Long-Term Conditions Questionnaire (LTCQ): initial validation survey among primary care patients and social care recipients in England

Objective: The aim of this study was to validate a new generic patient-reported outcome measure, the Long-Term Conditions Questionnaire (LTCQ), among a diverse sample of health and social care users in England. Design: Cross-sectional validation survey. Data were collected through postal surveys (February 2016 - January 2017). The sample included a health care cohort of patients recruited through primary care practices, and a social care cohort recruited through local government bodies that provide social care services. Participants: 1,211 participants (24% confirmed social care recipients) took part in the study. Health care participants were recruited on the basis of having one of eleven specified LTCs, and social care participants were recruited on the basis of receiving social care support for at least one LTC. The sample exhibited high multi-morbidity, with 93% reporting two or more LTCs and 43% reporting a mental health condition. Outcome measures: The LTCQ’s construct validity was tested with reference to the EQ-5D (5-level version), the Self-efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease scale, an Activities of Daily Living scale, and the Bayliss burden of morbidity scale. Results: Low levels of missing data for each item indicate acceptability of the LTCQ across the sample. The LTCQ exhibits high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.95) across the scale’s 20 items and excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.94, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.95). Associations between the LTCQ and all reference measures were moderate to strong and in the expected directions, indicating convergent construct validity. Conclusions: This study provides evidence for the reliability and validity of the Long-Term Conditions Questionnaire, which has potential for use in both health and social care settings. The LTCQ could meet a need for holistic outcome measurement that goes beyond symptoms and physical function, complementing existing measures to fully capture what it means to live well with LTCs

General anaesthetic and airway management practice for obstetric surgery in England: a prospective, multicentre observational study

There are no current descriptions of general anaesthesia characteristics for obstetric surgery, despite recent changes to patient baseline characteristics and airway management guidelines. This analysis of data from the direct reporting of awareness in maternity patients’ (DREAMY) study of accidental awareness during obstetric anaesthesia aimed to describe practice for obstetric general anaesthesia in England and compare with earlier surveys and best-practice recommendations. Consenting patients who received general anaesthesia for obstetric surgery in 72 hospitals from May 2017 to August 2018 were included. Baseline characteristics, airway management, anaesthetic techniques and major complications were collected. Descriptive analysis, binary logistic regression modelling and comparisons with earlier data were conducted. Data were collected from 3117 procedures, including 2554 (81.9%) caesarean deliveries. Thiopental was the induction drug in 1649 (52.9%) patients, compared with propofol in 1419 (45.5%). Suxamethonium was the neuromuscular blocking drug for tracheal intubation in 2631 (86.1%), compared with rocuronium in 367 (11.8%). Difficult tracheal intubation was reported in 1 in 19 (95%CI 1 in 16–22) and failed intubation in 1 in 312 (95%CI 1 in 169–667). Obese patients were over-represented compared with national baselines and associated with difficult, but not failed intubation. There was more evidence of change in practice for induction drugs (increased use of propofol) than neuromuscular blocking drugs (suxamethonium remains the most popular). There was evidence of improvement in practice, with increased monitoring and reversal of neuromuscular blockade (although this remains suboptimal). Despite a high risk of difficult intubation in this population, videolaryngoscopy was rarely used (1.9%)

General anaesthetic and airway management practice for obstetric surgery in England: a prospective, multi-centre observational study

There are no current descriptions of general anaesthesia characteristics for obstetric surgery, despite recent changes to patient baseline characteristics and airway management guidelines. This analysis of data from the direct reporting of awareness in maternity patients' (DREAMY) study of accidental awareness during obstetric anaesthesia aimed to describe practice for obstetric general anaesthesia in England and compare with earlier surveys and best-practice recommendations. Consenting patients who received general anaesthesia for obstetric surgery in 72 hospitals from May 2017 to August 2018 were included. Baseline characteristics, airway management, anaesthetic techniques and major complications were collected. Descriptive analysis, binary logistic regression modelling and comparisons with earlier data were conducted. Data were collected from 3117 procedures, including 2554 (81.9%) caesarean deliveries. Thiopental was the induction drug in 1649 (52.9%) patients, compared with propofol in 1419 (45.5%). Suxamethonium was the neuromuscular blocking drug for tracheal intubation in 2631 (86.1%), compared with rocuronium in 367 (11.8%). Difficult tracheal intubation was reported in 1 in 19 (95%CI 1 in 16-22) and failed intubation in 1 in 312 (95%CI 1 in 169-667). Obese patients were over-represented compared with national baselines and associated with difficult, but not failed intubation. There was more evidence of change in practice for induction drugs (increased use of propofol) than neuromuscular blocking drugs (suxamethonium remains the most popular). There was evidence of improvement in practice, with increased monitoring and reversal of neuromuscular blockade (although this remains suboptimal). Despite a high risk of difficult intubation in this population, videolaryngoscopy was rarely used (1.9%)

Technology-enhanced consultations in diabetes, cancer, and heart failure: protocol for the Qualitative Analysis of Remote Consultations (QuARC) project

Background: Remote videoconsulting is promoted by policy makers as a way of delivering health care efficiently to an aging population with rising rates of chronic illness. As a radically new service model, it brings operational and interactional challenges in using digital technologies. In-depth research on this dynamic is needed before remote consultations are introduced more widely. Objective: The objective of this study will be to identify and analyze the communication strategies through which remote consultations are accomplished and to guide patients and clinicians to improve the communicative quality of remote consultations. Methods: In previous research, we collected and analyzed two separate datasets of remote consultations in a National Institute for Health Research–funded study of clinics in East London using Skype and a Wellcome Trust–funded study of specialist community heart failure teams in Oxford using Skype or FaceTime. The Qualitative Analysis of Remote Consultations (QuARC) study will combine datasets and undertake detailed interactional microanalysis of up to 40 remote consultations undertaken by senior and junior doctors and nurse specialists, including consultations with adults with diabetes, women who have diabetes during pregnancy, people consulting for postoperative cancer surgery and community-based patients having routine heart failure reviews along with up to 25 comparable face-to-face consultations. Drawing on established techniques (eg, conversation analysis), analysis will examine the contextual features in remote consultations (eg, restricted visual field) combined with close analysis of different modes of communication (eg, speech, gesture, and gaze). Results: Our findings will address the current gap in knowledge about how technology shapes the fine detail of communication in remote consultations. Alongside academic outputs, findings will inform the coproduction of information and guidance about communication strategies to support successful remote consultations. Conclusions: Identifying the communication strategies through which remote consultations are accomplished and producing guidance for patients and clinicians about how to use this kind of technology successfully in consultations is an important and timely goal because roll out of remote consultations is planned across the National Health Service.</p

Technology-enhanced consultations in diabetes, cancer, and heart failure: protocol for the Qualitative Analysis of Remote Consultations (QuARC) project

Background: Remote videoconsulting is promoted by policy makers as a way of delivering health care efficiently to an aging population with rising rates of chronic illness. As a radically new service model, it brings operational and interactional challenges in using digital technologies. In-depth research on this dynamic is needed before remote consultations are introduced more widely. Objective: The objective of this study will be to identify and analyze the communication strategies through which remote consultations are accomplished and to guide patients and clinicians to improve the communicative quality of remote consultations. Methods: In previous research, we collected and analyzed two separate datasets of remote consultations in a National Institute for Health Research–funded study of clinics in East London using Skype and a Wellcome Trust–funded study of specialist community heart failure teams in Oxford using Skype or FaceTime. The Qualitative Analysis of Remote Consultations (QuARC) study will combine datasets and undertake detailed interactional microanalysis of up to 40 remote consultations undertaken by senior and junior doctors and nurse specialists, including consultations with adults with diabetes, women who have diabetes during pregnancy, people consulting for postoperative cancer surgery and community-based patients having routine heart failure reviews along with up to 25 comparable face-to-face consultations. Drawing on established techniques (eg, conversation analysis), analysis will examine the contextual features in remote consultations (eg, restricted visual field) combined with close analysis of different modes of communication (eg, speech, gesture, and gaze). Results: Our findings will address the current gap in knowledge about how technology shapes the fine detail of communication in remote consultations. Alongside academic outputs, findings will inform the coproduction of information and guidance about communication strategies to support successful remote consultations. Conclusions: Identifying the communication strategies through which remote consultations are accomplished and producing guidance for patients and clinicians about how to use this kind of technology successfully in consultations is an important and timely goal because roll out of remote consultations is planned across the National Health Service