Search

Background: The National Health Service (NHS) and general practice are increasingly adopting digital services. These services can impact both positively and negatively upon patient experiences, and access to digital services is not equal amongst all groups. Within a wider project examining digital facilitation (the Di-Facto study) our team conducted a patient survey amongst English primary care practices aiming to investigate patient views of what supports uptake and use of web-based services. This paper reports on the analysis of the free-text responses from the patient survey. Methods: The Di-Facto patient survey was distributed to practices in eight clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) in England between 2021–2022. We examined free-text responses to two questions relating to access to primary care web-based and support for web-based services. We used qualitative reflexive thematic analysis based on a six-stage process to analyse responses. Results: Of the 3051 patients who responded to the Di-Facto survey, 2246 provided a free-text response. We present our findings in two major themes: systems and structures and their impact on use of web-based services, and 'what works for me', a description of how respondents described what worked, or did not work in terms of their interactions with web-based services. Respondents described how the technology, such as poor practice website design, confusion over multiple digital apps, data security and concerns about eConsultation offerings impacted on use of web-based services. Respondents described practice level barriers, such as a lack of or inconsistent provision, which prevented optimal use of web-based services. Respondents described personal and technical barriers that impacted on their use of digital services, and described which web-based services worked well for them. Respondents felt that web-based services were not a replacement for face-to-face interactions with a doctor. Conclusions: This analysis of free-text responses from a large patient survey highlights the system, practice, and person level barriers and facilitators to use of digital services in primary care. With an increasing push towards digital solutions in NHS primary care, practices should consider the design, rollout and communication of their web-based services to support patient access. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although policy discourses frame integrated Electronic Health Records (EHRs) as essential for contemporary healthcare systems, increased information sharing often raises concerns among patients and the public. This paper examines patient and public views about the security and privacy of EHRs used for health provision, research and policy in the UK.Methods: Sequential mixed methods study with a cross-sectional survey (in 2011) followed by focus group discussions (in 2012-2013). Survey participants (N = 5331) were recruited from primary and secondary care settings in West London (UK). Complete data for 2761 (51.8 %) participants were included in the final analysis for this paper. The survey results were discussed in 13 focus groups with people living with a range of different health conditions, and in 4 mixed focus groups with patients, health professionals and researchers (total N = 120). Qualitative data were analysed thematically.Results: In the survey, 79 % of participants reported that they would worry about the security of their record if this was part of a national EHR system and 71 % thought the National Health Service (NHS) was unable to guarantee EHR safety at the time this work was carried out. Almost half (47 %) responded that EHRs would be less secure compared with the way their health record was held at the time of the survey. Of those who reported being worried about EHR security, many would nevertheless support their development (55 %), while 12 % would not support national EHRs and a sizeable proportion (33 %) were undecided. There were also variations by age, ethnicity and education. In focus group discussions participants weighed up perceived benefits against potential security and privacy threats from wider sharing of information, as well as discussing other perceived risks: commercial exploitation, lack of accountability, data inaccuracies, prejudice and inequalities in health provision.Conclusions: Patient and public worries about the security risks associated with integrated EHRs highlight the need for intensive public awareness and engagement initiatives, together with the establishment of trustworthy security and privacy mechanisms for health information sharing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background In 2017, new regulations in England introduced upfront charging for non-urgent care within the National Health Service (NHS). Individuals from outside the European Economic Area who have not paid the immigration surcharge are chargeable for NHS care at 150% of cost. Methods A freedom of information (FOI) request was sent to 135 acute non-specialist NHS trusts in England to create a database of overseas visitors charges. This was analysed using multiple linear regression to explore the relationship between sex, age, nationality, ethnicity, urgency and the cost of healthcare. Results Of 135 acute non-specialist trusts in England 64 replied, providing a data set of 13 484 patients. Women were found to be invoiced higher amounts than men (P  = 0.002). Patients were more likely to be women (63 versus 37% men), and within this group, almost half of patients were of reproductive age, with 47.9% (3165) aged 16–40 years old. Only seven trusts supplied data on urgency, and within these trusts the urgency of treatment was significantly related to cost, with the most urgent (immediately necessary) treatment costing the most (P  < 0.001). Conclusion This research reflects that that migrant women, and particularly undocumented women, are disproportionately impacted by the NHS charging policies in England. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients continue to develop skin damage and pressure ulcers (PUs). The aim of this audit was to explore the prevalence of PUs and the adherence to the fundamental elements of the aSSKINg framework across hospitals in England. A cross-sectional survey was conducted on 10,144 patients from 36 hospitals representing 18 NHS trusts. The PU status of all patients was determined by two independent nurses who assessed the skin and ensured data capture was completed. The overall prevalence of PUs recorded, in terms or proportion of patients with 1 or more PUs, was 9.04% (95% confidence interval (CI) 8.48% to 9.60%). There were 689 (64.0%) PU allocated a category (i.e., 1,2,3,4, unstageable (US) or deep tissue injury (DTI)) were superficial, involving only the skin (categories 1 and 2). A further 218 (20.3%) were in an evolving category, i.e. US or DTI. There were 7086 patients (69.8%) that had a risk assessment completed within six hours, 6576 (81.4%) patients considered to be at risk had a care plan in place, but only 5216 patients (51.3%) had a planned repositioning regimen in place. This audit has identified areas of care that require improvement to prevent PU occurrence, including patient education and keeping patients moving and repositioning. There continues to be over-prescription of equipment, with patients being allocated higher specification equipment than their risk score identifies and no clinical reason apparent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background With the aim of decreasing immigration, the British government extended charging for healthcare in England for certain migrants in 2017. There is concern these policies amplify the barriers to healthcare already faced by asylum seekers and refugees (ASRs). Awareness has been shown to be fundamental to access. This article jointly explores (i) health care professionals' (HCPs) awareness of migrants' eligibility for healthcare, and (ii) ASRs' awareness of health services. Methods Mixed methods were used. Quantitative survey data explored HCPs' awareness of migrants' eligibility to healthcare after the extension of charging regulations. Qualitative data from semi-structured interviews with ASRs were analyzed thematically using Saurman's domains of awareness as a framework. Results In total 514 HCPs responded to the survey. Significant gaps in HCPs' awareness of definitions, entitlements and charging regulations were identified. 80% of HCP respondents were not confident defining the immigration categories upon which eligibility for care rests. Only a small minority (6%) reported both awareness and understanding of the charging regulations. In parallel, the 18 ASRs interviewed had poor awareness of their eligibility for free National Health Service care and suitability for particular services. This was compounded by language difficulties, social isolation, frequent asylum dispersal accommodation moves, and poverty. Conclusion This study identifies significant confusion amongst both HCP and ASR concerning eligibility and healthcare access. The consequent negative impact on health is concerning given the contemporary political climate, where eligibility for healthcare depends on immigration status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Emergency surgical patients account for around half of all NHS surgical workload and 80 % of surgical deaths. Few trainees opt to CCT in General Surgery, and there is no recognised subspecialty training program in Emergency General Surgery (EGS). Despite this lack of training and relevant assessment by examination, there appears to be an increasing number of EGS posts advertised. This study aims to provide information about potential future employment opportunities for surgical trainees. Methods: All consultant surgeon posts, advertised in the British Medical Journal between January 2009 and December 2014 were included. Data collected included specialty, region and institute of advertised post. For the purposes of statistical analysis, data was divided into two separate year bands: 2009-2011 and 2012-2014. Statistical analysis was by Chi-squared test; p <0.01 was considered statistically significant. An online tool was also used to determine experience and attitudes towards EGS amongst Consultant members of the ASGBI and all UK trainees in national training number (NTN) posts. Results: Over the six-year study period, there were 1240 consultant job adverts in a general surgical specialty. Nine hundred and 75 were substantive posts; the region with the most jobs was London and the South East (n = 278). There were 55 jobs advertised in EGS, either with (20) or without (35) another subspecialty. The number of EGS adverts increased significantly in 2012-14 compared to 2009-11 (p = 0.008). 229 (28 %) Consultants and 309 (22 %) trainees responded to the survey. 16 % of consultants work in NHS institutions with Emergency General Surgeons. Only 21 % of trainees believe EGS will be delivered by EGS consultants in the future whilst 8.2 % of trainees stated EGS as their career plan. Less than half of all UK consultant surgeons see EGS as a subspecialty. Conclusions: This data demonstrates increasing societal need for EGS consultants over the last six years and the emergence of Emergency Surgery as a new subspecialty. In order to meet the EGS needs of the NHS, general surgical training and the examination system need to be revised. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the research that investigates the implications of patients' varied information requirements and socio-demographic attributes on their choice of healthcare institutions in Great Britain. The topics discussed include the factors that influence patients' choice of hospitals and the reasons why some patients decided to switch hospitals and healthcare providers.