Hospital Staff Perspectives on the Drivers and Challenges in Implementing a Virtual Rehabilitation Ward: Qualitative Study.

Background: Over the past decade, the adoption of virtual wards has surged. Virtual wards aim to prevent unnecessary hospital admissions, expedite home discharge, and enhance patient satisfaction, which are particularly beneficial for the older adult population who faces risks associated with hospitalization. Consequently, substantial investments are being made in virtual rehabilitation wards (VRWs), despite evidence of varying levels of success in their implementation. However, the facilitators and barriers experienced by virtual ward staff for the rapid implementation of these innovative care models remain poorly understood. Objective: This paper presents insights from hospital staff working on an Australian VRW in response to the growing demand for programs aimed at preventing hospital admissions. We explore staff's perspectives on the facilitators and barriers of the VRW, shedding light on service setup and delivery. Methods: Qualitative interviews were conducted with 21 VRW staff using the Nonadoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability (NASSS) framework. The analysis of data was performed using framework analysis and the 7 domains of the NASSS framework. Results: The results were mapped onto the 7 domains of the NASSS framework. (1) Condition: Managing certain conditions, especially those involving comorbidities and sociocultural factors, can be challenging. (2) Technology: The VRW demonstrated suitability for technologically engaged patients without cognitive impairment, offering advantages in clinical decision-making through remote monitoring and video calls. However, interoperability issues and equipment malfunctions caused staff frustration, highlighting the importance of promptly addressing technical challenges. (3) Value proposition: The VRW empowered patients to choose their care location, extending access to care for rural communities and enabling home-based treatment for older adults. (4) Adopters and (5) organizations: Despite these benefits, the cultural shift from in-person to remote treatment introduced uncertainties in workflows, professional responsibilities, resource allocation, and intake processes. (6) Wider system and (7) embedding: As the service continues to develop to address gaps in hospital capacity, it is imperative to prioritize ongoing adaptation. This includes refining the process of smoothly transferring patients back to the hospital, addressing technical aspects, ensuring seamless continuity of care, and thoughtfully considering how the burden of care may shift to patients and their families. Conclusions: In this qualitative study exploring health care staff's experience of an innovative VRW, we identified several drivers and challenges to implementation and acceptability. The findings have implications for future services considering implementing VRWs for older adults in terms of service setup and delivery. Future work will focus on assessing patient and carer experiences of the VRW.

Inequalities in the Ability for People With Type 2 Diabetes and Prediabetes to Adapt to the Reduction in In-Person Health Support and Increased Use of Digital Support During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond: Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented challenges for people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and prediabetes to access in-person health care support. Primary care teams accelerated plans to implement digital health technologies (DHTs), such as remote consultations and digital self-management. There is limited evidence about whether there were inequalities in how people with T2D and prediabetes adjusted to these changes. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore how people with T2D and prediabetes adapted to the reduction in in-person health support and the increased provision of support through DHTs during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. METHODS: A purposive sample of people with T2D and prediabetes was recruited by text message from primary care practices that served low-income areas. Semistructured interviews were conducted by phone or video call, and data were analyzed thematically using a hybrid inductive and deductive approach. RESULTS: A diverse sample of 30 participants was interviewed. There was a feeling that primary care had become harder to access. Participants responded to the challenge of accessing support by rationing or delaying seeking support or by proactively requesting appointments. Barriers to accessing health care support were associated with issues with using the total triage system, a passive interaction style with health care services, or being diagnosed with prediabetes at the beginning of the pandemic. Some participants were able to adapt to the increased delivery of support through DHTs. Others had lower capacity to use DHTs, which was caused by lower digital skills, fewer financial resources, and a lack of support to use the tools. CONCLUSIONS: Inequalities in motivation, opportunity, and capacity to engage in health services and DHTs lead to unequal possibilities for people with T2D and prediabetes to self-care and receive care during the COVID-19 pandemic. These issues can be addressed by proactive arrangement of regular checkups by primary care services and improving capacity for people with lower digital skills to engage with DHTs.

Face-to-face and telephone appointments in the seizure clinic: A comparative analysis based on recorded interactions.

OBJECTIVE: Telephone appointments are now widely used in seizure treatment, but there is little understanding of how they compare to face-to-face appointments. Studies from other fields suggest that comparisons can be done on three levels: 1) Abstract level: duration of appointment. 2) Structural level: distribution of talk. 3) Detailed level: aspects of communication. This study aims to compare seizure clinic face-to-face and telephone appointments based on their duration, distribution of talk, and the number of questions asked by patients/companions. METHODS: Statistical comparison between recordings and transcripts of 34 telephone appointments (recorded in 2021) and 56 face-to-face appointments (recorded in 2013). RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the duration of face-to-face (median: 16.5 min) and telephone appointments (median: 16.2 min). There was no significant difference in the ratio of neurologist to patient/companion talk (face-to-face: 55% vs. 45%, telephone: 54% vs. 46%). Patients/companions asked significantly more questions per minute in face-to-face (median: 0.17) than telephone appointments (median: 0.06, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: At a broad level, seizure clinic face-to-face and telephone appointments are similar. Examining the details of the interaction, however, reveals important differences in questioning. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Practitioners could take steps to facilitate patient questioning in telephone appointments.

Remote and technology-mediated working during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative exploration of the experiences of nurses working in general practice (the GenCo Study).

AIM: To explore how nurses working in general practice experienced remote and technology-mediated working during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Exploratory qualitative study with nursing team members working in general practices in England and national nurse leaders. METHODS: Data were collected between April and August 2022. Forty participants took part in either semi-structured interviews or focus groups. Data were analysed using Framework Analysis informed by the PERCS (Planning and Evaluating Remote Consultation Services) Framework. University of York ethics approval [HSRGC/2021/458/I] and Health Research Authority approval were obtained [IRAS:30353. Protocol number: R23982. Ref 21/HRA/5132. CPMS: 51834]. The study was funded by The General Nursing Council for England and Wales Trust. RESULTS: Participants continued to deliver a significant proportion of patient care in-person. However, remote and technology-mediated care could meet patients' needs and broaden access in some circumstances. When remote and technology-mediated working were used this was often part of a blended model which was expected to continue. This could support some workforce issues, but also increase workload. Participants did not always have access to remote technology and were not involved in decision-making about what was used and how this was implemented. They rarely used video consultations, which were not seen to add value in comparison to telephone consultations. Some participants expressed concern that care had become more transactional than therapeutic and there were potential safety risks. CONCLUSION: The study explored how nurses working in general practice during the COVID-19 pandemic engaged with remote and technology-mediated working. It identifies specific issues of access to technology, workload, hybrid working, disruption to therapeutic relationships, safety risks and lack of involvement in decision-making. Changes were implemented quickly with little strategic input from nurses. There is now an opportunity to reflect and build on what has been learned in relation to remote and technology-mediated working to ensure the future development of safe and effective nursing care in general practice. IMPACT: The paper contributes to understanding of remote and technology-mediated working by nurses working in general practice during the COVID-19 pandemic and indicates to employers and policy makers how this can be supported moving forward. REPORTING METHOD: Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (O'Brien et al., 2014). PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This was a workforce study so there was no patient or public contribution. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND PATIENT CARE: The paper highlights specific issues which have implications for the development of remote, technology-mediated and blended working for nurses in general practice, care quality and patient safety. These require full attention to ensure the future development of safe and effective nursing care in general practice moving forward.

A retrospective cohort study of telephone versus face-to-face clinics for the management of new otology referrals.

PURPOSE: To compare outcomes of telephone and face-to-face consultations for new otology referrals and discuss the wider use of telemedicine in otology. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study including new adult otology referrals to our unit, sampled consecutively between March 2021 and May 2021, seen in either a face-to-face or telephone clinic. Primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients with a definitive management outcome (discharged or added to waiting list for treatment) versus the proportion of patients requiring follow-up for further assessment or review. RESULTS: 150 new patients referred for a routine otology consultation (75 telephone, 75 face-to-face) were included. 53/75 patients (71%) undergoing a face-to-face consultation received a definitive outcome following initial review, versus 22/75 (29%) telephone patients (χ2 < 0.001, OR 5.8). 52/75 (69%) telephone patients were followed up face-to-face for examination. The mean (SD) number of appointments required to reach a definitive outcome was 1.22 (0.58) and 1.75 (0.73) in the face-to-face and telephone cohorts, respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Telephone clinics in otology have played an important role as part of the COVID19 response. However, they are currently limited by a lack of clinical examination and audiometry. Remote assessment pathways in otology that incorporate asynchronous review of recorded examinations alongside audiometry, either conventional or boothless, may mitigate this problem; however, further research is required.

'It made me feel part of the team, having my homework to do' - women and specialist nurse experiences of remote follow-up after ovarian cancer treatment: a qualitative interview study.

PURPOSE: Ovarian cancer patients require monitoring for relapse post-treatment, and alternative follow-up pathways are increasing, which require in-depth exploration to ensure acceptability and inform implementation. This study aimed to explore women and specialist nurses' experiences of participating in a feasibility study of an electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) follow-up pathway after ovarian cancer treatment. METHODS: The feasibility study incorporated an ePRO questionnaire, blood test and telephone consultation with a specialist nurse, instead of face-to-face hospital visits. All women and the nurses involved were invited to take part in nested semi-structured interviews. Interviews were recorded and transcripts analysed using framework analysis. RESULTS: Twenty interviews were conducted (16 out of 24 women who took part in the feasibility study and all 4 nurses). Four themes were identified: (1) readiness and motivators, (2) practicalities and logistics, (3) personal impact and (4) future role. An overarching theme highlighted how women strived to seek reassurance and gain confidence. Most women and nurses were positive about the ePRO pathway and would happily continue using it. CONCLUSION: This work provides invaluable insight into the experiences of women on remote ePRO follow-up post-treatment. Important logistic and implementation issues were identified, which should inform future large-scale work to introduce and evaluate remote ePRO methods in cancer follow-up. This work highlights the key factors influencing women's readiness and acceptability of an ePRO pathway, and how services should be carefully designed to ensure patients feel reassured and confident post-treatment. Furthermore, it highlights that flexibility and patient preference should be considered in remote service delivery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02847715 (first registered 19 May 2016).

Providing Care by Telephone to Refugees and Asylum Seekers: An Evaluation of Telephone Mode-of-Care in Monash Health Refugee Health and Wellbeing Clinic in Victoria, Australia.

An evaluation of accessibility, appropriateness, acceptability and efficiency of telephone consultations, implemented at Monash Health Refugee Health and Wellbeing (MH RHW) throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, was conducted. A convergent mix-methods design was used, with both patients (n = 50) and clinicians (n = 11) participating in a survey, and two focus groups (n = 14) involving clinicians being conducted. Service utilization data was sourced from the MH RHW database. During May to December 2020, 61% (n = 3012) of the consultations were conducted by telephone, 42% (n = 11) of these required interpreters in a 3-way conversation Most patients were satisfied with telephone as a medium for providing care and with the quality of telephone-based care. Similarly, clinicians considered telephone consultations to be an acceptable mode-of-care for most patients during the pandemic, however, expressed caution in relation to certain patient cohort. Finally, the provision of care by telephone was considered no more efficient than face-to-face service provision, as reflected in the time required for each consultation, with some clinicians reporting adverse workload outcomes. This study highlighted the benefits and challenges of telephone consultations from patient and clinician perspectives. It also highlighted the types of patients that may not be suited to telephone consultations. Overall, this study showed that telephone service delivery is a feasible option in providing care to people of refugee background and should be considered in future decisions as an ongoing Medicare (Australia's universal healthcare insurance scheme) billing item. However, clinical discretion should prevail in determining the most appropriate means of delivering care.

The impact of telephone consultations due to COVID-19 on paediatric neurosurgical health services.

PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the role of telephone consultations due to the pandemic in the management of paediatric neurosurgical patients and, furthermore, to examine the proportion of patients who eventually needed a face-to-face appointment and assess the underline reasons for that. METHODS: This retrospective study included all the paediatric neurosurgical patients who had a telephone appointment during a 3-month lockdown period. Overall, 319 patients (186 males and 133 females) aged 8.36 ± 4.88 (mean ± SD) had a consultation via telephone. Two hundred fifty-one (78.7%) patients had a follow-up assessment and 68 (21.3%) were new appointments. RESULTS: Patients were divided between two main groups. Group A included 263 patients (82.4%) whose consultation was adequate via telephone, and Group B included 56 patients (17.6%) who required a complementary face-to-face appointment. Patients who were more likely to require a supplementary appointment were patients with either dysraphism or ventriculomegaly and benign enlarged subarachnoid spaces (BESS) (43.3% and 36.4%, respectively). Interestingly, most children with hydrocephalus who underwent a cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) diversion procedure and children with Chiari I malformation were appropriately assessed via telephone (85.1% and 83.3%, respectively). Finally, children aged < 2 years (55.2%) were better managed with face-to-face appointments. No difference was noticed regarding follow-up and new appointments. CONCLUSION: Although telemedicine was not unknown to neurosurgical services, the actual application of telephone or video consultations remained quite limited. It was COVID-19 pandemic who reinforced the use of telemedicine, and taking into consideration its promising results, we can safely assume that it can be incorporated into neurosurgical health care even once the pandemic crisis has resolved.

Delivery of supported self-management in remote asthma reviews: A systematic rapid realist review.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic forced health care systems globally to adapt quickly to remote modes of health care delivery, including for routine asthma reviews. A core component of asthma care is supporting self-management, a guideline-recommended intervention that reduces the risk of acute attacks, and improves asthma control and quality of life. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to explore context and mechanisms for the outcomes of clinical effectiveness, acceptability and safety of supported self-management delivery within remote asthma consultations. DESIGN: The review followed standard methodology for rapid realist reviews. An External Reference Group (ERG) provided expert advice and guidance throughout the study. We systematically searched four electronic databases and, with ERG advice, selected 18 papers that explored self-management delivery during routine asthma reviews. SETTING, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTION: Health care professional delivery of supported self-management for asthma patients during remote (specifically including telephone and video) consultations. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Data were extracted using Context-Mechanism-Outcome (C-M-O) configurations and synthesised into overarching themes using the PRISMS taxonomy of supported self-management as a framework to structure the findings. RESULTS: The review findings identified how support for self-management delivered remotely was acceptable (often more acceptable than in-person consultations), and was a safe and effective alternative to face-to-face reviews. In addition, remote delivery of supported self-management was associated with; increased patient convenience, improved access to and attendance at remote reviews, and offered continuity of care. DISCUSSION: Remote delivery of supported self-management for asthma was generally found to be clinically effective, acceptable, and safe with the added advantage of increasing accessibility. Remote reviews could provide the core content of an asthma review, including remote completion of asthma action plans. CONCLUSION: Our findings support the option of remote delivery of routine asthma care for those who have this preference, and offer healthcare professionals guidance on embedding supported self-management into remote asthma reviews. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patient and public contribution was provided by a representative of the Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research (AUKCAR) patient and public involvement (PPI) group. The PPI representative reviewed the findings, and feedback and comments were considered. This lead to further interpretations of the data which were included in the final manuscript.

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.

Patients' and physicians' experiences with remote consultations in primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic: a multi-method rapid review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries implemented remote consultations in primary care to protect patients and staff from infection. AIM: The aim of this review was to synthesise the literature exploring patients' and physicians' experiences with remote consultations in primary care during the pandemic, with the further aim of informing their future delivery. DESIGN & SETTING: Rapid literature review. METHOD: PubMed and PsychInfo were searched for studies that explored patients' and physicians' experiences with remote consultations in primary care. To determine the eligibility of studies, their titles and abstracts were reviewed, before the full article. Qualitative and quantitative data were then extracted from those that were eligible, and the data synthesised using thematic and descriptive synthesis. RESULTS: A total of 24 studies were eligible for inclusion in the review. Most were performed in the US (n = 6, 25%) or Europe (n = 7, 29%). Patient and physician experiences were categorised into perceived 'advantages' and 'issues'. Key advantages experienced by patients and physicians included 'reduced risk of COVID-19' and 'increased convenience', while key issues included 'a lack of confidence in or access to required technology' and a 'loss of non-verbal communication' which degraded clinical decision-making. CONCLUSION: This review identified a number of advantages and issues experienced by patients and physicians using remote consultations in primary care. The results suggest that, while remote consultations are more convenient and protect patients and staff against COVID-19, they result in the loss of valuable non-verbal communication, and are not accessible to all.

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.

Telephone consultations to manage paediatric outpatient clinics during the COVID-19 pandemic: a service evaluation.

BACKGROUND: North West Wales is predominantly rural with a relatively small population spread over a large geographical area. The rapid development of the COVID-19 pandemic led to a radical re-thinking of how to provide continuing paediatric outpatient care in the face of a lockdown. The solution adopted was to use telephone consultations. AIMS: This study took place during the summer of 2020, after the first lockdown had been relaxed. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the acceptability of telephone consultations as an alternative to conventional paediatric outpatient appointments and assess whether it could continue to have a useful role beyond the pandemic. METHODS: Two hundred ninety-five telephone surveys were conducted with respondents, most of whom were carers of paediatric outpatients. Questions explored the child's underlying condition, respondents' attitudes towards the service received, social factors including distance previously travelled to the hospital and whether they would find ongoing telephone review acceptable or not. RESULTS: Sixty-one percent of respondents expressed a positive interest in ongoing telephone consultations. They commented particularly on compatibility with work commitments, childcare arrangements and travel times. Those travelling more than 1 h were particularly positive in their support. Respondents expressed the continued need for face-to-face review if the child's condition changed acutely. CONCLUSION: Telephone consultations are an acceptable means of improving clinic punctuality, accessibility and convenience for families in rural areas, with ongoing potential beyond the pandemic. Careful consideration is required of the individual's needs and requirement for physical examination when extending the use of telephone consultations.

The Effectiveness of Remote Consultations During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Tool for Modernising the National Health Service (NHS).

Objective The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic prompted major changes to the delivery of care. There was a move towards remote consultations in order to mitigate the risk of viral exposure and the risk of delaying care. Remote consultations will play a prominent role within the National Health Service (NHS) in the future. This project aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of remote consultations relative to face-to-face (F2F) consultations. Methods A local retrospective audit of remote consultations in ENT was performed by comparing outcome data for video and telephone appointments during the first peak of the pandemic to outcomes for F2F consultations during the same months of the preceding year. Chi-square tests were employed to determine whether there was any statistically significant discrepancy between the two modalities. Results Outcomes from a total of 314 patient consultations were reviewed. One hundred and fifty-four patients were male, and 160 were female; 111 patient consultations were conducted F2F, and 203 remotely (101 via telephone and 102 via video). There was no statistically significant difference detected between remote and F2F groups for rates of investigation, listing for theatre, referral to other specialties, and initiating treatment. Patients reviewed remotely were less likely to be discharged than those reviewed F2F (p=<0.001). Comparing the two remote modalities, telephone patients were more likely to undergo investigation than patients reviewed over video (p = 0.031). Conclusions Remote consultations were an effective and reliable resource for maintaining a high standard of care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings suggest that remote consultations will prove a valuable tool for clinicians in the remobilisation of health services in the post-pandemic era.

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.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Physician-to-Physician Telephone Consultation Programs: Environmental Scan.

BACKGROUND: Telephone consultations between physicians provide quick access to medical advice, allowing patients to be cared for by calling physicians in their local settings. OBJECTIVE: As part of a quality assurance study of a physician-to-physician consultation program in Alberta, Canada, this environmental scan aims to identify the characteristics and outcomes of physician-to-physician telephone consultation programs across several countries. METHODS: We searched 7 databases to identify English publications in 2007-2017 describing physician-to-physician consultations using telephones as the main technology. To identify Canadian programs, the literature search was supplemented with an additional internet search. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 2336 citations, of which 17 publications were included. Across 7 countries, 14 telephone consultation programs provided primary care providers with access to various specialists through hotlines, paging systems, or call centers. The programs reported on the avoidance of hospitalizations, emergency department visits and specialty visits, caller satisfaction with the telephone consultation, and cost avoidance. CONCLUSIONS: Telephone consultation programs between health care providers have facilitated access to specialist care and prevented acute care use. .

Hematological cancer survivors' experiences of participating in a shared care follow-up-an exploratory interview study.

PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to explore hematological cancer survivors' experiences of participating in a shared care follow-up based on alternating routine physician visits and nurse-led telephone consultations at the Department of Hematology, Aalborg University Hospital, Denmark. DESIGN: The design was an exploratory qualitative interview study based on a semi-structured interview guide. METHOD: Twelve patients who had participated in the shared care follow-up were interviewed. The interviews were recorded and transcribed. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Our findings suggest that hematological patients found the nurse-led telephone consultations convenient and helped alleviate anxiety. Despite fewer visits to the hospital and less physical examinations, the patients' sense of security was maintained. Furthermore, completing questionnaires and the emotional and psychosocial focus in nurse consultations were considered beneficial. Finally, using the telephone was considered to be personal and an acceptable way of talking about topics of a sensitive nature. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that hematological cancer survivors value alternating routine visits and nurse-led telephone consultations as part of cancer survivorship care as well as the emotional and psychological focus of the shared care follow-up. It seems that their sense of security was maintained due to retention of physical examinations. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The findings from this study underline the importance of the flexibility and adaptability of cancer follow-up in order to meet patients' needs and preferences. Furthermore, this study underlines the importance of cancer survivorship care that goes beyond disease-related support.

Are telephone consultations here to stay in rheumatology?

OBJECTIVES: During the COVID-19 pandemic, face-to-face rheumatology follow-up appointments were mostly replaced with telephone or virtual consultations in order to protect vulnerable patients. We aimed to investigate the perspectives of rheumatology patients on the use of telephone consultations compared with the traditional face-to-face consultation. METHODS: We carried out a retrospective survey of all rheumatology follow-up patients at the Royal Wolverhampton Trust who had received a telephone consultation from a rheumatology consultant during a 4-week period via an online survey tool. RESULTS: Surveys were distributed to 1213 patients, of whom 336 (27.7%) responded, and 306 (91.1%) patients completed all components of the survey. Overall, an equal number of patients would prefer telephone clinics or face-to-face consultations for their next routine appointment. When divided by age group, the majority who preferred the telephone clinics were <50 years old [χ2 (d.f. = 3) = 10.075, P = 0.018]. Prevalence of a smartphone was higher among younger patients (<50 years old: 46 of 47, 97.9%) than among older patients (≥50 years old: 209 of 259, 80.7%) [χ2 (d.f. = 3) = 20.919, P < 0.001]. More patients reported that they would prefer a telephone call for urgent advice (168, 54.9%). CONCLUSION: Most patients interviewed were happy with their routine face-to-face appointment being switched to a telephone consultation. Of those interviewed, patients >50 years old were less likely than their younger counterparts to want telephone consultations in place of face-to-face appointments. Most patients in our study would prefer a telephone consultation for urgent advice. We must ensure that older patients and those in vulnerable groups who value in-person contact are not excluded. Telephone clinics in some form are here to stay in rheumatology for the foreseeable future.