Search

Background: Most COVID-19 patients were treated in primary health care (PHC) in Europe., Objectives: To demonstrate the scope of PHC workflow during the COVID-19 pandemic emphasising similarities and differences of patient's clinical pathways in Europe., Methods: Descriptive, cross-sectional study with data acquired through a semi-structured questionnaire in PHC in 30 European countries, created ad hoc and agreed upon among all researchers who participated in the study. GPs from each country answered the approved questionnaire. Main variable: PHC COVID-19 acute clinical pathway. All variables were collected from each country as of September 2020., Results: COVID-19 clinics in PHC facilities were organised in 8/30. Case detection and testing were performed in PHC in 27/30 countries. RT-PCR and lateral flow tests were performed in PHC in 23/30, free of charge with a medical prescription. Contact tracing was performed mainly by public health authorities. Mandatory isolation ranged from 5 to 14 days. Sick leave certification was given exclusively by GPs in 21/30 countries. Patient hotels or other resources to isolate patients were available in 12/30. Follow-up to monitor the symptoms and/or new complementary tests was made mainly by phone call (27/30). Chest X-ray and phlebotomy were performed in PHC in 18/30 and 23/30 countries, respectively. Oxygen and low-molecular-weight heparin were available in PHC (21/30)., Conclusion: In Europe PHC participated in many steps to diagnose, treat and monitor COVID-19 patients. Differences among countries might be addressed at European level for the management of future pandemics.

Background: The introduction of remote triage and assessment early in the pandemic raised questions about patient safety. We sought to capture patients and clinicians' experiences of the management of suspected acute COVID-19 and generate wider lessons to inform safer care., Setting and Sample: UK primary healthcare. A subset of relevant data was drawn from five linked in-pandemic qualitative studies. The data set, on a total of 87 participants recruited via social media, patient groups and snowballing, comprised free text excerpts from narrative interviews (10 survivors of acute COVID-19), online focus groups (20 patients and 30 clinicians), contributions to a Delphi panel (12 clinicians) and fieldnotes from an online workshop (15 patients, clinicians and stakeholders)., Methods: Data were uploaded onto NVivo. Coding was initially deductive and informed by WHO and Institute of Medicine frameworks of quality and safety. Further inductive analysis refined our theorisation using a wider range of theories-including those of risk, resilience, crisis management and social justice., Results: In the early weeks of the pandemic, patient safety was compromised by the driving logic of 'stay home' and 'protect the NHS', in which both patients and clinicians were encouraged to act in a way that helped reduce pressure on an overloaded system facing a novel pathogen with insufficient staff, tools, processes and systems. Furthermore, patients and clinicians observed a shift to a more transactional approach characterised by overuse of algorithms and decision support tools, limited empathy and lack of holistic assessment., Conclusion: Lessons from the pandemic suggest three key strategies are needed to prevent avoidable deaths and inequalities in the next crisis: (1) strengthen system resilience (including improved resourcing and staffing; support of new tools and processes; and recognising primary care's role as the 'risk sink' of the healthcare system); (2) develop evidence-based triage and scoring systems; and (3) address social vulnerability., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: There is an urgent need to support primary care organisations in implementing safe and high-quality virtual consultations. We have previously performed qualitative research to capture the views of 1600 primary care physicians across 20 countries on the main benefits and challenges of using virtual consultations. Subsequently, a prototype of a framework to guide the implementation of high-quality virtual primary care was developed., Aim: To explore general practitioners' perspectives on the appropriateness and relevance of each component of the framework's prototype, to further refine it and optimise its practical use in primary care facilities., Methods and Analysis: Participants will be primary care physicians with active experience providing virtual care, recruited through convenience and snowball sampling. This study will use a systematic and iterative online Delphi research approach (eDelphi), with a minimum of three rounds. A pre-round will be used to circulate items for initial feedback and adjustment. In subsequent rounds, participants will be asked to rate the relevance of the framework's components. Consensus will be defined as >70% of participants agreeing/strongly agreeing or disagreeing/strongly disagreeing with a component. Data will be collected using structured online questionnaires. The primary outcome of the study will be a list of the essential components to be incorporated in the final version of the framework., Ethics and Dissemination: The study has received ethical approval conceded by the Imperial College London Science, Engineering and Technology Research Ethics Committee (SETREC) (reference no .6559176/2023). Anonymous results will be made available to the public, academic organisations and policymakers., Competing Interests: Competing interests: BH is an employee of eConsult Health Ltd, a provider of electronic consultations for NHS primary, secondary and urgent/emergency care. Other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background and Aim: Primary health care (PHC) supported long-term care facilities (LTCFs) in attending COVID-19 patients. The aim of this study is to describe the role of PHC in LTCFs in Europe during the early phase of the pandemic., Methods: Retrospective descriptive study from 30 European countries using data from September 2020 collected with an ad hoc semi-structured questionnaire. Related variables are SARS-CoV-2 testing, contact tracing, follow-up, additional testing, and patient care., Results: Twenty-six out of the 30 European countries had PHC involvement in LTCFs during the COVID-19 pandemic. PHC participated in initial medical care in 22 countries, while, in 15, PHC was responsible for SARS-CoV-2 test along with other institutions. Supervision of individuals in isolation was carried out mostly by LTCF staff, but physical examination or symptom's follow-up was performed mainly by PHC., Conclusion: PHC has participated in COVID-19 pandemic assistance in LTCFs in coordination with LTCF staff, public health officers, and hospitals.

We constructed a preventive social behaviours (PSB) Index using survey questions that were aligned with WHO recommendations, and used linear regression to assess the impact of reported COVID-19 deaths (RCD), people's confidence of government handling of the pandemic (CGH) and government stringency (GS) in the United Kingdom (UK) over time on the PSB index. We used repeated, nationally representative, cross-sectional surveys in the UK over the course of 41 weeks from 1st April 2020 to January 28th, 2021, including a total of 38,092 participants. The PSB index was positively correlated with the logarithm of RCD (R: 0.881, p < .001), CGH (R: 0.592, p < .001) and GS (R: 0.785, p < .001), but was not correlated with time (R: -0.118, p = .485). A multivariate linear regression analysis suggests that the log of RCD (coefficient: 0.125, p < .001), GS (coefficient: 0.010, p = .019), and CGH (coefficient: 0.0.009, p < .001) had a positive and significant impact on the PSB Index, while time did not affect it significantly. These findings suggest that people's behaviours could have been affected by multiple factors during the pandemic, with the number of COVID-19 deaths being the largest contributor towards an increase in protective behaviours in our model., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Despite large-scale adoption during COVID-19, patient perceptions on the benefits and potential risks with receiving care through digital technologies have remained largely unexplored. A quantitative content analysis of responses to a questionnaire ( N = 6766) conducted at a multi-site acute trust in London (UK), was adopted to identify commonly reported benefits and concerns. Patients reported a range of promising benefits beyond immediate usage during COVID-19, including ease of access; support for disease and care management; improved timeliness of access and treatment; and better prioritisation of healthcare resources. However, in addition to known risks such as data security and inequity in access, our findings also illuminate some less studied concerns, including perceptions of compromised safety; negative impacts on patient-clinician relationships; and difficulties in interpreting health information provided through electronic health records and mHealth apps. Implications for future research and practice are discussed., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: Diagnosing cancer at an early stage increases the likelihood of survival, and more advanced cancers are more difficult to treat successfully. Primary care practitioners (PCPs) play a key role in timely diagnosis of cancer. PCPs' knowledge of their own patient populations and health systems could help improve the planning of more effective approaches to earlier cancer recognition and referral. How PCPs act when faced with patients who may have cancer is likely to depend on how their health systems are organised, and this may be one explanation for the wide variation on cancer survival rates across Europe., Objectives: To identify and characterise clusters of countries whose PCPs perceive the same factors as being important in improving the timeliness of cancer diagnosis., Methods: A cluster analysis of qualitative data from an online survey was carried out. PCPs answered an open-ended survey question on how the speed of diagnosis of cancer in primary care could be improved. Following coding and thematic analysis, we identified the number of times per country that an item in a theme was mentioned. k-means clustering identified clusters of countries whose PCPs perceived the same themes as most important. Post-hoc testing explored differences between these clusters., Setting: Twenty-five primary care centres in 20 European countries. Each centre was asked to recruit at least 50 participants., Participants: Primary care practitioners of each country., Results: In all, 1,351 PCPs gave free-text answers. We identified eighteen themes organising the content of the responses. Based on the frequency of the themes, k-means clustering identified three groups of countries. There were significant differences between clusters regarding the importance of: access to tests (p = 0.010); access to specialists (p = 0.014), screening (p < 0.001); and finances, quotas & limits (p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Our study identified three distinct clusters of European countries within which PCPs had similar views on the factors that would improve the timeliness of cancer diagnosis. Further work is needed to understand what it is about the clusters that have produced these patterns, allowing healthcare systems to share best practice and to reduce disparities., (© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Digital health technologies (DHTs) have become increasingly commonplace as a means of delivering primary care. While DHTs have been postulated to reduce inequalities, increase access, and strengthen health systems, how the implementation of DHTs has been realized in the sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) health care environment remains inadequately explored., Objective: This study aims to capture the multidisciplinary experiences of primary care professionals using DHTs to explore the strengths and weaknesses, as well as opportunities and threats, regarding the implementation and use of DHTs in SSA primary care settings., Methods: A combination of qualitative approaches was adopted (ie, focus groups and semistructured interviews). Participants were recruited through the African Forum for Primary Care and researchers' contact networks using convenience sampling and included if having experience with digital technologies in primary health care in SSA. Focus and interviews were conducted, respectively, in November 2021 and January-March 2022. Topic guides were used to cover relevant topics in the interviews, using the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats framework. Transcripts were compiled verbatim and systematically reviewed by 2 independent reviewers using framework analysis to identify emerging themes. The COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research) checklist was used to ensure the study met the recommended standards of qualitative data reporting., Results: A total of 33 participants participated in the study (n=13 and n=23 in the interviews and in focus groups, respectively; n=3 participants participated in both). The strengths of using DHTs ranged from improving access to care, supporting the continuity of care, and increasing care satisfaction and trust to greater collaboration, enabling safer decision-making, and hastening progress toward universal health coverage. Weaknesses included poor digital literacy, health inequalities, lack of human resources, inadequate training, lack of basic infrastructure and equipment, and poor coordination when implementing DHTs. DHTs were perceived as an opportunity to improve patient digital literacy, increase equity, promote more patient-centric design in upcoming DHTs, streamline expenditure, and provide a means to learn international best practices. Threats identified include the lack of buy-in from both patients and providers, insufficient human resources and local capacity, inadequate governmental support, overly restrictive regulations, and a lack of focus on cybersecurity and data protection., Conclusions: The research highlights the complex challenges of implementing DHTs in the SSA context as a fast-moving health delivery modality, as well as the need for multistakeholder involvement. Future research should explore the nuances of these findings across different technologies and settings in the SSA region and implications on health and health care equity, capitalizing on mixed-methods research, including the use of real-world quantitative data to understand patient health needs. The promise of digital health will only be realized when informed by studies that incorporate patient perspective at every stage of the research cycle., (©Niki O'Brien, Edmond Li, Cynthia N Chaibva, Raquel Gomez Bravo, Lana Kovacevic, Nana Kwame Ayisi-Boateng, Olivia Lounsbury, Ngnedjou Francoise F Nwabufo, Ephraim Kumi Senkyire, Alice Serafini, Eleleta Surafel Abay, Steven van de Vijver, Mercy Wanjala, Marie-Claire Wangari, Shabir Moosa, Ana Luisa Neves. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 07.09.2023.)

Background: The adoption of virtual consultations, catalyzed by the COVID-19 pandemic, has transformed the delivery of primary care services. Owing to their rapid global proliferation, there is a need to comprehensively evaluate the impact of virtual consultations on all aspects of care quality., Objective: This study aims to evaluate the impact of virtual consultations on the quality of primary care., Methods: A total of 6 databases were searched. Studies that evaluated the impact of virtual consultations, for any disease, were included. Title and abstract screening and full-text screening were performed by 2 pairs of investigators. Risk of bias was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. A narrative synthesis of the results was performed., Results: In total, 30 studies (5,469,333 participants) were included in this review. Our findings suggest that virtual consultations are equally effective to or more effective than face-to-face care for the management of certain conditions, including mental illness, excessive smoking, and alcohol consumption. Overall, 4 studies indicated positive impacts on some aspects of patient-centeredness; however, a negative impact was noted on patients' perceived autonomy support (ie, the degree to which people perceive those in positions of authority to be autonomy supportive). Virtual consultations may reduce waiting times, lower patient costs, and reduce rates of follow-up in secondary and tertiary care settings. Evidence for the impact on clinical safety is extremely limited. Evidence regarding equity was considerably mixed. Overall, it appears that virtual care is more likely to be used by younger, female patients, with disparities among other subgroups depending on contextual factors., Conclusions: Our systematic review demonstrated that virtual consultations may be as effective as face-to-face care and have a potentially positive impact on the efficiency and timeliness of care; however, there is a considerable lack of evidence on the impacts on patient safety, equity, and patient-centeredness, highlighting areas where future research efforts should be devoted. Capitalizing on real-world data, as well as clinical trials, is crucial to ensure that the use of virtual consultations is tailored according to patient needs and is inclusive of the intended end users. Data collection methods that are bespoke to the primary care context and account for patient characteristics are necessary to generate a stronger evidence base to inform future virtual care policies., (©Kate Campbell, Geva Greenfield, Edmond Li, Niki O'Brien, Benedict Hayhoe, Thomas Beaney, Azeem Majeed, Ana Luísa Neves. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 30.08.2023.)

Background: In the era of electronic health records (EHR), the ability to share clinical data is a key facilitator of healthcare delivery. Since the introduction of EHRs, this aspect has been extensively studied from the perspective of healthcare providers. Less often explored are the day-to-day challenges surrounding the procurement, deployment, maintenance, and use of interoperable EHR systems, from the perspective of healthcare administrators, such as chief clinical information officers (CCIOs)., Objective: Our study aims to capture the perceptions of CCIOs on the current state of EHR interoperability in the NHS, its impact on patient safety, the perceived facilitators and barriers to improving EHR interoperability, and what the future of EHR development in the NHS may entail., Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted between November 2020 - October 2021. Convenience sampling was employed to recruit NHS England CCIOs. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. A thematic analysis was performed by two independent researchers to identify emerging themes., Results: Fifteen CCIOs participated in the study. Participants reported that limited EHR interoperability contributed to the inability to easily access and transfer data into a unified source, thus resulting in data fragmentation. The resulting lack of clarity on patients' health status negatively impacts patient safety through suboptimal care coordination, duplication of efforts, and more defensive practice. Facilitators to improving interoperability included the recognition of the need by clinicians, patient expectations, and the inherent centralised nature of the NHS. Barriers included systems usability difficulties, and institutional, data management, and financial-related challenges. Looking ahead, participants acknowledged that realising that vision across the NHS would require a renewed focus on mandating data standards, user-centred design, greater patient involvement, and encouraging inter-organisational collaboration., Conclusion: Tackling poor interoperability will require solutions both at the technical level and in the wider policy context. This will involve demanding interoperability functionalities from the outset in procurement contracts, fostering greater inter-organisation cooperation on implementation strategies, and encouraging systems vendors to prioritise interoperability in their products. Only by comprehensively addressing these challenges would the full potential promised by the use of fully interoperable EHRs be realised., (© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Summary: Background. Patients and Public Involvement in every stage of the patient-centered health research cycle is the key to the development of innovative solutions with an impact on patients' care. Methods. This protocol describes the development of ConectAR, a network to promote the involvement of patients with asthma and their carers in the health research cycle. Results. This protocol comprehends 4 tasks: 1) define the mission, vision, governance and activities of the network through focus groups; 2) establish the communication strategy and tools; 3) test the feasibility of the network in a Delphi study on the research priorities for asthma in Portugal; 4) coordination and dissemination activities. Conclusions. This network will improve research by ensuring that patients and carers have an active role in the co-creation of impactful solutions for asthma.

Background: To identify the impact of enrolment onto a national pulse oximetry remote monitoring programme for COVID-19 (COVID-19 Oximetry @home; CO@h) on health service use and mortality in patients attending Emergency Departments (EDs)., Methods: We conducted a retrospective matched cohort study of patients enrolled onto the CO@h pathway from EDs in England. We included all patients with a positive COVID-19 test from 1 October 2020 to 3 May 2021 who attended ED from 3 days before to 10 days after the date of the test. All patients who were admitted or died on the same or following day to the first ED attendance within the time window were excluded. In the primary analysis, participants enrolled onto CO@h were matched using demographic and clinical criteria to participants who were not enrolled. Five outcome measures were examined within 28 days of first ED attendance: (1) Death from any cause; (2) Any subsequent ED attendance; (3) Any emergency hospital admission; (4) Critical care admission; and (5) Length of stay., Results: 15 621 participants were included in the primary analysis, of whom 639 were enrolled onto CO@h and 14 982 were controls. Odds of death were 52% lower in those enrolled (95% CI 7% to 75%) compared with those not enrolled onto CO@h. Odds of any ED attendance or admission were 37% (95% CI 16% to 63%) and 59% (95% CI 32% to 91%) higher, respectively, in those enrolled. Of those admitted, those enrolled had 53% (95% CI 7% to 76%) lower odds of critical care admission. There was no significant impact on length of stay., Conclusions: These findings indicate that for patients assessed in ED, pulse oximetry remote monitoring may be a clinically effective and safe model for early detection of hypoxia and escalation. However, possible selection biases might limit the generalisability to other populations., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at http://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: JC has received fees from Philips UK Limited for consultancy services outside of the submitted work. SE has received fees for an educational lecture sponsored by Astra Zeneca and is co-clinical director for the NHS England and Improvement London Respiratory Network. All other authors report no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Hypoxaemia is an important predictor of severity in individuals with COVID-19 and can present without symptoms. The COVID Oximetry @home (CO@h) programme was implemented across England in November, 2020, providing pulse oximeters to higher-risk people with COVID-19 to enable early detection of deterioration and the need for escalation of care. We aimed to describe the clinical and demographic characteristics of individuals enrolled onto the programme and to assess whether there were any inequalities in enrolment., Methods: This retrospective observational study was based on data from a cohort of people resident in England recorded as having a positive COVID-19 test between Oct 1, 2020, and May 3, 2021. The proportion of participants enrolled onto the CO@h programmes in the 7 days before and 28 days after a positive COVID-19 test was calculated for each clinical commissioning group (CCG) in England. Two-level hierarchical multivariable logistic regression with random intercepts for each CCG was run to identify factors predictive of being enrolled onto the CO@h programme., Findings: CO@h programme sites were reported by NHS England as becoming operational between Nov 21 and Dec 31, 2020. 1 227 405 people resident in 72 CCGs had a positive COVID-19 test between the date of programme implementation and May 3, 2021, of whom 19 932 (1·6%) were enrolled onto the CO@h programme. Of those enrolled, 14 441 (72·5%) were aged 50 years or older or were identified as clinically extremely vulnerable (ie, having a high-risk medical condition). Higher odds of enrolment onto the CO@h programme were found in older individuals (adjusted odds ratio 2·21 [95% CI 2·19-2·23], p<0·001, for those aged 50-64 years; 3·48 [3·33-3·63], p<0·001, for those aged 65-79 years; and 2·50 [2·34-2·68], p<0·001, for those aged ≥80 years), in individuals of non-White ethnicity (1·35 [1·28-1·43], p<0·001, for Asian individuals; 1·13 [1·04-1·22], p=0·005, for Black individuals; and 1·17 [1·03-1·32], p=0·015, for those of mixed ethnicity), in those who were overweight (1·31 [1·26-1·37], p<0·001) or obese (1·69 [1·63-1·77], p<0·001), or in those identified as clinically extremely vulnerable (1·58 [1·51-1·65], p<0·001), and lower odds were reported in those from the least socioeconomically deprived areas compared with those from the most socioeconomically deprived areas (0·75 [0·69-0·81]; p<0·001)., Interpretation: Nationally, uptake of the CO@h programme was low, with clinical judgment used to determine eligibility. Preferential enrolment onto the pulse oximetry monitoring programme was observed in people known to be at the highest risk of developing severe COVID-19., Funding: NHS England, National Institute for Health Research, and The Wellcome Trust., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JC has received fees from Philips for consultancy services outside of the submitted work. HA is Chief Scientific Officer, Preemptive Medicine and Health Security at Flagship Pioneering. SE has received fees for an educational lecture sponsored by AstraZeneca and is co-clinical director for NHS England and the Improvement London Respiratory Network. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The extent to which digital technologies are employed to promote the delivery of high-quality healthcare is known as Digital Maturity. Individual and systemic digital maturity are both necessary to ensure a successful, scalable and sustainable digital transformation in healthcare. However, digital maturity in primary care has been scarcely evaluated., Objectives: This study assessed the digital maturity in General Practice (GP) globally and evaluated its association with participants' demographic characteristics, practice characteristics and features of Electronic Health Records (EHRs) use., Methods: GPs across 20 countries completed an online questionnaire between June and September 2020. Demographic data, practice characteristics, and features of EHRs use were collected. Digital maturity was evaluated through a framework based on usage, resources and abilities (divided in this study in its collective and individual components), interoperability, general evaluation methods and impact of digital technologies. Each dimension was rated as 1 or 0. The digital maturity score was calculated as the sum of the six dimensions and ranged between 0 to 6 (maximum digital maturity). Multivariable linear regression was used to model the total score, while multivariable logistic regression was used to model the probability of meeting each dimension of the score., Results: One thousand six hundred GPs (61% female, 68% Europeans) participated. GPs had a median digital maturity of 4 (P25-P75: 3-5). Positive associations with digital maturity were found with: male gender [ B = 0.18 (95% CI 0.01; 0.36)], use of EHRs for longer periods [ B = 0.45 (95% CI 0.35; 0.54)] and higher frequencies of access to EHRs [ B = 0.33 (95% CI 0.17; 0.48)]. Practicing in a rural setting was negatively associated with digital maturity [ B = -0.25 (95%CI -0.43; -0.08)]. Usage (90%) was the most acknowledged dimension while interoperability (47%) and use of best practice general evaluation methods (28%) were the least. Shorter durations of EHRs use were negatively associated with all digital maturity dimensions (aOR from 0.09 to 0.77)., Conclusion: Our study demonstrated notable factors that impact digital maturity and exposed discrepancies in digital transformation across healthcare settings. It provides guidance for policymakers to develop more efficacious interventions to hasten the digital transformation of General Practice., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The handling editor ME declared a past collaboration with the authors., (Copyright © 2023 Teixeira, Li, Laranjo, Collins, Irving, Fernandez, Car, Ungan, Petek, Hoffman, Majeed, Nessler, Lingner, Jimenez, Darzi, Jácome and Neves.)

Background: Digital health technologies (DHTs), such as electronic health records and prescribing systems, are transforming health care delivery around the world. The quality of information in DHTs is key to the quality and safety of care. We developed a novel clinical information quality (CLIQ) framework to assess the quality of clinical information in DHTs., Objective: This study explored clinicians' perspectives on the relevance, definition, and assessment of information quality dimensions in the CLIQ framework., Methods: We used a systematic and iterative eDelphi approach to engage clinicians who had information governance roles or personal interest in information governance; the clinicians were recruited through purposive and snowball sampling techniques. Data were collected using semistructured online questionnaires until consensus was reached on the information quality dimensions in the CLIQ framework. Responses on the relevance of the dimensions were summarized to inform decisions on retention of the dimensions according to prespecified rules. Thematic analysis of the free-text responses was used to revise definitions and the assessment of dimensions., Results: Thirty-five clinicians from 10 countries participated in the study, which was concluded after the second round. Consensus was reached on all dimensions and categories in the CLIQ framework: informativeness (accuracy, completeness, interpretability, plausibility, provenance, and relevance), availability (accessibility, portability, security, and timeliness), and usability (conformance, consistency, and maintainability). A new dimension, searchability, was introduced in the availability category to account for the ease of finding needed information in the DHTs. Certain dimensions were renamed, and some definitions were rephrased to improve clarity., Conclusions: The CLIQ framework reached a high expert consensus and clarity of language relating to the information quality dimensions. The framework can be used by health care managers and institutions as a pragmatic tool for identifying and forestalling information quality problems that could compromise patient safety and quality of care., International Registered Report Identifier (irrid): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057430., (©Kayode Philip Fadahunsi, Petra A Wark, Nikolaos Mastellos, Ana Luisa Neves, Joseph Gallagher, Azeem Majeed, Andrew Webster, Anthony Smith, Brian Choo-Kang, Catherine Leon, Christopher Edwards, Conor O'Shea, Elizabeth Heitz, Olamide Valentine Kayode, Makeba Nash, Martin Kowalski, Mateen Jiwani, Michael Edmund O'Callaghan, Nabil Zary, Nicola Henderson, Niels H Chavannes, Rok Čivljak, Olubunmi Abiola Olubiyi, Piyush Mahapatra, Rishi Nannan Panday, Sunday O Oriji, Tatiana Erlikh Fox, Victoria Faint, Josip Car. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 06.12.2022.)

Digital health is the convergence of digital technologies with health, healthcare, living, and society. Contrasting with the slow trend during the last decades, in the last few years, we have observed an expansion and widespread adoption and implementation. In this paper, we revisit the potential that digital health presents for the delivery of higher quality, safer and more equitable care. Focussing on three examples - patient access to health records, big data analytics, and virtual care - we discuss the emerging opportunities and challenges of digital health, and how they can change primary care. We also reflect on the implications for research to evaluate digital interventions: the need to evaluate clear outcomes in light of the six dimensions of quality of care (patient-centredness, efficiency, effectiveness, safety, timeliness, and equity); to define clear populations to understand what works and for which patients; and to involve different stakeholders in the formulation and evaluation of the research questions. Finally, we share five wishes for the future of digital care in General Practice: the involvement of primary healthcare professionals and patients in the design and maintenance of digital solutions; improving infrastructure, support, and training; development of clear regulations and best practice standards; ensuring patient safety and privacy; and working towards more equitable digital solutions, that leave no one behind.

Background: Web-based patient portals enable patients access to, and interaction with, their personal electronic health records. However, little is known about the impact of patient portals on quality of care. Users of patient portals can contribute important insights toward addressing this knowledge gap., Objective: We aimed to describe perceived changes in the quality of care among users of a web-based patient portal and to identify the characteristics of patients who perceive the greatest benefit of portal use., Methods: A cross-sectional web-based survey study was conducted to understand patients' experiences with the Care Information Exchange (CIE) portal. Patient sociodemographic data were collected, including age, sex, ethnicity, educational level, health status, geographic location, motivation to self-manage, and digital health literacy (measured by the eHealth Literacy Scale). Patients with experience using CIE, who specified both age and sex, were included in these analyses. Relevant survey items (closed-ended questions) were mapped to the Institute of Medicine's 6 domains of quality of care. Users' responses were examined to understand their perceptions of how portal use has changed the overall quality of their care, different aspects of care related to the 6 domains of care quality, and patient's satisfaction with care. Multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed to identify patient characteristics associated with perceived improvements in overall care quality and greater satisfaction with care., Results: Of 445 CIE users, 38.7% (n=172) reported that the overall quality of their care was better; 3.2% (n=14) said their care was worse. In the patient centeredness domain, 61.2% (273/445) of patients felt more in control of their health care, and 53.9% (240/445) felt able to play a greater role in decision-making. Regarding timeliness, 40.2% (179/445) of patients reported they could access appointments, diagnoses, and treatment more quickly. Approximately 30% of CIE users reported better care related to the domains of effectiveness (123/445, 27.6%), safety (138/445, 31%), and efficiency (174/445, 28.6%). Regarding equity, patients self-reporting higher digital health literacy (odds ratio 2.40, 95% CI 1.07-5.42; P=.03) and those belonging to ethnic minority groups (odds ratio 2.27, 95% CI 1.26-3.73; P<.005) were more likely to perceive improvements in care quality. Across ethnic groups, Asian and British Asian patients perceived the greatest benefits. Increased frequency of CIE use also predicted perceived better care quality and greater satisfaction with care., Conclusions: A large proportion of CIE users perceived better care quality and greater satisfaction with care, although many portal users reported no change. The most favorable perceived improvements related to the domain of patient centeredness. With national policy directed toward addressing health disparities, patient portals could be valuable in improving care quality for ethnic minority groups. Future research should test the causal relationship between patient portal use and care quality., (©Rachael Lear, Lisa Freise, Matthew Kybert, Ara Darzi, Ana Luisa Neves, Erik K Mayer. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 17.11.2022.)

Background: Electronic health records (EHRs) and poor system interoperability are well-known issues in the use of health information technologies in most high-income countries worldwide. Despite the abundance of literature exploring their relationship, their practical implications on patient safety and quality of care remain unclear., Objective: This study aimed to examine how EHR interoperability affects patient safety, or other dimensions of care quality, in high-income health care settings., Methods: A systematic search was conducted using 4 web-based medical journal repositories and grey literature sources. The publications included were published in English between 2010 and 2022, pertaining to EHR use, interoperability, and patient safety or care quality in high-income settings. Screening was completed by 3 researchers in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Risk of bias assessments were performed using the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions and the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tools. The findings were presented as a narrative synthesis and mapped based on the Institute of Medicine's framework for health care quality., Results: A total of 12 studies met the inclusion criteria to be included in our review. The findings were categorized into 6 common outcome measure categories: patient safety events, medication safety, data accuracy and errors, care effectiveness, productivity, and cost savings. EHR interoperability positively influenced medication safety, reduced patient safety events, and reduced costs. Improvements in time saving and clinical workflow are mixed. However, true measures of effect are difficult to determine with certainty because of the heterogeneity in the outcome measures used and notable variation in study quality., Conclusions: The benefits of EHR interoperability on the quality and safety of care remain unclear and reflect extensive heterogeneity in the interventions, designs, and outcome measures used. The establishment of common health information technology research outcome measures would support higher-quality research on the topic. Future research efforts should focus on both the positive and negative impacts of interoperable EHR interventions and explore patient perspectives, given the growing trend for patient involvement and stewardship over their own electronic clinical data., Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020209285; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display&#95;record.php?RecordID=209285., International Registered Report Identifier (irrid): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044941., (©Edmond Li, Jonathan Clarke, Hutan Ashrafian, Ara Darzi, Ana Luisa Neves. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 15.09.2022.)

Background: Accurate assessment of COVID-19 severity in the community is essential for patient care and requires COVID-19-specific risk prediction scores adequately validated in a community setting. Following a qualitative phase to identify signs, symptoms, and risk factors, we aimed to develop and validate two COVID-19-specific risk prediction scores. Remote COVID-19 Assessment in Primary Care-General Practice score (RECAP-GP; without peripheral oxygen saturation [SpO 2 ]) and RECAP-oxygen saturation score (RECAP-O2; with SpO 2 )., Methods: RECAP was a prospective cohort study that used multivariable logistic regression. Data on signs and symptoms (predictors) of disease were collected from community-based patients with suspected COVID-19 via primary care electronic health records and linked with secondary data on hospital admission (outcome) within 28 days of symptom onset. Data sources for RECAP-GP were Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre (RCGP-RSC) primary care practices (development set), northwest London primary care practices (validation set), and the NHS COVID-19 Clinical Assessment Service (CCAS; validation set). The data source for RECAP-O2 was the Doctaly Assist platform (development set and validation set in subsequent sample). The two probabilistic risk prediction models were built by backwards elimination using the development sets and validated by application to the validation datasets. Estimated sample size per model, including the development and validation sets was 2880 people., Findings: Data were available from 8311 individuals. Observations, such as SpO 2 , were mostly missing in the northwest London, RCGP-RSC, and CCAS data; however, SpO 2 was available for 1364 (70·0%) of 1948 patients who used Doctaly. In the final predictive models, RECAP-GP (n=1863) included sex (male and female), age (years), degree of breathlessness (three point scale), temperature symptoms (two point scale), and presence of hypertension (yes or no); the area under the curve was 0·80 (95% CI 0·76-0·85) and on validation the negative predictive value of a low risk designation was 99% (95% CI 98·1-99·2; 1435 of 1453). RECAP-O2 included age (years), degree of breathlessness (two point scale), fatigue (two point scale), and SpO 2 at rest (as a percentage); the area under the curve was 0·84 (0·78-0·90) and on validation the negative predictive value of low risk designation was 99% (95% CI 98·9-99·7; 1176 of 1183)., Interpretation: Both RECAP models are valid tools to assess COVID-19 patients in the community. RECAP-GP can be used initially, without need for observations, to identify patients who require monitoring. If the patient is monitored and SpO 2 is available, RECAP-O2 is useful to assess the need for treatment escalation., Funding: Community Jameel and the Imperial College President's Excellence Fund, the Economic and Social Research Council, UK Research and Innovation, and Health Data Research UK., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests SdL is Director of the Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre, the English primary care sentinel system. This work funds part of his academic position, and the network and its Trusted Research Environment were part of this study, funded using the university standard cost template. SdL reports grants through his University from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, GSK, Sanofi, Seqirus, and Takeda, none have a direct link to this study and has been a member of Advisory Boards for AstraZeneca, Sanofi, and Seqirus, none have a direct link to this study. All other authors declare no competing of interests., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To examine i) the use of mobile apps and fitness trackers in adults during the COVID-19 pandemic to support health behaviors; ii) the use of COVID-19 apps; iii) associations between using mobile apps and fitness trackers, and health behaviors; iv) differences in usage amongst population subgroups., Methods: An online cross-sectional survey was conducted during June-September 2020. The survey was developed and reviewed independently by co-authors to establish face validity. Associations between using mobile apps and fitness trackers and health behaviors were examined using multivariate logistic regression models. Subgroup analyses were conducted using Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests. Three open-ended questions were included to elicit participants' views; thematic analysis was conducted., Results: Participants included 552 adults (76.7% women; mean age: 38±13.6 years); 59.9% used mobile apps for health, 38.2% used fitness trackers, and 46.3% used COVID-19 apps. Users of mobile apps or fitness trackers had almost two times the odds of meeting aerobic physical activity guidelines compared to non-users (odds ratio = 1.91, 95% confidence interval 1.07 to 3.46, P = .03). More women used health apps than men (64.0% vs 46.8%, P = .004). Compared to people aged 18-44 (46.1%), more people aged 60+ (74.5%) and more people aged 45-60 (57.6%) used a COVID-19 related app (P < .001). Qualitative data suggest people viewed technologies (especially social media) as a 'double-edged sword': helping with maintaining a sense of normalcy and staying active and socially connected, but also having a negative emotional effect stemming from seeing COVID-related news. People also found that mobile apps did not adapt quickly enough to the circumstances caused by COVID-19., Conclusions: Use of mobile apps and fitness trackers during the pandemic was associated with higher levels of physical activity, in a sample of educated and likely health-conscious individuals. Future research is needed to understand whether the association between using mobile devices and physical activity is maintained in the long-term., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2022 Tong et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: To identify the population-level impact of a national pulse oximetry remote monitoring programme for COVID-19 (COVID Oximetry @home (CO@h)) in England on mortality and health service use., Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using a stepped wedge pre-implementation and post-implementation design, including all 106 Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in England implementing a local CO@h programme. All symptomatic people with a positive COVID-19 PCR test result from 1 October 2020 to 3 May 2021, and who were aged ≥65 years or identified as clinically extremely vulnerable were included. Care home residents were excluded. A pre-intervention period before implementation of the CO@h programme in each CCG was compared with a post-intervention period after implementation. Five outcome measures within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test: (i) death from any cause; (ii) any ED attendance; (iii) any emergency hospital admission; (iv) critical care admission and (v) total length of hospital stay., Results: 217 650 people were eligible and included in the analysis. Total enrolment onto the programme was low, with enrolment data received for only 5527 (2.5%) of the eligible population. The period of implementation of the programme was not associated with mortality or length of hospital stay. The period of implementation was associated with increased health service utilisation with a 12% increase in the odds of ED attendance (95% CI: 6% to 18%) and emergency hospital admission (95% CI: 5% to 20%) and a 24% increase in the odds of critical care admission in those admitted (95% CI: 5% to 47%). In a secondary analysis of CO@h sites with at least 10% or 20% of eligible people enrolled, there was no significant association with any outcome measure., Conclusion: At a population level, there was no association with mortality before and after the implementation period of the CO@h programme, and small increases in health service utilisation were observed. However, lower than expected enrolment is likely to have diluted the effects of the programme at a population level., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JC has received fees from Philips UK for consultancy services outside of the submitted work. SE has received fees for an educational lecture sponsored by AstraZeneca and is co-clinical director for the NHS England and Improvement London Respiratory Network. All other authors report no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at: http://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/, (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Errors in electronic health records are known to contribute to patient safety incidents; however, systems for checking the accuracy of patient records are almost nonexistent. Personal health records (PHRs) enabling patient access to and interaction with the clinical records offer a valuable opportunity for patients to actively participate in error surveillance., Objective: This study aims to evaluate patients' willingness and ability to identify and respond to errors in their PHRs., Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted using a web-based questionnaire. Patient sociodemographic data were collected, including age, sex, ethnicity, educational level, health status, geographical location, motivation to self-manage, and digital health literacy (measured using the eHealth Literacy Scale tool). Patients with experience of using the Care Information Exchange (CIE) portal, who specified both age and sex, were included in these analyses. The patients' responses to 4 relevant survey items (closed-ended questions, some with space for free-text comments) were examined to understand their willingness and ability to identify and respond to errors in their PHRs. Multinomial logistic regression was used to identify patients' characteristics that predict the ability to understand information in the CIE and willingness to respond to errors in their records. The framework method was used to derive themes from patients' free-text responses., Results: Of 445 patients, 181 (40.7%) "definitely" understood the CIE information and approximately half (220/445, 49.4%) understood the CIE information "to some extent." Patients with high digital health literacy (eHealth Literacy Scale score ≥26) were more confident in their ability to understand their records compared with patients with low digital health literacy (odds ratio [OR] 7.85, 95% CI 3.04-20.29; P<.001). Information-related barriers (medical terminology and lack of medical guidance or contextual information) and system-related barriers (functionality or usability and information communicated or displayed poorly) were described. Of 445 patients, 79 (17.8%) had noticed errors in their PHRs, which were related to patient demographic details, diagnoses, medical history, results, medications, letters or correspondence, and appointments. Most patients (272/445, 61.1%) wanted to be able to flag up errors to their health professionals for correction; 20.4% (91/445) of the patients were willing to correct errors themselves. Native English speakers were more likely to be willing to flag up errors to health professionals (OR 3.45, 95% CI 1.11-10.78; P=.03) or correct errors themselves (OR 5.65, 95% CI 1.33-24.03; P=.02)., Conclusions: A large proportion of patients were able and willing to identify and respond to errors in their PHRs. However, some barriers persist that disproportionately affect the underserved groups. Further development of PHR systems, including incorporating channels for patient feedback on the accuracy of their records, should address the needs of nonnative English speakers and patients with lower digital health literacy., (©Rachael Lear, Lisa Freise, Matthew Kybert, Ara Darzi, Ana Luisa Neves, Erik K Mayer. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 08.07.2022.)

Purpose: The use of dielectric pads to redistribute the radiofrequency fields is currently a popular solution for 7 T MRI practical applications, especially in brain imaging. In this work, we tackle several downsides of the previous generation of dielectric pads. This new silicon carbide recipe makes them MR invisible and greatly extends the performance lifespan., Method: We produce a set of two 10x10x1cm 3 dielectric pads based on silicon carbide (SiC) powder dispersed in 4-Fluoro 1, 3-dioxalan-2-one (FEC) and polyethylene Glycol (PEG). The stability of the complex permittivity and the invisibility of the pads are characterized experimentally. Numerical simulations are done to evaluate global and local SAR over the head in presence of the pads. B 0 , B 1 + and standard imaging sequences are performed on healthy volunteers., Results: SiC pads are compared to state-of-the-art perovskite based dielectric pads with similar dielectric properties (barium titanate). Numerical simulations confirm that head and local SAR are similar. MRI measurements confirm that the pads do not induce susceptibility artefacts and improve B 1 + amplitude in the temporal lobe regions by 25% on average., Conclusion: We demonstrate the long-term performance and invisibility of these new pads in order to increase the contrast in the brain temporal lobes in a commercial 7 T MRI head coil., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

With the onset of COVID-19, general practitioners (GPs) and patients worldwide swiftly transitioned from face-to-face to digital remote consultations. There is a need to evaluate how this global shift has impacted patient care, healthcare providers, patient and carer experience, and health systems. We explored GPs' perspectives on the main benefits and challenges of using digital virtual care. GPs across 20 countries completed an online questionnaire between June-September 2020. GPs' perceptions of main barriers and challenges were explored using free-text questions. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. A total of 1,605 respondents participated in our survey. The benefits identified included reducing COVID-19 transmission risks, guaranteeing access and continuity of care, improved efficiency, faster access to care, improved convenience and communication with patients, greater work flexibility for providers, and hastening the digital transformation of primary care and accompanying legal frameworks. Main challenges included patients' preference for face-to-face consultations, digital exclusion, lack of physical examinations, clinical uncertainty, delays in diagnosis and treatment, overuse and misuse of digital virtual care, and unsuitability for certain types of consultations. Other challenges include the lack of formal guidance, higher workloads, remuneration issues, organisational culture, technical difficulties, implementation and financial issues, and regulatory weaknesses. At the frontline of care delivery, GPs can provide important insights on what worked well, why, and how during the pandemic. Lessons learned can be used to inform the adoption of improved virtual care solutions and support the long-term development of platforms that are more technologically robust and secure., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2022 Li et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

The Covid-19 mortality rate varies between countries and over time but the extent to which this is explained by the underlying risk in those infected is unclear. Using data on all adults in England with a positive Covid-19 test between 1st October 2020 and 30th April 2021 linked to clinical records, we examined trends and risk factors for hospital admission and mortality. Of 2,311,282 people included in the study, 164,046 (7.1%) were admitted and 53,156 (2.3%) died within 28 days of a positive Covid-19 test. We found significant variation in the case hospitalisation and mortality risk over time, which remained after accounting for the underlying risk of those infected. Older age groups, males, those resident in areas of greater socioeconomic deprivation, and those with obesity had higher odds of admission and death. People with severe mental illness and learning disability had the highest odds of admission and death. Our findings highlight both the role of external factors in Covid-19 admission and mortality risk and the need for more proactive care in the most vulnerable groups., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

The COVID-19 pandemic has led health systems to increase the use of tools for monitoring and triaging patients remotely. In this systematic review, we aim to assess the effectiveness and safety of pulse oximetry in remote patient monitoring (RPM) of patients at home with COVID-19. We searched five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, medRxiv, and bioRxiv) from database inception to April 15, 2021, and included feasibility studies, clinical trials, and observational studies, including preprints. We found 561 studies, of which 13 were included in our narrative synthesis. These 13 studies were all observational cohorts and involved a total of 2908 participants. A meta-analysis was not feasible owing to the heterogeneity of the outcomes reported in the included studies. Our systematic review substantiates the safety and potential of pulse oximetry for monitoring patients at home with COVID-19, identifying the risk of deterioration and the need for advanced care. The use of pulse oximetry can potentially save hospital resources for patients who might benefit the most from care escalation; however, we could not identify explicit evidence for the effect of RPM with pulse oximetry on health outcomes compared with other monitoring models such as virtual wards, regular monitoring consultations, and online or paper diaries to monitor changes in symptoms and vital signs. Based on our findings, we make 11 recommendations across the three Donabedian model domains and highlight three specific measurements for setting up an RPM system with pulse oximetry., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: High-quality data are crucial for guiding decision-making and practising evidence-based healthcare, especially if previous knowledge is lacking. Nevertheless, data quality frailties have been exposed worldwide during the current COVID-19 pandemic. Focusing on a major Portuguese epidemiological surveillance dataset, our study aims to assess COVID-19 data quality issues and suggest possible solutions., Settings: On 27 April 2020, the Portuguese Directorate-General of Health (DGS) made available a dataset (DGSApril) for researchers, upon request. On 4 August, an updated dataset (DGSAugust) was also obtained., Participants: All COVID-19-confirmed cases notified through the medical component of National System for Epidemiological Surveillance until end of June., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: Data completeness and consistency., Results: DGSAugust has not followed the data format and variables as DGSApril and a significant number of missing data and inconsistencies were found (eg, 4075 cases from the DGSApril were apparently not included in DGSAugust). Several variables also showed a low degree of completeness and/or changed their values from one dataset to another (eg, the variable 'underlying conditions' had more than half of cases showing different information between datasets). There were also significant inconsistencies between the number of cases and deaths due to COVID-19 shown in DGSAugust and by the DGS reports publicly provided daily., Conclusions: Important quality issues of the Portuguese COVID-19 surveillance datasets were described. These issues can limit surveillance data usability to inform good decisions and perform useful research. Major improvements in surveillance datasets are therefore urgently needed-for example, simplification of data entry processes, constant monitoring of data, and increased training and awareness of healthcare providers-as low data quality may lead to a deficient pandemic control., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Telemedicine, once defined merely as the treatment of certain conditions remotely, has now often been supplanted in use by broader terms such as 'virtual care', in recognition of its increasing capability to deliver a diverse range of healthcare services from afar. With the unexpected onset of COVID-19, virtual care (e.g. telephone, video, online) has become essential to facilitating the continuation of primary care globally. Over several short weeks, existing healthcare policies have adapted quickly and empowered clinicians to use digital means to fulfil a wide range of clinical responsibilities, which until then have required face-to-face consultations., Objectives: This paper aims to explore the virtual care policies and guidance material published during the initial months of the pandemic and examine their potential limitations and impact on transforming the delivery of primary care in high-income countries., Methods: A rapid review of publicly available national policies guiding the use of virtual care in General Practice was conducted. Documents were included if issued in the first six months of the pandemic (March to August of 2020) and focussed primarily on high-income countries. Documents must have been issued by a national health authority, accreditation body, or professional organisation, and directly refer to the delivery of primary care., Results: We extracted six areas of relevance: primary care transformation during COVID-19, the continued delivery of preventative care, the delivery of acute care, remote triaging, funding & reimbursement, and security standards., Conclusion: Virtual care use in primary care saw a transformative change during the pandemic. However, despite the advances in the various governmental guidance offered, much work remains in addressing the shortcomings exposed during COVID-19 and strengthening viable policies to better incorporate novel technologies into the modern primary care clinical environment.

Objective: To explore how cancer could be diagnosed in a more timely way., Design: Grounded theory analysis of primary care physicians' free text survey responses to: 'How do you think the speed of diagnosis of cancer in primary care could be improved?'. Secondary analysis of primary care physician interviews, survey responses, literature., Setting: Primary care in 20 European Örenäs Research Group countries., Subjects: Primary care physicians: 1352 survey respondents (2013-2016), 20 Spanish and 7 Swedish interviewees (2015-2019)., Main Outcome Measures: Conceptual explanation of how to improve timeliness of cancer diagnosis., Results: Pluralistic task shifting is a grounded theory of a composite strategy. It includes task sharing - among nurses, physicians, nurse assistants, secretaries, and patients - and changing tasks with cancer screening when appropriate or cancer fast-tracks to accelerate cancer case finding. A pluralistic dialogue culture of comprehensive collaboration and task redistribution is required for effective pluralistic task shifting. Pluralistic task shifting relies on cognitive task shifting, which includes learning more about slow analytic reasoning and fast automatic thinking initiated by pattern recognition; and digital task shifting, which by use of eHealth and telemedicine bridges time and place and improves power symmetry between patients, caregivers, and clinicians. Financial task shifting that involves cost tracking followed by reallocation of funds is necessary for the restructuring and retraining required for successful pluralistic task shifting. A timely diagnosis reduces expensive investigations and waiting times. Also, late-stage cancers are costlier to treat than early-stage cancers. Timing is central to cancer diagnosis: not too early to avoid overdiagnosis, and never too late., Conclusions: We present pluralistic task shifting as a conceptual summary of strategies needed to optimise the timeliness of cancer diagnosis.Key pointsCancer diagnosis is under-researched in primary care, especially theoretically. Thus, inspired by classic grounded theory, we analysed and conceptualised the field: Pluralistic task shifting is a conceptual explanation of how the timeliness of cancer diagnosis could be improved, with data derived mostly from primary care physicians.This includes task sharing and changing tasks including screening and cancer fast-tracks to accelerate cancer case finding, and requires cognitive task shifting emphasising learning, and digital task shifting involving the use of eHealth and telemedicine. Financial task shifting with cost tracking and reallocation of funds is eventually necessary for successful pluralistic task shifting to happen.

Background: Sharing electronic health records with patients has been shown to improve patient safety and quality of care. Patient portals represent a convenient tool to enhance patient access to their own health care data. However, the success of portals will only be possible through sustained adoption by its end users: the patients. A better understanding of the characteristics of users and nonusers is critical for understanding which groups remain excluded from using such tools., Objective: This study aims to identify the determinants of the use of the Care Information Exchange, a shared patient portal program in the United Kingdom., Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted using a web-based questionnaire. Information collected included age, gender, ethnicity, educational level, health status, postcode, and digital literacy. Registered individuals were defined as having had an account created in the portal, independent of their actual use of the platform; users were defined as having ever used the portal. Multivariate logistic regression was used to model the probability of being a user. Statistical analysis was performed in R and Tableau was used to create maps of the proportion of Care Information Exchange users by postcode area., Results: A total of 1083 participants replied to the survey (186% of the estimated minimum target sample). The proportion of users was 61.58% (667/1083). Among these, most (385/667, 57.7%) used the portal at least once a month. To characterize the system's users and nonusers, we performed a subanalysis of the sample, including only participants who had provided at least information regarding gender and age. The subanalysis included 650 individuals (389/650, 59.8% women; 551/650, 84.8% >40 years). Most participants were White (498/650, 76.6%) and resided in London (420/650, 64.6%). Individuals with a higher educational degree (undergraduate and professional, or postgraduate and higher) had higher odds of being a portal user (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.58, 95% CI 1.04-2.39 and OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.42-4.02, respectively) compared with those with a secondary degree or below. Higher digital literacy scores (≥30) were associated with higher odds of being a user (adjusted OR 2.96, 95% CI 2.02-4.35). Those with a good overall health status had lower odds of being a user (adjusted OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37-0.91)., Conclusions: This work adds to the growing body of evidence highlighting the importance of educational aspects (educational level and digital literacy) in the adoption of patient portals. Further research should not only describe but also systematically address these inequalities through patient-centered interventions aimed at reducing the digital divide. Health care providers and policy makers must partner in investing and delivering strategic programs that improve access to technology and digital literacy in an effort to improve digital inclusion and reduce inequities in the delivery of care., (©Ana Luisa Neves, Katelyn R Smalley, Lisa Freise, Paul Harrison, Ara Darzi, Erik K Mayer. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 11.11.2021.)

Objective: Gut microbial products are involved in regulation of host metabolism. In human and experimental studies, we explored the potential role of hippurate, a hepatic phase 2 conjugation product of microbial benzoate, as a marker and mediator of metabolic health., Design: In 271 middle-aged non-diabetic Danish individuals, who were stratified on habitual dietary intake, we applied 1 H-nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy of urine samples and shotgun-sequencing-based metagenomics of the gut microbiome to explore links between the urine level of hippurate, measures of the gut microbiome, dietary fat and markers of metabolic health. In mechanistic experiments with chronic subcutaneous infusion of hippurate to high-fat-diet-fed obese mice, we tested for causality between hippurate and metabolic phenotypes., Results: In the human study, we showed that urine hippurate positively associates with microbial gene richness and functional modules for microbial benzoate biosynthetic pathways, one of which is less prevalent in the Bacteroides 2 enterotype compared with Ruminococcaceae or Prevotella enterotypes. Through dietary stratification, we identify a subset of study participants consuming a diet rich in saturated fat in which urine hippurate concentration, independently of gene richness, accounts for links with metabolic health. In the high-fat-fed mice experiments, we demonstrate causality through chronic infusion of hippurate (20 nmol/day) resulting in improved glucose tolerance and enhanced insulin secretion., Conclusion: Our human and experimental studies show that a high urine hippurate concentration is a general marker of metabolic health, and in the context of obesity induced by high-fat diets, hippurate contributes to metabolic improvements, highlighting its potential as a mediator of metabolic health., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: There is a high burden of adverse events and poor outcomes in fragile, conflict-affected and vulnerable (FCV) settings. To improve outcomes, there is a need to better identify which interventions can improve patient safety in these settings, as well as to develop strategies to optimise their implementation., Objective: This study intends to generate a consensus on the most relevant patient safety interventions from experts with experience on FCV settings, including frontline clinicians and managers/administrators, non-governmental organisations, policymakers and researchers., Methods and Analysis: The study uses an online Delphi research approach (eDelphi). Participants will include experts from a range of backgrounds, including those working in a variety of FCV settings. Participants will be established contacts known to the research team or recruited via snowball sampling, and will be asked to identify and rank the importance of a variety of patient safety interventions. Consensus will be defined as >70% of participants agreeing/strongly agreeing or disagreeing/strongly disagreeing with a statement. Data analysis will be completed in Microsoft Excel and NVivo. The primary outcome of the study will be a list of the most relevant and applicable patient safety interventions for FCV settings., Ethics and Dissemination: The study has received approval from Imperial College London Ethics Committee (reference number 20IC665). Anonymous results will be made available to the public, academic organisations and policymakers., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, efforts have been made to develop early warning risk scores to help clinicians decide which patient is likely to deteriorate and require hospitalization. The RECAP (Remote COVID-19 Assessment in Primary Care) study investigates the predictive risk of hospitalization, deterioration, and death of patients with confirmed COVID-19, based on a set of parameters chosen through a Delphi process performed by clinicians. We aim to use rich data collected remotely through the use of electronic data templates integrated in the electronic health systems of several general practices across the United Kingdom to construct accurate predictive models. The models will be based on preexisting conditions and monitoring data of a patient's clinical parameters (eg, blood oxygen saturation) to make reliable predictions as to the patient's risk of hospital admission, deterioration, and death., Objective: This statistical analysis plan outlines the statistical methods to build the prediction model to be used in the prioritization of patients in the primary care setting. The statistical analysis plan for the RECAP study includes the development and validation of the RECAP-V1 prediction model as a primary outcome. This prediction model will be adapted as a three-category risk score split into red (high risk), amber (medium risk), and green (low risk) for any patient with suspected COVID-19. The model will predict the risk of deterioration and hospitalization., Methods: After the data have been collected, we will assess the degree of missingness and use a combination of traditional data imputation using multiple imputation by chained equations, as well as more novel machine-learning approaches to impute the missing data for the final analysis. For predictive model development, we will use multiple logistic regression analyses to construct the model. We aim to recruit a minimum of 1317 patients for model development and validation. We will then externally validate the model on an independent dataset of 1400 patients. The model will also be applied for multiple different datasets to assess both its performance in different patient groups and its applicability for different methods of data collection., Results: As of May 10, 2021, we have recruited 3732 patients. A further 2088 patients have been recruited through the National Health Service Clinical Assessment Service, and approximately 5000 patients have been recruited through the DoctalyHealth platform., Conclusions: The methodology for the development of the RECAP-V1 prediction model as well as the risk score will provide clinicians with a statistically robust tool to help prioritize COVID-19 patients., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04435041; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04435041., International Registered Report Identifier (irrid): DERR1-10.2196/30083., (©Francesca Fiorentino, Denys Prociuk, Ana Belen Espinosa Gonzalez, Ana Luisa Neves, Laiba Husain, Sonny Christian Ramtale, Emma Mi, Ella Mi, Jack Macartney, Sneha N Anand, Julian Sherlock, Kavitha Saravanakumar, Erik Mayer, Simon de Lusignan, Trisha Greenhalgh, Brendan C Delaney. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (https://www.researchprotocols.org), 05.10.2021.)

Background: Health and fitness apps have potential benefits to improve self-management and disease control among patients with asthma. However, inconsistent use rates have been reported across studies, regions, and health systems. A better understanding of the characteristics of users and nonusers is critical to design solutions that are effectively integrated in patients' daily lives, and to ensure that these equitably reach out to different groups of patients, thus improving rather than entrenching health inequities., Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the use of general health and fitness apps by patients with asthma and to identify determinants of usage., Methods: A secondary analysis of the INSPIRERS observational studies was conducted using data from face-to-face visits. Patients with a diagnosis of asthma were included between November 2017 and August 2020. Individual-level data were collected, including age, gender, marital status, educational level, health status, presence of anxiety and depression, postcode, socioeconomic level, digital literacy, use of health services, and use of health and fitness apps. Multivariate logistic regression was used to model the probability of being a health and fitness app user. Statistical analysis was performed in R., Results: A total of 526 patients attended a face-to-face visit in the 49 recruiting centers and 514 had complete data. Most participants were ≤40 years old (66.4%), had at least 10 years of education (57.4%), and were in the 3 higher quintiles of the socioeconomic deprivation index (70.1%). The majority reported an overall good health status (visual analogue scale [VAS] score>70 in 93.1%) and the prevalence of anxiety and depression was 34.3% and 11.9%, respectively. The proportion of participants who reported using health and fitness mobile apps was 41.1% (n=211). Multivariate models revealed that single individuals and those with more than 10 years of education are more likely to use health and fitness mobile apps (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.22, 95%CI 1.05-4.75 and aOR 1.95, 95%CI 1.12-3.45, respectively). Higher digital literacy scores were also associated with higher odds of being a user of health and fitness apps, with participants in the second, third, and fourth quartiles reporting aORs of 6.74 (95%CI 2.90-17.40), 10.30 (95%CI 4.28-27.56), and 11.52 (95%CI 4.78-30.87), respectively. Participants with depression symptoms had lower odds of using health and fitness apps (aOR 0.32, 95%CI 0.12-0.83)., Conclusions: A better understanding of the barriers and enhancers of app use among patients with lower education, lower digital literacy, or depressive symptoms is key to design tailored interventions to ensure a sustained and equitable use of these technologies. Future studies should also assess users' general health-seeking behavior and their interest and concerns specifically about digital tools. These factors may impact both initial engagement and sustained use., (©Ana Luísa Neves, Cristina Jácome, Tiago Taveira-Gomes, Ana Margarida Pereira, Rute Almeida, Rita Amaral, Magna Alves-Correia, Sandra Mendes, Cláudia Chaves-Loureiro, Margarida Valério, Cristina Lopes, Joana Carvalho, Ana Mendes, Carmelita Ribeiro, Sara Prates, José Alberto Ferreira, Maria Fernanda Teixeira, Joana Branco, Marta Santalha, Maria João Vasconcelos, Carlos Lozoya, Natacha Santos, Francisca Cardia, Ana Sofia Moreira, Luís Taborda-Barata, Cláudia Sofia Pinto, Rosário Ferreira, Pedro Morais Silva, Tania Monteiro Ferreira, Raquel Câmara, Rui Lobo, Diana Bordalo, Cristina Guimarães, Maria Espírito Santo, José Ferraz de Oliveira, Maria José Cálix Augusto, Ricardo Gomes, Inês Vieira, Sofia da Silva, Maria Marques, João Cardoso, Ana Morete, Margarida Aroso, Ana Margarida Cruz, Carlos Nunes, Rita Câmara, Natalina Rodrigues, Carmo Abreu, Ana Luísa Albuquerque, Claúdia Vieira, Carlos Santos, Rosália Páscoa, Carla Chaves-Loureiro, Adelaide Alves, Ângela Neves, José Varanda Marques, Bruno Reis, Manuel Ferreira-Magalhães, João Almeida Fonseca. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 22.09.2021.)

Background: In recent decades, virtual care has emerged as a promising option to support primary care delivery. However, despite the potential, adoption rates remained low. With the outbreak of COVID-19, it has suddenly been pushed to the forefront of care delivery. As we progress into the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a need and opportunity to review the impact remote care had in primary care settings and reassess its potential future role., Objective: This study aims to explore the perspectives of general practitioners (GPs) and family doctors on the (1) use of virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic, (2) perceived impact on quality and safety of care, and (3) essential factors for high-quality and sustainable use of virtual care in the future., Methods: This study used an online cross-sectional questionnaire completed by GPs distributed across 20 countries. The survey was hosted in Qualtrics and distributed using email, social media, and the researchers' personal contact networks. GPs were eligible for the survey if they were working mainly in primary care during the period of the COVID-19 pandemic. Descriptive statistical analysis will be performed for quantitative variables, and relationships between the use of virtual care and perceptions on impact on quality and safety of care and participants' characteristics may be explored. Qualitative data (free-text responses) will be analyzed using framework analysis., Results: Data collection took place from June 2020 to September 2020. As of this manuscript's submission, a total of 1605 GP respondents participated in the questionnaire. Further data analysis is currently ongoing., Conclusions: The study will provide a comprehensive overview of the availability of virtual care technologies, perceived impact on quality and safety of care, and essential factors for high-quality future use. In addition, a description of the underlying factors that influence this adoption and perceptions, in both individual GP and family doctor characteristics and the context in which they work, will be provided. While the COVID-19 pandemic may prove the first great stress test of the capabilities, capacity, and robustness of digital systems currently in use, remote care will likely remain an increasingly common approach in the future. There is an imperative to identify the main lessons from this unexpected transformation and use them to inform policy decisions and health service design., International Registered Report Identifier (irrid): DERR1-10.2196/30099., (©Ana Luísa Neves, Edmond Li, Alice Serafini, Geronimo Jimenez, Heidrun Lingner, Tuomas H Koskela, Robert D Hoffman, Claire Collins, Davorina Petek, Ana Claveria, Rosy Tsopra, Greg Irving, Gustavo Gusso, Braden Gregory O’Neill, Kyle Hoedebecke, Sandra Milena Espitia, Mehmet Ungan, Katarzyna Nessler, Vanja Lazic, Liliana Laranjo, Ensieh Memarian, Maria Jose Fernandez, Saira Ghafur, Gianluca Fontana, Azeem Majeed, Josip Car, Ara Darzi. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (https://www.researchprotocols.org), 26.08.2021.)

Introduction: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a major cause of blindness, kidney failure, myocardial infarction, stroke and lower limb amputation. We are still unable, however, to accurately predict or identify which patients are at a higher risk of deterioration. Most risk stratification tools do not account for novel factors such as sociodemographic determinants, self-management ability or access to healthcare. Additionally, most tools are based in clinical trials, with limited external generalisability., Objective: The aim of this work is to design and validate a machine learning-based tool to identify patients with T2DM at high risk of clinical deterioration, based on a comprehensive set of patient-level characteristics retrieved from a population health linked dataset., Sample and Design: Retrospective cohort study of patients with diagnosis of T2DM on 1 January 2015, with a 5-year follow-up. Anonymised electronic healthcare records from the Whole System Integrated Care (WSIC) database will be used., Preliminary Outcomes: Outcome variables of clinical deterioration will include retinopathy, chronic renal disease, myocardial infarction, stroke, peripheral arterial disease or death. Predictor variables will include sociodemographic and geographic data, patients' ability to self-manage disease, clinical and metabolic parameters and healthcare service usage. Prognostic models will be defined using multidependence Bayesian networks. The derivation cohort, comprising 80% of the patients, will be used to define the prognostic models. Model parameters will be internally validated by comparing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve in the derivation cohort with those calculated from a leave-one-out and a 10 times twofold cross-validation., Ethics and Dissemination: The study has received approvals from the Information Governance Committee at the WSIC. Results will be made available to people with T2DM, their caregivers, the funders, diabetes care societies and other researchers., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: The availability and routine use of electronic health records (EHRs) have become commonplace in healthcare systems of many high-income countries. While there is an ever-growing body of literature pertaining to their use, evidence surrounding the importance of EHR interoperability and its impact on patient safety remains less clear. There is, therefore, a need and opportunity to evaluate the evidence available regarding this relationship so as to better inform health informatics development and policies in the years to come. This systematic review aims to evaluate the impact of EHR interoperability on patient safety in health systems of high-income countries., Methods and Analysis: A systematic literature review will be conducted via a computerised search through four databases: PubMed, Embase, Health Management Information Consortium and PsycInfo for relevant articles published between 2010 and 2020. Outcomes of interest will include impact on patient safety and the broader effects on health systems. Quality of the randomised quantitative studies will be assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Non-randomised papers will be evaluated with the Risk of Bias In Non-Randomised Studies-of Interventions tool. Drummond's Checklist will be used for publications pertaining to economic evaluation. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence quality appraisal checklist will be used to assess qualitative studies. A narrative synthesis will be conducted for included studies, and the body of evidence will be summarised in a summary of findings table., Ethics and Dissemination: This review will summarise published studies with non-identifiable data and, thus, does not require ethical approval. Findings will be disseminated through preprints, open access peer-reviewed publications, and conference presentations., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42020209285., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: During the pandemic, remote consultations have become the norm for assessing patients with signs and symptoms of COVID-19 to decrease the risk of transmission. This has intensified the clinical uncertainty already experienced by primary care clinicians when assessing patients with suspected COVID-19 and has prompted the use of risk prediction scores, such as the National Early Warning Score (NEWS2), to assess severity and guide treatment. However, the risk prediction tools available have not been validated in a community setting and are not designed to capture the idiosyncrasies of COVID-19 infection., Objective: The objective of this study is to produce a multivariate risk prediction tool, RECAP-V1 (Remote COVID-19 Assessment in Primary Care), to support primary care clinicians in the identification of those patients with COVID-19 that are at higher risk of deterioration and facilitate the early escalation of their treatment with the aim of improving patient outcomes., Methods: The study follows a prospective cohort observational design, whereby patients presenting in primary care with signs and symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 will be followed and their data linked to hospital outcomes (hospital admission and death). Data collection will be carried out by primary care clinicians in four arms: North West London Clinical Commissioning Groups (NWL CCGs), Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC), Covid Clinical Assessment Service (CCAS), and South East London CCGs (Doctaly platform). The study involves the use of an electronic template that incorporates a list of items (known as RECAP-V0) thought to be associated with disease outcome according to previous qualitative work. Data collected will be linked to patient outcomes in highly secure environments. We will then use multivariate logistic regression analyses for model development and validation., Results: Recruitment of participants started in October 2020. Initially, only the NWL CCGs and RCGP RSC arms were active. As of March 24, 2021, we have recruited a combined sample of 3827 participants in these two arms. CCAS and Doctaly joined the study in February 2021, with CCAS starting the recruitment process on March 15, 2021. The first part of the analysis (RECAP-V1 model development) is planned to start in April 2021 using the first half of the NWL CCGs and RCGP RSC combined data set. Posteriorly, the model will be validated with the rest of the NWL CCGs and RCGP RSC data as well as the CCAS and Doctaly data sets. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee on May 27, 2020 (Integrated Research Application System number: 283024, Research Ethics Committee reference number: 20/NW/0266) and badged as National Institute of Health Research Urgent Public Health Study on October 14, 2020., Conclusions: We believe the validated RECAP-V1 early warning score will be a valuable tool for the assessment of severity in patients with suspected COVID-19 in the community, either in face-to-face or remote consultations, and will facilitate the timely escalation of treatment with the potential to improve patient outcomes., Trial Registration: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN13953727; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN13953727., International Registered Report Identifier (irrid): DERR1-10.2196/29072., (©Ana Belen Espinosa-Gonzalez, Ana Luisa Neves, Francesca Fiorentino, Denys Prociuk, Laiba Husain, Sonny Christian Ramtale, Emma Mi, Ella Mi, Jack Macartney, Sneha N Anand, Julian Sherlock, Kavitha Saravanakumar, Erik Mayer, Simon de Lusignan, Trisha Greenhalgh, Brendan C Delaney. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (https://www.researchprotocols.org), 25.05.2021.)

Background: General practitioners (GPs) play a key role in managing the COVID-19 outbreak. However, they may encounter difficulties adapting their practices to the pandemic. We provide here an analysis of guidelines for the reorganisation of GP surgeries during the beginning of the pandemic from 15 countries., Methods: A network of GPs collaborated together in a three-step process: (i) identification of key recommendations of GP surgery reorganisation, according to WHO, CDC and health professional resources from health care facilities; (ii) collection of key recommendations included in the guidelines published in 15 countries; (iii) analysis, comparison and synthesis of the results., Results: Recommendations for the reorganisation of GP surgeries of four types were identified: (i) reorganisation of GP consultations (cancelation of non-urgent consultations, follow-up via e-consultations), (ii) reorganisation of GP surgeries (area partitioning, visual alerts and signs, strict hygiene measures), (iii) reorganisation of medical examinations by GPs (equipment, hygiene, partial clinical examinations, patient education), (iv) reorganisation of GP staff (equipment, management, meetings, collaboration with the local community)., Conclusions: We provide here an analysis of guidelines for the reorganisation of GP surgeries during the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak from 15 countries. These guidelines focus principally on clinical care, with less attention paid to staff management, and the area of epidemiological surveillance and research is largely neglected. The differences of guidelines between countries and the difficulty to apply them in routine care, highlight the need of advanced research in primary care. Thereby, primary care would be able to provide recommendations adapted to the real-world settings and with stronger evidence, which is especially necessary during pandemics.

Objective: To determine the effectiveness of physical activity interventions involving mobile applications (apps) or trackers with automated and continuous self-monitoring and feedback., Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis., Data Sources: PubMed and seven additional databases, from 2007 to 2020., Study Selection: Randomised controlled trials in adults (18-65 years old) without chronic illness, testing a mobile app or an activity tracker, with any comparison, where the main outcome was a physical activity measure. Independent screening was conducted., Data Extraction and Synthesis: We conducted random effects meta-analysis and all effect sizes were transformed into standardised difference in means (SDM). We conducted exploratory metaregression with continuous and discrete moderators identified as statistically significant in subgroup analyses., Main Outcome Measures: Physical activity: daily step counts, min/week of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, weekly days exercised, min/week of total physical activity, metabolic equivalents., Results: Thirty-five studies met inclusion criteria and 28 were included in the meta-analysis (n=7454 participants, 28% women). The meta-analysis showed a small-to-moderate positive effect on physical activity measures (SDM 0.350, 95% CI 0.236 to 0.465, I 2 =69%, T 2 =0.051) corresponding to 1850 steps per day (95% CI 1247 to 2457). Interventions including text-messaging and personalisation features were significantly more effective in subgroup analyses and metaregression., Conclusion: Interventions using apps or trackers seem to be effective in promoting physical activity. Longer studies are needed to assess the impact of different intervention components on long-term engagement and effectiveness., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Sharing personal health information positively impacts quality of care across several domains, and particularly, safety and patient-centeredness. Patients may identify and flag up inconsistencies in their electronic health records (EHRs), leading to improved information quality and patient safety. However, in order to identify potential errors, patients need to be able to understand the information contained in their EHRs., Objective: The aim of this study was to assess patients' perceptions of their ability to understand the information contained in their EHRs and to analyze the main barriers to their understanding. Additionally, the main types of patient-reported errors were characterized., Methods: A cross-sectional web-based survey was undertaken between March 2017 and September 2017. A total of 682 registered users of the Care Information Exchange, a patient portal, with at least one access during the time of the study were invited to complete the survey containing both structured (multiple choice) and unstructured (free text) questions. The survey contained questions on patients' perceived ability to understand their EHR information and therefore, to identify errors. Free-text questions allowed respondents to expand on the reasoning for their structured responses and provide more detail about their perceptions of EHRs and identifying errors within them. Qualitative data were systematically reviewed by 2 independent researchers using the framework analysis method in order to identify emerging themes., Results: A total of 210 responses were obtained. The majority of the responses (123/210, 58.6%) reported understanding of the information. The main barriers identified were information-related (medical terminology and knowledge and interpretation of test results) and technology-related (user-friendliness of the portal, information display). Inconsistencies relating to incomplete and incorrect information were reported in 12.4% (26/210) of the responses., Conclusions: While the majority of the responses affirmed the understanding of the information contained within the EHRs, both technology and information-based barriers persist. There is a potential to improve the system design to better support opportunities for patients to identify errors. This is with the aim of improving the accuracy, quality, and timeliness of the information held in the EHRs and a mechanism to further engage patients in their health care., (©Lisa Freise, Ana Luisa Neves, Kelsey Flott, Paul Harrison, John Kelly, Ara Darzi, Erik K Mayer. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (http://formative.jmir.org), 26.02.2021.)

Background: Evidence suggests that health care data sharing may strengthen care coordination, improve quality and safety, and reduce costs. However, to achieve efficient and meaningful adoption of health care data-sharing initiatives, it is necessary to engage all stakeholders, from health care professionals to patients. Although previous work has assessed health care professionals' perceptions of data sharing, perspectives of the general public and particularly of seldom heard groups have yet to be fully assessed., Objective: This study aims to explore the views of the public, particularly their hopes and concerns, around health care data sharing., Methods: An original, immersive public engagement interactive experience was developed-The Can of Worms installation-in which participants were prompted to reflect about data sharing through listening to individual stories around health care data sharing. A multidisciplinary team with expertise in research, public involvement, and human-centered design developed this concept. The installation took place in three separate events between November 2018 and November 2019. A combination of convenience and snowball sampling was used in this study. Participants were asked to fill self-administered feedback cards and to describe their hopes and fears about the meaningful use of data in health care. The transcripts were compiled verbatim and systematically reviewed by four independent reviewers using the thematic analysis method to identify emerging themes., Results: Our approach exemplifies the potential of using interdisciplinary expertise in research, public involvement, and human-centered design to tell stories, collect perspectives, and spark conversations around complex topics in participatory digital medicine. A total of 352 qualitative feedback cards were collected, each reflecting participants' hopes and fears for health care data sharing. Thematic analyses identified six themes under hopes: enablement of personal access and ownership, increased interoperability and collaboration, generation of evidence for better and safer care, improved timeliness and efficiency, delivery of more personalized care, and equality. The five main fears identified included inadequate security and exploitation, data inaccuracy, distrust, discrimination and inequality, and less patient-centered care., Conclusions: This study sheds new light on the main hopes and fears of the public regarding health care data sharing. Importantly, our results highlight novel concerns from the public, particularly in terms of the impact on health disparities, both at international and local levels, and on delivering patient-centered care. Incorporating the knowledge generated and focusing on co-designing solutions to tackle these concerns is critical to engage the public as active contributors and to fully leverage the potential of health care data use., (©Olivia Lounsbury, Lily Roberts, Jonathan R Goodman, Philippa Batey, Lenny Naar, Kelsey M Flott, Anna Lawrence-Jones, Saira Ghafur, Ara Darzi, Ana Luisa Neves. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 22.02.2021.)

Objective: To evaluate the impact of sharing electronic health records (EHRs) with patients and map it across six domains of quality of care (ie, patient-centredness, effectiveness, efficiency, timeliness, equity and safety)., Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis., Data Sources: CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, HMIC, Medline/PubMed and PsycINFO, from 1997 to 2017., Eligibility Criteria: Randomised trials focusing on adult subjects, testing an intervention consisting of sharing EHRs with patients, and with an outcome in one of the six domains of quality of care., Data Analysis: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. Title and abstract screening were performed by two pairs of investigators and assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. For each domain, a narrative synthesis of the results was performed, and significant differences in results between low risk and high/unclear risk of bias studies were tested (t-test, p<0.05). Continuous outcomes evaluated in four studies or more (glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP)) were pooled as weighted mean difference (WMD) using random effects meta-analysis. Sensitivity analyses were performed for low risk of bias studies, and long-term interventions only (lasting more than 12 months)., Results: Twenty studies were included (17 387 participants). The domain most frequently assessed was effectiveness (n=14), and the least were timeliness and equity (n=0). Inconsistent results were found for patient-centredness outcomes (ie, satisfaction, activation, self-efficacy, empowerment or health literacy), with 54.5% of the studies (n=6) demonstrating a beneficial effect. Meta-analyses showed a beneficial effect in effectiveness by reducing absolute values of HbA1c (unit: %; WMD=-0.316; 95% CI -0.540 to -0.093, p=0.005, I 2 =0%), which remained significant in the sensitivity analyses for low risk of bias studies (WMD= -0.405; 95% CI -0.711 to -0.099), and long-term interventions only (WMD=-0.272; 95% CI -0.482 to -0.062). A significant reduction of absolute values of SBP (unit: mm Hg) was found but lost in sensitivity analysis for studies with low risk of bias (WMD= -1.375; 95% CI -2.791 to 0.041). No significant effect was found for DBP (unit: mm Hg; WMD=-0.918; 95% CI -2.078 to 0.242, p=0.121, I 2 =0%). Concerning efficiency, most studies (80%, n=4) found either a reduction of healthcare usage or no change. A beneficial effect was observed in a range of safety outcomes (ie, general adherence, medication safety), but not in medication adherence. The proportion of studies reporting a beneficial effect did not differ between low risk and high/unclear risk studies, for the domains evaluated., Discussion: Our analysis supports that sharing EHRs with patients is effective in reducing HbA1c levels, a major predictor of mortality in type 2 diabetes (mean decrease of -0.405, unit: %) and could improve patient safety. More studies are necessary to enhance meta-analytical power and assess the impact in other domains of care. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO (CRD42017070092)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The implementation of eHealth applications in primary care remains challenging. Enhancing knowledge and awareness of implementation determinants is critical to build evidence-based implementation strategies and optimise uptake and sustainability., Objectives: We consider how evidence-based implementation strategies can be built to support eHealth implementation., Discussion: What implementation strategies to consider depends on (potential) barriers and facilitators to eHealth implementation in a given situation. Therefore, we first discuss key barriers and facilitators following the five domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Cost is identified as a critical barrier to eHealth implementation. Privacy, security problems, and a lack of recognised standards for eHealth applications also hinder implementation. Engagement of key stakeholders in the implementation process, planning the implementation of the intervention, and the availability of training and support are important facilitators. To support care professionals and researchers, we provide a stepwise approach to develop and apply evidence-based implementation strategies for eHealth in primary care. It includes the following steps: (1) specify the eHealth application, (2) define problem, (3) specify desired implementation behaviour, and (4) choose and (5) evaluate the implementation strategy. To improve the fit of the implementation strategy with the setting, the stepwise approach considers the phase of the implementation process and the specific context., Conclusion: Applying an approach, as provided here, may help to improve the implementation of eHealth applications in primary care.

Background: To develop items for an early warning score (RECAP: REmote COVID-19 Assessment in Primary Care) for patients with suspected COVID-19 who need escalation to next level of care., Methods: The study was based in UK primary healthcare. The mixed-methods design included rapid review, Delphi panel, interviews, focus groups and software development. Participants were 112 primary care clinicians and 50 patients recovered from COVID-19, recruited through social media, patient groups and snowballing. Using rapid literature review, we identified signs and symptoms which are commoner in severe COVID-19. Building a preliminary set of items from these, we ran four rounds of an online Delphi panel with 72 clinicians, the last incorporating fictional vignettes, collating data on R software. We refined the items iteratively in response to quantitative and qualitative feedback. Items in the penultimate round were checked against narrative interviews with 50 COVID-19 patients. We required, for each item, at least 80% clinician agreement on relevance, wording and cut-off values, and that the item addressed issues and concerns raised by patients. In focus groups, 40 clinicians suggested further refinements and discussed workability of the instrument in relation to local resources and care pathways. This informed design of an electronic template for primary care systems., Results: The prevalidation RECAP-V0 comprises a red flag alert box and 10 assessment items: pulse, shortness of breath or respiratory rate, trajectory of breathlessness, pulse oximeter reading (with brief exercise test if appropriate) or symptoms suggestive of hypoxia, temperature or fever symptoms, duration of symptoms, muscle aches, new confusion, shielded list and known risk factors for poor outcome. It is not yet known how sensitive or specific it is., Conclusions: Items on RECAP-V0 align strongly with published evidence, clinical judgement and patient experience. The validation phase of this study is ongoing., Trial Registration Number: NCT04435041., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MD’s company makes templates for general practice record systems. All other authors declare no competing interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: Cancer survival rates vary widely between European countries, with differences in timeliness of diagnosis thought to be one key reason. There is little evidence on the way in which different healthcare systems influence primary care practitioners' (PCPs) referral decisions in patients who could have cancer.This study aimed to explore PCPs' diagnostic actions (whether or not they perform a key diagnostic test and/or refer to a specialist) in patients with symptoms that could be due to cancer and how they vary across European countries., Design: A primary care survey. PCPs were given vignettes describing patients with symptoms that could indicate cancer and asked how they would manage these patients. The likelihood of taking immediate diagnostic action (a diagnostic test and/or referral) in the different participating countries was analysed. Comparisons between the likelihood of taking immediate diagnostic action and physician characteristics were calculated., Setting: Centres in 20 European countries with widely varying cancer survival rates., Participants: A total of 2086 PCPs answered the survey question, with a median of 72 PCPs per country., Results: PCPs' likelihood of immediate diagnostic action at the first consultation varied from 50% to 82% between countries. PCPs who were more experienced were more likely to take immediate diagnostic action than their peers., Conclusion: When given vignettes of patients with a low but significant possibility of cancer, more than half of PCPs across Europe would take diagnostic action, most often by ordering diagnostic tests. However, there are substantial between-country variations., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)