What are the challenges to quality in modern, hybrid general practice? A multi-site longitudinal study.

Background Since 2022, general practice has shifted from responding to the acute challenges of COVID-19 to restoring full services, using remote and digital modalities as well as traditional in-person care. Aim To examine how quality domains are addressed in contemporary UK general practice. Design and setting Multi-site, mostly qualitative longitudinal case study, placed in national policy context. Method Data were collected from longitudinal ethnographic case studies of 12 general practices (2021-2023); multi-stakeholder workshops; stakeholder interviews; patient surveys; official reports; and publicly-accessible patient experience data. Data were coded thematically and analysed using Institute of Medicine domains, Starfield's core features of primary care and sociological and socio-technical theories. Results Quality efforts in UK general practice occur within cumulative impacts of financial austerity, loss of resilience, increasingly complex patterns of illness and need, a diverse and fragmented workforce, infrastructure unfit for purpose, and distanciated ways of working. Providing the human elements of traditional general practice is difficult and sometimes impossible. Triage systems designed to increase efficiency have introduced new forms of inefficiency and compromised other quality domains. Long-term condition management varies in quality; amidst some convenience gains, some practices rely on remote, asynchronous data entry by patients and fragmented care by underqualified staff. Measures to mitigate digital exclusion do not compensate for extremes of structural disadvantage. Many staff are stressed and demoralised. Conclusion Contemporary hybrid general practice features changes with the unintended effect of dehumanising, compromising and fragmenting care. Risks to patients and the core values of general practice should be urgently addressed.

How has the COVID-19 pandemic affected the delivery of preventive healthcare? An interrupted time series analysis of adults in English primary care from 2018 to 2022.

OBJECTIVE: Offering advice and support for smoking, obesity, excess alcohol, and physical inactivity is an evidence-based component of primary care. The objective was to quantify the impact of the pandemic on the rate of advice or referral for these four risk factors. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using primary care data from 1847 practices in England and 21,191,389 patients contributing to the Oxford Clinical Informatics Digital Hub. An interrupted time series analysis was undertaken with a single change point (March 2020). Monthly trends were modelled from 1st January 2018 - 30th June 2022 using segmented linear regression. RESULTS: There was an initial step reduction in advice and referrals for smoking, obesity, excess alcohol, and physical inactivity in March 2020. By June 2022, advice on smoking (slope change -0.02 events per hundred patient years/month (EPH/month); 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.17, 0.21), obesity (0.06 EPH/month; 95% CI 0.01, 0.12), alcohol (0.02 EPH/month; 95% CI -0.01, 0.05) and physical inactivity (0.05 EPH/month; 95% CI 0.01, 0.09) had not returned to pre-pandemic levels. Similarly, smoking cessation referral remained lower (0.01 EPH/month; 95% CI -0.01, 0.09), excess alcohol referral returned to similar levels (0.0005 EPH/month; 95% CI 0.0002, 0.0008), while referral for obesity (0.14 EPH/month; 95% CI 0.10, 0.19) and physical inactivity (0.01 EPH/month; 95% CI 0.01, 0.02) increased relative to pre-pandemic rates. CONCLUSION: Advice and support for smoking, and advice for weight, excess alcohol and physical inactivity have not returned to pre-pandemic levels. Clinicians and policy makers should prioritise preventive care in COVID-19 recovery plans.

Developing user personas to capture intersecting dimensions of disadvantage in older patients who are marginalised: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Remote and digital services must be equitable, but some patients have difficulty using these services. Designing measures to overcome digital disparities can be challenging for practices. Personas (fictional cases) are a potentially useful tool in this regard. AIM: To develop and test a set of personas to reflect the lived experiences and challenges that older people who are disadvantaged face when navigating remote and digital primary care services. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative study of digital disparities in NHS community health services offering video appointments. METHOD: Following familiarisation visits and interviews with service providers, 17 older people with multiple markers of disadvantage (limited English, health conditions, and poverty) were recruited and interviewed using narrative prompts. Data were analysed using an intersectionality lens, underpinned by sociological theory. Combining data across all participant interviews, we produced personas and refined these following focus groups involving health professionals, patients, and advocates (n = 12). RESULTS: Digital services create significant challenges for older patients with limited economic, social, and linguistic resources and low digital, health, or system literacy. Four contrasting personas were produced, capturing the variety and complexity of how dimensions of disadvantage intersected and influenced identity and actions. The personas illustrate important themes including experience of racism and discrimination, disorientation, discontinuity, limited presence, weak relationships, loss of agency, and mistrust of services and providers. CONCLUSION: Personas can illuminate the multiple and intersecting dimensions of disadvantage in patient populations who are marginalised and may prove useful when designing or redesigning digital primary care services. Adopting an intersectional lens may help practices address digital disparities.

'When the visible body is no longer the seer': The phenomenology of perception and the clinical gaze in video consultations.

Video technology enabled professionals and patients to conduct consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic when in-person health care was minimised to reduce the spread of the virus. We present findings of a study of video-consulting through in-depth qualitative remote interviews with 40 health professionals, managers, support staff and 10 patients in health-care services across the UK from 2020 to 2021. Drawing on Foucault's concept of the clinical gaze, Merleau-Ponty's work on the phenomenology of perception and Ihde's postphenomenology we interpreted the ways in which remote consultations shaped patient-professional interactions, mediating and framing what was seen, revealed and known. We found that participating in video consultations not only involved creative adaption and adjustment to a virtual clinic but also changed how professionals and patients saw and were seen. We argue that this mode of consulting can transform boundaries and perceptions, alter aspects of clinical presence, knowledge and embodiment and thus both change and incorporate the clinical gaze.

Training needs for staff providing remote services in general practice: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Contemporary general practice includes many kinds of remote encounter. The rise in telephone, video and online modalities for triage and clinical care requires clinicians and support staff to be trained, both individually and as teams, but evidence-based competencies have not previously been produced for general practice. AIM: To identify training needs, core competencies, and learning methods for staff providing remote encounters. DESIGN AND SETTING: Mixed-methods study in UK general practice. METHOD: Data were collated from longitudinal ethnographic case studies of 12 general practices; a multi-stakeholder workshop; interviews with policymakers, training providers, and trainees; published research; and grey literature (such as training materials and surveys). Data were coded thematically and analysed using theories of individual and team learning. RESULTS: Learning to provide remote services occurred in the context of high workload, understaffing, and complex workflows. Low confidence and perceived unmet training needs were common. Training priorities for novice clinicians included basic technological skills, triage, ethics (for privacy and consent), and communication and clinical skills. Established clinicians' training priorities include advanced communication skills (for example, maintaining rapport and attentiveness), working within the limits of technologies, making complex judgements, coordinating multi-professional care in a distributed environment, and training others. Much existing training is didactic and technology focused. While basic knowledge was often gained using such methods, the ability and confidence to make complex judgements were usually acquired through experience, informal discussions, and on-the-job methods such as shadowing. Whole-team training was valued but rarely available. A draft set of competencies is offered based on the findings. CONCLUSION: The knowledge needed to deliver high-quality remote encounters to diverse patient groups is complex, collective, and organisationally embedded. The vital role of non-didactic training, for example, joint clinical sessions, case-based discussions, and in-person, whole-team, on-the-job training, needs to be recognised.

Patient safety in remote primary care encounters: multimethod qualitative study combining Safety I and Safety II analysis.

BACKGROUND: Triage and clinical consultations increasingly occur remotely. We aimed to learn why safety incidents occur in remote encounters and how to prevent them. SETTING AND SAMPLE: UK primary care. 95 safety incidents (complaints, settled indemnity claims and reports) involving remote interactions. Separately, 12 general practices followed 2021-2023. METHODS: Multimethod qualitative study. We explored causes of real safety incidents retrospectively ('Safety I' analysis). In a prospective longitudinal study, we used interviews and ethnographic observation to produce individual, organisational and system-level explanations for why safety and near-miss incidents (rarely) occurred and why they did not occur more often ('Safety II' analysis). Data were analysed thematically. An interpretive synthesis of why safety incidents occur, and why they do not occur more often, was refined following member checking with safety experts and lived experience experts. RESULTS: Safety incidents were characterised by inappropriate modality, poor rapport building, inadequate information gathering, limited clinical assessment, inappropriate pathway (eg, wrong algorithm) and inadequate attention to social circumstances. These resulted in missed, inaccurate or delayed diagnoses, underestimation of severity or urgency, delayed referral, incorrect or delayed treatment, poor safety netting and inadequate follow-up. Patients with complex pre-existing conditions, cardiac or abdominal emergencies, vague or generalised symptoms, safeguarding issues, failure to respond to previous treatment or difficulty communicating seemed especially vulnerable. General practices were facing resource constraints, understaffing and high demand. Triage and care pathways were complex, hard to navigate and involved multiple staff. In this context, patient safety often depended on individual staff taking initiative, speaking up or personalising solutions. CONCLUSION: While safety incidents are extremely rare in remote primary care, deaths and serious harms have resulted. We offer suggestions for patient, staff and system-level mitigations.

Desperately Seeking Intersectionality in Digital Health Disparity Research: Narrative Review to Inform a Richer Theorization of Multiple Disadvantage.

BACKGROUND: Digital consultations between patients and clinicians increased markedly during the COVID-19 pandemic, raising questions about equity. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to review the literature on how multiple disadvantage-specifically, older age, lower socioeconomic status, and limited English proficiency-has been conceptualized, theorized, and studied empirically in relation to digital consultations. We focused mainly on video consultations as they have wider disparities than telephone consultations and relevant data on e-consultations are sparse. METHODS: Using keyword and snowball searching, we identified relevant papers published between 2012 and 2022 using Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and PubMed. The first search was completed in July 2022. Papers meeting the inclusion criteria were analyzed thematically and summarized, and their key findings were tabulated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research criteria. Explanations for digital disparities were critically examined, and a search was undertaken in October 2022 to identify theoretical lenses on multiple disadvantage. RESULTS: Of 663 articles from the initial search, 27 (4.1%) met our inclusion criteria. In total, 37% (10/27) were commentaries, and 63% (17/27) were peer-reviewed empirical studies (11/27, 41% quantitative; 5/27, 19% qualitative; 1/27, 4% mixed methods; 1/27, 4% systematic reviews; and 1/27, 4% narrative reviews). Empirical studies were mostly small, rapidly conducted, and briefly reported. Most studies (25/27, 93%) identified marked digital disparities but lacked a strong theoretical lens. Proposed solutions focused on identifying and removing barriers, but the authors generally overlooked the pervasive impact of multiple layers of disadvantage. The data set included no theoretically informed studies that examined how different dimensions of disadvantage combined to affect digital health disparities. In our subsequent search, we identified 3 theoretical approaches that might help account for these digital disparities. Fundamental cause theory by Link and Phelan addresses why the association between socioeconomic status and health is pervasive and persists over time. Digital capital theory by Ragnedda and Ruiu explains how people mobilize resources to participate in digitally mediated activities and services. Intersectionality theory by Crenshaw states that systems of oppression are inherently bound together, creating singular social experiences for people who bear the force of multiple adverse social structures. CONCLUSIONS: A limitation of our initial sample was the sparse and undertheorized nature of the primary literature. The lack of attention to how digital health disparities emerge and play out both within and across categories of disadvantage means that solutions proposed to date may be oversimplistic and insufficient. Theories of multiple disadvantage have bearing on digital health, and there may be others of relevance besides those discussed in this paper. We call for greater interdisciplinary dialogue between theoretical research on multiple disadvantage and empirical studies on digital health disparities.

The Role of Information Infrastructures in Scaling up Video Consultations During COVID-19: Mixed Methods Case Study Into Opportunity, Disruption, and Exposure.

BACKGROUND: Until COVID-19, implementation and uptake of video consultations in health care was slow. However, the pandemic created a "burning platform" for scaling up such services. As health care organizations look to expand and maintain the use of video in the "new normal," it is important to understand infrastructural influences and changes that emerged during the pandemic and that may influence sustainability going forward. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to draw lessons from 4 National Health Service (NHS) organizations on how information infrastructures shaped, and were shaped by, the rapid scale-up of video consultations during COVID-19. METHODS: A mixed methods case study of 4 NHS trusts in England was conducted before and during the pandemic. Data comprised 90 interviews with 49 participants (eg, clinicians, managers, administrators, and IT support), ethnographic field notes, and video consultation activity data. We sought examples of infrastructural features and challenges related to the rapid scale-up of video. Analysis was guided by Gkeredakis et al's 3 perspectives on crisis and digital change: as opportunity (for accelerated innovation and removal of barriers to experimentation), disruption (to organizational practices, generating new dependencies and risks), and exposure (of vulnerabilities in both people and infrastructure). RESULTS: Before COVID-19, there was a strong policy push for video consultations as a way of delivering health care efficiently. However, the spread of video was slow, and adopting clinicians described their use as ad hoc rather than business as usual. When the pandemic hit, video was rapidly scaled up. The most rapid increase in use was during the first month of the pandemic (March-April 2020), from an average of 8 video consultations per week to 171 per week at each site. Uptake continued to increase during the pandemic, averaging approximately 800 video consultations per week by March 2021. From an opportunity perspective, participants talked about changes to institutional elements of infrastructure, which had historically restricted the introduction and use of video. This was supported by an "organizing vision" for video, bringing legitimacy and support. Perspectives on disruption centered on changes to social, technical, and material work environments and the emergence of new patterns of action. Retaining positive elements of such change required a judicious balance between managerial (top-down) and emergent (bottom-up) approaches. Perspectives on exposure foregrounded social and technical impediments to video consulting. This highlighted the need to attend to the materiality and dependability of the installed base, as well as the social and cultural context of use. CONCLUSIONS: For sustained adoption at scale, health care organizations need to enable incremental systemic change and flexibility through agile governance and knowledge transfer pathways, support process multiplicity within virtual clinic workflows, attend to the materiality and dependability of the IT infrastructure within and beyond organizational boundaries, and maintain an overall narrative within which the continued use of video can be framed.

Theorising the shift to video consulting in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic: Analysis of a mixed methods study using practice theory.

We studied video consulting in the National Health Service during 2020-2021 through video interviews, an online survey and online discussions with people who had provided and participated in such consultations. Video consulting had previously been used for selected groups in limited settings in the UK. The pandemic created a seismic shift in the context for remote consulting, in which video transformed from a niche technology typically introduced by individual clinicians committed to innovation and quality improvement to offering what many felt was the only safe way to deliver certain types of healthcare. A new practice emerged: a co-constitution of technology and healthcare made possible by new configurations of equipment, connectivity and physical spaces. Despite heterogeneous service settings and previous experiences of video consulting, we found certain kinds of common changes had made video consulting possible. We used practice theory to analyse these changes, interpreting the commonalities found in our data as changes in purpose, material arrangements and a relaxing of rules about security, confidentiality and location of consultations. The practice of video consulting was equivocal. Accounts of, and preferences for, video consulting varied as did the extent to which it was sustained after initial take-up. People made sense of video consulting in different ways, ranging from interpreting video as offering a new modality of healthcare for the future to a sub-optimal, temporary alternative to in-person care. Despite these variations, video consulting became a recognisable social phenomenon, albeit neither universally adopted nor consistently sustained. The nature of this social change offers new perspectives on processes of implementation and spread and scale-up. Our findings have important implications for the future of video consulting. We emphasise the necessity for viable material arrangements and a continued shared interpretation of the meaning of video consulting for the practice to continue.

Clinical risk in remote consultations in general practice: findings from in-COVID-19 pandemic qualitative research.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic-related rise in remote consulting raises questions about the nature and type of risks in remote general practice. AIM: To develop an empirically based and theory-informed taxonomy of risks associated with remote consultations. DESIGN & SETTING: Qualitative sub-study of data selected from the wider datasets of three large, multi-site, mixed-method studies of remote care in general practice before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews and focus groups, with a total of 176 clinicians and 43 patients. Data were analysed thematically, taking account of an existing framework of domains of clinical risk. RESULTS: The COVID-19 pandemic brought changes to estates (for example, how waiting rooms were used), access pathways, technologies, and interpersonal interactions. Six domains of risk were evident in relation to the following: (1) practice set-up and organisation (including digital inequalities of access, technology failure, and reduced service efficiency); (2) communication and the clinical relationship (including a shift to more transactional consultations); (3) quality of clinical care (including missed diagnoses, safeguarding challenges, over-investigation, and over-treatment); (4) increased burden on the patient (for example, to self-examine and navigate between services); (5) reduced opportunities for screening and managing the social determinants of health; and (6) workforce (including increased clinician stress and fewer opportunities for learning). CONCLUSION: Notwithstanding potential benefits, if remote consultations are to work safely, risks must be actively mitigated by measures that include digital inclusion strategies, enhanced safety-netting, and training and support for staff.

Why do GPs rarely do video consultations? qualitative study in UK general practice.

BACKGROUND: Fewer than 1% of UK general practice consultations occur by video. AIM: To explain why video consultations are not more widely used in general practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: Analysis of a sub-sample of data from three mixed-method case studies of remote consultation services in various UK settings from 2019-2021. METHOD: The dataset included interviews and focus groups with 121 participants from primary care (33 patients, 55 GPs, 11 other clinicians, nine managers, four support staff, four national policymakers, five technology industry). Data were transcribed, coded thematically, and then analysed using the Planning and Evaluating Remote Consultation Services (PERCS) framework. RESULTS: With few exceptions, video consultations were either never adopted or soon abandoned in general practice despite a strong policy push, short-term removal of regulatory and financial barriers, and advances in functionality, dependability, and usability of video technologies (though some products remained 'fiddly' and unreliable). The relative advantage of video was perceived as minimal for most of the caseload of general practice, since many presenting problems could be sorted adequately and safely by telephone and in-person assessment was considered necessary for the remainder. Some patients found video appointments convenient, appropriate, and reassuring but others found a therapeutic presence was only achieved in person. Video sometimes added value for out-of-hours and nursing home consultations and statutory functions (for example, death certification). CONCLUSION: Efforts to introduce video consultations in general practice should focus on situations where this modality has a clear relative advantage (for example, strong patient or clinician preference, remote localities, out-of-hours services, nursing homes).

Telepsychiatry: learning from the pandemic.

This article draws on research and clinical experience to discuss how and when to use video consultations in mental health settings. The appropriateness and impact of virtual consultations are influenced by the patient's clinical needs and social context, as well as by service-level socio-technical and logistical factors.

"It's no good but at least I've always got it round my neck": A postphenomenological analysis of reassurance in assistive technology use by older people.

The provision of reassurance is seen as a goal and benefit of the use of assistive technology (AT) in supporting people to manage their health and care needs at a distance. Conceptually, reassurance in health and care settings remains under-theorised with the benefits of experiencing reassurance through technology use assumed rather than understood. UK health and social care service goals of managing safety and risk have largely been equated with providing reassurance to users of AT and their carers. What has not been explored is how reassurance is experienced variably by users of different types of technology-enabled care. We present data from 3 case studies of different technologies in use in health and social care provision, analysed through a postphenomenology and sociomaterial lens. Our findings point to reassurance as an important facet of AT provision but the intended functions and uses of technological devices alone did not account for people's experiences of reassurance. Participant narratives referred variously to the comfort of being monitored, having their illness/wellness verified by the device, feeling reassured by the promise of help if needed, and imbuing the device with symbolic meaning (when the user associated the device with meanings and functions other than its technical capabilities). The different ways in which reassurance was experienced provides a useful way of understanding the potential tensions with AT policy goals as well as the positive meaning attributed to devices in some cases. This study reaffirms the importance of AT implementation being anchored in what matters to the user.

Remote care in UK general practice: baseline data on 11 case studies.

Background: Accessing and receiving care remotely (by telephone, video or online) became the default option during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, but in-person care has unique benefits in some circumstances. We are studying UK general practices as they try to balance remote and in-person care, with recurrent waves of COVID-19 and various post-pandemic backlogs. Methods: Mixed-methods (mostly qualitative) case study across 11 general practices. Researchers-in-residence have built relationships with practices and become familiar with their contexts and activities; they are following their progress for two years via staff and patient interviews, documents and ethnography, and supporting improvement efforts through co-design. In this paper, we report baseline data. Results: Reflecting our maximum-variety sampling strategy, the 11 practices vary in size, setting, ethos, staffing, population demographics and digital maturity, but share common contextual features-notably system-level stressors such as high workload and staff shortages, and UK's technical and regulatory infrastructure. We have identified both commonalities and differences between practices in terms of how they: 1] manage the 'digital front door' (access and triage) and balance demand and capacity; 2] strive for high standards of quality and safety; 3] ensure digital inclusion and mitigate wider inequalities; 4] support and train their staff (clinical and non-clinical), students and trainees; 5] select, install, pilot and use technologies and the digital infrastructure which support them; and 6] involve patients in their improvement efforts. Conclusions: General practices' responses to pandemic-induced disruptive innovation appear unique and situated. We anticipate that by focusing on depth and detail, this longitudinal study will throw light on why a solution that works well in one practice does not work at all in another. As the study unfolds, we will explore how practices achieve timely diagnosis of urgent or serious illness and manage continuity of care, long-term conditions and complex needs.

We describe early results from the Remote by Default 2 study, which is following 11 UK general practices for two years as they introduce various kinds of remote appointment booking and clinical consultations. We have been using interviews and ethnography (watching real-world activities), and analysing documents (such as practice reports and websites) to prepare case studies of the 11 practices, which vary widely in size, ethos, geographical location, practice population and digital maturity. Our initial interviews identified the following cross-cutting themes, which showed both commonalities and differences across the 11 practices: - The 'digital front door' (patients gaining access using digital portals), which was used to a greater or lesser extent in all practices; some found these systems frustrating and inefficient.- Quality and safety. Staff were concerned about the risk of missing an important diagnosis when consulting remotely, and felt that digitisation could threaten continuity of care.- Digital inclusion. All practices were keen to ensure that patients who lacked digital devices or skills were not disadvantaged; this goal was achieved in different ways (and to different degrees) in different settings.- Staff support and training. Some practices are finding current workload unsustainable due to (among other things) rising patient demand, unfilled staff posts, a post-pandemic backlog of unmet need, and task-shifting from secondary care. Digitisation appears to have increased workload in most practices.- Technologies and infrastructure. The IT infrastructure in each practice had grown in a particular way over time, and was in this sense 'path-dependent' (hence, not easily changed). In conclusion, different practices are responding to the 'disruptive innovation' of digital technologies in very different ways, reflecting their different practice populations, settings and priorities. We plan to follow the above themes over time and explore additional themes including the experience and role of patients.

Protocol: Remote care as the 'new normal'? Multi-site case study in UK general practice.

Background: Following a pandemic-driven shift to remote service provision, UK general practices offer telephone, video or online consultation options alongside face-to-face. This study explores practices' varied experiences over time as they seek to establish remote forms of accessing and delivering care. Methods: This protocol is for a mixed-methods multi-site case study with co-design and national stakeholder engagement. 11 general practices were selected for diversity in geographical location, size, demographics, ethos, and digital maturity. Each practice has a researcher-in-residence whose role is to become familiar with its context and activity, follow it longitudinally for two years using interviews, public-domain documents and ethnography, and support improvement efforts. Research team members meet regularly to compare and contrast across cases. Practice staff are invited to join online learning events. Patient representatives work locally within their practice patient involvement groups as well as joining an online patient learning set or linking via a non-digital buddy system. NHS Research Ethics Approval has been granted. Governance includes a diverse independent advisory group with lay chair. We also have policy in-reach (national stakeholders sit on our advisory group) and outreach (research team members sit on national policy working groups). Results anticipated: We expect to produce rich narratives of contingent change over time, addressing cross-cutting themes including access, triage and capacity; digital and wider inequities; quality and safety of care (e.g. continuity, long-term condition management, timely diagnosis, complex needs); workforce and staff wellbeing (including non-clinical staff, students and trainees); technologies and digital infrastructure; patient perspectives; and sustainability (e.g. carbon footprint). Conclusion: By using case study methods focusing on depth and detail, we hope to explain why digital solutions that work well in one practice do not work at all in another. We plan to inform policy and service development through inter-sectoral network-building, stakeholder workshops and topic-focused policy briefings.

The pandemic required general practices to introduce remote (phone, video and email) consultations. That policy undoubtedly saved lives at the time but there are also clear benefits of face-to-face consultations in some circumstances, and the exact role of remote care still needs to be worked out. Despite best efforts, remote care tends to worsen health inequities (people who were poor or less well educated are less able to access and navigate the system and secure the type of appointment they need or prefer). Workstream 1: We will look at 11 GP surgeries across England, Scotland and Wales. We have selected a variety of sites: urban and rural, serving a range of different communities. Each surgery has a different approach to technology. A researcher from our team will work alongside surgery staff to learn what methods and technologies each practice uses to deliver care. They will gather information (mostly qualitative) about how different technological solutions are playing out over time. Workstream 2: Many people experience barriers to accessing care when it is done through technology. This could be because they lack understanding of how to do it, don't have the right equipment, can't afford data, or other reasons. We will ask patients about their experiences and work with them and staff to develop ideas about how to overcome barriers. Workstream 3: We will take what we have learnt in Workstreams 1 and 2 to make suggestions to inform national stakeholders and to influence policymakers. Patients and members of the public helped shape the research design. They continue to help guide our research by reading our reports, giving us their opinions and advising on how best to share our research so everyone can benefit from what we have learnt. Our governance panel is chaired by a member of the public.

Planning and Evaluating Remote Consultation Services: A New Conceptual Framework Incorporating Complexity and Practical Ethics.

Establishing and running remote consultation services is challenging politically (interest groups may gain or lose), organizationally (remote consulting requires implementation work and new roles and workflows), economically (costs and benefits are unevenly distributed across the system), technically (excellent care needs dependable links and high-quality audio and images), relationally (interpersonal interactions are altered), and clinically (patients are unique, some examinations require contact, and clinicians have deeply-held habits, dispositions and norms). Many of these challenges have an under-examined ethical dimension. In this paper, we present a novel framework, Planning and Evaluating Remote Consultation Services (PERCS), built from a literature review and ongoing research. PERCS has 7 domains-the reason for consulting, the patient, the clinical relationship, the home and family, technologies, staff, the healthcare organization, and the wider system-and considers how these domains interact and evolve over time as a complex system. It focuses attention on the organization's digital maturity and digital inclusion efforts. We have found that both during and beyond the pandemic, policymakers envisaged an efficient, safe and accessible remote consultation service delivered through state-of-the art digital technologies and implemented via rational allocation criteria and quality standards. In contrast, our empirical data reveal that strategic decisions about establishing remote consultation services, allocation decisions for appointment type (phone, video, e-, face-to-face), and clinical decisions when consulting remotely are fraught with contradictions and tensions-for example, between demand management and patient choice-leading to both large- and small-scale ethical dilemmas for managers, support staff, and clinicians. These dilemmas cannot be resolved by standard operating procedures or algorithms. Rather, they must be managed by attending to here-and-now practicalities and emergent narratives, drawing on guiding principles applied with contextual judgement. We complement the PERCS framework with a set of principles for informing its application in practice, including education of professionals and patients.

Expanding Video Consultation Services at Pace and Scale in Scotland During the COVID-19 Pandemic: National Mixed Methods Case Study.

BACKGROUND: Scotland-a country of 5.5 million people-has a rugged geography with many outlying islands, creating access challenges for many citizens. The government has long sought to mitigate these through a range of measures including an ambitious technology-enabled care program. A strategy to develop a nationwide video consultation service began in 2017. Our mixed methods evaluation was commissioned in mid-2019 and extended to cover the pandemic response in 2020. OBJECTIVE: To draw lessons from a national evaluation of the introduction, spread, and scale-up of Scotland's video consultation services both before and during the pandemic. METHODS: Data sources comprised 223 interviews (with patients, staff, technology providers, and policymakers), 60 hours of ethnographic observation (including in-person visits to remote settings), patient and staff satisfaction surveys (n=20,349), professional and public engagement questionnaires (n=5400), uptake statistics, and local and national documents. Fieldwork during the pandemic was of necessity conducted remotely. Data were analyzed thematically and theorized using the Planning and Evaluating Remote Consultation Services (PERCS) framework which considers multiple influences interacting dynamically and unfolding over time. RESULTS: By the time the pandemic hit, there had been considerable investment in material and technological infrastructure, staff training, and professional and public engagement. Scotland was thus uniquely well placed to expand its video consultation services at pace and scale. Within 4 months (March-June 2020), the number of video consultations increased from about 330 to 17,000 per week nationally. While not everything went smoothly, video was used for a much wider range of clinical problems, vastly extending the prepandemic focus on outpatient monitoring of chronic stable conditions. The technology was generally considered dependable and easy to use. In most cases (14,677/18,817, 78%), patients reported no technical problems during their postconsultation survey. Health care organizations' general innovativeness and digital maturity had a strong bearing on their ability to introduce, routinize, and expand video consultation services. CONCLUSIONS: The national-level groundwork before the pandemic allowed many services to rapidly extend the use of video consultations during the pandemic, supported by a strong strategic vision, a well-resourced quality improvement model, dependable technology, and multiple opportunities for staff to try out the video option. Scotland provides an important national case study from which other countries may learn.

Testing and implementing video consulting for outpatient appointments: using quality improvement system thinking and codesign principles.

Increasing demand for outpatient appointments (OPA) is a global challenge for healthcare providers. Non-attendance rates are high, not least because of the challenges of attending hospital OPAs due to transport difficulties, cost, poor health, caring and work responsibilities. Digital solutions may help ameliorate these challenges. This project aimed to implement codesigned outpatient video consultations across National Health Service (NHS) Highland using system-wide quality improvement approaches to implementation, involving patients, carers, clinical and non-clinical staff, national and local strategic leads. System mapping; an intensive codesign process involving extensive stakeholder engagement and real-time testing; Plan, Do, Study, Act cycles; and collection of clinician and patient feedback were used to optimise the service. Standardised processes were developed and implemented, which made video consulting easy to use for patients, embedded video into routine health service systems for clinicians and non-clinical staff, and automated much of the administrative burden. All clinicians and staff are using the system and both groups identified benefits in terms of travel time and costs saved. Transferable lessons for other services are identified, providing a practical blueprint for others to adapt and use in their own contexts to help implement and sustain video consultation services now and in the future.

Whose turn is it anyway? Latency and the organization of turn-taking in video-mediated interaction.

Latency in video-mediated interaction can frustrate smooth turn-taking: it may cause participants to perceive silence at points where talk should occur, it may cause them to talk in overlap, and it impedes their ability to return to one-speaker-at-a-time. Whilst potentially frustrating for participants, this makes video-mediated interaction a perspicuous setting for the study of social interaction: it is an environment that nurtures the occurrence of turn-taking problems. For this paper, we conducted secondary analysis of 25 video consultations recorded for heart failure, (antenatal) diabetes, and cancer services in the UK. By comparing video recordings of the patient's and clinician's side of the call, we provide a detailed analysis of how latency interferes with the turn-taking system, how participants understand problems, and how they address them. We conclude that in our data latency unnoticed until it becomes problematic: participants act as if they share the same reality.

Spread, Scale-up, and Sustainability of Video Consulting in Health Care: Systematic Review and Synthesis Guided by the NASSS Framework.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has thrust video consulting into the limelight, as health care practitioners worldwide shift to delivering care remotely. Evidence suggests that video consulting is acceptable, safe, and effective in selected conditions and settings. However, research to date has mostly focused on initial adoption, with limited consideration of how video consulting can be mainstreamed and sustained. OBJECTIVE: This study sought to do the following: (1) review and synthesize reported opportunities, challenges, and lessons learned in the scale-up, spread, and sustainability of video consultations, and (2) identify transferable insights that can inform policy and practice. METHODS: We identified papers through systematic searches in PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science. Included articles reported on synchronous, video-based consultations that had spread to more than one setting beyond an initial pilot or feasibility stage, and were published since 2010. We used the Nonadoption, Abandonment, and challenges to the Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability (NASSS) framework to synthesize findings relating to 7 domains: an understanding of the health condition(s) for which video consultations were being used, the material properties of the technological platform and relevant peripherals, the value proposition for patients and developers, the role of the adopter system, organizational factors, wider macro-level considerations, and emergence over time. RESULTS: We identified 13 papers describing 10 different video consultation services in 6 regions, covering the following: (1) video-to-home services, connecting providers directly to the patient; (2) hub-and-spoke models, connecting a provider at a central hub to a patient at a rural center; and (3) large-scale top-down evaluations scaled up or spread across a national health administration. Services covered rehabilitation, geriatrics, cancer surgery, diabetes, and mental health, as well as general specialist care and primary care. Potential enablers of spread and scale-up included embedded leadership and the presence of a telehealth champion, appropriate reimbursement mechanisms, user-friendly technology, pre-existing staff relationships, and adaptation (of technology and services) over time. Challenges tended to be related to service development, such as the absence of a long-term strategic plan, resistance to change, cost and reimbursement issues, and the technical experience of staff. There was limited articulation of the challenges to scale-up and spread of video consultations. This was combined with a lack of theorization, with papers tending to view spread and scale-up as the sum of multiple technical implementations, rather than theorizing the distinct processes required to achieve widespread adoption. CONCLUSIONS: There remains a significant lack of evidence that can support the spread and scale-up of video consulting. Given the recent pace of change due to COVID-19, a more definitive evidence base is urgently needed to support global efforts and match enthusiasm for extending use.