Risks to patient safety in remote consulting.


Journal

The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners
ISSN: 1478-5242
Titre abrégé: Br J Gen Pract
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9005323

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
20 Jun 2024
Historique:
medline: 21 6 2024
pubmed: 21 6 2024
entrez: 20 6 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Remote consulting was rolled out across general practice in 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Although most consultations are carried out safely, in some cases remote care has contributed to adverse outcomes. To understand where the risks lie in delivering primary care remotely. Mixed method study in UK primary care settings including general practice, out of hours and 111 services. Data was collated from NHS England complaints quarterly reviews, NHS Resolution cases, 111 Wales, the HSIB report into 111 COVID services and longitudinal case ethnographic cases studies of 11 general practices. 2 reviewers coded the data and identified themes. There are staff, patient, and setting factors that contribute to risk in remote consulting. Staff factors include communication skills, over-reliance on a previous diagnosis made remotely, failure to recognise clinical findings or the urgency of a case, over/under prescribing/investigating and referring and safety netting. Patient factors include impaired communication, repeated telephone consultations, unstable chronic disease, and certain medical conditions such as chest and abdominal pain. Risk was encountered when settings had limited telephone lines, call handlers or clinicians, or where access to appointments was either restricted, hard to navigate, or where inappropriate layers of triage were applied. Processes had not always adapted for remote working, leading to risk in delayed access to acute prescriptions and delayed referrals. Attention to staff, patient, and setting factors can allow risk to be identified and addressed when providing care remotely. .

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Remote consulting was rolled out across general practice in 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Although most consultations are carried out safely, in some cases remote care has contributed to adverse outcomes.
AIM OBJECTIVE
To understand where the risks lie in delivering primary care remotely.
METHOD METHODS
Mixed method study in UK primary care settings including general practice, out of hours and 111 services. Data was collated from NHS England complaints quarterly reviews, NHS Resolution cases, 111 Wales, the HSIB report into 111 COVID services and longitudinal case ethnographic cases studies of 11 general practices. 2 reviewers coded the data and identified themes.
RESULTS RESULTS
There are staff, patient, and setting factors that contribute to risk in remote consulting. Staff factors include communication skills, over-reliance on a previous diagnosis made remotely, failure to recognise clinical findings or the urgency of a case, over/under prescribing/investigating and referring and safety netting. Patient factors include impaired communication, repeated telephone consultations, unstable chronic disease, and certain medical conditions such as chest and abdominal pain. Risk was encountered when settings had limited telephone lines, call handlers or clinicians, or where access to appointments was either restricted, hard to navigate, or where inappropriate layers of triage were applied. Processes had not always adapted for remote working, leading to risk in delayed access to acute prescriptions and delayed referrals.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
Attention to staff, patient, and setting factors can allow risk to be identified and addressed when providing care remotely. .

Identifiants

pubmed: 38902094
pii: 74/suppl_1/bjgp24X737493
doi: 10.3399/bjgp24X737493
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

© British Journal of General Practice 2024.

Auteurs

Rebecca Payne (R)

University of Oxford.

Aileen Clarke (A)

University of Oxford.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH