Abstract
Background COVID-19 mandated a rapid and dramatic transformation of general practice. ‘Total Triage’ (TT), where all consultations should be triaged first, and ‘Remote-by-Default’ (RbD) consulting, where a clinician should consult remotely unless there is a “clinical exception”, were advised. It is unclear how these new ways of working were implemented in practice, and how they impacted vulnerable patients.
Aim To assess the impact of TT and RbD on vulnerable patients and identify mitigation strategies.
Design and Setting A mixed methods service evaluation in Lewisham, London, an area of high deprivation.
Method Three parallel datasets were collected and analysed: Semi-structured interviews with stakeholders working with vulnerable groups and qualitative data from forums with black and ethnic minority patients, a survey of General Practitioners exploring implementation of TT and RbD, and a mystery shopper exercise reviewing access and messaging of ten practices.
Results Barriers to access for vulnerable patients included challenges navigating the new model, difficulty engaging with remote consultations and digital exclusion. There was wide variation in messaging regarding changes to services and the practical application of TT and RbD. Potential solutions included clearer practice guidance and patient messaging, more consistent implementation, and identification and recording of patient access needs to enable better tailoring of care provision.
Conclusion This pilot study identified perceived and actual barriers to accessing general practice for vulnerable patients following the rapid introduction of TT and RbD consulting. It proposes immediate steps to mitigate some of these impacts and highlights the need for further research in this area.
How This Fits In The rapid and widespread adoption, recommended by NHS England, of total triage and remote-by-default consulting in general practice has yet to be evaluated. We provide a first look at how these changes are impacting those with historic difficulties in accessing primary care under the traditional GP model. We also provide some local recommendations that can be implemented easily at practice level and beyond, to mitigate the impact of these changes whilst making recommendations for further research to corroborate these findings widely.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was made possible by funding from Health Education England
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
QMUL Research Governance Team have advised the project is classified as non-research as it is a local study/service evaluation and therefore ethical approval is waived.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The data that support the findings of this study (suitably anonymised) are available on request from the corresponding author.
