Objectives This study compares rapid and traditional analyses of a UK health service evaluation dataset to explore differences in researcher time and consistency of outputs. Design Mixed methods study, quantitatively and qualitatively comparing qualitative methods. Setting Data from a home birth service evaluation study in a hospital in the English National Health Service, which took place between October and December 2014. Two research teams independently analysed focus group and interview transcript data: one team used a thematic analysis approach using the framework method, and the second used rapid analysis. Participants Home birth midwives (6), midwifery support workers (4), commissioners (4), managers (6), and community midwives (12) and a patient representative (1) participated in the original study. Primary outcome measures Time taken to complete analysis in person hours; analysis findings and recommendations matched, partially matched or not matched across the two teams. Results Rapid analysis data management took less time than thematic analysis (43 hours vs 116.5 hours). Rapid analysis took 100 hours, and thematic analysis took 126.5 hours in total, with interpretation and write up taking much longer in the rapid analysis (52 hours vs 8 hours). Rapid analysis findings overlapped with 79% of thematic analysis findings, and thematic analysis overlapped with 63% of the rapid analysis findings. Rapid analysis recommendations overlapped with 55% of those from the thematic analysis, and thematic analysis overlapped with 59% of the rapid analysis recommendations. Conclusions Rapid analysis delivered a modest time saving. Excessive time to interpret data in rapid analysis in this study may be due to differences between research teams. There was overlap in outputs between approaches, more in findings than recommendations. Rapid analysis may have the potential to deliver valid, timely findings while taking less time. We recommend further comparisons using additional data sets with more similar research teams.

Objective The increased reliance on digital technologies to deliver healthcare as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic has meant pre-existing disparities in digital access and utilisation of healthcare might be exacerbated in disadvantaged patient populations. The aim of this rapid review was to identify how this ‘digital divide’ was manifest during the first wave of the pandemic and highlight any areas which might be usefully addressed for the remainder of the pandemic and beyond. Design Rapid review and narrative synthesis. Data sources The major medical databases including PubMed and Embase and Google Scholar were searched alongside a hand search of bibliographies. Eligibility criteria Original research papers available in English which described studies conducted during wave 1 of the COVID pandemic and reported between 1 March 2020 and 31 July 2021. Results The search was described using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and identified nine studies. The results are presented within a refined framework describing the three key domains of the digital divide: (1) digital access, within which one study described continuing issues with internet connectivity among vulnerable patients in the UK; (2) digital literacy, where seven studies described how ethnic minorities and the elderly were less likely to use digital technologies in accessing care; (3) digital assimilation, where one study described how video technologies can reduce feelings of isolation and another how elderly black males were the most likely group to share information about COVID-19 on social media platforms. Conclusions During the early phase of the pandemic in the developed world, familiar difficulties in utilisation of digital healthcare among the elderly and ethnic minorities continued to be observed. This is a further reminder that the digital divide is a persistent challenge that needs to be urgently addressed when considering the likelihood that in many instances these digital technologies are likely to remain at the centre of healthcare delivery.

Integrated reminders within clinical systems have become more prevalent due to the use of electronic health records and evidence demonstrating an increase in compliance within practice. Clinical reminders are assessed for effectiveness on an individual basis, rather than in combination with existing prompts for other conditions. The growing number of prompts may be counter-productive as healthcare professionals are increasingly suffering from “reminder fatigue” meaning many reminders are ignored. This work will review the qualitative evidence to identify barriers and enablers of existing prompts found within computerised decision support systems. Our focus will be on primary care where clinicians have to negotiate a plethora of reminders as they deal with increasingly complex patients and sophisticated treatment regimes. The review will provide a greater understanding of existing systems and the way clinicians interact with them to inform the development of more effective and targeted clinical reminders. A comprehensive search using piloted terms will be used to identify relevant literature from 1960 (or commencement of database) to 2017. MEDLINE, MEDLINE In Process, EMBASE, HMIC, PsycINFO, CDSR DARE, HTA, CINAHL and CPCI, will be searched, as well as grey literature and references and citations of included papers. Manuscripts will be assessed for eligibility, bias and quality using the CASP tool with narrative data being included and questionnaire based studies excluded. Inductive thematic analysis will be performed in order to produce a conceptual framework defining the key barriers around integrated clinical reminders. Indications of alert and reminder fatigue are found throughout the current literature. However, this has not been fully investigated using a robust qualitative approach, particularly in a rapidly growing body of evidence. This review will aid people forming new clinical systems so that alerts can be incorporated appropriately. PROSPERO: CRD42016029418

Background: Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used to assess impact of disease and treatment on quality of life and symptoms; however, their use in primary care is fragmented. We aimed to understand how PROMs are currently being used in primary care, the barriers and facilitators of this use and if appropriate how it might be optimised. Methods: Cross-sectional survey and semi-structured interviews among general practitioners (GPs) in England. GPs’ opinions were explored using an electronic, self-completed questionnaire disseminated to 100 GPs via an online doctors’ community and semi-structured qualitative interviews with 25 GPs. Results: Most GPs surveyed (77/100; 77%) reported using one or more PROM, primarily to aid clinical management (n = 66) or as screening/diagnostic tools (n = 62). Qualitative interviews highlighted challenges in identifying and selecting PROMs; however, some GPs valued PROMs for shared decision making and to direct patient discussions. The interviews identified key barriers to PROM use including: time constraints; insufficient knowledge; lack of integration into clinical systems; and PROMs being mandated without consultation or explanation. Evidence of the benefit of PROMs is required to promote uptake and use of PROMs in primary care. Conclusion: Implementation of PROMs in primary care requires integration with clinical systems, a bottom-up approach to PROM selection and system design involving meaningful consultation with patients and primary care clinicians and training/support for use.

Background: The consistency and quality of care in modern primary care are supported by various clinical reminders (CRs), which include “alerts” describing the consequences of certain decisions and “prompts” that remind users to perform tasks promoting desirable clinical behaviors. However, not all CRs are acted upon, and many are disregarded by general practitioners (GPs), a chronic issue commonly referred to as “alert fatigue.” This phenomenon has significant implications for the safety and quality of care, GP burnout, and broader medicolegal consequences. Research on mitigating alert fatigue and optimizing the use of CRs remains limited. This review offers much-needed insight into GP attitudes toward the deployment, design, and overall effectiveness of CRs. Objective: This systematic review aims to synthesize current qualitative research on GPs’ attitudes toward CRs, enabling an exploration of the interacting influences on the occurrence of alert fatigue in GPs, including the deployment, design, and perceived efficacy of CRs. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted across the Health Technology Assessment database, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, Embase, CINAHL, Conference Proceedings Citation Index, PsycINFO, and OpenGrey. The search focused on primary qualitative and mixed methods research conducted in general or family practice, specifically exploring GPs’ experiences with CRs. All databases were searched from inception to December 31, 2023. To ensure structured and practicable findings, we used a directed content analysis of the data, guided by the 7 domains of the Non-adoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability (NASSS) framework, including domains related to Technology, Adopter attitudes, and Organization. Results: A total of 9 studies were included, and the findings were organized within the 7 domains. Regarding Condition and Value Proposition, GPs viewed CRs as an effective way to maintain or improve the safety and quality of care they provide. When considering the attributes of the Technology, the efficacy of CRs was linked to their frequency, presentation, and the accuracy of their content. Within Adopters, concerns were raised about the accuracy of CRs and the risk that their use could diminish the value of GP experience and contextual understanding. From an Organization perspective, the need for training on the use and benefits of CRs was highlighted. Finally, in the context of the Wider system and their Embedding Over Time, suggestions included sharing best practices for CR use and involving GPs in their design. Conclusions: While GPs acknowledged that CRs, when used optimally, can enhance patient safety and quality of care, several concerns emerged regarding their design, content accuracy, and lack of contextual nuance. Suggestions to improve CR adherence included providing coherent training, enhancing their design, and incorporating more personalized content. Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42016029418; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=29418 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): RR2-10.1186/s13643-017-0627-z

Introduction: Remote home monitoring models were implemented during the COVID‐19 pandemic to shorten hospital length of stay, reduce unnecessary hospital admission, readmission and infection and appropriately escalate care. Within these models, patients are asked to take and record readings and escalate care if advised. There is limited evidence on how patients and carers experience these services. This study aimed to evaluate patient experiences of, and engagement with, remote home monitoring models for COVID‐19.Methods: A rapid mixed‐methods study was carried out in England (conducted from March to June 2021). We remotely conducted a cross‐sectional survey and semi‐structured interviews with patients and carers. Interview findings were summarized using rapid assessment procedures sheets and data were grouped into themes (using thematic analysis). Survey data were analysed using descriptive statistics.Results: We received 1069 surveys (18% response rate) and conducted interviews with patients (n = 59) or their carers (n = 3). ‘Care’ relied on support from staff members and family/friends. Patients and carers reported positive experiences and felt that the service and human contact reassured them and was easy to engage with. Yet, some patients and carers identified problems with engagement (e.g., hesitancy to self‐escalate care). Engagement was influenced by patient factors such as health and knowledge, support from family/friends and staff, availability and ease of use of informational and material resources (e.g., equipment) and service factors.Conclusion: Remote home monitoring models place responsibility on patients to self‐manage symptoms in partnership with staff; yet, many patients required support and preferred human contact (especially for identifying problems). Caring burden and experiences of those living alone and barriers to engagement should be considered when designing and implementing remote home monitoring services.Patient or Public Contribution: The study team met with service users and public members of the evaluation teams throughout the project in a series of workshops. Workshops informed study design, data collection tools and data interpretation and were conducted to also discuss study dissemination. Public patient involvement (PPI) members helped to pilot patient surveys and interview guides with the research team. Some members of the public also piloted the patient survey. Members of the PPI group were given the opportunity to comment on the manuscript, and the manuscript was amended accordingly.