BackgroundPeople increasingly communicate online, using visual communication mediums such as Skype and FaceTime. Growing demands on primary care services mean that new ways of providing patient care are being considered. Video consultation (VC) over the internet is one such mode.AimTo explore patients’ and clinicians’ experiences of VC.Design and settingSemi-structured interviews in UK primary care.MethodPrimary care clinicians were provided with VC equipment. They invited patients requiring a follow-up consultation to an online VC using the Attend Anywhere web-based platform. Participating patients required a smartphone, tablet, or video-enabled computer. Following VCs, semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients (n = 21) and primary care clinicians (n = 13), followed by a thematic analysis.ResultsParticipants reported positive experiences of VC, and stated that VC was particularly helpful for them as working people and people with mobility or mental health problems. VCs were considered superior to telephone consultations in providing visual cues and reassurance, building rapport, and improving communication. Technical problems, however, were common. Clinicians felt, for routine use, VCs must be more reliable and seamlessly integrated with appointment systems, which would require upgrading of current NHS IT systems.ConclusionThe visual component of VCs offers distinct advantages over telephone consultations. When integrated with current systems VCs can provide a time-saving alternative to face-to-face consultations when formal physical examination is not required, especially for people who work. Demand for VC services in primary care is likely to rise, but improved technical infrastructure is required to allow VC to become routine. However, for complex or sensitive problems face-to-face consultations remain preferable.

BackgroundGrowing demands on primary care services have led to policymakers promoting video consultations (VCs) to replace routine face-to-face consultations (FTFCs) in general practice.AimTo explore the content, quality, and patient experience of VC, telephone (TC), and FTFCs in general practice.Design and settingComparison of audio-recordings of follow-up consultations in UK primary care.MethodPrimary care clinicians were provided with video-consulting equipment. Participating patients required a smartphone, tablet, or computer with camera. Clinicians invited patients requiring a follow-up consultation to choose a VC, TC, or FTFC. Consultations were audio-recorded and analysed for content and quality. Participant experience was explored in post-consultation questionnaires. Case notes were reviewed for NHS resource use.ResultsOf the recordings, 149/163 were suitable for analysis. VC recruits were younger, and more experienced in communicating online. FTFCs were longer than VCs (mean difference +3.7 minutes, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.1 to 5.2) or TCs (+4.1 minutes, 95% CI = 2.6 to 5.5). On average, patients raised fewer problems in VCs (mean 1.5, standard deviation [SD] 0.8) compared with FTFCs (mean 2.1, SD 1.1) and demonstrated fewer instances of information giving by clinicians and patients. FTFCs scored higher than VCs and TCs on consultation-quality items.ConclusionVC may be suitable for simple problems not requiring physical examination. VC, in terms of consultation length, content, and quality, appeared similar to TC. Both approaches appeared less ‘information rich’ than FTFC. Technical problems were common and, though patients really liked VC, infrastructure issues would need to be addressed before the technology and approach can be mainstreamed in primary care.

BackgroundDigital health has the potential to support care delivery for chronic illness. Despite positive evidence from localized implementations, new technologies have proven slow to become accepted, integrated, and routinized at scale.ObjectiveThe aim of our study was to examine barriers and facilitators to implementation of digital health at scale through the evaluation of a £37m national digital health program: ‟Delivering Assisted Living Lifestyles at Scale” (dallas) from 2012-2015.MethodsThe study was a longitudinal qualitative, multi-stakeholder, implementation study. The methods included interviews (n=125) with key implementers, focus groups with consumers and patients (n=7), project meetings (n=12), field work or observation in the communities (n=16), health professional survey responses (n=48), and cross program documentary evidence on implementation (n=215). We used a sociological theory called normalization process theory (NPT) and a longitudinal (3 years) qualitative framework analysis approach. This work did not study a single intervention or population. Instead, we evaluated the processes (of designing and delivering digital health), and our outcomes were the identified barriers and facilitators to delivering and mainstreaming services and products within the mixed sector digital health ecosystem.ResultsWe identified three main levels of issues influencing readiness for digital health: macro (market, infrastructure, policy), meso (organizational), and micro (professional or public). Factors hindering implementation included: lack of information technology (IT) infrastructure, uncertainty around information governance, lack of incentives to prioritize interoperability, lack of precedence on accountability within the commercial sector, and a market perceived as difficult to navigate. Factors enabling implementation were: clinical endorsement, champions who promoted digital health, and public and professional willingness.ConclusionsAlthough there is receptiveness to digital health, barriers to mainstreaming remain. Our findings suggest greater investment in national and local infrastructure, implementation of guidelines for the safe and transparent use and assessment of digital health, incentivization of interoperability, and investment in upskilling of professionals and the public would help support the normalization of digital health. These findings will enable researchers, health care practitioners, and policy makers to understand the current landscape and the actions required in order to prepare the market and accelerate uptake, and use of digital health and wellness services in context and at scale.

BackgroundNHS policy encourages general practices to introduce alternatives to the face-to-face consultation, such as telephone, email, e-consultation systems, or internet video. Most have been slow to adopt these, citing concerns about workload. This project builds on previous research by focusing on the experiences of patients and practitioners who have used one or more of these alternatives.AimTo understand how, under what conditions, for which patients, and in what ways, alternatives to face-to-face consultations present benefits and challenges to patients and practitioners in general practice.Design and settingFocused ethnographic case studies took place in eight UK general practices between June 2015 and March 2016.MethodNon-participant observation, informal conversations with staff, and semi-structured interviews with staff and patients were conducted. Practice documents and protocols were reviewed. Data were analysed through charting and the ‘one sheet of paper’ mind-map method to identify the line of argument in each thematic report.ResultsCase study practices had different rationales for offering alternatives to the face-to-face consultation. Beliefs varied about which patients and health issues were suitable. Co-workers were often unaware of each other’s practice; for example, practice policies for use of e-consultations systems with patients were not known about or followed. Patients reported benefits including convenience and access. Staff and some patients regarded the face-to-face consultation as the ideal.ConclusionExperience of implementing alternatives to the face-to-face consultation suggests that changes in patient access and staff workload may be both modest and gradual. Practices planning to implement them should consider carefully their reasons for doing so and involve the whole practice team.

Empathy is crucial for enablement, which, in turn, is strongly related to perceived change in main complaint and well-being. The length of time the clinician spends with a patient at initial consultation appears to be an important factor in these complex relationships among process and outcome.