Abstract:Background: General practices are facing challenges such as rising patient demand and difficulties recruiting and retaining general practitioners. Greater use of digital technology has been advocated as a way of mitigating some of these challenges and improving patient access. This includes Digital First Primary Care, when a patient's first contact with primary care is through a digital route, either through a laptop or smartphone. The use of Digital First Primary Care has been expedited since COVID-19. There is little evidence of staff experiences of using Digital First Primary Care with more complex patients, such as those with multiple long-term conditions. Objective: To understand the experiences of those with multiple long-term conditions of Digital First Primary Care from the perspectives of healthcare professionals and stakeholders. Design: This was a qualitative evaluation, comprised of four distinct work packages: Work package 1: Locating the study within the wider context, engaging with literature, and co-designing the study approach and research questions with patients. Work package 2: Interviews with health professionals working across general practice and key expert topic stakeholders, including academics and policy-makers. Work package 3: Analysis of data and generation of themes, and testing findings with patients. Work package 4: Synthesis, reporting and dissemination. Results: The study commenced in January 2021 and in total 28 interviews were conducted with 14 health professionals and 15 stakeholders between January and August 2022. From the perspective of health professionals, Digital First Primary Care approaches could enable patients to speak with a clinician more quickly than traditional approaches. Those with multiple long-term conditions could submit healthcare readings from home, though health professionals felt patients may struggle navigating digital systems not designed to capture the nuances associated with living with multiple conditions. Clinicians expressed preferences for seeing patients face-to-face, particularly those with multiple long-term conditions, to identify non-verbal cues about a patient's health. Digital First Primary Care approaches provided an opportunity for clinicians to engage with the carers of patients living with multiple long-term conditions, yet there were concerns around obtaining consent and confidentiality. There remain debates among stakeholders about the nature and extent to which Digital First Primary Care impacts on staff workload. Limitations: At the time of data collection, general practices were facing considerable pressure to deliver care and respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. While it was originally intended that the study would include interviews with patients with multiple long-term conditions and their carers, none of the general practices that took part in the study were willing and/or able to recruit patients and carers in the time available. Conclusions: The rapid implementation of Digital First Primary Care, at a time of immense pressures, meant there has been little time for considering the impact on patients, including those with multiple long-term conditions. The impacts on care continuity depended largely on how surgeries implemented their approaches. Staff and stakeholders felt that Digital First Primary Care, as an additional route for accessing primary care, could be useful for patients with multiple long-term conditions but not at the expense of face-to-face consultations. Future work: Future research obtaining patient and carer views of digital-first approaches, understanding the impacts on carers and how approaches are designed with patients with more complex conditions in mind, is essential. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 16/138/31) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 21. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Do new models of primary care risk exacerbating existing inequity?

Digitalised primary care in the UK: The experiences of minoritised ethnic communities

Digital facilitation: supporting the use of NHS digital and online services

Challenges to quality in contemporary, hybrid general practice: a multi-site longitudinal case study

Access and triage in contemporary general practice: A novel theory of digital candidacy

Disparities in access to primary care are growing wider in Canada

Reducing health inequalities through general practice: a realist review and action framework

Digital First Primary Care for those with multiple long-term conditions: a rapid review of the views of stakeholders

Do primary care quality improvement frameworks consider equity?

45 How digital innovation in primary care disrupts the clinical consultation

Ethnic inequalities in primary care experiences for people with multiple long-term conditions: Evidence from the general practice patient survey

Addressing the Digital Inverse Care Law in the Time of COVID-19: Potential for Digital Technology to Exacerbate or Mitigate Health Inequalities

Consultation Rate and Mode by Deprivation in English General Practice From 2018 to 2022: Population-Based Study

Digital health and primary care: Past, pandemic and prospects

The performance of general practice in the English National Health Service (NHS): an analysis using Starfield's framework for primary care

Patient and caregiver characteristics associated with differential use of primary care for children and young people in the UK: a scoping review

Understanding primary care transformation and implications for ageing populations and health inequalities: a systematic scoping review of new models of primary health care in OECD countries and China

Evaluating the Digital Health Experience for Patients in Primary Care: Mixed Methods Study

Artificial intelligence and health inequities in primary care: a systematic scoping review and framework

A reflection on the impact of COVID-19 on primary care in the United Kingdom

Is greater patient choice consistent with equity? The case of the English NHS