Measuring empathic, person-centred communication in primary care nurses:validity and reliability of the Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) Measure

Background Empathic patient-centred care is central to high quality health encounters. The Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) Measure is a patient-rated experience measure of the interpersonal quality of healthcare encounters. The measure has been extensively validated and is widely used by doctors in primary care but has not been validated in nursing. This study assessed the validity and reliability of the CARE Measure in routine nurse consultations in primary care. Methods Seventeen nurses from nine general medical practices located in three Scottish Health Boards participated in the study. Consecutive patients (aged 16 years or older) were asked to self-complete a questionnaire containing the CARE Measure immediately after their clinical encounter with the nurse. Statistical analysis included Spearman’s correlation and principal component analysis (construct validity), Cronbach’s alpha (internal consistency), and Generalisability theory (inter-rater reliability). Results A total of 774 patients (327 male and 447 female) completed the questionnaire. Almost three out of four patients (73 %) felt that the CARE Measure items were very important to their current consultation. The number of ‘not applicable’ responses and missing values were low overall (5.7 and 1.6 % respectively). The mean CARE Measure score in the consultations was 45.9 and 48 % achieved the maximum possible score of 50. CARE Measure scores correlated in predicted ways with overall satisfaction and patient enablement in support of convergent and divergent validity. Factor analysis found that the CARE Measure items loaded highly onto a single factor. The measure showed high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient = 0.97) and acceptable inter-rater reliability (G = 0.6 with 60 patients ratings per nurse). The scores were not affected by patients’ age, gender, self-perceived overall health, living arrangements, employment status or language spoken at home. Conclusions The CARE Measure has high face and construct validity, and internal reliability in nurse consultations in primary care. Its ability to discriminate between nurses is sufficient for educational and quality improvement purposes

Multimorbidity and socioeconomic deprivation in primary care consultations

Purpose: The influence of multimorbidity on the clinical encounter is poorly understood, especially in areas of high socioeconomic deprivation where burdensome multimorbidity is concentrated. The aim of the current study was to examine the effect of multimorbidity on general practice consultations, in areas of high and low deprivation. Methods: We conducted secondary analyses of 659 video-recorded routine consultations involving 25 general practitioners (GPs) in deprived areas and 22 in affluent areas of Scotland. Patients rated the GP’s empathy using the Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) measure immediately after the consultation. Videos were analyzed using the Measure of Patient-Centered Communication. Multilevel, multi-regression analysis identified differences between the groups. Results: In affluent areas, patients with multimorbidity received longer consultations than patients without multimorbidity (mean 12.8 minutes vs 9.3, respectively; P = .015), but this was not so in deprived areas (mean 9.9 minutes vs 10.0 respectively; P = .774). In affluent areas, patients with multimorbidity perceived their GP as more empathic (P = .009) than patients without multimorbidity; this difference was not found in deprived areas (P = .344). Video analysis showed that GPs in affluent areas were more attentive to the disease and illness experience in patients with multimorbidity (P < .031) compared with patients without multimorbidity. This was not the case in deprived areas (P = .727). Conclusions: In deprived areas, the greater need of patients with multimorbidity is not reflected in the longer consultation length, higher GP patient centeredness, and higher perceived GP empathy found in affluent areas. Action is required to redress this mismatch of need and service provision for patients with multimorbidity if health inequalities are to be narrowed rather than widened by primary care

The development and optimisation of a primary care-based whole system complex intervention (CARE Plus) for patients with multimorbidity living in areas of high socioeconomic deprivation

<B>OBJECTIVES</B> To develop and optimise a primary care-based complex intervention (CARE Plus) to enhance the quality of life of patients with multimorbidity in the deprived areas. <B>METHODS</B> Six co-design discussion groups involving 32 participants were held separately with multimorbid patients from the deprived areas, voluntary organisations, general practitioners and practice nurses working in the deprived areas. This was followed by piloting in two practices and further optimisation based on interviews with 11 general practitioners, 2 practice nurses and 6 participating multimorbid patients. <B>RESULTS</B> Participants endorsed the need for longer consultations, relational continuity and a holistic approach. All felt that training and support of the health care staff was important. Most participants welcomed the idea of additional self-management support, though some practitioners were dubious about whether patients would use it. The pilot study led to changes including a revised care plan, the inclusion of mindfulness-based stress reduction techniques in the support of practitioners and patients, and the stream-lining of the written self-management support material for patients. <B>DISCUSSION</B> We have co-designed and optimised an augmented primary care intervention involving a whole-system approach to enhance quality of life in multimorbid patients living in the deprived areas. CARE Plus will next be tested in a phase 2 cluster randomised controlled trial

A new parenting-based group intervention for young anxious children: results of a randomized controlled trial

Objective Despite recent advances, there are still no interventions that have been developed for the specific treatment of young children who have anxiety disorders. This study examined the impact of a new, cognitive–behaviorally based parenting intervention on anxiety symptoms. Method Families of 74 anxious children (aged 9 years or less) took part in a randomized controlled trial, which compared the new 10-session, group-format intervention with a wait-list control condition. Outcome measures included blinded diagnostic interview and self-reports from parents and children. Results Intention-to-treat analyses indicated that children whose parent(s) received the intervention were significantly less anxious at the end of the study than those in the control condition. Specifically, 57% of those receiving the new intervention were free of their primary disorder, compared with 15% in the control condition. Moreover, 32% of treated children were free of any anxiety diagnosis at the end of the treatment period, compared with 6% of those in the control group. Treatment gains were maintained at 12-month follow-up. Conclusions This new parenting-based intervention may represent an advance in the treatment of this previously neglected group. Clinical trial registration information: Anxiety in Young Children: A Randomized Controlled Trial of a New Cognitive-Behaviourally Based Parenting Intervention; http://www.isrctn.org/; ISRCTN12166762

Cost-effectiveness of a patient-centred approach to managing multimorbidity in primary care:a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial

Objective Patients with multiple chronic health conditions are often managed in a disjointed fashion in primary care, with annual review clinic appointments offered separately for each condition. This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of the 3D intervention, which was developed to improve the system of care. Design Economic evaluation conducted alongside a pragmatic cluster-randomised trial. Setting General practices in three centres in England and Scotland. Participants 797 adults with three or more chronic conditions were randomised to the 3D intervention, while 749 participants were randomised to receive usual care. Intervention The 3D approach: comprehensive 6-monthly general practitioner consultations, supported by medication reviews and nurse appointments. Primary and secondary outcome measures The primary economic evaluation assessed the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services (PSS). Costs were related to changes in a range of secondary outcomes (QALYs accrued by both participants and carers, and deaths) in a cost-consequences analysis from the perspectives of the NHS/PSS, patients/carers and productivity losses. Results Very small increases were found in both QALYs (adjusted mean difference 0.007 (-0.009 to 0.023)) and costs (adjusted mean difference 126 pound (-739 pound to 991)) pound in the intervention arm compared with usual care after 15 months. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 18 pound 499, with a 50.8% chance of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 20 pound 000 per QALY (55.8% at 30 pound 000 per QALY). Conclusions The small differences in costs and outcomes were consistent with chance, and the uncertainty was substantial; therefore, the evidence for the cost-effectiveness of the 3D approach from the NHS/PSS perspective should be considered equivocal

Implementing social prescribing in primary care in areas of high socioeconomic deprivation:process evaluation of the ‘Deep End’ community links worker programme

Background: Social prescribing involving primary care-based ‘link workers’ is a key UK health policy which aims to reduce health inequalities. However, the process of implementation of the link worker approach has received little attention despite this being central to desired impact and outcomes. Aim: Our objective was to explore the implementation process of such an approach in practice. Design and Setting: Qualitative process evaluation of the ‘Deep End’ Links Worker Programme (LWP) over a two-year period, in seven general practices in deprived areas of Glasgow. Methods: We used thematic analysis to identify the extent of LWP integration in each practice and key factors associated with implementation. Analysis was informed by Normalisation Process Theory. Results: Only three of the seven practices fully integrated the LWP into routine practice within two years, based on NPT constructs of coherence, cognitive participation, and collective action. Compared to ‘Partially Integrated Practices’, ‘Fully Integrated Practices’ had better shared understanding of the programme among staff, higher staff engagement with LWP, and were implementing all aspects of LWP at patient, practice and community levels of intervention. Successful implementation was associated with GP buy-in, collaborative leadership, good team dynamics, link worker support, and the absence of competing innovations. Conclusions: Even in a well-resourced government funded programme, the majority of practices involved had not fully integrated the LWP within the first two years. Implementing social prescribing and link workers within primary care at scale is unlikely to be a ‘quick fix’ for mitigating health inequalities in deprived areas

Effectiveness of community-links practitioners in areas of high socioeconomic deprivation

PURPOSE: To assess the effect of a primary care–based community-links practitioner (CLP) intervention on patients’ quality of life and well-being. METHODS: Quasi-experimental cluster-randomized controlled trial in socioeconomically deprived areas of Glasgow, Scotland. Adult patients (aged 18 years or older) referred to CLPs in 7 intervention practices were compared with a random sample of adult patients from 8 comparison practices at baseline and 9 months. Primary outcome: health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L, a standardized measure of self-reported health-related quality of life that assesses 5 dimensions at 5 levels of severity). Secondary outcomes: well-being (Investigating Choice Experiments for the Preferences of Older People Capability Measure for Adults [ICECAP-A]), depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Depression [HADS-D]), anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Anxiety [HADS-A]), and self-reported exercise. Multilevel, multiregression analyses adjusted for baseline differences. Patients were not blinded to the intervention, but outcome analysis was masked. RESULTS: Data were collected on 288 and 214 (74.3%) patients in the intervention practices at baseline and follow-up, respectively, and on 612 and 561 (92%) patients in the comparison practices. Intention-to-treat analysis found no differences between the 2 groups for any outcome. In subgroup analyses, patients who saw the CLP on 3 or more occasions (45% of those referred) had significant improvements in EQ-5D-5L, HADS-D, HADS-A, and exercise levels. There was a high positive correlation between CLP consultation rates and patient uptake of suggested community resources. CONCLUSIONS: We were unable to prove the effectiveness of referral to CLPs based in primary care in deprived areas for improving patient outcomes. Future efforts to boost uptake and engagement could improve overall outcomes, although the apparent improvements in those who regularly saw the CLPs may be due to reverse causality. Further research is needed before wide-scale deployment of this approach

Management of multimorbidity using a patient-centred care model:a pragmatic cluster-randomised trial of the 3D approach

Background: The management of people with multiple chronic conditions challenges health-care systems designed around single conditions. There is international consensus that care for multimorbidity should be patient-centred, focus on quality of life, and promote self-management towards agreed goals. However, there is little evidence about the effectiveness of this approach. Our hypothesis was that the patient-centred, so-called 3D approach (based on dimensions of health, depression, and drugs) for patients with multimorbidity would improve their health-related quality of life, which is the ultimate aim of the 3D intervention. Methods: We did this pragmatic cluster-randomised trial in general practices in England and Scotland. Practices were randomly allocated to continue usual care (17 practices) or to provide 6-monthly comprehensive 3D reviews, incorporating patient-centred strategies that reflected international consensus on best care (16 practices). Randomisation was computer-generated, stratified by area, and minimised by practice deprivation and list size. Adults with three or more chronic conditions were recruited. The primary outcome was quality of life (assessed with EQ-5D-5L) after 15 months' follow-up. Participants were not masked to group assignment, but analysis of outcomes was blinded. We analysed the primary outcome in the intention-to-treat population, with missing data being multiply imputed. This trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN06180958. Findings: Between May 20, 2015, and Dec 31, 2015, we recruited 1546 patients from 33 practices and randomly assigned them to receive the intervention (n=797) or usual care (n=749). In our intention-to-treat analysis, there was no difference between trial groups in the primary outcome of quality of life (adjusted difference in mean EQ-5D-5L 0·00, 95% CI −0·02 to 0·02; p=0·93). 78 patients died, and the deaths were not considered as related to the intervention. Interpretation: To our knowledge, this trial is the largest investigation of the international consensus about optimal management of multimorbidity. The 3D intervention did not improve patients' quality of life. Funding: National Institute for Health Research

Assessing the Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) Measure in sexual health nurses' consultations

Background: Increasingly healthcare policies emphasise the importance of person-centred, empathic care. Consequently, healthcare professionals are expected to demonstrate the ‘human’ aspects of care in training and in practice. The Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) Measure is a patient-rated measure of the interpersonal skills of healthcare practitioners. It has been widely validated for use by healthcare professionals in both primary and secondary care. This paper reports on the validity and reliability of the CARE Measure with sexual health nurses. Methods: Patient questionnaires were collected for 943 consultations with 20 sexual health nurses. Participating patients self-completed the questionnaire immediately after the encounter with the nurse. The questionnaire included the ten item CARE Measure, the Patient Enablement Index, and overall satisfaction instruments. Construct validity was assessed through Spearman’s correlation and principal component analysis. Internal consistence was assessed through Cronbach’s alpha and the inter-rater reliability through Generalisability Theory. Data were collected in 2013 in Scotland. Results: Female patients completed 68% of the questionnaires. The mean patient age was 28.8 years (standard deviation 9.8 years). Two of the 20 participating nurses withdrew from the study. Most patients (71.7%) regarded the CARE Measure items as very important to their consultation and the number of ‘not applicable’ and missing responses’ were low (2.6% and 0.1% respectively). The participating nurses had high CARE Measure scores; out of a maximum possible score of 50, the overall mean CARE measure score was 47.8 (standard deviation 4.4). The scores were moderately correlated with patient enablement (rho = 0.232, p = 0.001) and overall satisfaction (rho = 0.377, p = 0.001. Cronbach’s alpha showed the measure’s high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient = 0.95), but the inter-rater reliability could not be calculated due to the high achieved CARE Measure scores that varied little between nurses. Conclusions: Within this clinical context the CARE Measure has high perceived relevance and face validity. The findings support construct validity and some evidence of reliability. The high CARE Measure scores may have been due to sample bias. A future study which ensures a representative sample of patients on a larger group of nurses is required to determine whether the measure can discriminate between nurses

A patient-centred intervention to improve the management of multimorbidity in general practice:the 3D RCT

Background: People with multimorbidity experience impaired quality of life, poor health and a burden from treatment. Their care is often disease-focused rather than patient-centred and tailored to their individual needs. Objective: To implement and evaluate a patient-centred intervention to improve the management of patients with multimorbidity in general practice. Design: Pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial with parallel process and economic evaluations. Practices were centrally randomised by a statistician blind to practice identifiers, using a computer-generated algorithm. Setting: Thirty-three general practices in three areas of England and Scotland. Participants: Practices had at least 4500 patients and two general practitioners (GPs) and used the EMIS (Egton Medical Information Systems) computer system. Patients were aged ≥ 18 years with three or more long-term conditions. Interventions: The 3D (Dimensions of health, Depression and Drugs) intervention was designed to offer patients continuity of care with a named GP, replacing separate reviews of each long-term condition with comprehensive reviews every 6 months. These focused on individualising care to address patients’ main problems, attention to quality of life, depression and polypharmacy and on disease control and agreeing treatment plans. Control practices provided usual care. Outcome measures: Primary outcome – health-related quality of life (assessed using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version) after 15 months. Secondary outcomes – measures of illness burden, treatment burden and patient-centred care. We assessed cost-effectiveness from a NHS and a social care perspective. Results: Thirty-three practices (1546 patients) were randomised from May to December 2015 [16 practices (797 patients) to the 3D intervention, 17 practices (749 patients) to usual care]. All participants were included in the primary outcome analysis by imputing missing data. There was no evidence of difference between trial arms in health-related quality of life {adjusted difference in means 0.00 [95% confidence interval (CI) –0.02 to 0.02]; p = 0.93}, illness burden or treatment burden. However, patients reported significant benefits from the 3D intervention in all measures of patient-centred care. Qualitative data suggested that both patients and staff welcomed having more time, continuity of care and the patient-centred approach. The economic analysis found no meaningful differences between the intervention and usual care in either quality-adjusted life-years [(QALYs) adjusted mean QALY difference 0.007, 95% CI –0.009 to 0.023] or costs (adjusted mean difference £126, 95% CI –£739 to £991), with wide uncertainty around point estimates. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve suggested that the intervention was unlikely to be either more or less cost-effective than usual care. Seventy-eight patients died (46 in the intervention arm and 32 in the usual-care arm), with no evidence of difference between trial arms; no deaths appeared to be associated with the intervention. Limitations: In this pragmatic trial, the implementation of the intervention was incomplete: 49% of patients received two 3D reviews over 15 months, whereas 75% received at least one review. Conclusions: The 3D approach reflected international consensus about how to improve care for multimorbidity. Although it achieved the aim of providing more patient-centred care, this was not associated with benefits in quality of life, illness burden or treatment burden. The intervention was no more or less cost-effective than usual care. Modifications to the 3D approach might improve its effectiveness. Evaluation is needed based on whole-system change over a longer period of time. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN06180958. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 7, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information