Remote medico-legal assessment by telephone during COVID-19: Monitoring safety and quality when documenting evidence of torture for UK asylum applicants.

INTRODUCTION: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Freedom from Torture developed remote telephone assessments to provide interim medico-legal reports, ensuring people could obtain medical evidence to support their asylum claim. METHOD: To audit this new way of working, feedback was collected from the doctors, interpreters, individuals being assessed, and senior medical and legal staff who reviewed the reports. This paper presents findings from the first 20 assessments. RESULTS: Individuals assessed reported that the doctor developed good rapport, but in 35% of assessments reported that there were some experiences they felt unable to disclose. In 70% of assessments, doctors felt that rapport was not as good compared to face-to-face. In the majority of assessments, doctors were unable to gain a full account of the torture or its impact. They reported feeling cautious about pressing for more information on the telephone, mindful of individuals' vulnerability and the difficulty of providing support remotely. Nevertheless, in 85% of assessments doctors felt able to assess the consistency of the account of torture with the psychological findings, in accordance with the Istanbul Protocol (United Nations, 2004). Factors that hindered the assessment included the inability to observe body language, the person's ill health, and confidentiality concerns. CONCLUSION: This research indicates that psychological medico-legal reports can safely be produced by telephone assessment, but are more likely to be incomplete in terms of both full disclosure of torture experiences and psychological assessment. The limitations underline the need for a follow-up face-to-face assessment to expand the psychological assessment as well as undertake a physical assessment.

A mixed-methods study describing behavioral factors that influenced general practitioners' experiences using triage during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, general practices were asked to expand triage and to reduce unnecessary face-to-face contact by prioritizing other consultation modes, e.g., online messaging, video, or telephone. The current study explores the potential barriers and facilitators general practitioners experienced to expanding triage systems and their attitudes towards triage during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: A mixed-method study design was used in which a quantitative online survey was conducted along with qualitative interviews to gain a more nuanced appreciation for practitioners' experiences in the United Kingdom. The survey items were informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework so they would capture 14 behavioral factors that may influence whether practitioners use triage systems. Items were responded to using seven-point Likert scales. A median score was calculated for each item. The responses of participants identifying as part-owners and non-owners (i.e., "partner" vs. "non-partner" practitioners) were compared. The semi-structured interviews were conducted remotely and examined using Braun and Clark's thematic analysis. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 204 participants (66% Female). Most participants (83%) reported triaging patients. The items with the highest median scores captured the 'Knowledge,' 'Skills,' 'Social/Professional role and identity,' and 'Beliefs about capabilities' domains. The items with the lowest median scores captured the 'Beliefs about consequences,' 'Goals,' and 'Emotions' domains. For 14 of the 17 items, partner scores were higher than non-partner scores. All the qualitative interview participants relied on a phone triage system. Six broad themes were discovered: patient accessibility, confusions around what triage is, uncertainty and risk, relationships between service providers, job satisfaction, and the potential for total digital triage. Suggestions arose to optimize triage, such as ensuring there is sufficient time to conduct triage accurately and providing practical training to use triage efficiently. CONCLUSIONS: Many general practitioners are engaging with expanded triage systems, though more support is needed to achieve total triage across practices. Non-partner practitioners likely require more support to use the triage systems that practices take up. Additionally, practical support should be made available to help all practitioners manage the new risks and uncertainties they are likely to experience during non-face-to-face consultations.

Connecting at the Webside: Rapid Telehealth Implementation for Musculoskeletal Clinicians.

SYNOPSIS: Telehealth is rapidly being implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite evidence for the effectiveness of telehealth for musculoskeletal examination and treatment, there is a lack of clear guidance related to implementation. We provide recommendations on practical concerns related to delivering telehealth, including choice of platform; legal, ethical, and administrative considerations; building a "webside manner"; and implications for musculoskeletal examination and treatment. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51(1):8-11. doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.9902.