Dataset Information

Future-proofing the primary care workforce: A qualitative study of home visits by emergency care practitioners in the UK.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Broadening the skill-mix in general practice is advocated to build resilience into the primary care workforce. However, there is little understanding of how extended-scope practitioners from different disciplines, such as paramedicine and nursing, embed into roles traditionally ascribed to general practitioners (GPs).

Objectives

This study sought to explore patients' and professionals' experiences of a primary care home visiting service delivered by emergency care practitioners (ECPs), in place of GPs; to determine positive impacts/unintended consequences and establish whether interdisciplinary working was achieved.

Methods

Three practices in England piloted an ECP (extended-scope practitioners with a paramedic or nursing background) home visiting service (November 2018-March 2019). Following the pilot, focus groups were conducted with each of the three primary healthcare teams (14 participants, including eight GPs), and one with ECPs (five participants) and nine individual patient interviews. Data were analysed using a modified framework approach.

Results

The impact of ECP home visiting on GP workload and patient care was perceived as positive by patients, GPs and ECPs. Initial preconceptions of GPs and patients about the ECP role and expertise, and reservations about the appropriacy of ECPs for home visiting, were perceived to have been overcome by the expertise and interpersonal skills of ECPs. Fostering a culture of collaboration between ECPs and GPs was instrumental to remodelling professional boundaries at the practice level.

Conclusion

Broadening the skill-mix to incorporate extended-scope practitioners such as ECPs, to deliver primary care home visiting, presents an opportunity to increase resilience in the general practice workforce.

SUBMITTER: Barker RO

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8118426 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe potential for machine learning to disrupt the medical profession is the subject of ongoing debate within biomedical informatics and related fields.ObjectiveThis study aimed to explore general practitioners' (GPs') opinions about the potential impact of future technology on key tasks in primary care.MethodsIn June 2018, we conducted a Web-based survey of 720 UK GPs' opinions about the likelihood of future technology to fully replace GPs in performing 6 key primary care tasks, and, if respondents considered replacement for a particular task likely, to estimate how soon the technological capacity might emerge. This study involved qualitative descriptive analysis of written responses ("comments") to an open-ended question in the survey.ResultsComments were classified into 3 major categories in relation to primary care: (1) limitations of future technology, (2) potential benefits of future technology, and (3) social and ethical concerns. Perceived limitations included the beliefs that communication and empathy are exclusively human competencies; many GPs also considered clinical reasoning and the ability to provide value-based care as necessitating physicians' judgments. Perceived benefits of technology included expectations about improved efficiencies, in particular with respect to the reduction of administrative burdens on physicians. Social and ethical concerns encompassed multiple, divergent themes including the need to train more doctors to overcome workforce shortfalls and misgivings about the acceptability of future technology to patients. However, some GPs believed that the failure to adopt technological innovations could incur harms to both patients and physicians.ConclusionsThis study presents timely information on physicians' views about the scope of artificial intelligence (AI) in primary care. Overwhelmingly, GPs considered the potential of AI to be limited. These views differ from the predictions of biomedical informaticians. More extensive, stand-alone qualitative work would provide a more in-depth understanding of GPs' views.

Project description:ObjectiveTo describe the opinions of British general practitioners regarding the potential of future technology to replace key tasks carried out in primary care.DesignCross sectional online survey.Participants1,474 registered GPs in the United Kingdom.Main outcome measuresInvestigators measured GPs' opinions about the likelihood that future technology will be able to fully replace-not merely aid-the average GP in performing six primary care tasks; in addition, if GPs considered replacement for a particular task likely, the survey measured opinions about how many years from now this technological capacity might emerge.ResultsA total of 720 (49%) responded to the survey. Most GPs believed it unlikely that technology will ever be able to fully replace physicians when it comes to diagnosing patients (489, 68%), referring patients to other specialists (444, 61%), formulating personalized treatment plans (441, 61%), and delivering empathic care (680, 94%). GPs were not in agreement about prognostics: one in two participants (380, 53%) considered it likely that technology will be fully capable of replacing physicians in performing this task, nearly half (187, 49%) of whom believed that the technological capacity will arise in the next ten years. Against these findings, the majority of GPs (578, 80%) believed it likely that future technology will be able to fully replace humans to undertake documentation; among them 261 (79%) estimated that the technological wherewithal would emerge during the next ten years. In general, age and gender were not correlated with opinions; nor was reported burnout and job satisfaction or whether GPs worked full time or part time.ConclusionsThe majority of UK GPs in this survey were skeptical about the potential for future technology to perform most primary care tasks as well as or better than humans. However, respondents were optimistic that in the near future technology would have the capacity to fully replace GPs' in undertaking administrative duties related to patient documentation.