Dataset Information

Management and patient safety of complex elderly patients in primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK-Qualitative assessment.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The study aims to investigate GPs' experiences of how UK COVID-19 policies have affected the management and safety of complex elderly patients, who suffer from multimorbidity, at the primary care level in North West London (NWL).

Design

This is a service evaluation adopting a qualitative approach.

Setting

Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted between 6 and 22 May 2020, 2 months after the introduction of the UK COVID-19 Action Plan, allowing GPs to adapt to the new changes and reflect on their impact.

Participants

Fourteen GPs working in NWL were interviewed, until data saturation was reached.

Outcome measures

The impact of COVID-19 policies on the management and safety of complex elderly patients in primary care from the GPs' perspective.

Results

Participants' average experience was fourteen years working in primary care for the NHS. They stated that COVID-19 policies have affected primary care at three levels, patients' behaviour, work conditions, and clinical practice. GPs reflected on the impact through five major themes; four of which have been adapted from the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ) framework, changes in primary care (at the three levels mentioned above), involvement of GPs in policy making, communication and coordination (with patients and in between medical teams), stressors and worries; in addition to a fifth theme to conclude the GPs' suggestions for improvement (either proposed mitigation strategies, or existing actions that showed relative success). A participant used an expression of "infodemic" to describe the GPs' everyday pressure of receiving new policy updates with their subsequent changes in practice.

Conclusion

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected all levels of the health system in the UK, particularly primary care. Based on the GPs' perspective in NWL, changes to practice have offered opportunities to maintain safe healthcare as well as possible drawbacks that should be of concern.

SUBMITTER: Alboksmaty A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8006979 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundQuality improvement (QI) initiatives are increasingly used to improve the quality of care and reduce prescribing errors. The Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) and Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) QI initiative uses routinely collected electronic primary care data to provide bespoke practice-level reports on prescribing safety. The aim of this study was to explore how the QI reports were used, barriers and facilitators to use, long-term culture change and perceived impact on patient care and practices systems as a result of receiving the reports.MethodsA qualitative study using purposive sampling of practices contributing to the CPRD, semi-structured interviews and inductive thematic analysis. We interviewed general practitioners, pharmacists, practice managers and research nurses.ResultsWe conducted 18 interviews, and organised themes summarising the use of QI reports in practice: receiving the report, facilitators and barriers to acting upon the reports, acting upon the report, and how the reports contribute to a quality culture. Effective dissemination of reports, and a positive attitude to audit and the perceived relevance of the clinical topic facilitated use. Lack of time and failure to see or act upon the reports meant they were not used. Factors influencing use of the reports included the structure of the report, ease of identifying cases, and perceptions about coding accuracy. GPs and pharmacists used the reports to conduct case reviews and directly contact patients to discuss unsafe prescribing and patient medication preferences. Finally, the reports contributed to the development of a quality culture within practices through promoting audit activity and acting as a reminder of good prescribing behaviours, promoting future patient safety initiatives, contributing to continuing professional development and improving local networks.ConclusionsThis study found the reports facilitated individual case review leading to an enhanced sense of quality culture in practices where they were utilised. Our findings demonstrate that the reports were generally considered useful and have been used to support patient safety and clinical practice in specific cases.

Project description:BackgroundTelemedicine has been adopted in the inpatient setting to facilitate clinical interactions between on-site clinicians and isolated hospitalized patients. Such remote interactions have the potential to reduce pathogen exposure and use of personal protective equipment but may also pose new safety concerns given prior evidence that isolated patients can receive suboptimal care. Formal evaluations of the use and practical acceptance of inpatient telemedicine among hospitalized patients are lacking.ObjectiveWe aimed to evaluate the experience of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with inpatient telemedicine introduced as an infection control measure during the pandemic.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative evaluation in a COVID-19 designated non-intensive care hospital unit at a large academic health center (Stanford Health Care) from October 2020 through January 2021. Semistructured qualitative interviews focused on patient experience, impact on quality of care, communication, and mental health. Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants representing diversity across varying demographics until thematic saturation was reached. Interview transcripts were qualitatively analyzed using an inductive-deductive approach.ResultsInterviews with 20 hospitalized patients suggested that nonemergency clinical care and bridging to in-person care comprised the majority of inpatient telemedicine use. Nurses were reported to enter the room and call on the tablet far more frequently than physicians, who typically entered the room at least daily. Patients reported broad acceptance of the technology, citing improved convenience and reduced anxiety, but preferred in-person care where possible. Quality of care was believed to be similar to in-person care with the exception of a few patients who wanted more frequent in-person examinations. Ongoing challenges included low audio volume, shifting tablet location, and inconsistent verbal introductions from the clinical team.ConclusionsPatient experiences with inpatient telemedicine were largely favorable. Although most patients expressed a preference for in-person care, telemedicine was acceptable given the circumstances associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Improvements in technical and care team use may enhance acceptability. Further evaluation is needed to understand the impact of inpatient telemedicine and the optimal balance between in-person and virtual care in the hospital setting.

Project description:IntroductionPharmacotherapy for overactive bladder (OAB) is generally associated with low rates of persistence and adherence. This study was conducted to explore the patient journey in a UK primary care setting (experiences, perceptions, attitudes, and levels of engagement and expectations) and identify self-reported reasons for patient non-adherence and/or non-persistence to medications for OAB.MethodsThis was a qualitative, non-interventional study involving one-to-one semi-structured, face-to-face or phone interviews with individuals aged 40-80 years, diagnosed with OAB, and currently taking, or having taken, either antimuscarinic or β3-adrenoceptor agonist medications within the last 12 months. Thematic analyses of interview transcripts identified themes surrounding the participants' experiences with OAB.ResultsA total of 20 interviews were conducted (face-to-face, n = 13; telephone, n = 7). Interviews from five men and 13 women (mean age 70 years) were included in the final analysis. The most common OAB symptoms reported included urgency, frequency, incontinence and nocturia. Several key themes of factors influencing persistence and/or adherence to prescribed OAB medication were identified: patients' attitude and condition adaptation behaviour; support with treatment; unmet efficacy/tolerability expectations; drug/condition hierarchy. Non-adherence and/or non-persistence to OAB medication was largely intentional, with patients balancing side effects against perceived clinical benefits. Perceived lack of efficacy was the primary reason for discontinuing treatment. Other factors cited included side effects of medication (either experienced or a fear of future effects), a general aversion to long-term medication taking, drug/condition hierarchy relative to other comorbidities, and limited healthcare professional (HCP) support/engagement. Patients expressed condition adaptation behaviours to help self-manage their condition.ConclusionPersistence and adherence to OAB medication may be suboptimal. HCPs might be able to improve persistence and adherence by fostering realistic treatment expectations and scheduling regular medication reviews. These measures may help optimise patient care and support more adherent behaviours, thus minimising the impact of undertreated OAB on patient quality of life.FundingInnovate UK and Astellas Pharma Europe Ltd (APEL).