The objectives of this review were to map and summarize the existing evidence from a global perspective about inequity in access and delivery of virtual care interventions and to identify strategies that may be adopted by virtual care services to address these inequities. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL using both medical subject headings (MeSH) and free-text keywords for empirical studies exploring inequity in ambulatory services offered virtually. Forty-one studies were included, most of them cross-sectional in design. Included studies were extracted using a customized extraction tool, and descriptive analysis was performed. The review identified widespread differences in accessing and using virtual care interventions among cultural and ethnic minorities, older people, socioeconomically disadvantaged groups, people with limited digital and/or health literacy, and those with limited access to digital devices and good connectivity. Potential solutions addressing these barriers identified in the review included having digitally literate caregivers present during virtual care appointments, conducting virtual care appointments in culturally sensitive manner, and having a focus on enhancing patients’ digital literacy. We identified evidence-based practices for virtual care interventions to ensure equity in access and delivery for their virtual care patients.

Background Language is a barrier to many patients from refugee backgrounds accessing and receiving quality primary health care. This paper examines the way general practices address these barriers and how this changed following a practice facilitation intervention. Methods The OPTIMISE study was a stepped wedge cluster randomised trial set within 31 general practices in three urban regions in Australia with high refugee settlement. It involved a practice facilitation intervention addressing interpreter engagement as one of four core intervention areas. This paper analysed quantitative and qualitative data from the practices and 55 general practitioners from these, collected at baseline and after 6 months during which only those assigned to the early group received the intervention. Results Many practices (71 %) had at least one GP who spoke a language spoken by recent humanitarian entrants. At baseline, 48 % of practices reported using the government funded Translating and Interpreting Service (TIS). The role of reception staff in assessing and recording the language and interpreter needs of patients was well defined. However, they lacked effective systems to share the information with clinicians. After the intervention, the number of practices using the TIS increased. However, family members and friends continued to be used to interpret with GPs reporting patients preferred this approach. The extra time required to arrange and use interpreting services remained a major barrier. Conclusions In this study a whole of practice facilitation intervention resulted in improvements in procedures for and engagement of interpreters. However, there were barriers such as the extra time required, and family members continued to be used. Based on these findings, further effort is needed to reduce the administrative burden and GP’s opportunity cost needed to engage interpreters, to provide training for all staff on when and how to work with interpreters and discuss and respond to patient concerns about interpreting services.

Background Australia is one of many nations struggling with the challenges of delivering quality primary health care (PHC) to increasing numbers of refugees. The OPTIMISE project represents a collaboration between 12 organisations to generate a model of integrated refugee PHC suitable for uptake throughout Australia. This paper describes the methodology of one component; an outreach practice facilitation intervention, directed towards improving the quality of PHC received by refugees in Australian general practices. Methods Our mixed methods study will use a cluster stepped wedge randomised controlled trial design set in 3 urban regions of high refugee resettlement in Australia. The intervention was build upon regional partnerships of policy advisors, clinicians, academics and health service managers. Following a regional needs assessment, the partnerships reached consensus on four core areas for intervention in general practice (GP): recording of refugee status; using interpreters; conducting comprehensive health assessments; and referring to refugee specialised services. Refugee health staff trained in outreach practice facilitation techniques will work with GP clinics to modify practice routines relating to the four core areas. 36 general practice clinics with no prior involvement in a refugee health focused practice facilitation will be randomly allocated into early and late intervention groups. The primary outcome will be changes in number of claims for Medical Benefit Service reimbursed comprehensive health assessments among patients identified as being from a refugee background. Changes in practice performance for this and 3 secondary outcomes will be evaluated using multilevel mixed effects models. Baseline data collection will comprise (i) pre-intervention provider survey; (ii) two surveys documenting each practices’ structure and approaches to delivery of care to refugees. De-identified medical record data will be collected at baseline, at the end of the intervention and 6 and 12 months following completion. Discussion OPTIMISE will test whether a regionally oriented practice facilitation initiative can improve the quality of PHC delivered to refugees. Findings have the potential to influence policy and practice in broader primary care settings. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12618001970235 , 05/12/2018, Retrospectively registered. Protocol Version 1, 21/08/2017. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-4235-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objectives: To examine whether primary care outreach facilitation improves the quality of care for general practice patients from refugee backgrounds.Design: Pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial, with stepped wedge allocation to early or late intervention groups.Setting, participants: 31 general practices in three metropolitan areas of Sydney and Melbourne with high levels of refugee resettlement, November 2017 -August 2019.Intervention: Trained facilitators made three visits to practices over six months, using structured action plans to help practice teams optimise routines of refugee care.Major outcome measure: Change in proportion of patients from refugee backgrounds with documented health assessments (Medicare billing). Secondary outcomes were refugee status recording, interpreter use, and clinician-perceived difficulty in referring patients to appropriate dental, social, settlement, and mental health services.Results: Our sample comprised 14 633 patients. The intervention was associated with an increase in the proportion of patients with Medicare-billed health assessments during the preceding six months, from 19.1% (95% CI, 18.6-19.5%) to 27.3% (95% CI, 26.7-27.9%; odds ratio, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.42-2.50). The impact of the intervention was greater in smaller practices, practices with larger proportions of patients from refugee backgrounds, recent training in refugee health care, or higher baseline provision of health assessments for such patients. There was no impact on refugee status recording, interpreter use increased modestly, and reported difficulties in refugee-specific referrals to social, settlement and dental services were reduced.Conclusions: Low intensity practice facilitation may improve some aspects of primary care for people from refugee backgrounds. Facilitators employed by local health services could support integrated approaches to enhancing the quality of primary care for this vulnerable population.