Paramedic-led acute home visiting services in primary care

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 238-244
Author(s):  
John Burns
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Home Visiting ◽  
Care Home ◽  
Electronic Patient Records ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Primary Care Services ◽  
Complex Skills ◽  
Ward Rounds ◽  
Opening Up

Home visiting is traditionally carried out by GPs but it is becoming increasingly difficult for GPs to do, and many doctors want it removed from their contract. This is opening up a space for the paramedic profession, with paramedics carrying out home visits and designing future primary care services. Paramedics working within primary care can possess the knowledge, leadership and complex skills needed for home visiting, and some are independent prescribers; they can lead acute home visiting services (AHVS). AHVS require effective triage and access to electronic patient records, are underpinned by robust clinical governance and engage in clinical audits. Future primary care paramedic services could include online, video and face-to-face consultations, care home ward rounds, remote triage and home visiting. However, paramedics' contribution to general practice has not been fully evaluated and it may take time for this to become a norm. Regardless, primary care paramedicine has an opportunity to be innovative, shaking off risk-averse protocols for more enlightened practices, and lead the profession.

Electronic Patient Records (EPR), Library Services (LS) and Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) Meetings

2017 ◽  
pp. 179-197
Author(s):  
Shahid Muhammad ◽  
Malcolm Rigler ◽  
Meshia Adams
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Multidisciplinary Team ◽  
Library Services ◽  
Patient Records ◽  
Electronic Patient Records ◽  
Long Term Conditions ◽  
Health Records ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Primary Care Services

Patients with Long-Term Conditions (LTCs) account for around 50% of General Practitioner (GP) appointments, 64% of outpatient appointments and 70% of hospital bed days. There needs to be a wider access to knowledge and understanding such as directories with information leaflets, documents, books on lifestyle, helpful contacts and sources to information that can support patients and the general public on the most important elements their health. This cannot be achieved just through patients accessing their health records in sole. The objective of this paper is to 1) highlight the importance of integrating General Practice (GP), Electronic Patient Records (EPR) with Library Services (LS) and 2) also explore why it would be advantageous to implement patient-centred Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) meetings in primary care for patients with Long-Term Conditions (LTCs). This article provides a UK glance and how primary care services can be improved, integrating for the better. Having access to Electronic Patient Records (EPR) alone will not help or encourage a patient to gain confidence and/ or understanding especially if patients are overwhelmed by their healthcare choices and Health Literacy (HL) complexities. Patients' whose first language is not English for example, approaching more methods to support HL is/ will be challenging. Library and Health Services partnerships should be initiated to allowing access to wider resources. In addition, patient-centred Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) meetings should be arranged at dedicated time points between a doctor and patient/ carer and these can take place in a private section within library setting involving wider participation in care plans. Given that more patients and the public will have opportunity to access their health records, a “Libraries and Health” partnership can help integrate primary healthcare better thus allowing all to access health-related literature, using books, leaflets and digital media in a comfortable environment in a setting that also has staff that can support with HL and technology. An EPR and MDT initiative should be supported with library and health partnerships; this needs to be encouraged.

scholarly journals Comparing the content and quality of video, telephone, and face-to-face consultations: a non-randomised, quasi-experimental, exploratory study in UK primary care

2019 ◽  
Vol 69 (686) ◽  
pp. e595-e604 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victoria Hammersley ◽  
Eddie Donaghy ◽  
Richard Parker ◽  
Hannah McNeilly ◽  
Helen Atherton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Technical Problems ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Information Giving ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Primary Care Services ◽  
Quasi Experimental ◽  
Primary Care Clinicians

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.

scholarly journals Factors for Supporting Primary Care Physician Engagement With Patient Apps for Type 2 Diabetes Self-Management That Link to Primary Care: Interview Study (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie Ayre ◽  
Carissa Bonner ◽  
Sian Bramwell ◽  
Sharon McClelland ◽  
Rajini Jayaballa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Care Physician ◽  
Self Management ◽  
Clinical Tool ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Primary Care Services ◽  
Potential Benefits

BACKGROUND The health burden of type 2 diabetes can be mitigated by engaging patients in two key aspects of diabetes care: self-management and regular contact with health professionals. There is a clear benefit to integrating these aspects of care into a single clinical tool, and as mobile phone ownership increases, apps become a more feasible platform. However, the effectiveness of online health interventions is contingent on uptake by health care providers, which is typically low. There has been little research that focuses specifically on barriers and facilitators to health care provider uptake for interventions that link self-management apps to the user’s primary care physician (PCP). OBJECTIVE This study aimed to explore PCP perspectives on proposed features for a self-management app for patients with diabetes that would link to primary care services. METHODS Researchers conducted 25 semistructured interviews. The interviewer discussed potential features that would link in with the patient’s primary care services. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded. Framework analysis and the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research checklist were employed to ensure rigor. RESULTS Our analysis indicated that PCP attitudes toward proposed features for an app were underpinned by perceived roles of (1) diabetes self-management, (2) face-to-face care, and (3) the anticipated burden of new technologies on their practice. Theme 1 explored PCP perceptions about how an app could foster patient independence for self-management behaviors but could also increase responsibility and liability for the PCP. Theme 2 identified beliefs underpinning a commonly expressed preference for face-to-face care. PCPs perceived information was more motivating, better understood, and presented with greater empathy when delivered face to face rather than online. Theme 3 described how most PCPs anticipated an initial increase in workload while they learned to use a new clinical tool. Some PCPs accepted this burden on the basis that the change was inevitable as health care became more integrated. Others reported potential benefits were outweighed by effort to implement an app. This study also identified how app features can be positively framed, highlighting potential benefits for PCPs to maximize PCP engagement, buy-in, and uptake. For example, PCPs were more positive when they perceived that an app could facilitate communication and motivation between consultations, focus on building capacity for patient independence, and reinforce rather than replace in-person care. They were also more positive about app features that were automated, integrated with existing software, flexible for different patients, and included secondary benefits such as improved documentation. CONCLUSIONS This study provided insight into PCP perspectives on a diabetes app integrated with primary care services. This was observed as more than a technological change; PCPs were concerned about changes in workload, their role in self-management, and the nature of consultations. Our research highlighted potential facilitators and barriers to engaging PCPs in the implementation process.

Telephone consultation in primary care

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 321-337 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francisco Gonzalez ◽  
Blanca Cimadevila ◽  
Julio Garcia-Comesaña ◽  
Susana Cerqueiro ◽  
Eladio Andion ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Rural Areas ◽  
Public Healthcare ◽  
Telephone Consultation ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Primary Care Services ◽  
Gender And Age ◽  
Telephone Calls

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to describe and analyze a teleconsultation modality based on a simple telephone call, using either landline or mobile phone, made available to more than two million people. Telecommunication systems are an increasingly common feature in modern healthcare. However, making teleconsultations available to the entire population covered by a public health system is a challenging goal. Design/methodology/approach This retrospective longitudinal observational study analyzed how this modality was used at the primary care level in Galicia, a region in the Northwest of Spain, in 2014 and 2015, focusing on demand, gender and age preferences, rural vs urban population and efficiency. Findings Of 28,472,852 consultations requested in this period, 9.0 percent were telephone consultations. Women requested more telephone consultations (9.9 percent of total consultations) than men (7.7 percent of total consultations). The highest demand occurred for the over 85 age group for both men and women. In both years, 2014 and 2015, the number of telephone consultations per inhabitant was higher in urban (0.53 and 0.69) than in rural areas (0.34 and 0.47). In 10.9 percent of cases, the telephone consultations required further face-to-face consultation. Originality/value Conventional voice telephone calls can efficiently replace conventional face-to-face consultations in primary healthcare in roughly 10 percent of cases. Women are more likely than men to use primary care services in both face-to-face and telephone consultation modalities. Public healthcare systems should consider implementing telephone consultations to deliver their services.

scholarly journals How are clinical commissioning groups managing conflicts of interest under primary care co-commissioning in England? A qualitative analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (11) ◽  
pp. e018422 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valerie Moran ◽  
Pauline Allen ◽  
Imelda McDermott ◽  
Kath Checkland ◽  
Lynsey Warwick-Giles ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
New Governance ◽  
Telephone Surveys ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Study Approach ◽  
Telephone Interviews ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Primary Care Services

ObjectivesFrom April 2015, NHS England (NHSE) started to devolve responsibility for commissioning primary care services to clinical commissioning groups (CCGs). The aim of this paper is to explore how CCGs are managing potential conflicts of interest associated with groups of GPs commissioning themselves or their practices to provide services.DesignWe carried out two telephone surveys using a sample of CCGs. We also used a qualitative case study approach and collected data using interviews and meeting observations in four sites (CCGs).Setting/participantsWe conducted 57 telephone interviews and 42 face-to-face interviews with general practitioners (GPs) and CCG staff involved in primary care co-commissioning and observed 74 meetings of CCG committees responsible for primary care co-commissioning.ResultsConflicts of interest were seen as an inevitable consequence of CCGs commissioning primary care. Particular problems arose with obtaining unbiased clinical input for new incentive schemes and providing support to GP provider federations. Participants in meetings concerning primary care co-commissioning declared conflicts of interest at the outset of meetings. Different approaches were pursued regarding GPs involvement in subsequent discussions and decisions with inconsistency in the exclusion of GPs from meetings. CCG senior management felt confident that the new governance structures and policies dealt adequately with conflicts of interest, but we found these arrangements face limitations. While the revised NHSE statutory guidance on managing conflicts of interest (2016) was seen as an improvement on the original (2014), there still remained some confusion over various terms and concepts contained therein.ConclusionsDevolving responsibility for primary care co-commissioning to CCGs created a structural conflict of interest. The NHSE statutory guidance should be refined and clarified so that CCGs can properly manage conflicts of interest. Non-clinician members of committees involved in commissioning primary care require training in order to make decisions requiring clinical input in the absence of GPs.

A randomized trial of virtual visits in a general medicine practice

2009 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 115-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald F Dixon ◽  
James E Stahl
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
General Medicine ◽  
The Other ◽  
Presenting Problems ◽  
Diagnostic Agreement ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Desktop Videoconferencing ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Primary Care Services ◽  
Virtual Visits

We compared desktop videoconferencing to conventional face-to-face visits for a range of commonly presenting problems in a general practice. A total of 175 patients were recruited. Patients were randomized to one of two arms of the study. In the first arm, the patients completed a visit (virtual or face-to-face) with a physician; they then completed a second visit via the other modality with another physician. In the second arm of the study, subjects had both visits face-to-face; different physicians conducted the two face-to-face consultations. Patients found virtual visits similar to face-to-face visits on most measures, including time spent with the physician, ease of interaction and personal aspects of the interaction. Physicians were also highly satisfied with the virtual visit modality. The diagnostic agreement between physicians was 84% between face-to-face and virtual visits; it was 80% between the two face-to-face visits. The study suggests that both patients and physicians could benefit if virtual visits were used as an alternative method of accessing primary care services.

scholarly journals Analysis of primary care prescription trends in England during the COVID-19 pandemic compared against a predictive model

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. e001143
Author(s):  
John Scott Frazer ◽  
Glenn Ross Frazer
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Predictive Model ◽  
End Of Life ◽  
Symptom Control ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Primary Care Services

ObjectivesThe COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented impact across primary care. Primary care services have seen an upheaval, and more and more patients are engaging in telephone consultations in order to maintain social distancing. In the present study, we seek to quantify the effect of the pandemic on primary care prescribing.DesignWe conducted a retrospective analysis of the English Prescribing Dataset from January 2014 to November 2020, totalling 7 542 293 921 prescriptions. Data were separated into prepandemic and pandemic sets. A Holt-Winters predictive model was used to forecast individual drug prescribing based on historic trends. Observed data were compared with the forecast quantitatively and qualitatively.SettingAll prescriptions signed in England and dispensed during the years 2014–2020.ParticipantsAll residents of England who received a prescription from primary care facilities during 2014–2020.ResultsPrescribing of numerous health-critical medications was above predicted in March 2020, including salbutamol (53.0% (99% CI (41.2% to 66.9%))), insulin aspart (26.9% (99% CI (18.5% to 36.6%))) and tacrolimus (18.6% (99% CI (8.3% to 31.1%))). Medications for end-of-life symptom control increased in April, including levomepromazine hydrochloride (94.7% (99% CI (54.6% to 163.0%))). Medications requiring face-to-face visits decreased, including the local anaesthetic bupivacaine hydrochloride (86.6% (99% CI (89.3% to 82.0%))). There was no observed change in medications relating to type 2 diabetes, hypertension or mental health conditions.ConclusionsSignificantly increased prescribing of several medications was observed, especially among those critical for health. A dramatic spike in end-of-life prescribing highlights the adversity faced by community practitioners during 2020. Medications involving face-to-face consultations declined, as did contraceptives, travel-related vaccines and drugs used in dementia and Parkinson’s disease. Drugs relating to type 2 diabetes, hypertension and mental health were unchanged.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document