Use and impact of virtual primary care on quality and safety: The public's perspectives during the COVID-19 pandemic

  1. Ana Luisa Neves
  2. Jackie van Dael
  3. Niki O’Brien
  4. Kelsey Flott
  5. Saira Ghafur
  6. Ara Darzi
  7. Erik Mayer

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

With the onset of Coronavirus disease (COVID-19), primary care has swiftly transitioned from face-to-face to virtual care, yet it remains largely unknown how this has impacted the quality and safety of care. We aim to evaluate patient use of virtual primary care models during COVID-19, including change in uptake, perceived impact on the quality and safety of care and willingness of future use.

Methodology

An online cross-sectional survey was administered to the public across the United Kingdom, Sweden, Italy and Germany. McNemar tests were conducted to test pre- and post-pandemic differences in uptake for each technology. One-way analysis of variance was conducted to examine patient experience ratings and perceived impacts on healthcare quality and safety across demographic characteristics.

Results

Respondents (n = 6326) reported an increased use of telephone consultations ( + 6.3%, p < .001), patient-initiated services ( + 1.5%, n = 98, p < 0.001), video consultations ( + 1.4%, p < .001), remote triage ( + 1.3, p < 0.001) and secure messaging systems ( + 0.9%, p = .019). Experience rates using virtual care technologies were higher for men (2.4  ±  1.0 vs. 2.3  ±  0.9, p < .001), those with higher literacy (2.8  ±  1.0 vs. 2.3  ±  0.9, p < .001), and participants from Germany (2.5  ±  0.9, p < .001). Healthcare timeliness and efficiency were the dimensions most often reported as being positively impacted by virtual technologies (60.2%, n = 2793 and 55.7%, n = 2,401, respectively), followed by effectiveness (46.5%, n = 1802), safety (45.5%, n = 1822), patient-centredness (45.2%, n = 45.2) and equity (42.9%, n = 1726). Interest in future use was highest for telephone consultations (55.9%), patient-initiated digital services (56.1%), secure messaging systems (43.4%), online triage (35.1%), video consultations (37.0%) and chat consultations (30.1%), although significant variation was observed between countries and patient characteristics.

Discussion

Future work must examine the drivers and determinants of positive experiences using remote care to co-create a supportive environment that ensures equitable adoption and use. Comparative analysis between countries and health systems offers the opportunity for policymakers to learn from best practices internationally.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1177/1357633x211066235
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.10.19.21265193: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: Ethical approval was granted by Imperial College London’s Ethics Research Committee (Approval number: 20IC5956).
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Data analysis: Quantitative data were analysed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) v.27.
    Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
    suggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)
    SPSS
    suggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a protocol registration statement.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.10.19.21265193v1 on medRxiv