After the disruptive innovation: How remote and digital services were embedded, blended and abandoned in UK general practice - longitudinal study.

Abstract

Background: United Kingdom general practices transitioned rapidly to remote-by-default services in 2020 and subsequently considered whether and how to continue these practices. Their diverse responses provided a unique opportunity to study the longer-term embedding, adaptation and abandonment of digital innovations. Research questions: What was the range of responses to the expansion of remote and digital triage and consultations among United Kingdom general practices in the period following the acute phase of the coronavirus disease discovered in 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic? What can we learn from this example about the long-term impacts of crisis-driven sociotechnical change in healthcare settings?

Methods: We collected longitudinal data from 12 general practices from 2021 to 2023, comprising 500 hours of ethnographic observation, 163 interviews in participating practices and linked organisations (132 staff, 31 patients), 39 stakeholder interviews and 4 multi-stakeholder workshops (210 participants), with additional patient and public involvement input. Data were de-identified, uploaded to NVivo (QSR International, Warrington, UK) and synthesised into case studies, drawing on theories of organisational innovation.

Results: General practices' longitudinal progress varied, from a near-total return to traditional in-person services to extensive continuing use of novel digital technologies and pathways. Their efforts to find the right balance were shaped and constrained by numerous contextual factors. Large size, slack resources, high absorptive capacity, strong leadership and good intrapractice relationships favoured innovation. Readiness for remote and digital modalities varied depending on local tension for change, practice values and patient characteristics. Technologies' uptake and use were influenced by their material properties and functionality. Embedding and sustaining technologies required ongoing work to adapt and refine tasks and processes and adjust (or, where appropriate, selectively abandon) technologies. Adoption and embedding of technologies were affected by various staff and patient factors. When technologies fitted poorly with tasks and routines or when embedding efforts were unsuccessful, inefficiencies and 'techno-stress' resulted, with compromises to patient access and quality of care.

Limitations: Sampling frame was limited to United Kingdom and patient interviews were relatively sparse.

Conclusion: There is wide variation in digital maturity among United Kingdom general practices. Low use of remote and digital technologies and processes may be warranted and reflect local strategic choices, but it may also indicate lack of awareness and a reactive rather than strategic approach to digital innovation. We offer an updated typology of digital maturity in general practice with suggestions for tailored support.

Future work: The typology of digital maturity could be applied further to identify in more detail the kind of support needed for practices that are at different stages of maturity and are serving different populations. The need for strategically traditional practices in deprived settings should also be explored.

Funding: This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme as award number NIHR132807.