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.

Although some readmissions are medically unavoidable, for many ICU survivors complex health and psychosocial issues contribute concurrently to early rehospitalisation. Care pathways that anticipate and institute anticipatory multifaceted support for these patients merit further development and evaluation.

BackgroundIntensive care unit (ICU) survivors experience high levels of morbidity after hospital discharge and are at high risk of unplanned hospital readmission. Identifying those at highest risk before hospital discharge may allow targeting of novel risk reduction strategies. We aimed to identify risk factors for unplanned 90-day readmission, develop a risk prediction model and assess its performance to screen for ICU survivors at highest readmission risk.MethodsPopulation cohort study linking registry data for patients discharged from general ICUs in Scotland (2005–2013). Independent risk factors for 90-day readmission and discriminant ability (c-index) of groups of variables were identified using multivariable logistic regression. Derivation and validation risk prediction models were constructed using a time-based split.ResultsOf 55 975 ICU survivors, 24.1% (95%CI 23.7% to 24.4%) had unplanned 90-day readmission. Pre-existing health factors were fair discriminators of readmission (c-index 0.63, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.64) but better than acute illness factors (0.60) or demographics (0.54). In a subgroup of those with no comorbidity, acute illness factors (0.62) were better discriminators than pre-existing health factors (0.56). Overall model performance and calibration in the validation cohort was fair (0.65, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.66) but did not perform sufficiently well as a screening tool, demonstrating high false-positive/false-negative rates at clinically relevant thresholds.ConclusionsUnplanned 90-day hospital readmission is common. Pre-existing illness indices are better predictors of readmission than acute illness factors. Identifying additional patient-centred drivers of readmission may improve risk prediction models. Improved understanding of risk factors that are amenable to intervention could improve the clinical and cost-effectiveness of post-ICU care and rehabilitation.