 articles identified, 433 were included. The majority of included articles were published in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Australia, with representation from 42 countries highlighting the international relevance of PPI in digital health. 112 topic areas where PPI had reportedly taken place were identified. Areas most often described included cancer (n = 50), mental health (n = 43), diabetes (n = 26) and long-term conditions (n = 19). Interestingly, over 133 terms were used to describe PPI; few were explicitly defined. Patients were often most involved in the final, passive stages of an innovation journey, for example, usability testing, where the ability to proactively influence change was severely limited. Common barriers to achieving meaningful PPI included data privacy and security concerns, not involving patients early enough and lack of trust. Suggested enablers were often designed to counteract such challenges. CONCLUSIONS: PPI is largely viewed as valuable and essential in digital health innovation, but rarely practised. Several barriers exist for both innovators and patients, which currently limits the quality, frequency and duration of PPI in digital health innovation, although improvements have been made in the past decade. Some reported barriers and enablers such as the importance of data privacy and security appear to be unique to PPI in digital innovation. Greater efforts should be made to support innovators and patients to become meaningfully involved in digital health innovations from the outset, given its reported benefits and impacts. Stakeholder consensus on the principles that underpin meaningful PPI in digital health innovation would be helpful in providing evidence-based guidance on how to achieve this. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This review has received extensive patient and public contributions with a representative from the Patient Experience Library involved throughout the review's conception, from design (including suggested revisions to the search strategy) through to article production and dissemination. Other areas of patient and public contributor involvement include contributing to the inductive thematic analysis process, refining the thematic framework and finalizing theme wording, helping to ensure relevance, value and meaning from a patient perspective. Findings from this review have also been presented to a variety of stakeholders including patients, patient advocates and clinicians through a series of focus groups and webinars. Given their extensive involvement, the representative from the Patient Experience Library is rightly included as an author of this review.

Exploring Patient and Staff Experiences With Video Consultations During COVID-19 in an English Outpatient Care Setting: Secondary Data Analysis of Routinely Collected Feedback Data.

BACKGROUND: Video consultations (VCs) were rapidly implemented in response to COVID-19 despite modest progress before. OBJECTIVE: We aim to explore staff and patient experiences with VCs implemented during COVID-19 and use feedback insights to support quality improvement and service development. METHODS: Secondary data analysis was conducted on 955 patient and 521 staff responses (from 4234 consultations; 955/4234, 22.6% and 521/4234, 12.3%, respectively) routinely collected following a VC between June and July 2020 in a rural, older adult, and outpatient care setting at a National Health Service Trust. Responses were summarized using descriptive statistics and inductive thematic analysis and presented to Trust stakeholders. RESULTS: Most patients (890/955, 93.2%) reported having good (210/955, 22%) or very good (680/955, 71.2%) experience with VCs and felt listened to and understood (904/955, 94.7%). Most patients accessed their VC alone (806/955, 84.4%) except for those aged ≥71 years (23/58, 40%), with ease of joining VCs negatively associated with age (P<.001). Despite more difficulties joining, older adults were most likely to be satisfied with the technology (46/58, 79%). Patients and staff generally felt that patients' needs had been met (860/955, 90.1% and 453/521, 86.9%, respectively), although staff appeared to overestimate patient dissatisfaction with VC outcomes (P=.02). Patients (848/955, 88.8%) and staff (419/521, 80.5%) felt able to communicate everything they wanted, although patients were significantly more positive than staff (P<.001). Patient satisfaction with communication was positively associated with technical performance satisfaction (P<.001). Most staff members (466/521, 89.4%) reported positive (185/521, 35.5%) or very positive (281/521, 53.9%) experiences with joining and managing VCs. Staff reported reductions in carbon footprint (380/521, 72.9%) and time (373/521, 71.6%). Most patients (880/955, 92.1%) would choose VCs again. We identified three themes in responses: barriers, including technological difficulties, patient information, and suitability concerns; potential benefits, including reduced stress, enhanced accessibility, cost, and time savings; and suggested improvements, including trial calls, turning music off, photo uploads, expanding written character limit, supporting other internet browsers, and shared online screens. This routine feedback, including evidence to suggest that patients were more satisfied than clinicians had anticipated, was presented to relevant Trust stakeholders, allowing for improved processes and supporting the development of a business case to inform the Trust decision on continuing VCs beyond COVID-19 restrictions. CONCLUSIONS: The findings highlight the importance of regularly reviewing and responding to routine feedback following digital service implementation. The feedback helped the Trust improve the VC service, challenge clinician-held assumptions about patient experience, and inform future use of VCs. It has focused improvement efforts on patient information; technological improvements such as blurred backgrounds and interactive whiteboards; and responding to the needs of patients with dementia, communication or cognitive impairment, or lack of appropriate technology. These findings have implications for other health care providers.

Use and usability of GP online services: a mixed-methods sequential study, before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, based on qualitative interviews, analysis of routine eConsult usage and feedback data, and assessment of GP websites in Devon and Cornwall, England.

OBJECTIVES: We explored use and usability of general practitioner (GP) online services. SETTING: Devon and Cornwall, England. DESIGN: Mixed-methods sequential study based on qualitative interviews, analysis of routine eConsult usage and feedback data, and assessment of GP websites. METHODS: First, we interviewed 32 staff and 18 patients from seven practices in June 2018. Second, we used routinely collected consultation meta-data and, third, patient feedback data for all practices using eConsult from June 2018 to March 2021. Lastly, we examined GP websites' usability in January 2020 and September 2021. RESULTS: Interviews suggested practices infrequently involved patients in eConsult implementation. Some patients 'gamed' the system to achieve what they wanted. Usage data showed a major increase in eConsult resulting from COVID-19. Women used eConsult twice as much as men. Older had similar eConsult consultation rates to younger patients. Patient feedback forms were completed for fewer than 3% of consultations. Patients were mostly satisfied with eConsult but some had concerns about its length and repetitiveness, lack of continuity over time and between eConsult and medical records. We did not find clear evidence that patients' suggested improvements were acted on. Finally, few GP websites met accessibility guidelines and may hinder access to online national services such as eConsult. CONCLUSION: Given that, face to face, older people consult more, usage data suggest that older people have reduced online access. That the female-to-male ratio of eConsult use use was even greater than 'traditional' face-to-face ratio was unexpected and needs further research. Although eConsult collects and uses routine patient feedback to improve the system, more open systems for patient feedback, such as Care Opinion, may be more effective in helping online systems evolve. Lastly, we question the need for GP websites and suggest that national or regional services are better placed to maintain accessible services.

Barriers and Enablers in Implementing Electronic Consultations in Primary Care: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Often promoted as a way to address increasing demands, improve patient accessibility, and improve overall efficiency, electronic consultations are becoming increasingly common in primary care, particularly in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic. However, despite their increasing use, a theoretically informed understanding of the factors that support and inhibit their effective implementation is severely limited. OBJECTIVE: With this scoping review, we sought to identify the factors that support and inhibit the implementation of electronic consultations in primary care. METHODS: In total, 5 electronic databases (PubMed, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO) were systematically searched for studies published in 2009-2019 that explored the impact and/or implementation of electronic consultations in primary care. Database searches were supplemented by reference list and grey literature searches. Data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis and synthesized using Normalization Process Theory (NPT). RESULTS: In total, 227 articles were initially identified and 13 were included in this review. The main factors found to hinder implementation included awareness and expectations; low levels of engagement; perceived suitability for all patient groups, conditions, and demographics; cost; and other contextual factors. Reports of information technology reliability and clinical workload duplication (as opposed to reduction) also appeared detrimental. Conversely, the development of protocols and guidance; patient and staff education; strategic marketing; and patient and public involvement were all identified as beneficial in facilitating electronic consultation implementation. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the need for proactive engagement with patients and staff to facilitate understanding and awareness, process optimization, and delivery of coherent training and education that maximizes impact and success. Although the necessity to use online methods during the COVID-19 pandemic may have accelerated awareness, concerns over workload duplication and inequality of access may remain. Future research should explore health inequalities in electronic consultations and their economic impacts from multiple perspectives (eg, patient, professional, and commissioner) to determine their potential value. Further work to identify the role of meaningful patient involvement in digital innovation, implementation, and evaluation is also required following the rapid digitization of health and social care.