Health and social care delivery research最新文献

{"title":"Early evaluation of the Children and Young People's Mental Health Trailblazer programme: a rapid mixed-methods study.","authors":"J. Ellins, Lucy Hockings, M. Al-Haboubi, J. Newbould, Sarah-Jane Fenton, Daniel E. Kelly, Stephanie Stockwell, Brandi Leach, M. Sidhu, J. Bousfield, G. McKenna, Katie Saunders, Stephen O'Neil, N. Mays","doi":"10.3310/hsdr-tr-130818","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr-tr-130818","url":null,"abstract":"Background\u0000The Children and Young People's Mental Health Trailblazer programme is funding the creation of new mental health support teams to work in schools and further education colleges. Mental health support teams directly support children and young people with 'mild to moderate' mental health problems and work with school and college staff to promote well-being for all. A new workforce of education mental health practitioners is being trained for the teams.\u0000\u0000\u0000Objective(s)\u0000The National Institute for Health and Care Research Birmingham, RAND and Cambridge Evaluation Rapid Evaluation Centre and Policy Innovation and Evaluation Research Unit undertook an early evaluation of the Trailblazer programme to examine the development, implementation and early progress of mental health support teams in the programme's first 25 'Trailblazer' sites.\u0000\u0000\u0000Design\u0000A mixed-methods evaluation, comprising three work packages: 1. Establishing the baseline and understanding the development and early impacts of the Trailblazer sites, including two rounds of surveys with key informants and participating education settings in all 25 sites. 2. More detailed research in five purposively selected Trailblazer sites, including interviews with a range of stakeholders and focus groups with children and young people. 3. Scoping and developing options for a longer-term assessment of the programme's outcomes and impacts. Fieldwork was undertaken between November 2020 and February 2022. The University of Birmingham Institute for Mental Health Youth Advisory Group was involved throughout the study, including co-producing the focus groups with children and young people.\u0000\u0000\u0000Results\u0000Substantial progress had been made implementing the programme, in challenging circumstances, and there was optimism about what it had the potential to achieve. The education mental health practitioner role had proven popular, but sites reported challenges in retaining education mental health practitioners, and turnover left mental health support teams short-staffed and needing to re-recruit. Education settings welcomed additional mental health support and reported positive early outcomes, including staff feeling more confident and having faster access to advice about mental health issues. At the same time, there were concerns about children who had mental health problems that were more serious than 'mild to moderate' but not serious enough to be accepted for specialist help, and that the interventions offered were not working well for some young people. Mental health support teams were generally spending more time supporting children with mental health problems than working with education settings to develop 'whole school' approaches to mental health and well-being, and service models in some sites appeared to be more clinically oriented, with a strong focus on mental health support teams' therapeutic functions.\u0000\u0000\u0000Limitations\u0000Despite efforts to maximise participation, survey response rates were relatively lo","PeriodicalId":73204,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49481142","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Understanding the potential factors affecting carers’ mental health during end-of-life home care: a meta synthesis of the research literature","authors":"G. Grande, Tracey Shield, K. Bayliss, Christine Rowland, Jackie Flynn, P. Bee, A. Hodkinson, M. Panagioti, M. Farquhar, Danielle Harris, A. Wearden","doi":"10.3310/ekvl3541","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3310/ekvl3541","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 \u0000 Family carers are central in supporting patients nearing the end of life, but this often has an impact on their own mental health. Understanding what factors may affect carers’ mental health is important in developing strategies to maintain mental health, through identifying carers at risk who may need added monitoring and support or developing interventions to change modifiable factors. Reviews of the qualitative, observational and intervention literature were conducted to address this.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 (1) to review trials of carer interventions to improve our understanding of factors related to carer mental health identified in earlier qualitative and observational reviews; (2) to synthesise the evidence from our qualitative, observational and intervention reviews on factors related to carers’ mental health during end-of-life caregiving.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 We carried out searches of MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO® (American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, USA), Social Sciences Citation Index, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) from 1 January 2009 to 24 November 2019. We included studies into adult informal/family carers for adult patients at the end of life cared for at home that considered any factor related to carer mental health (anxiety, depression, distress, quality of life) pre bereavement. The quality appraisal used Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklists and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. The qualitative review analysis developed themes that then provided a framework for the quantitative review analyses. Findings from all three reviews were mapped onto a single framework, informed by a carer Review Advisory Panel.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 A total of 31 qualitative, 60 observational, 12 intervention and 3 mixed-methods studies were identified. Factors associated with carer mental health were as follows: (1) patient condition, particularly psychological symptoms and quality of life; (2) impact of caring responsibilities, particularly life changes, workload and carer burden; (3) relationships, particularly with the patient; (4) finances, whether sufficient or not; (5) internal processes, particularly self-efficacy; (6) support, particularly adequacy and quality of support; (7) contextual factors, particularly age and gender. The three types of literature were reflected in most themes and yielded similar or complementary results, adding validity to findings. Only observational studies investigated contextual factors. Intervention studies focused on modifiable factors, but added little evidence on the causal direction between factors and mental health owing to design and analysis limitations. Relationships and finance received little attention overall. There was limited research into ethnicity, race or culture. Quantitative research missed some factors highlighted by carers in qualitative studies (e.g. quality aspects","PeriodicalId":73204,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44117831","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Recommended summary plan for emergency care and treatment: ReSPECT a mixed-methods study","authors":"G. Perkins, C. Hawkes, K. Eli, James Griffin, Claire Jacques, C. Huxley, K. Couper, Cynthia A Ochieng, J. Fuld, Z. Fritz, Robert George, D. Gould, R. Lilford, M. Underwood, Catherine Baldock, C. Bassford, P. Fortune, John Speakman, A. Wilkinson, Bob Ewings, J. Warwick, Frances Griffiths, A. Slowther","doi":"10.3310/lfpe3627","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3310/lfpe3627","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 \u0000 Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation decisions have been widely criticised. The Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) process was developed to facilitate shared decisions between patients and clinicians in relation to emergency treatments, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 To explore how, when and why ReSPECT plans are made and what effects the plans have on patient outcomes.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 A mixed-methods evaluation, comprising (1) a qualitative study of ReSPECT decision-making processes, (2) an interrupted time series examining process and survival outcomes following in-hospital cardiac arrest and (3) a retrospective observational study examining factors associated with ReSPECT recommendations and patient outcomes.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 NHS acute hospitals and primary care and community services in England (2017–2020).\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 Hospital doctors, general practitioners, nurses, patients and families.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 The following sources were used: (1) observations of ReSPECT conversations at six hospitals and conversations with clinicians, patient, families and general practitioners, (2) survey and freedom of information data from hospitals participating in the National Cardiac Arrest Audit and (3) a review of inpatient medical records, ReSPECT forms and NHS Safety Thermometer data.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 By December 2019, the ReSPECT process was being used in 40 of 186 (22%) acute hospitals. In total, 792 of 3439 (23%) inpatients, usually those identified at risk of deterioration, had a ReSPECT form. Involvement of the patient and/or family was recorded on 513 of 706 (73%) ReSPECT forms reviewed. Clinicians said that lack of time prevented more conversations. Observed conversations focused on resuscitation, but also included other treatments and the patient’s values and preferences. Conversation types included open-ended conversations, with clinicians actively eliciting the patients’ wishes and preferences, a persuasive approach, swaying the conversation towards a decision aligned with medical opinion, and simply informing the patient/relative about a medical decision that had already been made. The frequency of harms reported on the NHS Safety Thermometer was similar among patients with or without a ReSPECT form. Hospital doctors and general practitioners gave different views on the purpose of the ReSPECT process and the type of recommendations they would record.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 The research was undertaken within the first 2 years following the implementation of ReSPECT. Local policies meant that doctors led these conversations. Most patients were seriously ill, which limited opportunities for interviews. Incomplete adoption of the ReSPECT process and problems associated with the NHS Safety Thermometer tool affected the evaluation on clinical outcomes.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 Patients and families were involved in most ReSPECT conversations. Conversations focused on resuscitation, but also included other emergency treatments. Respect for patient autonomy and duty","PeriodicalId":73204,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42469451","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Shared decision-making during childbirth in maternity units: the VIP mixed-methods study","authors":"E. Annandale, H. Baston, Siân Beynon-Jones, Lyn Brierley-Jones, Alison Brodrick, Paul Chappell, J. Green, C. Jackson, Victoria Land, T. Stacey","doi":"10.3310/fpfp4621","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3310/fpfp4621","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 \u0000 NHS policy emphasises shared decision-making during labour and birth. There is, however, limited evidence concerning how decision-making happens in real time.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 Our objectives were as follows – create a data set of video- and audio-recordings of labour and birth in midwife-led units; use conversation analysis to explore how talk is used in shared decision-making; assess whether or not women’s antenatal expectations are reflected in experiences and whether or not the interactional strategies used (particularly the extent to which decisions are shared) are associated with women’s postnatal satisfaction; and disseminate findings to health-care practitioners and service users to inform policy on communication in clinical practice.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 This was a mixed-methods study. The principal method was conversation analysis to explore the fine detail of interaction during decision-making. Derived from the conversation analysis, a coding frame was developed to quantify interactions, which were explored alongside questionnaire data concerning women’s antenatal expectations and preferences, and women’s experiences of, and postnatal satisfaction with, decision-making. Semistructured interviews with health-care practitioners explored factors shaping decision-making.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 The study took place in midwife-led units at two English NHS trusts. A total of 154 women (aged ≥ 16 years with low-risk pregnancies), 158 birth partners and 121 health-care practitioners consented to be recorded. Of these participants, 37 women, 43 birth partners and 74 health-care practitioners were recorded.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 Midwives initiate the majority of decisions in formats that do not invite women’s participation (i.e. beyond consenting). The extent of optionality that midwives provide varies with the decision. Women have most involvement in decisions pertaining to pain relief and the third stage of labour. High levels of satisfaction are reported. There is no statistically significant relationship between midwives’ use of different formats of decision-making and any measures of satisfaction. However, women’s initiation of decisions, particularly relating to pain relief (e.g. making lots of requests), is associated with lower satisfaction.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 Our data set is explored with a focus on decision initiation and responses, leaving other important aspects of care (e.g. midwives’ and birth partners’ interactional techniques to facilitate working with pain) underexplored, which might be implicated in decision-making. Despite efforts to recruit a diverse sample, ethnic minority women are under-represented.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 Policy initiatives emphasising patient involvement in decision-making are challenging to enact in practice. Our findings illustrate that women are afforded limited optionality in decision-making, and that midwives orient to guidelines/standard clinical practice in pursuing particular decisional outcomes. Nonetheless, the majority of women were satisfied with their experiences. However","PeriodicalId":73204,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45485892","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Brief education supported psychological treatment for adolescent borderline personality disorder: the BEST feasibility RCT","authors":"Jon Wilson, Brioney Gee, N. Martin, S. Maxwell, J. Murdoch, Tim Clarke, A. Clark, D. Turner, C. Notley, Thando Katangwe, P. Jones, P. Fonagy","doi":"10.3310/hnin4621","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3310/hnin4621","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 \u0000 Borderline personality disorder is a severe mental health condition characterised by a pattern of emotional instability, interpersonal dysfunction, disturbed self-image and impulsive behaviour, including self-harm. Symptoms of borderline personality disorder typically emerge during adolescence. Although there is compelling evidence in support of early intervention for borderline personality disorder, current evidence-based interventions are resource intensive, with the result that few young people access timely treatment. Therefore, there is an urgent need for accessible interventions to facilitate early intervention for adolescents with borderline personality disorder symptoms.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 The first objective was to adapt a brief psychological treatment for adolescent borderline personality disorder that had previously been delivered within secondary mental health services for co-delivery within schools and colleges. The second objective was to assess the feasibility of evaluating the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this intervention in a future randomised controlled trial.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 We first conducted a rapid evidence synthesis of barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of indicated mental health interventions for adolescents within educational settings and piloted the prototype intervention with three schools/colleges. Based on the findings of the evidence synthesis and pilot, we refined the intervention and study procedures in preparation for a feasibility randomised controlled trial. The feasibility randomised controlled trial involved 12 schools and colleges, whose pastoral staff members received training to deliver the intervention alongside a mental health practitioner. Participants were randomised in a 1 : 1 ratio to receive either the BEST (Brief Education Supported Treatment) intervention plus treatment as usual or treatment as usual alone. Participants were assessed pre randomisation (baseline) and at 12 and 24 weeks post randomisation. Mixed-methods process data were collected to understand how the intervention was implemented, to assess acceptability and to monitor contamination of the control arm.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 Young people eligible to participate were aged 13–18 years, reported symptoms of borderline personality disorder above an established threshold and had a history of repeated self-harm.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 The intervention was refined based on findings of the rapid evidence synthesis, which included 50 studies, feedback from staff participants in the pilot and analysis of session recordings. In the feasibility randomised controlled trial, we randomised 32 participants prior to the premature closure of recruitment. The rate of recruitment was slower than anticipated but would probably have narrowly surpassed our progression criterion over the full recruitment window. Participant retention was high (89.5% at 12 weeks and 73.7% at 24 weeks) and the performance of the proposed outcome measures was satisfactory. We did not fin","PeriodicalId":73204,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44645833","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Evaluation of timeliness and models of transporting critically ill children for intensive care: the DEPICT mixed-methods study","authors":"P. Ramnarayan, S. Seaton, R. Evans, V. Barber, E. Hudson, Enoch Kung, M. Entwistle, A. Pearce, P. Davies, Will Marriage, P. Mouncey, Eithne Polke, F. Rajah, Nicholas Hudson, Robert Darnell, E. Draper, J. Wray, Stephen Morris, C. Pagel","doi":"10.3310/afwj6179","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3310/afwj6179","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 \u0000 Centralisation of paediatric intensive care has increased the need for specialist critical care transport teams to transfer sick children from general hospitals to tertiary centres. National audit data show variation in how quickly transport teams reach the patient’s bedside and in the models of care provided during transport; however, the impact of this variation on clinical outcomes and the experience of patients, families and clinicians is unknown.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 We aimed to understand if and how clinical outcomes and experience of children transported for intensive care are affected by timeliness of access to a transport team and different models of transport care.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 We used a mixed-methods approach with a convergent triangulation study design. There were four study workstreams: a retrospective analysis of linked national clinical audit data (2014–16) (workstream A), a prospective questionnaire study to collect experience data from parents of transported children and qualitative analysis of interviews with patients, families and clinicians (workstream B), health economic evaluation of paediatric transport services (workstream C) and mathematical modelling evaluating the potential impact of alternative service configurations (workstream D).\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 Transport data from over 9000 children were analysed in workstream A. Transport teams reached the patient bedside within 3 hours of accepting the referral in > 85% of transports, and there was no apparent association between time to bedside and 30-day mortality. Similarly, the grade of the transport team leader or stabilisation approach did not appear to affect mortality. Patient-related critical incidents were associated with higher mortality (adjusted odds ratio 3.07, 95% confidence interval 1.48 to 6.35). In workstream B, 2133 parents completed experience questionnaires pertaining to 2084 unique transports of 1998 children. Interviews were conducted with 30 parents and 48 staff. Regardless of the actual time to bedside, parent satisfaction was higher when parents were kept informed about the team’s arrival time and when their expectation matched the actual arrival time. Satisfaction was lower when parents were unsure who the team leader was or when they were not told who the team leader was. Staff confidence, rather than seniority, and the choice for parents to travel with their child in the ambulance were identified as key factors associated with a positive experience. The health economic evaluation found that team composition was variable between transport teams, but not significantly associated with cost and outcome measures. Modelling showed marginal benefit in changing current transport team locations, some benefit in reallocating existing teams and suggested where additional transport teams could be allocated in winter to cope with the expected surge in demand.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 Our analysis plans were limited by the impact of the pandemic. Unmeasured confounding may have affected workstream A finding","PeriodicalId":73204,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48222327","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Intensive support teams for adults with intellectual disabilities displaying challenging behaviour: the IST-ID mixed-methods study","authors":"A. Hassiotis, A. Kouroupa, Leila Hamza, N. Morant, I. Hall, L. Marston, R. Romeo, Nahel Yaziji, Rebecca Jones, K. Courtenay, P. Langdon, L. Taggart, Vicky Crossey, B. Lloyd-Evans","doi":"10.3310/chdc1642","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3310/chdc1642","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 \u0000 National policy recommends intensive support teams for all areas of England for adults with intellectual disabilities who display challenging behaviour. However, to the best of our knowledge, there has not been a systematic evaluation of intensive support teams to date.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 Our objectives were to identify and describe the geographical distribution and characteristics of intensive support teams in England; to create a typology of intensive support teams; to investigate clinical and cost outcomes of intensive support team models and factors associated with those outcomes; and to explore professionals’, service users’ and carers’ experiences and describe the wider system context in which they operate.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 This was a two-phase mixed-methods study. In phase 1, a national survey examined the intensive support team models in operation in England. In phase 2, an observational study of adults with intellectual disabilities investigated the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the two intensive support team models. Semistructured interviews with intensive support team managers and professionals, carers, and adults with intellectual disabilities explored their experiences of intensive support team care. In parallel, we examined service-level outcomes related to the function of intensive support teams.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 Phase 1 included 80 intensive support teams serving 242 community intellectual disability services in England. Phase 2 included 21 intensive support teams, half of which were in the enhanced intensive support teams model and half of which were in the independent model.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 In phase 1, a total of 73 intensive support team managers provided data. In phase 2, a total of 226 participants with intellectual disabilities from 21 intensive support teams (enhanced: teams, n = 11; participants, n = 115; independent: teams, n = 10; participants, n = 111) were enrolled in the study. A total of 42 stakeholders were interviewed.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 The main outcome measure was the Aberrant Behaviour Checklist-Community, version 2, total score. Additional data sources were the carer and self-reported questionnaires, qualitative interviews and focus groups.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 Two intensive support team models were identified in England – enhanced and independent. Challenging behaviour at 9 months was reduced in both intensive support team models (β 3.08, 95% confidence interval –7.32 to 13.48; p = 0.561), but the observed Aberrant Behaviour Checklist-Community, version 2, score reduction appeared larger in the independent model than in the enhanced model (21% vs. 13%, respectively). No statistically significant differences were found in the secondary outcomes [Psychiatric Assessment Schedule for Adults with Developmental Disabilities Clinical Interview organic condition (odds ratio 1.09, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 3.02), affective or neurotic disorder (odds ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.32 to 2.59), or psychotic disorder score (odds ratio 1.08, 95% confide","PeriodicalId":73204,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42871272","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Using pulse oximeters in care homes for residents with COVID-19 and other conditions: a rapid mixed-methods evaluation","authors":"M. Sidhu, I. Litchfield, Robin Miller, Naomi J. Fulop, B. Janta, J. Tanner, Giulia Maistrello, Jenny Bousfield, C. Vindrola‐Padros, J. Sussex","doi":"10.3310/pqwc3425","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3310/pqwc3425","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 \u0000 There are over 15,000 care homes in England, with a total of approximately 450,000 beds. Most residents are older adults, some with dementia, and other residents are people of any age with physical or learning disabilities. Using pulse oximetry in care homes can help the monitoring and care of residents with COVID-19 and other conditions.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 To explore the views of care home staff, and the NHS staff they interact with, with regard to using pulse oximetry with residents, as well as the NHS support provided for using pulse oximetry.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 We carried out a rapid mixed-methods evaluation of care homes in England, comprising (1) scoping interviews with NHS leaders, care association directors and care home managers, engaging with relevant literature and co-designing the evaluation with a User Involvement Group; (2) an online survey of care homes; (3) interviews with care home managers and staff, and with NHS staff who support care homes, at six purposively selected sites; and (4) synthesis, reporting and dissemination. The study team undertook online meetings and a workshop to thematically synthesise findings, guided by a theoretical framework.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 We obtained 232 survey responses from 15,362 care homes. Although this was a low (1.5%) response rate, it was expected given exceptional pressures on care home managers and staff at the time of the survey. We conducted 31 interviews at six case study sites. Pulse oximeters were used in many responding care homes before the pandemic and use of pulse oximeters widened during the pandemic. Pulse oximeters are reported by care home managers and staff to provide reassurance to residents and their families, as well as to staff. Using pulse oximeters was usually not challenging for staff and did not add to staff workload or stress levels. Additional support provided through the NHS COVID Oximetry @home programme was welcomed at the care homes receiving it; however, over half of survey respondents were unaware of the programme. In some cases, support from the NHS, including training, was sought but was not always available.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 The survey response rate was low (1.5%) and so findings must be treated with caution. Fewer than the intended number of interviews were completed because of participant unavailability. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, care homes may have been asked to complete numerous other surveys etc., which may have contributed to these limitations. Owing to anonymity, the research team was unable to determine the range of survey respondents across location, financial budget or quality of care.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 Using pulse oximeters in care homes is considered by managers and staff to have been beneficial to care home residents. Ongoing training opportunities for care home staff in use of pulse oximeters would be beneficial. Escalation processes to and responses from NHS services could be more consistent, alongside promoting the NHS COVID Oximetry @home programme to care homes.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 Further resear","PeriodicalId":73204,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47783532","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Youth violence intervention programme for vulnerable young people attending emergency departments in London: a rapid evaluation.","authors":"J. Appleby, T. Georghiou, J. Ledger, Lucina Rolewicz, C. Sherlaw-Johnson, S. Tomini, Jason M Frerich, P. L. Ng","doi":"10.3310/hsdr-tr-133641","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr-tr-133641","url":null,"abstract":"Background\u0000Youth violence intervention programmes involving the embedding of youth workers in NHS emergency departments to help young people (broadly aged between 11 and 24 years) improve the quality of their lives following their attendance at an emergency department as a result of violent assault or associated trauma are increasing across the NHS. This study evaluates one such initiative run by the charity Redthread in partnership with a NHS trust.\u0000\u0000\u0000Objectives\u0000To evaluate the implementation and impact of a new youth violence intervention programme at University College London Hospital NHS Trust and delivered by the charity Redthread: (1) literature review of studies of hospital-based violent crime interventions; (2) evaluation of local implementation and of University College London Hospital staff and relevant local stakeholders concerning the intervention and its impact; (3) assessment of the feasibility of using routine secondary care data to evaluate the impact of the Redthread intervention; and (4) cost-effectiveness analysis of the Redthread intervention from the perspective of the NHS.\u0000\u0000\u0000Methods\u0000The evaluation was designed as a mixed-methods multiphased study, including an in-depth process evaluation case study and quantitative and economic analyses. The project was undertaken in different stages over two years, starting with desk-based research and an exploratory phase suitable for remote working while COVID-19 was affecting NHS services. A total of 22 semistructured interviews were conducted with staff at Redthread and University College London Hospital and others (e.g. a senior stakeholder involved in NHS youth violence prevention policy). We analysed Redthread documents, engaged with experts and conducted observations of staff meetings to gather more in-depth insights about the effectiveness of the intervention, the processes of implementation, staff perceptions and cost. We also undertook quantitative analyses to ascertain suitable measures of impact to inform stakeholders and future evaluations.\u0000\u0000\u0000Results\u0000Redthread's service was viewed as a necessary intervention, which complemented clinical and other statutory services. It was well embedded in the paediatric emergency department and adolescent services but less so in the adult emergency department. The diverse reasons for individual referrals, the various routes by which young people were identified, and the mix of specific support interventions provided, together emphasised the complexity of this intervention, with consequent challenges in implementation and evaluation. Given the relative unit costs of Redthread and University College London Hospital's inpatient services, it is estimated that the service would break even if around one-third of Redthread interventions resulted in at least one avoided emergency inpatient admission. This evaluation was unable to determine a feasible approach to measuring the quantitative impact of Redthread's youth violence intervention programme bu","PeriodicalId":73204,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42532172","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"General practitioners working in or alongside the emergency department: the GPED mixed-methods study","authors":"J. Benger, H. Brant, A. Scantlebury, Helen Anderson, H. Baxter, K. Bloor, J. Brandling, S. Cowlishaw, T. Doran, James Gaughan, Andrew Gibson, N. Gutacker, H. Leggett, Dan Liu, Katherine Morton, S. Purdy, C. Salisbury, A. Vaittinen, S. Voss, R. Watson, J. Adamson","doi":"10.3310/hepb9808","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3310/hepb9808","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 \u0000 Emergency care is facing a steadily rising demand. In response, hospitals have implemented new models of care that locate general practitioners in or alongside the emergency department.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 We aimed to explore the effects of general practitioners working in or alongside the emergency department on patient care, the primary care and acute hospital team, and the wider system, as well as to determine the differential effects of different service models.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 This was a mixed-methods study in three work packages. Work package A classified current models of general practitioners working in or alongside the emergency department in England. We interviewed national and local leaders, staff and patients to identify the hypotheses underpinning these services. Work package B used a retrospective analysis of routinely available data. Outcome measures included waiting times, admission rates, reattendances, mortality and the number of patient attendances. We explored potential cost savings. Work package C was a detailed mixed-methods case study in 10 sites. We collected and synthesised qualitative and quantitative data from non-participant observations, interviews and a workforce survey. Patients and the public were involved throughout the development, delivery and dissemination of the study.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 High-level goals were shared between national policy-makers and local leads; however, there was disagreement about the anticipated effects. We identified eight domains of influence: performance against the 4-hour target, use of investigations, hospital admissions, patient outcome and experience, service access, workforce recruitment and retention, workforce behaviour and experience, and resource use. General practitioners working in or alongside the emergency department were associated with a very slight reduction in the rate of reattendance within 7 days; however, the clinical significance of this was judged to be negligible. For all other indicators, there was no effect on performance or outcomes. However, there was a substantial degree of heterogeneity in these findings. This is explained by the considerable variation observed in our case study sites, and the sensitivity of service implementation to local factors. The effects on the workforce were complex; they were often positive for emergency department doctors and general practitioners, but less so for nursing staff. The patient-streaming process generated stress and conflict for emergency department nurses and general practitioners. Patients and carers were understanding of general practitioners working in or alongside the emergency department. We found no evidence that staff concerns regarding the potential to create additional demand were justified. Any possible cost savings associated with reduced reattendances were heavily outweighed by the cost of the service.\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 The reliability of our data sources varied and we were unable to complete our quantitative analysis entirely as planned. Particip","PeriodicalId":73204,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46925726","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}