GP remote consultations with marginalised patients and the importance of place during care: a qualitative study of the role of place in GP consultations.

IF 2.5 Q2 PRIMARY HEALTH CARE BJGP Open Pub Date : 2024-07-29 DOI:10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0050
Ada Humphrey, Steven Cummins, Carl May, Fiona Stevenson
{"title":"GP remote consultations with marginalised patients and the importance of place during care: a qualitative study of the role of place in GP consultations.","authors":"Ada Humphrey, Steven Cummins, Carl May, Fiona Stevenson","doi":"10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0050","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Since COVID-19 there been an increase in the use of remote consultations in General Practice in the UK. This leads to the displacement of the consultation outside of the physical GP practice, and its 'emplacement' elsewhere, with underexplored consequences for inequities of healthcare in marginalised groups.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This paper examines the place-making demands that remote consultations make on patients, and the ways that these affect their experiences of care, with a focus on the impact on patients from marginalised groups.</p><p><strong>Design & setting: </strong>Ethnography and interview study (n=15) undertaken at three sites in London: a foodbank, a community development organisation, and a drop-in advice centre for migrants. Additionally, GPs (n=5) working at practices in London Digital Health Hub staff (n=4) and staff at fieldwork sites (n=3) were interviewed.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Ethnographic observation (n=84 hours) and semi-structured interviews (n=27). Interviews were conducted in-person and over the phone and data were analysed through reflexive thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The core themes emerging from the data included challenges securing privacy during remote consultations, and the loss of formal healthcare spaces as important places of care. These findings were closely tied to resource access, leading to inequities in experiences of care.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Remote GP consultations are not \"place-less\" encounters, and inequities in access to suitable spaces may lead to inequities in experiences of care. Attention should be given to ensuring that patients without appropriate spaces for remote consultations are offered in-person care, or consultation times made more specific to allow for organisation of private space.</p>","PeriodicalId":36541,"journal":{"name":"BJGP Open","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJGP Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0050","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Since COVID-19 there been an increase in the use of remote consultations in General Practice in the UK. This leads to the displacement of the consultation outside of the physical GP practice, and its 'emplacement' elsewhere, with underexplored consequences for inequities of healthcare in marginalised groups.

Aim: This paper examines the place-making demands that remote consultations make on patients, and the ways that these affect their experiences of care, with a focus on the impact on patients from marginalised groups.

Design & setting: Ethnography and interview study (n=15) undertaken at three sites in London: a foodbank, a community development organisation, and a drop-in advice centre for migrants. Additionally, GPs (n=5) working at practices in London Digital Health Hub staff (n=4) and staff at fieldwork sites (n=3) were interviewed.

Method: Ethnographic observation (n=84 hours) and semi-structured interviews (n=27). Interviews were conducted in-person and over the phone and data were analysed through reflexive thematic analysis.

Results: The core themes emerging from the data included challenges securing privacy during remote consultations, and the loss of formal healthcare spaces as important places of care. These findings were closely tied to resource access, leading to inequities in experiences of care.

Conclusion: Remote GP consultations are not "place-less" encounters, and inequities in access to suitable spaces may lead to inequities in experiences of care. Attention should be given to ensuring that patients without appropriate spaces for remote consultations are offered in-person care, or consultation times made more specific to allow for organisation of private space.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
与边缘化患者进行全科医生远程会诊以及护理过程中地点的重要性:关于地点在全科医生会诊中的作用的定性研究。
背景:自 COVID-19 以来,英国的全科医生越来越多地使用远程会诊。目的:本文探讨了远程会诊对患者提出的场所需求,以及这些需求如何影响患者的就医体验,重点关注对边缘化群体患者的影响:人种学和访谈研究(n=15)在伦敦的三个地点进行:一个食物银行、一个社区发展组织和一个移民临时咨询中心。此外,还采访了在伦敦数字健康中心工作的全科医生(人数=5)和实地考察地点的工作人员(人数=3):人种学观察(n=84 小时)和半结构化访谈(n=27)。访谈通过面谈和电话进行,并通过反思性主题分析对数据进行分析:从数据中得出的核心主题包括在远程会诊过程中确保隐私所面临的挑战,以及正规医疗场所作为重要护理场所的丧失。这些发现与资源获取密切相关,导致了医疗体验的不平等:结论:全科医生远程会诊并非 "无场所 "会诊,在获得合适场所方面的不平等可能会导致医疗体验的不平等。应注意确保为没有合适场所进行远程会诊的患者提供面对面的护理,或使会诊时间更加明确,以便组织私人空间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BJGP Open
BJGP Open Medicine-Family Practice
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
181
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊最新文献
General practice characteristics associated with pay-for-performance in the UK: a systematic review. How do GPs communicate the urgent suspected cancer referral pathway to patients? A qualitative study of GP-patient consultations. Could a behaviour change intervention be used to address under-recognition of work-related asthma in primary care? A systematic review. Editorial: Global health inequity and primary care. Clinical decision making and risk appraisal using electronic risk assessment tools (eRATs) for cancer diagnosis: A qualitative study of GP experiences.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1