Patients' and professionals' experiences with remote care during COVID-19: a qualitative study in general practices in low-income neighborhoods.

Jelena Kollmann, Shakib Sana, Tessa Magnée, Sarah Boer, Inge Merkelbach, Paul L Kocken, Semiha Denktaș
{"title":"Patients' and professionals' experiences with remote care during COVID-19: a qualitative study in general practices in low-income neighborhoods.","authors":"Jelena Kollmann, Shakib Sana, Tessa Magnée, Sarah Boer, Inge Merkelbach, Paul L Kocken, Semiha Denktaș","doi":"10.1017/S1463423624000240","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To explore how patients and general practice professionals in low-income neighborhoods experienced the increase of remote care during COVID-19.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>As the GP (general practitioner) is the first point of contact in Dutch health care, there are concerns about access to remote care for patients from low-income neighborhoods. Now that general practice professionals have returned to the pre-pandemic ways of healthcare delivery, this paper looks back at experiences with remote care during COVID-19. It investigates experiences of both patients and general practice professionals with the approachability and appropriateness of remote care and their satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this qualitative study, 78 patients and 18 GPs, 7 nurse practitioners and 6 mental health professionals were interviewed. Interviews were held on the phone and face-to-face in the native language of the participants.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Remote care, especially telephone consultation, was generally well-approachable for patients from low-income neighborhoods. Contrarily, video calling was rarely used. This was partly because patients did not know how to use it. The majority of patients thought remote care was possible for minor ailments but would also still like to see the doctor face-to-face regularly. Patients were generally satisfied with remote care at the time, but this did not necessarily reflect their willingness to continue using it in the future. Moreover, there was lack in consensus among general practice professionals on the appropriateness of remote care for certain physical and mental complaints. Nurse practitioners and mental health professionals had a negative attitude toward remote care. In conclusion, it is important to take the opinions and barriers of patients and care providers into account and to increase patient-centered care elements and care provider satisfaction in remote care. Integrating remote care is not only important in times of crisis but also for future care that is becoming increasingly digitalized.</p>","PeriodicalId":74493,"journal":{"name":"Primary health care research & development","volume":"25 ","pages":"e32"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11362683/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Primary health care research & development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1463423624000240","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: To explore how patients and general practice professionals in low-income neighborhoods experienced the increase of remote care during COVID-19.

Background: As the GP (general practitioner) is the first point of contact in Dutch health care, there are concerns about access to remote care for patients from low-income neighborhoods. Now that general practice professionals have returned to the pre-pandemic ways of healthcare delivery, this paper looks back at experiences with remote care during COVID-19. It investigates experiences of both patients and general practice professionals with the approachability and appropriateness of remote care and their satisfaction.

Methods: In this qualitative study, 78 patients and 18 GPs, 7 nurse practitioners and 6 mental health professionals were interviewed. Interviews were held on the phone and face-to-face in the native language of the participants.

Findings: Remote care, especially telephone consultation, was generally well-approachable for patients from low-income neighborhoods. Contrarily, video calling was rarely used. This was partly because patients did not know how to use it. The majority of patients thought remote care was possible for minor ailments but would also still like to see the doctor face-to-face regularly. Patients were generally satisfied with remote care at the time, but this did not necessarily reflect their willingness to continue using it in the future. Moreover, there was lack in consensus among general practice professionals on the appropriateness of remote care for certain physical and mental complaints. Nurse practitioners and mental health professionals had a negative attitude toward remote care. In conclusion, it is important to take the opinions and barriers of patients and care providers into account and to increase patient-centered care elements and care provider satisfaction in remote care. Integrating remote care is not only important in times of crisis but also for future care that is becoming increasingly digitalized.

患者和专业人员在 COVID-19 期间的远程护理体验:对低收入社区全科诊所的定性研究。
目的:探讨在 COVID-19 期间,低收入社区的患者和全科医生如何体验远程医疗的增加:由于全科医生(GP)是荷兰医疗保健的第一接触点,因此低收入社区的病人能否获得远程医疗服务备受关注。现在,全科专业人员已恢复到大流行前的医疗服务方式,本文回顾了 COVID-19 期间的远程医疗经验。本文调查了患者和全科专业人员对远程医疗的可及性和适当性的体验以及他们的满意度:在这项定性研究中,共采访了 78 名患者、18 名全科医生、7 名执业护士和 6 名心理健康专业人员。访谈以参与者的母语通过电话或面对面进行:对于来自低收入社区的患者来说,远程医疗,尤其是电话咨询,一般都很容易接受。相反,视频通话却很少使用。部分原因是患者不知道如何使用。大多数患者认为小病可以使用远程医疗,但还是希望能定期面对面看医生。病人当时普遍对远程医疗感到满意,但这并不一定反映出他们愿意在未来继续使用远程医疗。此外,全科专业人员对远程医疗是否适合某些身体和精神疾病缺乏共识。执业护士和精神卫生专业人员对远程护理持否定态度。总之,重要的是要考虑到患者和护理提供者的意见和障碍,提高远程护理中以患者为中心的护理要素和护理提供者的满意度。整合远程医疗不仅在危机时刻非常重要,而且对于日益数字化的未来医疗也很重要。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信