P101 Understanding First Contact Physiotherapists experiences of remote consultations in primary care
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background/Aims First Contact Physiotherapists (FCPs) assess, diagnose and manage patients presenting with musculoskeletal disorders in primary care, without the need for prior GP consultation. Prior to COVID-19 almost every consultation was conducted in-person. Since the pandemic, many consultations are now undertaken remotely, a trend that is set to continue in line with the ‘Digital first’ strategy which seeks to enhance patient access to appointments. This aim of this study was to explore FCP views of remote consultations and how this impacted their role satisfaction and wellbeing. Methods This mixed methods two phase study consisted of an online survey investigating distributed via professional networks and through social media. The phase one survey explored consultation methods; levels of training; challenges and benefits; and a stress appraisal. Data were analysed descriptively. Respondents were invited to take part in phase two which included a semi-structured interview to gain an in-depth understanding of FCPs lived experience of remote consultation ways of working. Transcripts were thematically analysed. Results The online survey received n = 109 responses from UK-based FCPs. Data revealed that despite the ‘Digital First’ push for continued remote consultations, the majority of FCPs (62%) used them for less than a quarter of their appointment slots. Whilst recognising that many patients found this format convenient, FCPs highlighted their own stress levels, citing poor efficacy, anxiety of misdiagnosis, feelings of isolation and increased administrative workload. Nearly two thirds (66%) of respondents had not received any training in how to conduct effective remote consultations. Follow-up interviews with n = 16 FCPs highlighted coping strategies including following up with an in-person consultation and directing patients to other community health and wellbeing resources. In areas of high socioeconomic deprivation and poor health literacy additional problems associated with communication difficulties, poor IT access and capability, and digital poverty were all cited. Conclusion Remote consultations may offer a convenient alternative for some patients. FCP responses suggest that the continued offer of remote consultation is decreasing now pandemic restrictions have been lifted, despite the push for continued digital working practices. The perceived lack of efficacy, and fear of missing important diagnostic information means that many FCPs are either returning to in-person consultation or following up with a second face-to-face assessment resulting in potential service inefficiencies. Additional challenges were identified in areas of high deprivation and low health literacy, and the value of this consultation format needs to be considered in this context. Future work should focus on the training and support needs of FCP staff who are engaging with remote working to ensure clinical effectiveness and staff wellbeing. Disclosure N. Walsh: Grants/research support; Walsh is funded by NIHR. B.E. Jones: None. R. Thomas: None. Z. Anchors: None.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,017 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,011 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».