Maintaining face-to-face contact during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal qualitative investigation in UK primary care
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic required a rapid reconfiguration of UK general practice to minimise face-to-face contact with patients to reduce infection risk. However, some face-to-face contact remained necessary and practices needed to ensure such contact could continue safely. AIM: To examine how practices determined when face-to-face contact was necessary and how face-to-face consultations were reconfigured to reduce COVID-19 infection risk. DESIGN & SETTING: Qualitative interview study in general practices in Bristol, North Somerset, and South Gloucestershire. METHOD: Longitudinal semi-structured interviews with clinical and managerial practice staff were undertaken at four timepoints between May and July 2020. RESULTS: Practices worked flexibly within general national guidance to determine when face-to-face contact with patients was necessary, influenced by knowledge of the patient, experience, and practice resilience. For example, practices prioritised patients according to clinical need using face-to-face contact to resolve clinician uncertainty or provide adequate reassurance to patients. To make face-to-face contact as safe as possible and keep patients separated, practices introduced a heterogeneous range of measures that exploited features of their indoor and outdoor spaces, and altered their appointment processes. As national restrictions eased in June and July, the number and proportion of patients seen face to face generally increased. However, the reconfiguration of buildings and processes reduced the available capacity and put increased pressure on practices. CONCLUSION: Practices responded rapidly and creatively to the initial lockdown restrictions. The variety of ways practices organised face-to-face contact to minimise infection highlights the need for flexibility in guidance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it