Enhancing the Health of NHS Staff: eTHOS-a randomised controlled pilot trial of an employee health screening clinic for NHS staff compared with usual care to reduce absenteeism and presenteeism.

IF 2.1 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Rachel Adams, Rachel E Jordan, Alisha Maher, Peymané Adab, Tim Barrett, Sheriden Bevan, Lucy Cooper, Ingrid DuRand, Florence Edwards, Pollyanna Hardy, Ciara Harris, Nicola Heneghan, Natalie Ives, Kate Jolly, Sue Jowett, Tom Marshall, Margaret O'Hara, Christopher Poyner, Kiran K Rai, Hugh Rickards, Steven Sadhra, Sarah Tearne, Gareth Walters, Elizabeth Sapey
{"title":"Enhancing the Health of NHS Staff: eTHOS-a randomised controlled pilot trial of an employee health screening clinic for NHS staff compared with usual care to reduce absenteeism and presenteeism.","authors":"Rachel Adams, Rachel E Jordan, Alisha Maher, Peymané Adab, Tim Barrett, Sheriden Bevan, Lucy Cooper, Ingrid DuRand, Florence Edwards, Pollyanna Hardy, Ciara Harris, Nicola Heneghan, Natalie Ives, Kate Jolly, Sue Jowett, Tom Marshall, Margaret O'Hara, Christopher Poyner, Kiran K Rai, Hugh Rickards, Steven Sadhra, Sarah Tearne, Gareth Walters, Elizabeth Sapey","doi":"10.1186/s40814-026-01794-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Staff sickness absence incurs high costs to the NHS and is associated with adverse patient outcomes. Mental and musculoskeletal ill-health are the main causes, with cardiovascular risk factors also common. We tested the feasibility of undertaking a definitive randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a staff health screening clinic (SHSC) in reducing sickness absenteeism and presenteeism.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Individually randomised controlled pilot trial of a SHSC compared with usual care recruiting employees from four English NHS hospitals. Those in the intervention arm were assessed by a nurse using electronic database-driven screening for musculoskeletal, mental and cardiovascular health. Screen positives were given advice and/or referral to services according to UK guidelines. Three co-primary outcomes formed the stop-go criteria: recruitment, referrals, and attendance at referred services. Secondary outcomes included: generalisability, screening results, individual referrals required/attended, health behaviours, acceptability/feasibility of processes, indication of contamination, costs, health-related quality of life, self-reported and employee records of absenteeism. Process evaluation included interviews with participants, intervention delivery staff and service providers. Quantitative analyses used descriptive statistics with framework analysis for qualitative data. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, follow-up was restricted to 6 months and acceptance of referral during the screening assessment used as proxy for attendance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Despite recruitment rates during the truncated timeframe indicating potential to reach target, the final proportion recruited of 314 consented/3788 invited (8.3%) was lower than anticipated, and those recruited were not fully representative of the hospital staff population. 236/314 were randomised. Of 118 allocated to the intervention arm, screening identified 57 (48.3%) eligible for referral, with 18 (31.6%) accepting the referral. Process evaluation demonstrated that the electronic database-driven screening intervention and data collection system was efficient, promoting good fidelity. The intervention could benefit from more personalisation, better understanding of local context, longer training, and better integration with referral services.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We have identified a clinical need and perceived benefit for a SHSC. Delivery was feasible and electronic data capture successful. The three stop-go criteria were red (recruitment), green (referral), and amber (attendance); therefore, the Trial Oversight Committee recommended that a full-scale trial should proceed, but with modifications to adapt to local context and adopt processes to engage better with underserved communities.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ISRCTN, ISRCTN10237475, registered 09/12/2019, https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN10237475.</p>","PeriodicalId":20176,"journal":{"name":"Pilot and Feasibility Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13491788/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pilot and Feasibility Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-026-01794-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Staff sickness absence incurs high costs to the NHS and is associated with adverse patient outcomes. Mental and musculoskeletal ill-health are the main causes, with cardiovascular risk factors also common. We tested the feasibility of undertaking a definitive randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a staff health screening clinic (SHSC) in reducing sickness absenteeism and presenteeism.

Methods: Individually randomised controlled pilot trial of a SHSC compared with usual care recruiting employees from four English NHS hospitals. Those in the intervention arm were assessed by a nurse using electronic database-driven screening for musculoskeletal, mental and cardiovascular health. Screen positives were given advice and/or referral to services according to UK guidelines. Three co-primary outcomes formed the stop-go criteria: recruitment, referrals, and attendance at referred services. Secondary outcomes included: generalisability, screening results, individual referrals required/attended, health behaviours, acceptability/feasibility of processes, indication of contamination, costs, health-related quality of life, self-reported and employee records of absenteeism. Process evaluation included interviews with participants, intervention delivery staff and service providers. Quantitative analyses used descriptive statistics with framework analysis for qualitative data. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, follow-up was restricted to 6 months and acceptance of referral during the screening assessment used as proxy for attendance.

Results: Despite recruitment rates during the truncated timeframe indicating potential to reach target, the final proportion recruited of 314 consented/3788 invited (8.3%) was lower than anticipated, and those recruited were not fully representative of the hospital staff population. 236/314 were randomised. Of 118 allocated to the intervention arm, screening identified 57 (48.3%) eligible for referral, with 18 (31.6%) accepting the referral. Process evaluation demonstrated that the electronic database-driven screening intervention and data collection system was efficient, promoting good fidelity. The intervention could benefit from more personalisation, better understanding of local context, longer training, and better integration with referral services.

Conclusions: We have identified a clinical need and perceived benefit for a SHSC. Delivery was feasible and electronic data capture successful. The three stop-go criteria were red (recruitment), green (referral), and amber (attendance); therefore, the Trial Oversight Committee recommended that a full-scale trial should proceed, but with modifications to adapt to local context and adopt processes to engage better with underserved communities.

Trial registration: ISRCTN, ISRCTN10237475, registered 09/12/2019, https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN10237475.

加强NHS员工的健康:ethos -一项随机对照试点试验,对NHS员工进行员工健康筛查诊所,与常规护理进行比较,以减少缺勤和出勤。
背景:员工因病缺勤给NHS带来了高昂的成本,并与患者的不良预后有关。精神和肌肉骨骼疾病是主要原因,心血管风险因素也很常见。我们测试了开展一项明确的随机对照试验的可行性,以评估员工健康筛查诊所(SHSC)在减少病假缺勤和出勤方面的有效性和成本效益。方法:从英国四家NHS医院招募员工,将SHSC与常规护理进行单独随机对照试验。干预组的患者由一名护士使用电子数据库驱动的肌肉骨骼、心理和心血管健康筛查进行评估。根据英国的指导方针,对筛查呈阳性的患者给予建议和/或转介服务。三个共同的主要结果形成了走走停停的标准:招募、转诊和转诊服务的出勤率。次要结果包括:普遍性、筛查结果、所需/参加的个人转诊、健康行为、流程的可接受性/可行性、污染指示、成本、与健康有关的生活质量、自我报告和员工缺勤记录。过程评估包括与参与者、干预工作人员和服务提供者的访谈。定量分析采用描述性统计和定性数据的框架分析。由于COVID-19大流行,随访时间限制为6个月,在筛查评估期间接受转诊作为出勤率的替代指标。结果:尽管在缩短的时间框架内的招聘率表明有可能达到目标,但314名同意/3788名被邀请的最终招聘比例(8.3%)低于预期,而且被招聘的人员不能完全代表医院工作人员群体。236/314被随机分组。在分配到干预组的118人中,筛选确定57人(48.3%)符合转诊条件,18人(31.6%)接受转诊。过程评价表明,电子数据库驱动的筛选干预和数据收集系统效率高,保真度高。干预可以从更多的个性化、更好地了解当地情况、更长的培训以及更好地与转诊服务相结合中受益。结论:我们已经确定了SHSC的临床需求和可感知的益处。交付可行,电子数据采集成功。三个走走停停的标准是红色(招聘),绿色(推荐)和琥珀色(出勤);因此,试验监督委员会建议进行全面试验,但应根据当地情况进行修改,并采用更好地与服务不足的社区接触的程序。试验注册:ISRCTN, ISRCTN10237475, 2019年9月12日注册,https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN10237475。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Pilot and Feasibility Studies
Pilot and Feasibility Studies Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
5.90%
发文量
241
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊介绍: Pilot and Feasibility Studies encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct and reporting of pilot and feasibility studies in biomedicine. The journal publishes research articles that are intended to directly influence future clinical trials or large scale observational studies, as well as protocols, commentaries and methodology articles. The journal also ensures that the results of all well-conducted, peer-reviewed, pilot and feasibility studies are published, regardless of outcome or significance of findings. Pilot and feasibility studies are increasingly conducted prior to a full randomized controlled trial. However, these studies often lack clear objectives, many remain unpublished, and there is confusion over the meanings of the words “pilot” and “feasibility”. Pilot and Feasibility Studies provides a forum for discussion around this key aspect of the scientific process, and seeks to ensure that these studies are published, so as to complete the publication thread for clinical research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书