Professional perspectives on impacts, benefits and disadvantages of changes made to community continence services during the COVID-19 pandemic: findings from the EPICCC-19 national survey.
Access to care
COVID-19
Community continence services
Digital health
Impact
Incontinence
Qualitative
Redeployment
Remote appointments
Remote consultations
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Jun 2022
15 Jun 2022
Historique:
received:
16
12
2021
accepted:
30
05
2022
entrez:
15
6
2022
pubmed:
16
6
2022
medline:
18
6
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The COVID-19 pandemic required changes to the organisation and delivery of NHS community continence services which assess and treat adults and children experiencing bladder and bowel difficulties. Although strong evidence exists for the physical and mental health benefits, improved quality of life, and health service efficiencies resulting from optimally organised community-based continence services, recent audits identified pre-pandemic pressures on these services. The aim of this study was to explore professional perceptions of changes made to community continence services due to the COVID-19 pandemic and consequent impacts on practice, care provision and patient experience. Online survey of 65 community continence services in England. Thematic analysis using constant comparison of open-ended questions. Frequency counts of closed-ended questions. Sixty-five services across 34 Sustainability and Transformation Partnership areas responded to the survey. Use of remote/virtual consultations enabled continuation of continence care but aspects of 'usual' assessment (examinations, tests) could not be completed within a remote assessment, requiring professionals to decide which patients needed subsequent in-person appointments. Remote appointments could increase service capacity due to their time efficiency, were favoured by some patients for their convenience, and could increase access to care for others. However, the limited ability to complete aspects of usual assessment raised concerns that diagnoses could be missed, or inappropriate care initiated. The format also restricted opportunities to identify non-verbal cues that could inform professional interpretation; and made building a therapeutic relationship between professional and patient more challenging. Remote appointments also posed access challenges for some patient groups. A third of participating services had experienced staff redeployment, resulting in long wait times and some patients being left without care; or reported additional caseload, which had delayed care provision for patients with continence issues. Participants perceived continence care to have been deprioritised, and more generally undervalued, and called for greater recognition of the impact of continence care. Remote appointments offer efficiency and convenience. However, 'in-person' approaches are highly valued for optimum quality, patient-centred continence care, and good team relationships. Failure to restore redeployed continence staff will diminish patient health and quality of life, with associated costs to the NHS.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The COVID-19 pandemic required changes to the organisation and delivery of NHS community continence services which assess and treat adults and children experiencing bladder and bowel difficulties. Although strong evidence exists for the physical and mental health benefits, improved quality of life, and health service efficiencies resulting from optimally organised community-based continence services, recent audits identified pre-pandemic pressures on these services. The aim of this study was to explore professional perceptions of changes made to community continence services due to the COVID-19 pandemic and consequent impacts on practice, care provision and patient experience.
METHODS
METHODS
Online survey of 65 community continence services in England. Thematic analysis using constant comparison of open-ended questions. Frequency counts of closed-ended questions.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Sixty-five services across 34 Sustainability and Transformation Partnership areas responded to the survey. Use of remote/virtual consultations enabled continuation of continence care but aspects of 'usual' assessment (examinations, tests) could not be completed within a remote assessment, requiring professionals to decide which patients needed subsequent in-person appointments. Remote appointments could increase service capacity due to their time efficiency, were favoured by some patients for their convenience, and could increase access to care for others. However, the limited ability to complete aspects of usual assessment raised concerns that diagnoses could be missed, or inappropriate care initiated. The format also restricted opportunities to identify non-verbal cues that could inform professional interpretation; and made building a therapeutic relationship between professional and patient more challenging. Remote appointments also posed access challenges for some patient groups. A third of participating services had experienced staff redeployment, resulting in long wait times and some patients being left without care; or reported additional caseload, which had delayed care provision for patients with continence issues. Participants perceived continence care to have been deprioritised, and more generally undervalued, and called for greater recognition of the impact of continence care.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Remote appointments offer efficiency and convenience. However, 'in-person' approaches are highly valued for optimum quality, patient-centred continence care, and good team relationships. Failure to restore redeployed continence staff will diminish patient health and quality of life, with associated costs to the NHS.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35705988
doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-08163-3
pii: 10.1186/s12913-022-08163-3
pmc: PMC9199465
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
783Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Br J Gen Pract. 2009 Jun;59(563):e209-18
pubmed: 19520019
Injury. 2020 Oct;51(10):2142-2147
pubmed: 32654849
BMJ Open. 2017 Mar 14;7(3):e014238
pubmed: 28292756
Acta Paediatr. 2014 Sep;103(9):e410-5
pubmed: 24834790
J Public Health Med. 2000 Sep;22(3):427-34
pubmed: 11077920
BMJ. 1995 Oct 21;311(7012):1063-4
pubmed: 7580664
J Med Internet Res. 2018 Jun 27;20(6):e221
pubmed: 29950290
Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2017 Jun;26(6):649-658
pubmed: 27943057
BMJ. 2020 Mar 12;368:m998
pubmed: 32165352
Open Heart. 2020 Aug;7(2):
pubmed: 32855212
Br J Gen Pract. 2019 Aug 29;69(686):e586-e594
pubmed: 31160368
Br J Gen Pract. 2022 Jan 27;72(715):e128-e137
pubmed: 34903520
Int J Clin Pract. 2009 Apr;63(4):568-73
pubmed: 19175680
Br J Gen Pract. 2005 Sep;55(518):696-703
pubmed: 16176737
Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Jan;101(1):149-56
pubmed: 12517660
J Appl Behav Anal. 1990 Spring;23(1):111-8
pubmed: 2335482