In Spain, specialist outpatient care traditionally relied on in-person consultations at public hospitals, leading to long wait times and limited clinical analysis in appointment assignments. However, the emergence of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) has transformed patient care, creating a seamless healthcare ecosystem. At the Allergy Department, we aimed to share our experience in transitioning form a traditional linear model of patient flow across different healthcare levels to the implementation of a digital ecosystem. By telemedicine, we can prioritize individuals based on clinical relevance, promptly and efficiently addressing potentially life-threatening conditions such as severe uncontrolled asthma or hymenoptera venom anaphylaxis. Furthermore, our adoption of telephone consultations has markedly reduced the need for in-person hospital visits, while issues with unstable patients are swiftly addressed via WhatsApp. This innovative approach not only enhances efficiency but also facilitates the dissemination of personalized medical information through various channels, contributing to public awareness and education, particularly regarding allergies. Concerns related to confidentiality, data privacy, and the necessity for informed consent must thoroughly be addressed. Also, to ensure the success of ICT integration, it is imperative to focus on the quality of educational information, its efficient dissemination, and anticipate potential unforeseen consequences. Sharing experiences across diverse health frameworks and medical specialties becomes crucial in refining these processes, drawing insights from the collective experiences of others. This collaborative effort aims to contribute to the ongoing development of a more effective and sustainable healthcare system.

OBJECTIVE: The development of IT tools and interlevel relationships in the management of the most prevalent processes has led to a semi-presential assessment approach. In cardiology, this form of assessment is possible through a close collaboration with primary care. The aim of this study is to analyze the results of our e-consultation program and to establish the effectiveness of this new form of assistance.
METHODS: Single-center study that included e-consultations referred from 15 September 2021 to 30 September 2022. Subsequently, we analyzed the events in which patients were discharged directly during the e-consultation with no need for an on-site visit.
RESULTS: We included 3,155 e-consultations. The mean age of the patients was 57±17.6 years. Of the consultations, 75% were answered within 48h (62% within 24h). A total of 1,988 patients completed one year of follow-up in e-consultation. Out of these, 1,278 patients (64.2%) were discharged from the e-consultation with no need for an on-site visit: 685 patients (53.5%) during the first consultation, and 593 (46.5%) upon request of a complementary test. After one year of follow-up, 13 patients (0.006%) were admitted due to cardiological pathology, and 16 patients (0.008%) died, only one due to cardiovascular causes. The mean age of the deceased was 80.5 years.
CONCLUSIONS: E-consultation as a single referral system from primary care to cardiology improves patient accessibility, speeds up patient assessment and is effective for patients discharged without the need for an on-site consultation.

BACKGROUND: The quality of e-Consultations in the COPD is unknown. The objectives of this study were (i) to evaluate the quality of referrals; (ii) to define the characteristics of patients referred from Primary Care (PC) to the Unit of Pulmonology; and (iii) to describe differences between accepted and rejected patients.
METHODS: A retrospective, observational study of e-Consultations requested by PC for suspected COPD throughout 2022. To quantify the quality of the e-Consultations, an arbitrary scale of 12 variables (score 0-10) was created.
RESULTS: In total, 384 e-Consultations were reviewed, of which 167 (43.5 %) resulted in a face-to-face visit, and 217 (56.5 %) were rejected. No differences were observed between the two types of patients, except for confirmations of diagnostic suspicion of COPD [significantly higher in accepted patients (p = 0.042)]; physical examination data of rejected patients (more data provided; p = 0.015); and lung function (significantly better in rejected patients). The mean quality of referrals was acceptable (5.6 ± 2.1 score): 121 (31.3 %) had insufficient quality; 118 (30.5 %) acceptable; 75 (19.4 %) good, and 30 (7.8 %) excellent. Quality was low in half of the variables analyzed (6/12); acceptable in 3, and good in another 3. The capacity of resolution of referrals was good (one e-Consultation) in 199 requests (66.1 %); deficient (two e-Consultations) in 72 (23.9 %), and poor (≥3 e-Consultations) in 30 (10 %). Overdiagnosis was 40.2 % (86/214 e-Consultations). The risk could be classified in 247 patients (64.3 %; 135 low-risk; 90 high-risk).
CONCLUSIONS: When adequate information is provided, e-Consultations help identify different levels of severity. However, the quality and capacity of resolution of referrals were suboptimal, with a high percentage of overdiagnoses.

BACKGROUND: Contemporary general practice includes many kinds of remote encounter. The rise in telephone, video and online modalities for triage and clinical care requires clinicians and support staff to be trained, both individually and as teams, but evidence-based competencies have not previously been produced for general practice.
OBJECTIVE: To identify training needs, core competencies, and learning methods for staff providing remote encounters.
METHODS: Mixed-methods study in UK general practice.
METHODS: Data were collated from longitudinal ethnographic case studies of 12 general practices; a multi-stakeholder workshop; interviews with policymakers, training providers, and trainees; published research; and grey literature (such as training materials and surveys). Data were coded thematically and analysed using theories of individual and team learning.
RESULTS: Learning to provide remote services occurred in the context of high workload, understaffing, and complex workflows. Low confidence and perceived unmet training needs were common. Training priorities for novice clinicians included basic technological skills, triage, ethics (for privacy and consent), and communication and clinical skills. Established clinicians\' training priorities include advanced communication skills (for example, maintaining rapport and attentiveness), working within the limits of technologies, making complex judgements, coordinating multi-professional care in a distributed environment, and training others. Much existing training is didactic and technology focused. While basic knowledge was often gained using such methods, the ability and confidence to make complex judgements were usually acquired through experience, informal discussions, and on-the-job methods such as shadowing. Whole-team training was valued but rarely available. A draft set of competencies is offered based on the findings.
CONCLUSIONS: The knowledge needed to deliver high-quality remote encounters to diverse patient groups is complex, collective, and organisationally embedded. The vital role of non-didactic training, for example, joint clinical sessions, case-based discussions, and in-person, whole-team, on-the-job training, needs to be recognised.

UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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).
UNASSIGNED: 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).
UNASSIGNED: 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.
The pandemic required general practices to introduce remote (phone, video and email) consultations. That policy undoubtedly saved lives at the time but there are also clear benefits of face-to-face consultations in some circumstances, and the exact role of remote care still needs to be worked out. Despite best efforts, remote care tends to worsen health inequities (people who were poor or less well educated are less able to access and navigate the system and secure the type of appointment they need or prefer). Workstream 1: We will look at 11 GP surgeries across England, Scotland and Wales. We have selected a variety of sites: urban and rural, serving a range of different communities. Each surgery has a different approach to technology. A researcher from our team will work alongside surgery staff to learn what methods and technologies each practice uses to deliver care. They will gather information (mostly qualitative) about how different technological solutions are playing out over time. Workstream 2: Many people experience barriers to accessing care when it is done through technology. This could be because they lack understanding of how to do it, don’t have the right equipment, can’t afford data, or other reasons. We will ask patients about their experiences and work with them and staff to develop ideas about how to overcome barriers. Workstream 3: We will take what we have learnt in Workstreams 1 and 2 to make suggestions to inform national stakeholders and to influence policymakers. Patients and members of the public helped shape the research design. They continue to help guide our research by reading our reports, giving us their opinions and advising on how best to share our research so everyone can benefit from what we have learnt. Our governance panel is chaired by a member of the public.

The use of video consultations (VCs) in Norwegian general practice rapidly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. During societal lockdowns, VCs were used for nearly all types of clinical problems, as in-person consultations were kept to a minimum.
This study aimed to explore general practitioners\' (GPs\') experiences of potentials and pitfalls associated with the use of VCs during the first pandemic lockdown.
Between April 14 and May 3, 2020, all regular Norwegian GPs (N=4858) were invited to answer a web-based survey, which included open-ended questions about their experiences with the advantages and pitfalls of VCs. A total of 2558 free-text answers were provided by 657 of the 1237 GPs who participated in the survey. The material was subjected to reflexive thematic analysis.
Four main themes were identified. First, VCs are described as being particularly convenient, informative, and effective for consultations with previously known patients. Second, strategically planned VCs may facilitate effective tailoring of clinical trajectories that optimize clinical workflow. VCs allow for an initial overview of the problem (triage), follow-up evaluation after an in-person consultation, provision of advice and information concerning test results and discharge notes, extension of sick leaves, and delivery of other medical certificates. VCs may, in certain situations, enhance the GPs\' insight in their patients\' relational and socioeconomical resources and vulnerabilities, and even facilitate relationship-building with patients in need of care who might otherwise be reluctant to seek help. Third, VCs are characterized by a demarcated communication style and the \"one problem approach,\" which may entail effectiveness in the short run. However, the web-based communication climate implies degradation of valuable nonverbal signals that are more evidently present in in-person consultations. Finally, overreliance on VCs may, in a longer perspective, undermine the establishment and maintenance of relational trust, with a negative impact on the quality of care and patient safety. Compensatory mechanisms include clarifying with the patient what the next step is, answering any questions and giving further advice on treatment if conditions do not improve or there is a need for follow-up. Participation of family members can also be helpful to improve reciprocal understanding and safety.
The findings have relevance for future implementation of VCs and deserve further exploration under less stressful circumstances.

UNASSIGNED: Accessing and receiving care remotely (by telephone, video or online) became the default option during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, but in-person care has unique benefits in some circumstances. We are studying UK general practices as they try to balance remote and in-person care, with recurrent waves of COVID-19 and various post-pandemic backlogs.
UNASSIGNED: Mixed-methods (mostly qualitative) case study across 11 general practices. Researchers-in-residence have built relationships with practices and become familiar with their contexts and activities; they are following their progress for two years via staff and patient interviews, documents and ethnography, and supporting improvement efforts through co-design. In this paper, we report baseline data.
UNASSIGNED: Reflecting our maximum-variety sampling strategy, the 11 practices vary in size, setting, ethos, staffing, population demographics and digital maturity, but share common contextual features-notably system-level stressors such as high workload and staff shortages, and UK\'s technical and regulatory infrastructure. We have identified both commonalities and differences between practices in terms of how they: 1] manage the \'digital front door\' (access and triage) and balance demand and capacity; 2] strive for high standards of quality and safety; 3] ensure digital inclusion and mitigate wider inequalities; 4] support and train their staff (clinical and non-clinical), students and trainees; 5] select, install, pilot and use technologies and the digital infrastructure which support them; and 6] involve patients in their improvement efforts.
UNASSIGNED: General practices\' responses to pandemic-induced disruptive innovation appear unique and situated. We anticipate that by focusing on depth and detail, this longitudinal study will throw light on why a solution that works well in one practice does not work at all in another. As the study unfolds, we will explore how practices achieve timely diagnosis of urgent or serious illness and manage continuity of care, long-term conditions and complex needs.
We describe early results from the Remote by Default 2 study, which is following 11 UK general practices for two years as they introduce various kinds of remote appointment booking and clinical consultations. We have been using interviews and ethnography (watching real-world activities), and analysing documents (such as practice reports and websites) to prepare case studies of the 11 practices, which vary widely in size, ethos, geographical location, practice population and digital maturity. Our initial interviews identified the following cross-cutting themes, which showed both commonalities and differences across the 11 practices: - The ‘digital front door’ (patients gaining access using digital portals), which was used to a greater or lesser extent in all practices; some found these systems frustrating and inefficient.- Quality and safety. Staff were concerned about the risk of missing an important diagnosis when consulting remotely, and felt that digitisation could threaten continuity of care.- Digital inclusion. All practices were keen to ensure that patients who lacked digital devices or skills were not disadvantaged; this goal was achieved in different ways (and to different degrees) in different settings.- Staff support and training. Some practices are finding current workload unsustainable due to (among other things) rising patient demand, unfilled staff posts, a post-pandemic backlog of unmet need, and task-shifting from secondary care. Digitisation appears to have increased workload in most practices.- Technologies and infrastructure. The IT infrastructure in each practice had grown in a particular way over time, and was in this sense ‘path-dependent’ (hence, not easily changed). In conclusion, different practices are responding to the ‘disruptive innovation’ of digital technologies in very different ways, reflecting their different practice populations, settings and priorities. We plan to follow the above themes over time and explore additional themes including the experience and role of patients.

Over the last decade, the use of digital technology has increased immeasurably and transformed both our personal and professional lives. The medical profession quickly embraced this development, especially after the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. Medical consultations were transitioned to online settings as a substitute for face-to-face consultations. This exponential acceleration of the use of remote online consultations (e-consultations) was deemed necessary to respond to the impact of the global pandemic. This study identifies the factors that influence actual patient use and the intention to use e-consultations in Saudi Arabia.
A cross-sectional survey was distributed online via social media platforms targeting the population living in Saudi Arabia from August to December 2020. The questionnaire measured patient perceptions of and attitudes toward utilizing e-consultations using a validated questionnaire informed by the technology acceptance model (TAM). Analyses were performed in SPSS to identify the external factors that influence patients\' actual use of e-consultations and to assess the TAM factors (usefulness, social influence, and ease of use) that influence the intention to use e-consultations across both actual users and never-users.
A total of 150 participants completed the questionnaire; the average age was 38 years old, 85% of the participants were females, and 67% reported never using e-consultations. Additionally, motivation, trust, attitude, and social influence were significantly related to participants\' intention to use e-consultations.
Participants\' trust in and perception of the usefulness of e-consultations were significant factors in their intention to use e-consultation services. Policymakers\' attention to those factors could play a role in increasing public acceptance and the use of e-consultations to improve distance medical care.

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.

Comorbid depression is common in adolescents with chronic illness. We aimed to design and test a linguistic coding scheme for identifying depression in adolescents with chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME), by exploring features of e-consultations within online cognitive behavioural therapy treatment. E-consultations of 16 adolescents (aged 11-17) receiving FITNET-NHS (Fatigue in teenagers on the interNET in the National Health Service) treatment in a national randomized controlled trial were examined. A theoretically driven linguistic coding scheme was developed and used to categorize comorbid depression in e-consultations using computerized content analysis. Linguistic coding scheme categorization was subsequently compared with classification of depression using the Revised Children\'s Anxiety and Depression Scale published cut-offs (t-scores ≥65, ≥70). Extra linguistic elements identified deductively and inductively were compared with self-reported depressive symptoms after unblinding. The linguistic coding scheme categorized three (19%) of our sample consistently with self-report assessment. Of all 12 identified linguistic features, differences in language use by categorization of self-report assessment were found for \"past focus\" words (mean rank frequencies: 1.50 for no depression, 5.50 for possible depression, and 10.70 for probable depression; p < .05) and \"discrepancy\" words (mean rank frequencies: 16.00 for no depression, 11.20 for possible depression, and 6.40 for probable depression; p < .05). The linguistic coding profile developed as a potential tool to support clinicians in identifying comorbid depression in e-consultations showed poor value in this sample of adolescents with CFS/ME. Some promising linguistic features were identified, warranting further research with larger samples.