The experience of community first responders in co-producing rural health care: in the liminal gap between citizen and professional.

BACKGROUND: The involvement of community first responders (CFRs) in medical emergencies in Scotland, and particularly in remote and rural areas, has expanded rapidly in recent years in response to geographical and organisational challenges of emergency medical service access. In 2013 there were over 120 active or developing schemes in a wide variety of settings. Community first responders are volunteers trained in First Person on the Scene (FPOS) first aid, administered prior to the arrival of an ambulance. Although there is limited literature which describes the role of first response, little academic literature has been published about the complexities of their specific role in both the community and organisational contexts. METHODS: Here we reflect on data from two mixed-methods studies into the role of CFRs in Scotland. RESULTS: We highlight findings that explore the liminal and complex role of the first responder as both 'practitioner' and community member, and how this contributes to a sense of communitas within the study areas. The rural context encompasses additional complexity in relation to the role of emergency care volunteer, having the highest levels of volunteering and this paper questions assumptions that rural areas, are more accepting of volunteerism. CONCLUSIONS: Complexities arising from the experience of blurred voluntary/practitioner boundaries emerge as a key feature of voluntary participation in medical emergencies in this setting.

The e-Health Implementation Toolkit: qualitative evaluation across four European countries.

BACKGROUND: Implementation researchers have attempted to overcome the research-practice gap in e-health by developing tools that summarize and synthesize research evidence of factors that impede or facilitate implementation of innovation in healthcare settings. The e-Health Implementation Toolkit (e-HIT) is an example of such a tool that was designed within the context of the United Kingdom National Health Service to promote implementation of e-health services. Its utility in international settings is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative evaluation of the e-HIT in use across four countries--Finland, Norway, Scotland, and Sweden. Data were generated using a combination of interview approaches (n = 22) to document e-HIT users' experiences of the tool to guide decision making about the selection of e-health pilot services and to monitor their progress over time. RESULTS: e-HIT users evaluated the tool positively in terms of its scope to organize and enhance their critical thinking about their implementation work and, importantly, to facilitate discussion between those involved in that work. It was easy to use in either its paper- or web-based format, and its visual elements were positively received. There were some minor criticisms of the e-HIT with some suggestions for content changes and comments about its design as a generic tool (rather than specific to sites and e-health services). However, overall, e-HIT users considered it to be a highly workable tool that they found useful, which they would use again, and which they would recommend to other e-health implementers. CONCLUSION: The use of the e-HIT is feasible and acceptable in a range of international contexts by a range of professionals for a range of different e-health systems.

Exploring public perspectives on e-health: findings from two citizen juries.

BACKGROUND: Interest and investment in e-health continue to grow world-wide, but there remains relatively little engagement with the public on this subject, despite calls for more public involvement in health-care planning. DESIGN: This study used two modified citizen juries to explore barriers and facilitators to e-health implementation and the priorities for future e-health research from the perspective of health service users and lay representatives. Citizen juries bring together a group of people to deliberate over a specific issue. They are given information and invited to 'cross-examine' witnesses during the process. RESULTS: Jurors were very keen for lay views to be included in e-health development and embraced the citizen jury approach. They agreed unanimously that e-health should be developed and thought it was in many ways inevitable. Although there was much enthusiasm for a health-care system which offered e-health as an option, there was as much concern about what it might mean for patients if implemented inappropriately. E-health was preferred as an enhancement rather than substitute for, existing services. Lack of universal access was seen as a potential barrier to implementation but problems such as lack of computer literacy were seen as a temporary issue. Participants emphasized that e-health research needed to demonstrate both clinical and economic benefits. CONCLUSION: There was broad support from the citizen juries for the development of e-health, although participants stressed that e-health should enhance, rather than substitute, face-to-face services. One-day citizen juries proved a practical method of public engagement on this subject.

Non-English speakers consulting with the GP in their own language: a cross-sectional survey.

The Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI) gives counterintuitive results with patients who normally speak non-English languages at home. The aim of this study was to find out more about why patients speaking languages other than English were more enabled in a shorter time than English-speaking patients. A cross-sectional consultation-based questionnaire survey was conducted of 2052 adult patients speaking languages other than English compared with 23790 English-speaking patients in four contrasting study areas in the UK Highest PEI scores in shortest consultation times were associated with South Asian language-speaking patients consulting in their own language. Multiple regression analysis showed that the language factors had an independent effect. We therefore conclude that these patients derive particular benefit from general practice consultations in their own language. Enablement may have a different meaning for patients speaking languages other than English.

The development of a routine NHS data-based index of performance in general practice (NHSPPI).

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare two different approaches to the measurement of quality in general practice: data derived from routine NHS data sets and results from an index derived from patient-collected data. METHODS: A secondary analysis of existing data sets and a cross-sectional survey were carried out in Lothian, Coventry, Oxfordshire and west London. The subjects comprised randomly selected and consenting practices, and a sample of patients within these practices. A National Health Service Practice Performance Index (NHSPPI) was constructed from 16 routinely available NHS performance indicators. The Consultation Quality Index (CQI) combines the Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI) with a measure of how well the patient knew the doctor, and with observed consultation length. RESULTS: Scores for 12 of the 16 indicators varied significantly across the four regions. Mean practice NHSPPI score overall was 21.6 (SD 4.3), which varied significantly across regions. NHSPPI was predicted by practice list size, weighted deprivation index and proportion of other language patients in the practice, although their effects could not be separated. Overall there was no correlation between NHSPPI and CQI, although the prescribing component of the index was positively correlated to mean consultation length and negatively correlated with how well patients knew their doctors. CONCLUSIONS: Good quality care as assessed by patients on completion of their consultation is independent of good quality care as assessed by best available measures of practice performance. We suggest that the CQI and the NHSPPI are at least as ready for use as other measures of performance in general practice.