Challenges in implementing GP clusters in Scotland: a qualitative study comparing the views of senior primary care stakeholders in 2016 with those in 2021.

BACKGROUND: Formation of GP clusters began in Scotland in April 2016 as part of a new Scottish GP contract. They aim to improve the care quality for local populations (intrinsic role) and the integration of health and social care (extrinsic role). AIM: To compare predicted challenges of cluster implementation in 2016 with reported challenges in 2021. DESIGN & SETTING: Qualitative study of senior national stakeholders in primary care in Scotland. METHOD: Qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with 12 senior primary care national stakeholders in 2016 (n = 6) and 2021 (n = 6). RESULTS: Predicted challenges in 2016 included balancing intrinsic and extrinsic roles, providing sufficient support, maintaining motivation and direction, and avoiding variation between clusters. Progress of clusters in 2021 was perceived as suboptimal and was reported to vary significantly across the country, reflecting differences in local infrastructure. Practical facilitation (data, administrative support, training, project improvement support, and funded time) and strategic guidance from the Scottish Government was felt to be lacking. GP engagement with clusters was felt to be hindered by the significant time and workforce pressures facing primary care. These barriers were considered as collectively contributing to cluster lead 'burnout' and loss of momentum, exacerbated by inadequate opportunities for shared learning between clusters across Scotland. Such barriers preceded, but were perpetuated by, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: Apart from the COVID-19 pandemic, many of the challenges reported by stakeholders in 2021 were predicted in 2016. Accelerating progress in cluster working will require renewed investment and support applied consistently across the country.

Guidelines for managing people with lymphoedema remotely: a post-COVID-19 response document.

During the COVID-19 pandemic it was initially not possible to see people with lymphoedema face-to-face at lymphoedema services, due to the potential risks of the virus, because they were shielding, because of redeployment of rooms or staff, and due to sporadic restrictions of movement. The pandemic therefore accelerated adjustments in lymphoedema service delivery, while ensuring effective and efficient care was paramount. This document presents a pragmatic guide for lymphoedema services. Although clinical and non-clinical staff need to comply with guidance from their own organisations/commissioners, this document aims to provide specific guidance and share good practice in relation to lymphoedema management. These guidelines are based on analysis of the national response of Lymphoedema Network Wales during the first few months of the COVID-19 pandemic and incorporate supporting contemporary advice. They have been used throughout NHS Wales, providing a standardised approach in supporting care for people with lymphoedema. In light of the enduring nature of COVID-19, it is imperative that lymphoedema services have a means to provide suitable care for patients. Although face-to-face appointments are sometimes deemed necessary, many patients can be suitably supported via telehealth consultations. These guidelines may help lymphoedema services restore and reset in a safe and acceptable manner.

Challenges and opportunities identified for lymphoedema services in Wales during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, lymphoedema staff adapted services, providing care remotely, and worked in other NHS sectors. The impact on services and staff must be understood in order to safeguard patient care and foster workforce resilience. AIMS: To evaluate the experiences of clinical and non-clinical lymphoedema staff in Wales during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: An anonymous online survey, based on scoping work, was sent out via the Welsh lymphoedema services mailing list. FINDINGS: 71% (68/96) of eligible lymphoedema staff completed the survey. More than half supported lymphoedema services (40/68) with the remaining staff deployed elsewhere. Overall, staff and services felt prepared for new ways of working. Concerns about others and the future burden on services when life returned to normal were reported. Opportunities identified included education initiatives and virtual services. CONCLUSION: Lymphoedema services were well prepared to deliver virtually, enable effective care and share knowledge. Co-ordinated efforts to uphold patient advocacy will support virtual services to meet their needs.