Establishing and running remote consultation services is challenging politically (interest groups may gain or lose), organizationally (remote consulting requires implementation work and new roles and workflows), economically (costs and benefits are unevenly distributed across the system), technically (excellent care needs dependable links and high-quality audio and images), relationally (interpersonal interactions are altered), and clinically (patients are unique, some examinations require contact, and clinicians have deeply-held habits, dispositions and norms). Many of these challenges have an under-examined ethical dimension. In this paper, we present a novel framework, Planning and Evaluating Remote Consultation Services (PERCS), built from a literature review and ongoing research. PERCS has 7 domains—the reason for consulting, the patient, the clinical relationship, the home and family, technologies, staff, the healthcare organization, and the wider system—and considers how these domains interact and evolve over time as a complex system. It focuses attention on the organization's digital maturity and digital inclusion efforts. We have found that both during and beyond the pandemic, policymakers envisaged an efficient, safe and accessible remote consultation service delivered through state-of-the art digital technologies and implemented via rational allocation criteria and quality standards. In contrast, our empirical data reveal that strategic decisions about establishing remote consultation services, allocation decisions for appointment type (phone, video, e-, face-to-face), and clinical decisions when consulting remotely are fraught with contradictions and tensions—for example, between demand management and patient choice—leading to both large- and small-scale ethical dilemmas for managers, support staff, and clinicians. These dilemmas cannot be resolved by standard operating procedures or algorithms. Rather, they must be managed by attending to here-and-now practicalities and emergent narratives, drawing on guiding principles applied with contextual judgement. We complement the PERCS framework with a set of principles for informing its application in practice, including education of professionals and patients.

Background: Fewer than 1% of UK general practice consultations occur by video. Aim: To explain why video consultations are not more widely used in general practice. Design and setting: Analysis of a sub-sample of data from three mixed-method case studies of remote consultation services in various UK settings 2019-2021. Methods: The dataset included interviews and focus groups with 121 participants from primary care (33 patients, 55 GPs, 11 other clinicians, 9 managers, 4 support staff, 4 national policymakers, 5 technology industry). Data were transcribed, coded thematically and then analysed using the Planning and Evaluating Remote Consultations (PERCS) Framework. Results: With few exceptions, video consultations were either never adopted or soon abandoned in general practice despite a strong policy push, short-term removal of regulatory and financial barriers and advances in functionality, dependability and usability of video technologies (though some products remained “fiddly” and unreliable). The relative advantage of video was perceived as minimal for most of the case load of general practice, since many presenting problems could be sorted adequately and safely by telephone and in-person assessment was considered necessary for the remainder. Some patients found video appointments convenient, appropriate and reassuring but others found therapeutic presence was only achieved in person. Video sometimes added value for out-of-hours and nursing home consultations and statutory functions (e.g. death certification). Conclusion: Efforts to introduce video consultations in general practice should focus on situations where this modality has a clear relative advantage (e.g. strong patient or clinician preference, remote localities, out-of-hours services, nursing homes).

BackgroundThe Covid-19 pandemic-related rise in remote consulting raises questions about the nature and type of risks in remote general practiceAimTo develop an empirically-based and theory-informed taxonomy of risks associated with remote consultations.Design and settingQualitative sub-study of data selected from the wider datasets of three large, multi-site, mixed-method studies of remote care in general practice prior to and during the Covid-19 pandemic in the UKMethodSemi-structured interviews and focus groups with a total of 176 clinicians, and 45 patients. We analysed data thematically, taking account of an existing framework of domains of clinical risk.ResultsThe Covid-19 pandemic brought changes to estates (eg, how waiting rooms were used), access pathways, technologies, and interpersonal interactions. Six domains of risk were evident in relation to[1] practice organisation and set-up (including digital inequalities of access, technology failure and reduced service efficiency); [2] communication and the therapeutic relationship (including a shift to more transactional consultations); [3] quality of clinical care (including missed diagnoses, safeguarding challenges, over-investigation and over-treatment); [4] increased burden on the patient (eg, to self-examine and navigate between services); [5] reduced opportunities for screening and managing the social determinants of health; and [6] workforce (including increased clinician stress and fewer opportunities for learning).ConclusionNotwithstanding potential benefits, if remote consultations are to work safely, risks must be actively mitigated by measures that include digital inclusion strategies, enhanced safety-netting and training and support for staff.

Background: Following a pandemic-driven shift to remote service provision, UK general practices offer telephone, video or online consultation options alongside face-to-face. This study explores practices’ varied experiences over time as they seek to establish remote forms of accessing and delivering care. Methods: This protocol is for a mixed-methods multi-site case study with co-design and national stakeholder engagement. 11 general practices were selected for diversity in geographical location, size, demographics, ethos, and digital maturity. Each practice has a researcher-in-residence whose role is to become familiar with its context and activity, follow it longitudinally for two years using interviews, public-domain documents and ethnography, and support improvement efforts. Research team members meet regularly to compare and contrast across cases. Practice staff are invited to join online learning events. Patient representatives work locally within their practice patient involvement groups as well as joining an online patient learning set or linking via a non-digital buddy system. NHS Research Ethics Approval has been granted. Governance includes a diverse independent advisory group with lay chair. We also have policy in-reach (national stakeholders sit on our advisory group) and outreach (research team members sit on national policy working groups). Results (anticipated): We expect to produce rich narratives of contingent change over time, addressing cross-cutting themes including access, triage and capacity; digital and wider inequities; quality and safety of care (e.g. continuity, long-term condition management, timely diagnosis, complex needs); workforce and staff wellbeing (including non-clinical staff, students and trainees); technologies and digital infrastructure; patient perspectives; and sustainability (e.g. carbon footprint). Conclusion: By using case study methods focusing on depth and detail, we hope to explain why digital solutions that work well in one practice do not work at all in another. We plan to inform policy and service development through inter-sectoral network-building, stakeholder workshops and topic-focused policy briefings.