Review of literature for ethnic minority-led GP practices: impact and experience of CQC regulation.

BACKGROUND/AIM: The Care Quality Commissions' (CQC) recent report into the impact and experience of CQC regulation for ethnic minority-led general practitioner (GP) practices found that ethnic minority-led practices are disproportionately situated in areas of deprivation, working single-handedly and without adequate systems of support. These challenges are not always accounted for in CQC's processes or methodology (CQC, 2022).This study summarises a review of literature carried out as part of research by the CQC, which was published in January 2022. METHODS: Search terms included 'GP', 'CQC', 'Black and Ethnic Minority GPs' combined with Boolean operators. Grey literature was reviewed, and searches were undertaken of known authors in the field. Backwards and forwards reference harvesting was performed on identified literature. Limitations included the capacity and subjectivity of the reviewer, as well as the availability of studies with a focus on ethnic minority GPs as opposed to doctors whose place of primary medical qualification was outside of the UK. RESULTS: 20 evidence sources were identified and included. The literature review found that many ethnic minority-led GP practices are in complex cycle of inequality, which starts with recruitment and thereafter followed by deprivation, isolation, poor funding and low morale. The symptom of these factors is often poor regulatory outcomes and ratings. When these poor ratings are received, GP providers often struggle to recruit, which serves to perpetuate the cycle of inequality. CONCLUSION: When CQC rates an ethnic minority-led practice as requires improvement or inadequate, this can perpetuate a cycle of inequality.

Implementation of virtual OSCE in health professions education: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: The Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) has been widely used in health professions education since the 1970s. The global disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic restricted in-person assessments and medical educators globally sought alternative means to assess and certify students and trainees to meet the acute demand for health-care workers. One such solution was through virtual OSCE (vOSCE), which modified traditional in-person OSCE using videoconference platforms. This meta-ethnography sought to synthesise qualitative literature on candidates' and assessors' experiences of vOSCE to evaluate whether it may have a role in future assessment practices. METHODS: In June 2022, we systematically searched PsycINFO, Medline and ERIC for peer-reviewed qualitative and mixed-methods articles that described candidates' and assessors' experiences of virtual OSCE in health professions education. Of 1069 articles identified, 17 were synthesised using meta-ethnography. RESULTS: The final synthesis represented 1190 candidates and assessors from faculties of medicine, dentistry, nursing, pharmacy and osteopathy. We developed our findings into four key concepts. 'Strengthening confidence in a virtual environment' highlighted attempts to overcome and mitigate concerns associated with transitioning from in-person to virtual assessment. 'Understanding the scope of use as an assessment' reflected on the suitability of vOSCE in assessing various skills. 'Refining operational processes' emphasised the technical challenges of implementing vOSCE and impacts on accessibility and resources. 'Envisioning its future role' considered the applicability of vOSCE in the climate of rapid development in telehealth. CONCLUSION: This meta-ethnography highlighted that although vOSCE was primarily considered a temporary and crisis response, candidates and assessors recognised positive, as well as negative, consequences of the transition towards them. Moving forward, medical education policymakers should carefully consider the extent to which elements of vOSCE could be incorporated into assessment systems, particularly in light of the rise of telehealth in clinical practice.

Establishing UK research priorities in smell and taste disorders: A James Lind alliance priority setting partnership.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the top 10 research priorities in Smell and Taste Disorders (SATD). DESIGN: After steering group was established, an electronic survey was disseminated to determine the list of questions. After removing out-of-scope responses, the remainder were consolidated to create summary questions. A literature search was conducted to remove already answered questions. A second survey was used to determine the top questions that formed the subject of final debate at a workshop attended by clinicians and patients to determine the top 10 priorities. SETTING: A James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership (JLAPSP) was established by FifthSense to identify the top 10 research questions in SATDs in the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANT: All stakeholders in SATDs (patients, healthcare professionals, family, carers, researchers). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Final 10 research priorities. RESULTS: The 665 respondents to the initial survey provided 1698 research questions. Thirteen were out-of-scope and removed; remaining 1685 were then consolidated to form 147 summary questions. Following literature search and discussion with the steering group, 37 questions remained for the second survey, which 235 people responded. The top ten priorities agreed upon in the workshop covered themes of improved understanding of pathophysiologlogy, improving health services, and managing long-term effects of smell/taste disorders. The most important research question agreed was "How can we further our understanding of the mechanism of disease in the nerve pathways that affect smell and taste disorders, including where parosmia and phantosmia exist." CONCLUSION: We report the top 10 research priorities in smell and taste disorders. These priorities will now empower researchers to secure research funding and provide the basis of the FifthSense research hub.

Clinical Olfactory Working Group consensus statement on the treatment of postinfectious olfactory dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory tract viruses are the second most common cause of olfactory dysfunction. As we learn more about the effects of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), with the recognition that olfactory dysfunction is a key symptom of this disease process, there is a greater need than ever for evidence-based management of postinfectious olfactory dysfunction (PIOD). OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to provide an evidence-based practical guide to the management of PIOD (including post-coronavirus 2019 cases) for both primary care practitioners and hospital specialists. METHODS: A systematic review of the treatment options available for the management of PIOD was performed. The written systematic review was then circulated among the members of the Clinical Olfactory Working Group for their perusal before roundtable expert discussion of the treatment options. The group also undertook a survey to determine their current clinical practice with regard to treatment of PIOD. RESULTS: The search resulted in 467 citations, of which 107 articles were fully reviewed and analyzed for eligibility; 40 citations fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 11 of which were randomized controlled trials. In total, 15 of the articles specifically looked at PIOD whereas the other 25 included other etiologies for olfactory dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: The Clinical Olfactory Working Group members made an overwhelming recommendation for olfactory training; none recommended monocycline antibiotics. The diagnostic role of oral steroids was discussed; some group members were in favor of vitamin A drops. Further research is needed to confirm the place of other therapeutic options.

Current practice of ototoxicity management across the United Kingdom (UK).

OBJECTIVE: Effective management of patients diagnosed with ototoxicity is needed to reduce hearing and balance damage which affects communication and life quality. Despite widespread recommendations to monitor and manage ototoxicity in an early and effective manner, there is limited evidence to support the actual implementation of these recommendations for affected patient groups in healthcare services across the UK with limited publications available. In this study, an online questionnaire analysed the current practice of ototoxicity management and patient pathways across the UK once the diagnosis of ototoxicity was confirmed, targeting Audiologists, ENTs/AVPs and GPs. DESIGN: Qualitative Survey Study. STUDY SAMPLE: A randomised sample of hearing services in the UK, including audiology departments; GP practices and local health settings were targeted with a total of 134 completed surveys. RESULTS: About 72% reported the absence of ototoxicity management protocols within their centre. Results depicted great inconsistency and variation across the UK in ototoxicity management services provided, treatment modification, monitoring and referral pathways. CONCLUSION: Developing and advocating national guidelines are intended not only to inform clinical decision making but to provide minimum standards of care in ototoxicity management and offer greater awareness and education to improve patients' quality of life.