Background Often promoted as a way to address increasing demands, improve patient accessibility, and improve overall efficiency, electronic consultations are becoming increasingly common in primary care, particularly in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic. However, despite their increasing use, a theoretically informed understanding of the factors that support and inhibit their effective implementation is severely limited. Objective With this scoping review, we sought to identify the factors that support and inhibit the implementation of electronic consultations in primary care. Methods In total, 5 electronic databases (PubMed, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO) were systematically searched for studies published in 2009-2019 that explored the impact and/or implementation of electronic consultations in primary care. Database searches were supplemented by reference list and grey literature searches. Data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis and synthesized using Normalization Process Theory (NPT). Results In total, 227 articles were initially identified and 13 were included in this review. The main factors found to hinder implementation included awareness and expectations; low levels of engagement; perceived suitability for all patient groups, conditions, and demographics; cost; and other contextual factors. Reports of information technology reliability and clinical workload duplication (as opposed to reduction) also appeared detrimental. Conversely, the development of protocols and guidance; patient and staff education; strategic marketing; and patient and public involvement were all identified as beneficial in facilitating electronic consultation implementation. Conclusions This review highlights the need for proactive engagement with patients and staff to facilitate understanding and awareness, process optimization, and delivery of coherent training and education that maximizes impact and success. Although the necessity to use online methods during the COVID-19 pandemic may have accelerated awareness, concerns over workload duplication and inequality of access may remain. Future research should explore health inequalities in electronic consultations and their economic impacts from multiple perspectives (eg, patient, professional, and commissioner) to determine their potential value. Further work to identify the role of meaningful patient involvement in digital innovation, implementation, and evaluation is also required following the rapid digitization of health and social care.

BackgroundMedical revalidation is the process by which all licensed doctors are legally required to demonstrate that they are up to date and fit to practise in order to maintain their licence. Revalidation was introduced in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2012, constituting significant change in the regulation of doctors. The governing body, the General Medical Council (GMC), envisages that revalidation will improve patient care and safety. This potential however is, in part, dependent upon how successfully revalidation is embedded into routine practice. The aim of this study was to use Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) to explore issues contributing to or impeding the implementation of revalidation in practice.MethodsWe conducted seventy-one interviews with sixty UK policymakers and senior leaders at different points during the development and implementation of revalidation: in 2011 (n = 31), 2013 (n = 26) and 2015 (n = 14). We selected interviewees using purposeful sampling. NPT was used as a framework to enable systematic analysis across the interview sets.ResultsInitial lack of consensus over revalidation’s purpose, and scepticism about its value, decreased over time as participants recognised the benefits it brought to their practice (coherence category of NPT). Though acceptance increased across time, revalidation was not seen as a legitimate part of their role by all doctors. Key individuals, notably the Responsible Officer (RO), were vital for the successful implementation of revalidation in organisations (cognitive participation category). The ease with which revalidation could be integrated into working practices varied greatly depending on the type of role a doctor held and the organisation they work for and the provision of resources was a significant variable in this (collective action category). Formal evaluation of revalidation in organisations was lacking but informal evaluation was taking place. Revalidation had not yet reached the stage where feedback was being used for improvement (reflexive monitoring category).ConclusionsRequiring all organisations to use the same revalidation model made revalidation easy to integrate into existing work for some but problematic for others. In order for revalidation to be fully embedded and successful, impeding factors, such as a lack of resources, need to be addressed.

Introduction:The importance of meaningfully involving patients and the public in digital health innovation is widely acknowledged, but often poorly understood. This review, therefore, sought to explore how patients and the public are involved in digital health innovation and to identify factors that support and inhibit meaningful patient and public involvement (PPI) in digital health innovation, implementation and evaluation.Methods: Searches were undertaken from 2010 to July 2020 in the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus and ACM Digital Library. Grey literature searches were also undertaken using the Patient Experience Library database and Google Scholar.Results: Of the 10,540 articles identified, 433 were included. The majority of included articles were published in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Australia, with representation from 42 countries highlighting the international relevance of PPI in digital health. 112 topic areas where PPI had reportedly taken place were identified. Areas most often described included cancer (n = 50), mental health (n = 43), diabetes (n = 26) and long-term conditions (n = 19). Interestingly, over 133 terms were used to describe PPI; few were explicitly defined. Patients were often most involved in the final, passive stages of an innovation journey, for example, usability testing, where the ability to proactively influence change was severely limited. Common barriers to achieving meaningful PPI included data privacy and security concerns, not involving patients early enough and lack of trust.Suggested enablers were often designed to counteract such challenges.

Internationally, there has been substantial growth in temporary working, including in the medical profession where temporary doctors are known as locums. There is little research into the implications of temporary work in health care. In this paper, we draw upon theories concerning the sociology of the medical profession to examine the implications of locum working for the medical profession, healthcare organisations and patient safety. We focus particularly on the role of organisations in professional governance and the positioning of locums as peripheral to or outside the organisation, and the influence of intergroup relationships (in this case between permanent and locum doctors) on professional identity. Qualitative semi‐structured interviews were conducted between 2015 and 2017 in England with 79 participants including locum doctors, locum agency staff, and representatives of healthcare organisations who use locums. An abductive approach to analysis combined inductive coding with deductive, theory‐driven interpretation. Our findings suggest that locums were perceived to be inferior to permanently employed doctors in terms of quality, competency and safety and were often stigmatised, marginalised and excluded. The treatment of locums may have negative implications for collegiality, professional identity, group relations, team functioning and the way organisations deploy and treat locums may have important consequences for patient safety.

Doctors' work and the changing, contested meanings of medical professionalism have long been a focus for sociological research. Much recent attention has focused on those doctors working at the interface between healthcare management and medical practice, with such ‘hybrid’ doctor-managers providing valuable analytical material for exploring changes in how medical professionalism is understood. In the United Kingdom, significant structural changes to medical regulation, most notably the introduction of revalidation in 2012, have created a new hybrid group, Responsible Officers (ROs), responsible for making periodic recommendations about the on-going fitness to practise medicine of all other doctors in their organisation.Using qualitative data collected in a 2015 survey with 374 respondents, 63% of ROs in the UK, this paper analyses the RO role. Our findings show ROs to be a distinct emergent group of hybrid professionals and as such demonstrate restructuring within UK medicine. Occupying a position where multiple agendas converge, ROs' work expands professional regulation into the organisational sphere in new ways, as well as creating new lines of continuous accountability between the wider profession and the General Medical Council as medical regulator. Our exploration of ROs' approaches to their work offers new insights into the on-going development of medical professionalism, pointing to the emergence of a distinctly regulatory hybrid professionalism shaped by co-existing professional, managerial and regulatory logics, in an era of strengthened governance and complex policy change.