Background

In many countries, private companies provide primary care services based predominantly on offering video consultations via smartphones. One example is Babylon GP at Hand (BGPaH), which offers video consultations to National Health Service patients, 24 hours a day, and has grown rapidly in London over the last 3 years. The development of this type of service has been controversial, particularly in the United Kingdom, but there has been little formal published evaluation of these services in any country. This paper outlines the main controversies about the use of privately provided video consultation services for primary care and shows how they are informed by the limited evaluations that have been conducted, particularly the evaluation of BGPaH. This paper describes the advantages of these services in terms of convenience, speed of access, the ability to consult without traveling or face-to-face patient-doctor contact, and the possibility of recruiting doctors who cannot work in conventional settings or do not live near the patients. It also highlights the concerns and uncertainties about quality and safety, demand, fragmentation of care, impact on other health services, efficiency, and equity. There are questions about whether private primary care services based on video consultations have a sustainable business model and whether they will undermine other health care providers. During the recent COVID-19 pandemic, the use of video consulting has become more widespread within conventional primary care services, and this is likely to have lasting consequences for the future delivery of primary care. It is important to understand the extent to which lessons from the evaluation of BGPaH and other private services based on a video-first model are relevant to the use of video consulting within conventional general practices, and to consider the advantages and disadvantages of these developments, before video consultation–based services in primary care become more widely established.

Background. Sharing information with patients within a consultation about their infection and value of antibiotics can help reduce antibiotic prescriptions for respiratory tract infections. However, we do not know how often information is given about antibiotics or infections, and if this is related to knowledge and attitudes.Objectives. To determine the public’s reported use of antibiotics, receipt of information from health professionals about antibiotics and resistance, trust in health professionals and knowledge levels about antibiotics and resistance.Methods. Face-to-face computer-assisted survey with 1625 adults over 15 years in randomly selected households using multistage sampling. Rim weighting was used to correct for any selection biases.Results. About 88% trusted their GP to determine the need for antibiotics. Of those who took antibiotics in the past year, 62% were for a throat infection, 60% for sinus infection and 42% for a cough. Although 67% who had been prescribed an antibiotic recalled being given advice about their infection or antibiotics, only 8% recalled information about antibiotic resistance. Those in lower social grades were less likely to recall advice. About 44% correctly indicated that antibiotics effectively treat bacterial rather than viral infections. Only 45% agreed that ‘healthy people can carry antibiotic resistant bacteria’.Conclusion. GPs and health carers are trusted decision-makers, but could share more information with patients about the need or not for antibiotics, self-care and antibiotic resistance, especially with younger patients and those of lower social grade. Better ways are needed for effective sharing of information about antibiotic resistance.

No abstract

ObjectiveTo describe the general public's understanding, acceptance and use of delayed antibiotics.DesignFace to face computer-assisted survey using an Ipsos MORI Capibus survey.SettingRandomly selected households in England using multistage sampling.RespondentsA representative sample of 1625 adults aged over 15 years and recruited from household visits in England, using age and gender quotas for each area.Data collection and analysisThe survey was undertaken in January 2014. Weights based on gender, age, ethnicity, working status, social grade, housing tenure and Government Office Region corrected for selection biases, so that results are broadly representative of the population.Main outcomes measuresProportion of respondents; understanding the meaning of the term delayed antibiotic prescription and how the strategy is used in general practice; in favour of, or opposed to clinicians offering them a delayed antibiotic; reporting receipt, use and acceptability of delayed antibiotic prescriptions in the past year.Results17% reported fully understanding the meaning of delayed antibiotic prescription and strategy use in general practice;72% were unaware of the term or strategy; 36–39% were in favour of, and 28–30% opposed to clinicians offering them a delayed antibiotic for throat, urine, ear or chest infections. Half of those who were fully aware of the term and practice were in favour of delayed antibiotics. Women, and older respondents, were more strongly opposed to delayed prescribing. Only 4% of all respondents, and 15% of those prescribed an antibiotic, reported being offered a delayed antibiotic in the last year.ConclusionsWider understanding and acceptance of delayed prescribing may facilitate increased uptake. Further research is needed to determine why groups are so strongly in favour or opposed to delayed prescribing.

ObjectivesTo describe public attitudes and knowledge around antibiotic activity, resistance and use.DesignFace-to-face household 18 question survey using computer-assisted data collection undertaken by Ipsos Market and Opinion Research International.SettingRandomly selected households across England, January–February 2020.Participants2022 adults (aged 15+,) including 521 black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) participants, and 406 aged 15–25 years olds.Main outcome measuresResponses to questions about antibiotic activity, resistance and expectations for antibiotics and trust in healthcare professionals. Analyses were weighted to obtain estimates representative of the population with multivariable analysis undertaken for questions with five or more significant univariate variables.Results84% stated they would be pleased if their general practitioner (GP) said they did not need antibiotics. Trust in GPs to make antibiotic decisions remains high (89%) and has increased for nurses (76%) and pharmacists (71%). Only 21% would challenge an antibiotic decision; this was significantly greater in BAME participants (OR 2.5; 95% CI 1.89 to 3.35). 70% reported receiving advice when prescribed antibiotics. Belief in benefits of antibiotics for ear infections was very high (68%). Similar to 2017, 81% agreed that antibiotics work for bacterial, 28% cold and influenza viruses. 84% agreed antibiotic resistant bacteria (ARB) are increasing, only 50% agreed healthy people can carry ARB and 39% agreed there was nothing they personally could do about ARB. Social grade DE and BAME participants, and those with less education had significantly less understanding about antibiotics and resistance.ConclusionsAs trust in healthcare practitioners is high, we need to continue antibiotic education and other interventions at GP surgeries and community pharmacies but highlight that most ear infections are not benefitted by antibiotics. Targeted interventions are needed for socioeconomic DE, BAME groups and previous antibiotic users. We need to explore if increasing perceived personal responsibility for preventing ARB reduces antibiotic use.

The study reviews 20 police shootings between 1998 and 2001 that are classified by the police as "spontaneous incidents" (in other words, they did not involve incident pre-planning by the firearms commanders). The study used Police Complaints Authority files to review time intervals between initial police awareness of the incidents, arrival at the scene of firearms officers and the initial discharge of police weapons. The aim was to assess what factors -those relating to the vulnerability of the suspect, the circumstances of the incident or the policing response -predicted rapid discharges of police weapons. Providing only partial support for "danger perception" theory, it was aspects of the policing response, such as the number of firearms officers present, and the availability of incident command, that were linked to the rapidity of the shooting. While the small number of cases precludes definitive conclusions, the evidence presented suggests that police discharges are linked more strongly to the policing methods employed than to either the characteristics of the suspects or the risk to the public in the incidents.

Background National Health Service (NHS) guidance for acute respiratory tract infections (RTIs) advocates self-care, encourages utilization of local pharmacies and recommends consulting general practitioners (GPs) primarily for the vulnerable or those with persistent symptoms. Coronavirus disease 2019 exerted substantial strain on the English NHS, affecting public access to primary care services. Methods For 3 years, public surveys assessed RTI incidences in the previous 12 months and associated health-seeking behaviours. Telephone surveys of 1676 respondents across England were conducted in March 2021 and 1663 respondents in March 2022. Findings were compared with a face-to-face baseline survey of 2022 respondents from March 2020. Key demographics were representative of the population. Results In 2021, the proportion of respondents who reported an RTI (51%) significantly declined from 2020 (70%, P < 0.05), then returned to pre-pandemic rates in 2022 (67%). Respondents reported more proactive symptom management in both 2021 and 2022 from 2020: there were greater reports of seeking over-the-counter treatments (55%, 55% vs. 35%, P < 0.05) and use of alternative remedies (38%, 38% vs. 21%, P < 0.05). 2022 observed a reduction in those who reported consulting their GP for their most recent RTI (15%) compared to 2021 (25%, P < 0.05) and 2020 (23%), which was not accounted for through greater consultation rates with other healthcare services. Conclusions Public health bodies should consider how pandemic-related changes may have facilitated increased self-care for self-limiting infections such as RTIs. Resources and support must include safety-netting advice to safeguard against unintentional consequences of increased self-care.