Benefits and Challenges of Using Virtual Primary Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic: From Key Lessons to a Framework for Implementation

Study population

The inSIGHT Research Group is a worldwide collaboration of primary care researchers exploring the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the adoption of virtual primary care. The research group is spread across 20 countries (Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States). Participants were eligible for the survey if they were GPs working in these countries between March and September 2020.

Sampling

Each local lead sent an email invitation to GPs in their country and shared the link to the survey in social media channels (e.g., LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook). Local leads who had difficulty achieving the minimum number required used snowballing to increase the number of responses. Snowballing is a recognised technique for recruiting hard-to-reach populations in health studies [29–31].

Description of the questionnaire

The questionnaire included 30 items assessing GPs’ perspectives on the adoption and experience of virtual care solutions during the COVID-19 outbreak. Participants’ characteristics were collected, including age, gender, country, practice setting, number of years of experience as GP, and involvement in teaching activities. GPs’ perceptions on the main benefits and challenges of using virtual care were assessed using free-text questions.

Data analysis

Participants’ characteristics were analysed using descriptive statistics. Two independent researchers systematically reviewed the transcripts using the framework analysis method, which includes five main stages: familiarisation, identifying a thematic framework, indexing, charting, and mapping and interpretation [19]. At every stage of the data analysis process, the coding framework was kept deductive and inductive, allowing the inclusion of emergent themes. The coding tree was shared between all researchers for iterative refinement until consensus was reached. Resultant themes, subthemes, and the relationships between them, will be visualised using the Miro online whiteboard application [32]. As participants did not provide consent for further contact, it was not possible to ask them to provide feedback on the findings. The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies checklist was used to ensure the study meets the recommended standards of qualitative data reporting.

Ethics

Overall ethical approval for this project was granted by the Imperial College Research Ethics Committee (ICREC) (Reference 20IC5956). This is a dedicated ethics oversight body at Imperial College London for all health-related research involving human participants. In addition, whenever necessary, local ethical approval and relevant permissions in the respective participating countries were also obtained.

Participants’ characteristics

1,605 participants participated in the questionnaire. Most respondents (79.3%) were aged 30-59 years, and 60.9% were female (n=978). Most of the participants have been working as GPs for a minimum of 5 years (79.1%, n=1,329) and reported being involved in teaching activities (63.7%, n=1,023). More than half (62.5%) worked in an urban setting (n=1,004). A full description of the participants, including a breakdown per country, is shown in Table 1.

Main benefits

Benefits clustered around three main themes (Figure 1, Textbox 1): benefits for quality and safety of care (i.e., safety, effectiveness, equity, efficiency, timeliness, patient-centredness), for health care professionals, and for health care systems.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1: Conceptual map of main benefits identified

Main challenges

Challenges were broadly summarised into three main areas (Figure 2, Textbox 2): for quality of care, for healthcare providers, and for health care systems.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2: Conceptual map of main challenges identified

Healthcare providers

The lack of formal training, guidance, and inadequate technical support were notable challenges. During the abrupt shift to virtual care, GPs reportedly had to set up, learn how to use, and troubleshoot new systems. These efforts were seldom well-organised or coordinated and often resulted in considerable transitional difficulties. Another major drawback was the higher workload and burnout. Some participants reported that they found virtual consultations to be more taxing and time-consuming to perform, which was often burdened with increased administrative tasks. As described above, the frequency and ease with which GPs could be contacted by patients often blurred the boundaries between their work and personal lives, further contributing to an increased workload. The increase in the number of patients observed daily has also resulted in less engagement with individual patients and decreased overall work satisfaction. GPs also reported inadequate remuneration as a considerable barrier to the continued use of virtual care. Whilst payment structures differed across countries, our respondents expressed that payment for remote consultation which is commensurate to in-person consultations, is critical to incentivising greater acceptance and mainstream use. As many of the remote consultation payment schemes were introduced during the initial months of COVID-19 pandemic as emergency measures, some GPs were doubtful that these efforts would be sustained over time.

Health systems

Participants mentioned organisational culture as an impediment against using virtual care. Overcoming substantial institutional inertia, the lack of pre-existing teleworking culture, the urgency to shift from familiar systems to completely new ones, and challenging the prevailing mentality of ‘this was always how things were done’, were commonly reported organisational barriers. Participants also reported technical issues with the digital systems used, including inadequate equipment and infrastructure, and poor systems interoperability. In particular, the lack of interoperability between several digital systems, such as appointment schedulers, electronic health records, electronic prescriptions, and epidemiological surveillance systems, was perceived as a major challenge. GPs also described implementation issues related to finances, including a general lack of investment and, more specifically, lack of funding allocated to human resources and supporting the costs of systems set-up and maintenance. Respondents noted that virtual care delivery did not appear to be in the list of priorities of many healthcare systems or policymakers. Finally, GPs identified a range of legal and regulatory weaknesses, highlighting that existing legislation is no longer fit for purpose, nor meets the evolving needs resultant from the pandemic.

Summary of key findings

Benefits for quality of care were identified for the six dimensions of quality of care, including safety (reduction of exposure risks for COVID-19 transmission); effectiveness and equity (ensuring access and continuity of care to those who need it, including those who had previously limitations to access face-to-face care); efficiency (remote triage), improved timeliness and patient-centredness (convenience, communication, and patient empowerment). Benefits for healthcare providers included a greater work flexibility and more control over schedule. Benefits for healthcare systems included a transformative effect, hastening the digital transformation (increasing awareness, trust, adoption, skills, and technical capacity) and driving changes in legal and regulatory frameworks.

Important challenges have also been noted for six domain of quality of care, including patient-centredness (patients’ preference for face-to-face care, potential negative impact on communication), equity (lack of equipment, internet access and digital skills of some patient groups), safety (clinical uncertainty and potentially inappropriate decision making), timeliness (delays in diagnosis and treatment), effectiveness (unsuitability for certain consultations) and efficiency (overuse and misuse). Challenges specific for healthcare providers included the lack of guidance and support, higher workload, and remuneration issues. From the health systems’ perspective, the long-established organisational culture, technological challenges, implementation and financial issues, and lack of accompanying supportive policies and regulatory legislation, were challenges identified by participants.

Strengths and limitations

This is the first international study to explore GPs’ perceptions on the main benefits and challenges of using virtual consultations in primary care. Participants took part from 20 countries worldwide, with diverse health care systems and levels of healthcare spending. The sample size was large, with participants varying in age, clinical experience, and type of primary care setting (urban, rural, or mixed). This study employed a methodologically rigorous approach, leveraging qualitative methods to capture rich, descriptive data on individual perceptions, attitudes, and behaviours [33,34], performed according to the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies criteria [35]. Finally, the main benefits and challenges were mapped against a widely recognised framework of Quality of Care [10], whenever possible. Finally, a set of recommendations was developed based on the main findings, to support providers and healthcare organisations translate the lessons learned into practice improvements.

The results must be interpreted considering some limitations. Our findings are also impacted by common limitations of survey research, including self-reported answers and self-selection sampling methods. Only GPs were included in this study; future research should focus on the inclusion of other healthcare professionals, and especially patients. The themes identified as part of this analysis may not be equally relevant for each individual country. Further qualitative content analysis could provide novel insights on their relative importance for individual countries.

Finally, virtual care is a broad concept and future research must explore specific nuances of the various types of technology available (i.e., telephone, video, chat), both in what concerns perceived benefits and challenges of implementation, and patient preferences.

Comparison with previous literature

Remote primary care is widely recognised as an promising solution to ensuring both patient and provider safety by preventing direct physical contact, hence reducing morbidity and mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic [16,36,37]. However, important safety concerns also manifested, predominantly concerning diagnostic uncertainty. In this context, previous literature also report GPs’ concerns about clinical risk [38] and the need to establish escalation protocols to support clinicians decide when a transition to urgent in-person follow-up care, or even to emergency services, is required [37].

Our results underline that remote digital tools may be an effective way of delivering primary care. In line with these findings, a Cochrane systematic review (2015) demonstrated the use of telemedicine strategies to be associated with increased access to care and improved clinical outcomes in single chronic diseases, particularly in type 2 diabetes [39]. However, the interventions were heterogenous and the external generalisability of these findings remain unclear. Future research will be needed to address questions such as for which patients, and for which conditions, do virtual care tools actually improve effectiveness.

Our participants highlighted that virtual care, particularly through remote triage, can reduce the number of unnecessary visits and thus have a positive impact on efficiency (i.e., minimising waste, including from an economic perspective). In fact, few telehealth evaluations have examined the association between outcomes and costs of virtual care. While some reviews have found that virtual care can decrease the use of acute hospital services [40–42], there is less evidence in the primary care context [43]. On the other hand, our participants raised concerns about potential overuse and misuse by patients, which could negatively impact the effectiveness of remote care. In a recent study in Canada (2020) evaluating the uptake of a platform for virtual visits in primary care, Stamenova et al. observed that many virtual visits appeared to replace face-to-face visits, yet patients did not overwhelm physicians with requests [44].

In what concerns timeliness of care, participants identified both potential advantages and disadvantages. Remote primary care has the potential to offer convenient access to a primary care provider without needing to take time-off work, arrange transportation, and spend time waiting for face-to-face visits. Participants were also concerned that barriers to the use of technology and difficulties inherent to a new mode of care delivery, could result in delays in diagnosis and treatment. There is sparse evidence on the subject. However, a recent study examined patient-initiated primary care visits in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California (a system with over four million members) and concluded that, on average, telephone visits were scheduled 50% sooner than office visits [45]. These findings have profound implications, given that timeliness of care is associated with improved health outcomes. [46].

Remote care has been promised to reduce inequities in access to care for decades, particularly in rural and geographically remote areas [47–49]. In line with previous literature, our results demonstrate the ability of remote care to overcome barriers for those who have physical limitations to attend a face-to-face meeting, but also highlight their potential to entrench existing inequities in access to care [50,51]. Published evidence shows that the transition to virtual primary care did not unfold in the same manner across communities [52]. Proactive efforts are therefore needed to identify and address both patient and provider‐related digital barriers so as to avoid that the widespread implementation of virtual care in a manner which reinforces disparities in health access amongst already underserved and excluded groups [52].

Equally, with regards to patient-centredness, a range of benefits and challenges have been identified. While participants consider that remote care can improve convenience and patient empowerment, participants also acknowledge that it can have both negative and positive effects on communication. Another important challenge is patient preference for face-to-face visits. Preference theory suggests that patients would prefer a virtual consultation if they perceive its benefits as outweighing its burdens [53]. Multiple factors may influence patients’ preference, including the situation of care (i.e., patient’s perception of their clinical status, treatment requirements, and care pathway), the expectations of care, the demand of care (e.g., social situation, consequences of choice), the capacity to allocate resources (e.g., patient’s ability to allocate financial, infrastructural, social and healthcare resources) [54] and patients digital health literacy [55,56]. These factors may combine or compete and may be dynamic throughout the patient’s journey.

The pandemic has a transformational impact in hastening the digital transformation, and in particular increasing awareness, trust, and adoption of remote care [16,57,58]. Challenges such as the lack of support, burnout, and remuneration issues, are balanced by a few benefits (i.e., remote working and a better control over schedule). However, to fully embrace the benefits postulated (e.g., greater flexibility to work remotely from home), healthcare systems must explore and implement the enablers required. Potential enablers include single sign-on, sharing of records across systems, electronic generation of form, and the creation of workspaces and secure interfaces without the need for laptops and VPNs [59]. While the rapid implementation of virtual consulting tools provides the ability to work more flexibly and from different locations, primary care leaders need to be supported and learn how to build effective teams via novel approaches [60].

At the health systems level, previous studies have indicated that implementation barriers largely depended on accreditation, payment systems, and insurance [61]. Prioritisation of financial investments into relevant infrastructure, greater emphasis on training and guidance for healthcare providers, and updates to the corresponding legal and regulatory frameworks supporting their use, are equally required. Overcoming institutional inertia is likely to be more feasible post-COVID-19, given that clinical culture is expected to have evolved substantially after a year of daily use of remote care delivery. In addition, as many of the existing guidance and policies on primary remote care were drafted and implemented during the emergency phase, the experience attained, and evidence collected offers an opportunity to refine, optimise, and update the relevant accompanying legal and regulatory frameworks.

Implications for research and policy

Based on our findings, we propose a framework of recommendations for the implementation of virtual care in the primary care setting (Figure 3). The framework consists of suggested action points across five specific domains for high-quality implementation of virtual care, including contextual considerations, technology infrastructure, awareness and experience, safety and risk management, and strategic planning & supporting policies (Figure 3). As part of this framework, we emphasise the importance of continuously monitoring quality across these five areas, which must be collected both through patient & provider feedback, but also using data-driven approaches to systematically evaluate the impact on equity (e.g., usage patterns and patients characteristics, patient preferences, and offer of alternative modes of consultation), effectiveness (e.g., longitudinal monitoring of impact on health outcomes, as well as of the technological, legal and regulatory infrastructure required to deliver effective care), and safety (e.g., longitudinal monitoring of safety indicators, including cybersecurity); efficiency (e.g., cost-effectiveness analysis) and timeliness (e.g., time-to-diagnosis and time-to-treatment). Decisions to adopt remote care services should be based on evidence of their impact, and responsive to ongoing evaluation & monitoring processes.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3: A framework for implementation of virtual consultations in the primary care setting

It is important to note that the technological and regulatory landscape is dynamic, as are patients’ preferences. Therefore, virtual care platforms must be secure and reliable, but also flexible enough to accommodate evolving regulatory, professional, and health-care organisations’ requirements [62] – and processes must ensure that patients are presented with alternative options during their journey.