Background: During the first COVID-19 pandemic ‘lockdown’ in Aotearoa/New Zealand (March–May 2020, in which strict ‘stay at home’ measures were introduced), general practices were advised to use telephone and video consultations (telehealth) wherever possible instead of the usual in-person visits. This was a sudden change for most practices and patients. This research aimed to explore how patients accessed general practice during lockdown and evaluate their experiences with telehealth, to inform how telehealth could be most effectively used in the future. Methods: Using a mixed-method approach, we undertook an online survey and in-depth interviews with adults (> 18 years) who had contact with practices during lockdown, recruited through social media and email lists. We present descriptive statistics from the survey data (n = 1010) and qualitative analysis of interview data (n = 38) and open-ended survey questions, using a framework of access to health care, from the patient’s perspective. Results: In general, patients reported high satisfaction with telehealth in general practice during lockdown. Telehealth was convenient and allowed patients to safely access health care without having to weigh-up the fear of COVID-19 infection against the need to be seen. Telehealth worked best for routine and familiar health issues and when rapport was established between patients and clinicians. This was easier with a pre-existing clinical relationship, but not impossible without one. Telehealth was less suitable when a physical examination was needed, when the diagnosis was unknown or for patients who had a strong preference to be seen in-person. Conclusions: Even in this disruptive lockdown period, that prompted an unexpected and rapid implementation of telehealth services in general practices, most patients had positive experiences with telehealth. In the future, patients want the choice of consultation type to match their needs, circumstances, and preferences. Technological issues and funding barriers may need to be addressed, and clear communication for both patients and clinicians is needed about key aspects of telehealth (e.g. cost, appropriateness, privacy). Maintaining telehealth as an option post-lockdown has the potential to increase timely and safe access to primary health care for many patients.

Background: Disruptions to healthcare services during the COVID-19 pandemic are well-recognised problems. However, a dearth of research exists on disabled people’s experiences with accessing these services. A scoping review was undertaken to identify and explore research on the experience of disabled people in accessing healthcare services between 2020 and 6 February 2023. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, and OVID were employed to search for research that included the voice of disabled people, or their parents or caregivers. Over two distinct phases, a total of 2,201 articles were reviewed according to article titles, keywords, and abstracts. Eighty-one studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria; these were reviewed in full. Results: Eighteen studies specifically described the experiences of accessing healthcare or disability services, and sixty-three raised healthcare challenges as a secondary consideration. Many disabled people struggled to access healthcare services and felt they were invisible; as a result, individuals’ mental health was negatively affected. Disabled people with compounding vulnerabilities were at the most risk of experiencing a lack of healthcare access. Conclusions: There is an urgent need for research and policy that is responsive to disabled people’s access to healthcare during the pandemic; currently many health policies are ‘disability-blind’ and exclude these members of the global community. Furthermore, to assist in creating disability-responsive research, funding needs to prioritise researchers within the disabled community.

Background: In Aotearoa/New Zealand, the first nation-wide coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) lockdown occurred from March 23, 2020 to May 13, 2020, requiring most people to stay at home. Health services had to suddenly change how they delivered healthcare and some services were limited or postponed. This study investigated access to healthcare during this lockdown period, whether patients delayed seeking healthcare and reasons for these delays, focusing on the accessibility of primary care services. Methods: Adults (aged 18 years or older) who had contact with primary care services were invited through social media and email lists to participate in an online survey (n = 1010) and 38 people were recruited for in-depth interviews. We thematically analysed qualitative data from the survey and interviews, reported alongside relevant descriptive survey results. Results: More than half (55%) of survey respondents delayed seeking healthcare during lockdown. Factors at a national or health system-level that could influence delay were changing public service messages, an excessive focus on COVID-19 and urgent issues, and poor service integration. Influential factors at a primary care-level were communication and outreach, use of technology, gatekeeping, staff manner and the safety of the clinical practice environment. Factors that influenced patients’ individual decisions to seek healthcare were the ability to self-manage and self-triage, consciousness of perceived pressure on health services and fear of infection. Conclusion: In future pandemic lockdowns or crises, appropriate access to primary care services can be improved by unambiguous national messages and better integration of services. Primary care practices should adopt rapid proactive outreach to patients, fostering a calm but safe clinical practice environment. More support for patients to self-manage and self-triage appropriately could benefit over-burdened health systems during lockdowns and as part of business as usual in less extraordinary times.

Objective: This paper surveys current literature related to medication administration errors, the role of nurses in such errors, and current initiatives that are underway within New Zealand to address this aspect of patient safety. Setting: The literature review focused on research that primarily addresses the issues related to medications that arise in tertiary care facilities. Primary argument: Medication administration errors are reported to occur in one in five medication dosages. Such events have long been scrutinised, with the primary focus being the practice of nurses and their role in medication error. Analysis of such events frequently identifies the nurse as the deliverer of unsafe practice. However, over the past few years a shift in how medication errors are understood has led to the identification of systems-related issues that contribute to medication errors. Conclusion: Initiatives such as the ‘Quality and Safe Use of Medicines’ raise the opportunity to address some of the safety related issues with a view to enhancing patient safety. A call for nurses to pre-emptively drive and contribute to these initiatives, along with the development of nursing led research, is offered.

In 2020, in the first COVID-19 pandemic lockdown, Aotearoa New Zealand consistently maintained stringent public health measures including stay-at-home lockdowns and distancing responses. Considering the widespread disruption to social functioning caused by the pandemic, this paper aimed to explore environmental and social factors that influenced the wellbeing of individuals during the first lockdown in Aotearoa New Zealand. Our mixed-methods study involved a survey (n = 1010) and semi-structured interviews of a subset of surveyed individuals undertaken at the tail end of the first 2020 lockdown. Survey participants were recruited through social media-driven snowball sampling, less than 50% were aged under 45 years and 85% identified as female. Of those interviewed, 63% identified as female. Qualitative interview findings and open-ended survey results were analysed thematically. Participants described a variety of factors influencing wellbeing, largely related to the community and household; physical, behavioural, and lifestyle factors; access to health services; and social and economic foundations. While much of the focus of COVID-19 recovery was on reversing the economic and physical toll of the pandemic, our findings emphasise the need to empower individuals, families, and communities to mitigate the pandemic’s negative implications on wellbeing.

Objective Empathy and empathy education have been reviewed a number of times through systematic reviews and meta-analyses; however, the topic of ‘empathetic communication’ remains poorly understood when considering engaging in hospital-based research. Therefore, this scoping review aimed to explore the existing literature concerning empathetic communication in hospital settings and to evaluate the definitions presented. Design Scoping review. Data sources Systematic searches of the PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, PsycINFO, and PsycArticles databases were conducted. Study selection All English studies in which empathetic communication in hospital settings were explored. The search terms used included empathy, communication, hospital settings, providers, and consumers. Data extraction Data were assessed through the use of a pre-set analysis tool. Results After conducting the searches, 419 articles were identified, of which 26 were included in this review. No single article specifically defined the term ‘empathetic communication’; however, 33 unique definitions of ‘empathy’ were identified, of which 23 considered communication to be a component of empathy. There was a considerable lack of consistency between the empathy definitions, with some classifying communication in empathy as an ability and others classifying it as a dynamic process. Conclusion Future and contextually focused research is needed to develop a consistent and clear definition of empathetic communication and empathy within a hospital setting to better build positive healthcare cultures. Practice implications Inconsistencies between definitions of empathy in empathetic communication research could reduce the efficacy of future research gains and impact the translation of research findings into clinical practice.