Abstract
Background: Vital signs assessment can be crucial. However, such assessments are time-consuming and so are not always prioritised. Measuring vital signs before doctor visits may therefore be an effective and efficient strategy. We piloted a pre-clinic vital signs assessment (PCVSA) within a primary care centre to determine its feasibility and acceptability. Methods: A mixed methods cross-sectional design was piloted. Study participants included adult patients and practice staff. Patients had vital signs assessed by a Primary Care Assistant before GP visits. Data collected concerned participants’ study engagement, the timings of PCVSA / GP visits, and surveys / interviews investigating participants’ experiences. Results: Sixteen patients and four staff participated. The mean PCVSA was 2mins23secs (SD = 38.8) and the mean GP visit was 9mins21secs (SD = 252.4). Patients said the PCVSA was a ‘Positive experience’ (87%), ‘Helpful’ (81%), ‘Valuable’ (50%), and ‘Interesting’ (44%). The GP said the PCVSA was either ‘Helpful’ (n=8, 54%) or ‘Extremely Helpful’ (n=7, 47%) in each of their consultations, and that it improved engagement with 80% of patients, allowed them to spend more time gaining understanding of the conditions of 93% of patients, and enhanced productivity in 73% of consultations. The GP strongly agreed that collecting PCVSA data before appointments would benefit patients over time. Qualitative interviews with practice staff yielded three themes: (1) Improved patient engagement and efficient consultation, (2) Time-saving potential, and (3) Practicing in general practice and associated challenges. Conclusion: The PCVSA pilot showed good feasibility and acceptability as indicated by high participant engagement, short PCVSA and GP visit times (albeit GP visit times did not measure non-patient facing clinical activity), and positive feedback from patients and staff. Introducing PCVSA in healthcare settings may have potential in terms of improving the standard and efficiency of care.
Competing Interest Statement
Authors SM, SG, JG and JS are members of Wavescope Ltd, this study's industry partners and developers of the Pre-clinic vital signs assessment concept in the study.
Clinical Protocols
https://aspredicted.org/see_one.php
Funding Statement
Yes
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the UCD Human Research Ethics Committee (LS-24-36-Broughan-Cullen).
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.
Yes
I 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).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data availability statement This study’s quantitative raw data (i.e., PCVSA and GP consult timings, participant questionnaire responses) is accessible at https://zenodo.org/records/13952132. Data from a preliminary survey with 25 GPs in Ireland conducted by Wavescope Ltd. is also available at this website. The transcripts from this study’s qualitative interviews are not available online as publishing this data publicly is likely to breach the study participants’ confidentiality.
