GPs' adherence to guidelines for structured assessments of stroke survivors in the community and care homes

The provision of person-centred care for care home residents with stroke: An ethnographic study

Care home residents with stroke have higher levels of disability and poorer access to health services than those living in their own homes. We undertook observations and semi-structured interviews (n = 28 participants) with managers, staff, residents who had experienced a stroke and their relatives in four homes in London, England, in 2018/2019. Thematic analysis revealed that residents' needs regarding valued activity and stroke-specific care and rehabilitation were not always being met. This resulted from an interplay of factors: staff's lack of recognition of stroke and its effects; gaps in skills; time pressures; and the prioritisation of residents' safety. To improve residential care provision and residents' quality of life, care commissioners, regulators and providers may need to re-examine how care homes balance safety and limits on staff time against residents' valued activity, alongside improving access to specialist healthcare treatment and support.

How unmet are unmet needs post-stroke? A policy analysis of the six-month review

Background

Stroke is the fourth largest cause of death in the UK and a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. Policy recommends reviewing patients at six-months post-stroke to identify unmet needs but lacks evidence of effectiveness. This study explored needs identified by patients, how they were addressed by the six-month review (6MR) and whether or not policy aspirations for the review were substantiated by the data.

Methods

A multiple case study design underpinned by critical realism. Data sources included interviews with 46 patients and 28 professionals across three sites in the South East Coast of England. Patients’ interviews coincided with their reviews of which twenty-nine were observed. Thematic analysis of interviews, observations and policy documents was carried out within and across sites.

Results

There were ‘hotspots’ in the care pathway where patients and carers felt particularly unsupported. Whilst these gaps exacerbated anxiety, they were neither universal nor ameliorated by review. Patients consistently identified unmet needs related to rehabilitation, information/education and support. Stroke nurse specialists focused on investigations, medication and liaising with general practitioners or consultants while the Stroke Association co-ordinator focused on sign-posting to other services and provision of generic information which not all respondents found helpful. The remit of review was more modest than that of policy aspirations.

Conclusions

The review rests on two causal assumptions: that identifying unmet need will lead to its amelioration; and that provision of information will lead to behaviour change and self-management. While there was some evidence to support the former, there was almost none for the latter. The 6MR would benefit from a patient-led approach to its timing and format; a consistent and individualised approach to stroke education and self-management that is embedded across the care pathway; and targeting reviews should be considered.

Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Primary Care: Exploratory Qualitative Study of UK General Practitioners' Views

Background

The potential for machine learning to disrupt the medical profession is the subject of ongoing debate within biomedical informatics and related fields.

Objective

This study aimed to explore general practitioners’ (GPs’) opinions about the potential impact of future technology on key tasks in primary care.

Methods

In 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.

Results

Comments 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.

Conclusions

This 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.

Computerization and the future of primary care: A survey of general practitioners in the UK

OBJECTIVE

To describe the opinions of British general practitioners regarding the potential of future technology to replace key tasks carried out in primary care.

DESIGN

Cross sectional online survey.

PARTICIPANTS

1,474 registered GPs in the United Kingdom.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Investigators 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.

RESULTS

A 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.

CONCLUSIONS

The 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.