Inequalities exacerbated: an all-too-familiar story

Patient Characteristics Associated With Disparities in Engagement With and Experience of COVID-19 Remote Home Monitoring Services: A Mixed-Methods Evaluation

INTRODUCTION

The adoption of remote healthcare methods has been accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, but evidence suggests that some patients need additional support to engage remotely, potentially increasing health disparities if needs are not met. This study of COVID-19 remote home monitoring services across England explores experiences of and engagement with the service across different patient groups.

METHODS

This was a mixed-methods study with survey and interview data collected from 28 services across England between February and June 2021. Surveys were conducted with staff and patients and carers receiving the service. Interviews with staff service leads, patients and carers were conducted in 17 sites. Quantitative data were analysed using univariate and multivariate methods, and qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis.

FINDINGS

Survey responses were received from 292 staff and 1069 patients and carers. Twenty-three staff service leads, 59 patients and 3 carers were interviewed. Many service leads reported that they had considered inclusivity when adapting the service for their local population; strategies included widening the eligibility criteria, prioritising vulnerable groups and creating referral pathways. However, disparities were reported across patient groups in their experiences and engagement. Older patients reported the service to be less helpful (p = 0.004), were more likely to report a problem (p < 0.001) and had more difficulty in understanding information (p = 0.005). Health status (p = 0.004), ethnicity (p < 0.001), gender (p < 0.001) and employment (p = 0.007) were associated with differential engagement with monitoring, and minority ethnic groups reported more difficulty understanding service information (p = 0.001). Qualitative data found illness severity to be an important factor in the support required, and patients' living situation and social network affected whether they found the service reassuring.

CONCLUSION

Addressing health disparities must be a key focus in the design and delivery of remote care. Services should be tailored to match the needs of their local population, encourage access through collaboration and referral pathways with other services and monitor their inclusiveness. Involving patients and staff in service design can illuminate the diversity of patients' needs and experiences of care.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The study team met with service user and public members of the BRACE PPI group and patient representatives from RSET in a series of workshops. Workshops informed study design, data collection tools, data interpretation and dissemination activities. Study documents (such as consent forms, topic guides, surveys and information sheets) were reviewed by PPI members; patient surveys and interview guides were piloted, and members also commented on the manuscript.

Inequalities in healthcare disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from 12 UK population-based longitudinal studies

OBJECTIVES

We investigated associations between multiple sociodemographic characteristics (sex, age, occupational social class, education and ethnicity) and self-reported healthcare disruptions during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.

DESIGN

Coordinated analysis of prospective population surveys.

SETTING

Community-dwelling participants in the UK between April 2020 and January 2021.

PARTICIPANTS

Over 68 000 participants from 12 longitudinal studies.

OUTCOMES

Self-reported healthcare disruption to medication access, procedures and appointments.

RESULTS

Prevalence of healthcare disruption varied substantially across studies: between 6% and 32% reported any disruption, with 1%-10% experiencing disruptions in medication, 1%-17% experiencing disruption in procedures and 4%-28% experiencing disruption in clinical appointments. Females (OR 1.27; 95% CI 1.15 to 1.40; I²=54%), older persons (eg, OR 1.39; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.72; I²=77% for 65-75 years vs 45-54 years) and ethnic minorities (excluding white minorities) (OR 1.19; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.35; I²=0% vs white) were more likely to report healthcare disruptions. Those in a more disadvantaged social class were also more likely to report healthcare disruptions (eg, OR 1.17; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.27; I²=0% for manual/routine vs managerial/professional), but no clear differences were observed by education. We did not find evidence that these associations differed by shielding status.

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic could contribute to the maintenance or widening of existing health inequalities.

Guidelines and clinical priority setting during the COVID-19 pandemic - Norwegian doctors' experiences

Background

In the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, strong measures were taken to avoid anticipated pressure on health care, and this involved new priorities between patient groups and changing working conditions for clinical personnel. We studied how doctors experienced this situation. Our focus was their knowledge about and adherence to general and COVID-19 specific guidelines and regulations on priority setting, and whether actual priorities were considered acceptable.

Methods

In December 2020, 2 316 members of a representative panel of doctors practicing in Norway received a questionnaire. The questions were designed to consider a set of hypotheses about priority setting and guidelines. The focus was on the period between March and December 2020. Responses were analyzed with descriptive statistics and regression analyses.

Results

In total, 1 617 (70%) responded. A majority were familiar with the priority criteria, though not the legislation on priority setting. A majority had not used guidelines for priority setting in the first period of the pandemic. 60.5% reported that some of their patients were deprioritized for treatment. Of these, 47.5% considered it medically indefensible to some/a large extent. Although general practitioners (GPs) and hospital doctors experienced deprioritizations equally often, more GPs considered it medically indefensible. More doctors in managerial positions were familiar with the guidelines.

Conclusions

Most doctors did not use priority guidelines in this period. They experienced, however, that some of their patients were deprioritized, which was considered medically indefensible by many. This might be explained by a negative reaction to the externally imposed requirements for rationing, while observing that vulnerable patients were deprioritized. Another interpretation is that they judged the rationing to have gone too far, or that they found it hard to accept rationing of care in general. Priority guidelines can be useful measures for securing fair and reasonable priorities. However, if the priority setting in clinical practice is to proceed in accordance with priority-setting principles and guidelines, the guidelines must be translated into a clinically relevant context and doctors’ familiarity with them must improve.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08582-2.