PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Neves, Ana Luisa AU - van Dael, Jackie AU - O’Brien, Niki AU - Flott, Kelsey AU - Ghafur, Saira AU - Darzi, Ara AU - Mayer, Erik TI - Use and impact of virtual primary care on quality and safety: the public’s perspectives during the COVID-19 pandemic AID - 10.1101/2021.10.19.21265193 DP - 2021 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2021.10.19.21265193 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/10/22/2021.10.19.21265193.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/10/22/2021.10.19.21265193.full AB - Background With the onset of COVID-19, primary care has swiftly transitioned from face-to-face to virtual care, yet it remains largely unknown how this has impacted on the quality and safety of care.Aim To evaluate patient use of virtual primary care models during COVID-19 in terms of change in uptake, perceived impact on the quality and safety of care, and willingness of future use.Design and setting An online cross-sectional survey was administered to the public across the United Kingdom, Sweden, Italy and Germany.Methods McNemar tests were conducted to test pre- and post pandemic differences in uptake for each technology. One-way analysis of variance was conducted to examine patient experience ratings and perceived impacts on healthcare quality and safety across demographic characteristics.Results Respondents (N=6,326) reported an increased use of telephone consultations (+6.3%, P<.001), patient-initiated services (+1.5%, n=98, p<0.001), video consultations (+1.4%, P<.001), remote triage (+1.3, p<0.001), and secure messaging systems (+0.9%, P=.019). Experience rates using virtual care technologies were higher for men (2.39±0.96 vs 2.29±0.92, P<.001), those with higher literacy (2.75±1.02 vs 2.29±0.92, P<.001), and participants from Germany (2.54±0.91, P<.001). Healthcare timeliness and efficiency were the quality dimensions most often reported as being positively impacted by virtual technologies (60.2%, n=2,793 and 55.7%, n=2,401, respectively), followed by effectiveness (46.5%, n=1,802), safety (45.5%, n=1,822), patient-centredness (45.2%, n=45.2) and equity (42.9%, n=1,726). Interest in future use was highest for telephone consultations (55.9%), followed by patient-initiated digital services (56.1%), secure messaging systems (43.4%), online triage (35.1%), video consultations (37.0%), and chat consultations (30.1%), although significant variation was observed between countries and patient characteristics.Conclusion Future work must examine the drivers and determinants of positive experiences using remote care to co-create a supportive environment that ensures equitable adoption and use across different patient groups. Comparative analysis between countries and health systems offers the opportunity for policymakers to learn from best practices internationally.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Imperial Patient Safety Translation Research Centre and by the Imperial College COVID-19 Response Fund. Infrastructure support was provided by the NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Ethics committee/IRB of Imperial College London gave ethical approval for this work.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesData can be requested to the first author (ALN) upon reasonable request. Requests will be considered on an individual basis. Data sharing is not guaranteed.