Current experience and future potential of facilitating access to digital NHS primary care services in England: the Di-Facto mixed-methods study
Gary Abel,Helen Atherton,Jon Sussex,Nurunnahar Akter,Abodunrin Q Aminu,Wiktoria Bak,Carol Bryce,Christopher E Clark,Emma Cockcroft,Hamish Evans,Evangelos Gkousis,Georgia Jenkins,Caroline Jenkinson,Nada Khan,Jeffrey Lambert,Brandi Leach,Christine Marriott,Jennifer Newbould,Sarah Parkinson,Jo Parsons,Emma Pitchforth,Laura Sheard,Stephanie Stockwell,Chloe Thomas,Bethan Treadgold,Rachel Winder,John L Campbell
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3310/JKYT5803
Abstract:Background: Current National Health Service policy in England encourages enhanced digital access in primary care service provision. In this study, we investigate 'digital facilitation' - that range of processes, procedures and personnel which seeks to support National Health Service primary care patients in their uptake and use of online services. Objectives: Identify, characterise and explore the potential benefits and challenges associated with different models of digital facilitation currently in use in general practice which are aimed at improving patient access to online services in general practice in England. Use the resulting intelligence to design a framework for future evaluations of the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of such interventions. Explore how patients with mental health conditions experience digital facilitation and gauge their need for this support. Design: Observational mixed-methods study (literature review, surveys, ethnographic observation and interviews); formal synthesis of findings. Setting: General practice in four regions of England. Participants: Practice survey: 156 staff. Patient survey: 3051 patients. Mental health survey: 756 patients. General practitioner patient survey: 3 million responders. Ethnographic case-studies: 8 practices; interviews with 36 staff, 33 patients and 10 patients with a mental health condition. Stakeholder interviews: 19 participants. Intervention: Digital facilitation as undertaken in general practice. Main outcome measures: Patient and practice staff reported use of, and views of, digital facilitation. Data sources: Surveys, qualitative research; national General Practitioner Patient Survey (2019-22). Review methods: Scoping-review methodology applied to academic and grey literature published 2015-20. Results: While we did find examples of digital facilitation in routine practice, these often involved using passive or reactive modes of support. The context of COVID, and the necessary acceleration (at that time) of the move to a digital-first model of primary care, shaped the way digital facilitation was delivered. There was lack of clarity over where the responsibility for facilitation efforts lay; it was viewed as the responsibility of 'others'. Patients living with mental health conditions had similar needs and experiences regarding digital facilitation to other patients. Limitations: The context of the COVID pandemic placed limitations on the project. Fewer practices responded to the practice survey than anticipated; reconfiguration of general practices to support COVID measures was a key consideration during non-participant observation with social distancing and other measures still in place during fieldwork. Conclusions: Digital facilitation, while not a widely recognised concept, is important in supporting the move to a National Health Service with enhanced digital opportunities and enhanced digital access. General practice staff are allocating resources to provide such efforts in general practices in England. The establishment of clear lines of responsibility, the development of digital tools and platforms that work for patients and practice staff, and investment in staff time and training are needed if digital facilitation is to support the intended digital revolution. Future work: We did not find one single dominant or preferred model of digital facilitation which might reasonably be considered to form the basis of an intervention to be tested. Rather, there is a need to co-develop such an intervention with patients, general practice staff and relevant policy experts. We outline a framework for a future evaluation of such an intervention. Study registration: This study is registered as ResearchRegistry6523 (www.researchregistry.com/browse-the-registry#home/?view_2_search=Di-Facto&view_2_page=1) and PROSPERO CRD42020189019 (www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=189019). 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: NIHR128268) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 32. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.