Maintaining face-to-face contact during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal qualitative investigation in UK primary care

Alone yet accountable, the unseen buffers: A qualitative study of nurses' experiences working in home care during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Norwegian society's resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in low mortality rates and moderate economic decline. The accessible primary healthcare system played a vital role in this, especially in the care of elderly and chronically ill patients. However, nurses in home care experienced emotional burdens, ethical dilemmas and limited access to protective equipment. These challenges were overshadowed by media coverage of hospital struggles, and municipal home care services were oddly absent from post-pandemic reports. This research therefore aimed to explore and describe how nurses experienced working in home care during the pandemic.

METHODS

We designed a qualitative study and conducted semi-structured interviews with nine home care nurses from different municipalities in Southeast Norway. Systematic text condensation inspired by Malterud was employed for data analysis.

RESULTS

Nurses' experiences were described through two categories: 'adapting approaches' and 'adapting work practices'. The results showed how nurses often felt alone while simultaneously shouldering a significant responsibility for patients facing a novel and unfamiliar illness. The pandemic necessitated treating patients in their own homes to minimise infection risks, intensifying the nurses' treatment responsibilities. Furthermore, limited access to medical expertise and physical separation from management due to remote work accentuated feelings of isolation and amplified the nurses' responsibility for patient care. Additionally, the nurses encountered frequent changes in work routines, demanding adaptability.

CONCLUSION

This study underscores the significant role of home care nurses, who, despite feeling professionally isolated and unsupported, demonstrated impressive adaptability. They served as a crucial buffer in the healthcare system, ensuring vulnerable individuals received essential care. This highlights the importance of a robust primary healthcare system with a skilled nursing workforce that can work autonomously, shoulder responsibility, and make clinical decisions, even when medical expertise is less readily available. It also reminds us that healthcare preparedness depends on collaborative efforts across all sectors.

Quality of care in Belgian general practices during the COVID-19 pandemic: results of the cross-sectional PRICOV-19 study

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic immensely impacted care provision, including quality of care in general practice. This paper aimed: (1) to assess how Belgian general practices acted upon the six dimensions of quality of care during COVID-19; (2) to study differences between the three Belgian regions; and (3) to benchmark the performance of the Belgian practices against the performance in other European countries.

METHODS

The data collected from 479 Belgian practices during 2020-2021 using an online survey as part of the international cross-sectional PRICOV-19 study were analyzed.  Hereby, descriptive statistics, chi-squared tests, and binary logistic regression analyses were performed. Thirty-four survey questions related to the six dimensions of quality of care were selected as outcome variables. The adjusted regression models included four practice characteristics as covariates: practice type, being a teaching practice for GP trainees, multidisciplinarity of the team, and payment system.

RESULTS

Belgian practices made important organizational changes to deliver high-quality care during COVID-19. Most practices (n = 259; 56.1%) actively reached out to vulnerable patients. Limitations to the practice building or infrastructure threatened high-quality care in 266 practices (55.5%). Infection prevention measures could not always be implemented during COVID-19, such as using a cleaning protocol (n = 265; 57.2%) and providing a separate doctor bag for infection-related home visits (n = 130; 27.9%). Three hundred and sixty practices (82.0%) reported at least one safety incident related to a delayed care process in patients with an urgent condition. The adjusted regression analysis showed limited significant differences between the Belgian regions regarding the quality of care delivered. Belgian practices demonstrated varied performance compared to other European countries. For example, they excelled in always checking the feasibility of isolation at home but reported more patient safety incidents related to timely care than at least three-quarters of the other European countries.

CONCLUSIONS

Future studies using different design methods are crucial to investigate which country and practice characteristics are associated with delivering high-quality care.

Implementing Germ Defence digital behaviour change intervention via all primary care practices in England to reduce respiratory infections during the COVID-19 pandemic: an efficient cluster randomised controlled trial using the OpenSAFELY platform

BACKGROUND

Germ Defence ( www.germdefence.org ) is an evidence-based interactive website that promotes behaviour change for infection control within households. To maximise the potential of Germ Defence to effectively reduce the spread of COVID-19, the intervention needed to be implemented at scale rapidly.

METHODS

With NHS England approval, we conducted an efficient two-arm (1:1 ratio) cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) to examine the effectiveness of randomising implementation of Germ Defence via general practitioner (GP) practices across England, UK, compared with usual care to disseminate Germ Defence to patients. GP practices randomised to the intervention arm (n = 3292) were emailed and asked to disseminate Germ Defence to all adult patients via mobile phone text, email or social media. Usual care arm GP practices (n = 3287) maintained standard management for the 4-month trial period and then asked to share Germ Defence with their adult patients. The primary outcome was the rate of GP presentations for respiratory tract infections (RTI) per patient. Secondary outcomes comprised rates of acute RTIs, confirmed COVID-19 diagnoses and suspected COVID-19 diagnoses, COVID-19 symptoms, gastrointestinal infection diagnoses, antibiotic usage and hospital admissions. The impact of the intervention on outcome rates was assessed using negative binomial regression modelling within the OpenSAFELY platform. The uptake of the intervention by GP practice and by patients was measured via website analytics.

RESULTS

Germ Defence was used 310,731 times. The average website satisfaction score was 7.52 (0-10 not at all to very satisfied, N = 9933). There was no evidence of a difference in the rate of RTIs between intervention and control practices (rate ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.96, 1.06, p = 0.70). This was similar to all other eight health outcomes. Patient engagement within intervention arm practices ranged from 0 to 48% of a practice list.

CONCLUSIONS

While the RCT did not demonstrate a difference in health outcomes, we demonstrated that rapid large-scale implementation of a digital behavioural intervention is possible and can be evaluated with a novel efficient prospective RCT methodology analysing routinely collected patient data entirely within a trusted research environment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was registered in the ISRCTN registry (14602359) on 12 August 2020.

Students' and tutors' experiences of remote 'student-patient' consultations

BACKGROUND

Remote consulting has become part of the medical student clinical experience in primary care, but little research exists regarding the impact on learning.

AIM

To describe the experiences of General Practitioner (GP) educators and medical students in using student-led remote consultations as an educational tool.

METHOD

A qualitative, explorative study conducted at four UK medical schools. GP educators and medical students were purposively sampled and interviewed.

RESULTS

Nine themes arose: practical application, autonomy, heuristics, safety, triage of undifferentiated patients, clinical reasoning, patient inclusion in student education, student-patient interaction, and student-doctor interaction.

DISCUSSION

Remote consulting has become part of the clinical placement experience. This has been found to expose students to a wider variety of clinical presentations. Verbal communication, history-taking, triage, and clinical reasoning skills were practised through remote consulting, but examination skills development was lacking. Students found building rapport more challenging, although this was mitigated by having more time with patients. Greater clinical risk was perceived in remote consulting, which had potential to negatively impact students' psychological safety. Frequent debriefs could ameliorate this risk and positively impact student-doctor relationships. Student autonomy and independence increased due to greater participation and responsibility. Pre-selection of patients could be helpful but had potential to expose students to lower complexity patients.[Box: see text].

Consultation Rate and Mode by Deprivation in English General Practice From 2018 to 2022: Population-Based Study

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on primary care service delivery with an increased use of remote consultations. With general practice delivering record numbers of appointments and rising concerns around access, funding, and staffing in the UK National Health Service, we assessed contemporary trends in consultation rate and modes (ie, face-to-face versus remote).

OBJECTIVE

This paper describes trends in consultation rates in general practice in England for key demographics before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. We explore the use of remote and face-to-face consultations with regard to socioeconomic deprivation to understand the possible effect of changes in consultation modes on health inequalities.

METHODS

We did a retrospective analysis of 9,429,919 consultations by general practitioners, nurses, or other health care professionals between March 2018 and February 2022 for patients registered at 397 general practices in England. We used routine electronic health records from Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum with linkage to national data sets. Negative binomial models were used to predict consultation rates and modes (ie, remote versus face-to-face) by age, sex, and socioeconomic deprivation over time.

RESULTS

Overall consultation rates increased by 15% from 4.92 in 2018-2019 to 5.66 in 2021-2022 with some fluctuation during the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The breakdown into face-to-face and remote consultations shows that the pandemic precipitated a rapid increase in remote consultations across all groups, but the extent varies by age. Consultation rates increased with increasing levels of deprivation. Socioeconomic differences in consultation rates, adjusted for sex and age, halved during the pandemic (from 0.36 to 0.18, indicating more consultations in the most deprived), effectively narrowing relative differences between deprivation quintiles. This trend remains when stratified by sex, but the difference across deprivation quintiles is smaller for men. The most deprived saw a relatively larger increase in remote and decrease in face-to-face consultation rates compared to the least deprived.

CONCLUSIONS

The substantial increases in consultation rates observed in this study imply an increased pressure on general practice. The narrowing of consultation rates between deprivation quintiles is cause for concern, given ample evidence that health needs are greater in more deprived areas.

General practice wide adaptations to support patients affected by DVA during the COVID-19 pandemic: a rapid qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Reporting of domestic violence and abuse (DVA) increased globally during the pandemic. General Practice has a central role in identifying and supporting those affected by DVA. Pandemic associated changes in UK primary care included remote initial contacts with primary care and predominantly remote consulting. This paper explores general practice's adaptation to DVA care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

Remote semi-structured interviews were conducted by telephone with staff from six localities in England and Wales where the Identification and Referral to Improve Safety (IRIS) primary care DVA programme is commissioned.  We conducted interviews between April 2021 and February 2022 with three practice managers, three reception and administrative staff, eight general practice clinicians and seven specialist DVA staff. Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPI&E) advisers with lived experience of DVA guided the project. Together we developed recommendations for primary care teams based on our findings.

RESULTS

We present our findings within four themes, representing primary care adaptations in delivering DVA care: 1. Making general practice accessible for DVA care: staff adapted telephone triaging processes for appointments and promoted availability of DVA support online. 2. General practice team-working to identify DVA: practices developed new approaches of collaboration, including whole team adaptations to information processing and communication 3. Adapting to remote consultations about DVA: teams were required to adapt to challenges including concerns about safety, privacy, and developing trust remotely. 4. Experiences of onward referrals for specialist DVA support: support from specialist services was effective and largely unchanged during the pandemic.

CONCLUSIONS

Disruption caused by pandemic restrictions revealed how team dynamics and interactions before, during and after clinical consultations contribute to identifying and supporting patients experiencing DVA. Remote assessment complicates access to and delivery of DVA care. This has implications for all primary and secondary care settings, within the NHS and internationally, which are vital to consider in both practice and policy.

Changes in consultation mode during different phases of the COVID-19 pandemic in Croatian family medicine: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

To describe the changes in the type, length and reasons for consultations in primary healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic in Croatia. This study aimed to test a hypothesis regarding the increased workload of general practitioners (GPs) by introducing more virtual consultations (VCs).

DESIGN

The study design was cross-sectional and comprised two phases: retrospective and prospective. The retrospective phase included data from April, May and June of 2019, 2020 and 2021, and the prospective phase included data from 2 weeks in June 2021. Additionally, the number, length and reasons for face-to-face consultations (FTFC), VCs and telephone consultations (TCs) with nurses were collected.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Overall, 6 GPs from different regions in Croatia with 10 125 enlisted patients.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES

The retrospective phase compared data for consultation types obtained from electronic medical records. The prospective phase collected the number, length and reasons for FTFCs, VCs and TCs with nurses.

RESULTS

FTFCs decreased from 58.1% of the total number of visits in 2019 to 41.2% in 2020, while VC increased from 41.9% in 2019 to 58.8% in 2020. Furthermore, an eightfold increase in email consultations was recorded. The average lengths of an FTFC and TC were 7.13±3.38 and 4.01±2.09 min, respectively; FTFCs were significantly longer than TCs (t=7.038, p<0.0001). There was an increase in the total workload (9.4%) in 2021 compared with 2019.

CONCLUSION

Croatian GPs faced changes in work organisation along with increased workload during the pandemic. Despite the shortening of time in FTFCs, the workload has increased due to the increase in VCs. An appropriate legal framework should be implemented for this new form of consultation. Future research is needed to address the impact of these changes on healthcare quality.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on surgery for severe endometriosis in the UK: a national database study

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant effect on healthcare services, particularly affecting patients who suffer from chronic conditions. However, the pandemic's effect on endometriosis surgery is not yet known.

Objectives

To determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on surgery for severe endometriosis in the UK at a national, regional and centre-level.

Materials and Methods

The British Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (BSGE) collects data nationally on all operations for severe endometriosis which involve dissection of the pararectal space. Annual audits of this database were obtained from the BSGE. Publicly available data on COVID-19 cases and population were obtained from the UK Office for National Statistics.

Main outcome measures

Numbers of annual BSGE-registered endometriosis operations.

Results

A total of 8204 operations were performed. The number of operations decreased by 49.4% between 2019 and 2020 and then increased in 2021, but remained 10.5% below average pre-pandemic levels, indicating at least 980 missed operations between 2019-2020. Median operations per centre decreased by 51.0% in 2020 (IQR 29.4% - 75.0%) and increased in 2021 but remained 33% below pre-pandemic levels. There was no change in the type of surgery performed. All 11 administrative regions of Great Britain had reduced numbers of operations in 2020 compared with the average for 2017-2019, with a median 44.2% decrease (range 13.3% - 67.5%). Regional reduction in operations was correlated with COVID-19 infection rates (r=0.54, 95% CI of r 0.022 - 1.00, p=0.043).

Conclusion

The number of operations performed annually in the UK for severe endometriosis fell dramatically during the COVID-19 pandemic and is yet to normalise.

What's new?

This study shows the dramatic effect that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on UK services for endometriosis surgery, which may continue to affect patients and clinicians for a considerable time to come.

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.

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.

The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on primary care physicians in Israel, with comparison to an international cohort: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic had a major impact on primary care and primary care physicians (PCPs) in Israel and around the world. There is paucity of information regarding treatment of patients with COVID-19 in the community, since most research was performed in hospitals. The aim of this study was to describe the Israeli PCPs' experience.

METHODS

This study is a part of an international cross-sectional study, the PRICOV-19. A translated version of the questionnaire was distributed among Israeli PCPs from December 2020 to July 2021. In this study, we describe the Israeli results and compare them to the international results.

RESULTS

5,961 respondents from 29 countries answered the questionnaire, 94 from Israel, with an Israeli response rate of 16%. Israeli PCPs reported an increase in use of telemedicine from 11 to 49% during the COVID epidemic. PCPs also reported a decline in their wellbeing; absence of secured time slots for keeping updated; perception that the Ministry of Health guidelines were a threat to the staff wellbeing and organization of practice and delays in the examination of non-COVID urgent cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study raise concerns regarding the PCPs experience and may form the basis for an improved process of care. Guidelines for proper usage of telemedicine, substitutes for the physical examination and procedures for minimizing delayed patient examination for urgent conditions should be developed. Government directives and clinical guidelines should be communicated in a timely manner, with secured timeslots for physicians' self-learning or updating. Ensuring physicians' well-being in general should be an organization priority.

The experience of conducting collaborative and intensive pragmatic qualitative (CLIP-Q) research to support rapid public health and healthcare innovation

A key challenge for qualitative methods in applied health research is the fast pace that can characterize the public health and health and care service landscape, where there is a need for research informed by immediate pragmatic questions and relevant findings are required quickly to inform decision-making. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the pace at which evidence was needed to inform urgent public health and healthcare decision-making. This required qualitative researchers to step up to the challenge of conducting research at speed whilst maintaining rigor and ensuring the findings are credible. This article illustrates how working with multidisciplinary, collaborative teams and the tailoring of qualitative methods to be more pragmatic and efficient can provide timely and credible results. Using time-limited case studies of applied qualitative health research drawn from the work of the Behavioral and Qualitative Science Team from the National Institute for Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration West (NIHR ARC West), we illustrate our collaborative and intensive pragmatic qualitative (CLIP-Q) approach. CLIP-Q involves (i) collaboration at all stages of the design, conduct and implementation of projects and, where possible, co-production with people with lived experience, (ii) an intensive team-based approach to data collection and analysis at pace, and (iii) pragmatic study design and efficient strategies at each stage of the research process. The case studies include projects conducted pre COVID-19 and during the first wave of the pandemic, where urgent evidence was required in weeks rather than months to inform rapid public health and healthcare decision making.

Conducting rapid qualitative interview research during the COVID-19 pandemic-Reflections on methodological choices

As the COVID-19 pandemic has shown, setting up studies in time to gather relevant, real-world data enables researchers to capture current views and experiences, focus on practicalities on the ground, and deliver actionable results. Delivering high quality rapid studies in healthcare poses several challenges even in non-emergency situations. There is an expanding literature discussing benefits and challenges of conducting rapid research, yet there are relatively few examples related to methodological dilemmas and decisions that researchers may face when conducting rapid studies. In rapidly-changing emergency contexts, some of these challenges may be more easily overcome, while others may be unique to the emergency, magnified, or emerge in different ways. In this manuscript, we discuss our reflections and lessons learnt across the research process when conducting rapid qualitative interview studies in the context of a healthcare emergency, focusing on methodological issues. By this we mean the challenging considerations and pragmatic choices we made, and their downstream impacts, that shaped our studies. We draw on our extensive combined experience of delivering several projects during the COVID-19 pandemic in both single and multi-country settings, where we implemented rapid studies, or rapidly adapted an existing study. In the context of these studies, we discuss two main considerations, with a particular focus on the complexities, multiple facets, and trade-offs involved in: (i) team-based approaches to qualitative studies; and (ii) timely and rapid data collection, analysis and dissemination. We contribute a transparent discussion of these issues, describing them, what helped us to deal with them, and which issues have been difficult to overcome. We situate our discussion of arising issues in relation to existing literature, to offer broader recommendations while also identifying gaps in current understandings of how to deal with these methodological challenges. We thus identify key considerations, lessons, and possibilities for researchers implementing rapid studies in healthcare emergencies and beyond. We aim to promote transparency in reporting, assist other researchers in making informed choices, and consequently contribute to the development of the rapid qualitative research.

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.

Telemedicine and virtual respiratory care in the era of COVID-19

The World Health Organization defines telemedicine as “an interaction between a health care provider and a patient when the two are separated by distance”. The COVID-19 pandemic has forced a dramatic shift to telephone and video consulting for follow up and routine ambulatory care for reasons of infection control. Short Message Service (“text”) messaging has proved a useful adjunct to remote consulting allowing transfer of photographs and documents. Maintaining non-communicable diseases care is a core component of pandemic preparedness and telemedicine has developed to enable (for example) remote monitoring of sleep apnoea, telemonitoring of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, digital support for asthma self-management, remote delivery of pulmonary rehabilitation. There are multiple exemplars of telehealth instigated rapidly to provide care for people with COVID-19, to manage the spread of the pandemic, or to maintain safe routine diagnostic or treatment services.

Despite many positive examples of equivalent functionality and safety, there remain questions about the impact of remote delivery of care on rapport and the longer-term impact on patient/professional relationships. Although telehealth has the potential to contribute to universal health coverage by providing cost-effective accessible care, there is a risk of increasing social health inequalities if the “digital divide” excludes those most in need of care. As we emerge from the pandemic, the balance of remote versus face-to-face consulting, and the specific role of digital health in different clinical and healthcare contexts will evolve. What is clear is that telemedicine in one form or another will be part of the “new norm”.

Advancing head and neck cancer following the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic

Objective

Delay in the diagnosis of head and neck cancer can result in significant excess morbidity and mortality. How the pandemic has affected patient presentation in Scotland is unknown.

Method

This retrospective cohort study compared all presentations of head and neck cancer between June and October of 2019 with the same period following the peak of the pandemic in 2020 in West Scotland, a region populated by 2.5 million people.

Results

A total of 528 patients met our inclusion criteria. Compared with 2019, patients in 2020 were more likely to present with a higher American Joint Committee on Cancer stage (odds ratio, 1.67 (95 per cent confidence interval = 1.20 to 2.31); p = 0.002), a longer preceding symptom duration (odds ratio, 2.03 (95 per cent confidence interval = 1.44 to 2.87; p < 0.001) and to have an emergency presentation (odds ratio, 2.53, (95 per cent confidence interval = 1.15 to 5.55; p = 0.017).

Conclusion

Patients are presenting later with more advanced head and neck cancer following the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

Public perception of NHS general practice during the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic in England

Background: In March 2020, the delivery of NHS general practice consultations was rapidly modified to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. Remote triage and consultations became the default, with adapted models for face-to-face contact if clinically required. This study aimed to gain insight into public perception of these adaptations.

Methods: Two online surveys were developed, and conducted in August and September 2020. Survey A, open to adults (>18 years) receiving the link to it, considered respondents’ perspectives on healthcare contacts since March 2020, and their understanding of the adapted delivery. Survey B, open to survey A respondents only, then considered how healthcare communication had been received and individual preferences for this. Survey participation was voluntary.

Results: The perceptions of 150 members of the public were obtained. 105 had considered contacting general practice,

although half avoided this or delayed doing so for longer than usual. While some patients did so ‘to help the NHS’, others experienced reduced access for reasons including concerns about telephone consultations and about COVID-19 safety. Some however reported benefitting from remote consultation availability and regular texts/emails from their practice.

68% (102/150) of respondents were unaware that patients with COVID-19 were seen separately from other patients during general practice appointments. 27% in survey B who had avoided or delayed contact said they would have felt more comfortable contacting general practice had they known this.

Conclusions: Experience and use of the adapted general practice models varied. Some patients felt their access to healthcare was reduced, often due to technological requirements. For some who found attending face-to-face appointments difficult however, remote contact was advantageous. Most of those surveyed were unaware of the COVID-19 control measures in place during face-to-face general practice consultations. Assessment of adapted delivery model accessibility and clearer public messaging about the changes may help reduce inequalities.

Public perception of NHS general practice during the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic in England

Background: In March 2020, the delivery of NHS general practice consultations was rapidly modified to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. Remote triage and consultations became the default, with adapted models for face-to-face contact if clinically required. This study aimed to gain insight into public perception of these adaptations. Methods: Two online surveys were developed, and conducted in August and September 2020. Survey A, open to adults (>18 years) receiving the link to it, considered respondents' perspectives on healthcare contacts since March 2020, and their understanding of the adapted delivery. Survey B, open to survey A respondents only, then considered how healthcare communication had been received and individual preferences for this. Survey participation was voluntary. Results: The perceptions of 150 members of the public were obtained. 105 had considered contacting general practice, although half avoided this or delayed doing so for longer than usual. While some patients did so 'to help the NHS', others experienced reduced access for reasons including concerns about telephone consultations and about COVID-19 safety. Some however reported benefitting from remote consultation availability and regular texts/emails from their practice. 68% (102/150) of respondents were unaware that patients with COVID-19 were seen separately from other patients during general practice appointments. 27% in survey B who had avoided or delayed contact said they would have felt more comfortable contacting general practice had they known this. Conclusions: Experience and use of the adapted general practice models varied. Some patients felt their access to healthcare was reduced, often due to technological requirements. For some who found attending face-to-face appointments difficult however, remote contact was advantageous. Most of those surveyed were unaware of the COVID-19 control measures in place during face-to-face general practice consultations. Assessment of adapted delivery model accessibility and clearer public messaging about the changes may help reduce inequalities.