Effectiveness of appropriately trained nurses in preoperative assessment: randomised controlled equivalence/non-inferiority trial

Objective To determine whether preoperative assessments carried out by appropriately trained nurses are inferior in quality to those carried out by preregistration house officers. Design Randomised controlled equivalence/non-inferiority trial. Setting Four NHS hospitals in three trusts. Three of the four were teaching hospitals. Participants All patients attending for assessment before general anaesthesia for general, vascular, urological, or breast surgery between April 1998 and March 1999. Intervention Assessment by one of three appropriately trained nurses or by one of several preregistration house officers. Main outcome measures History taken, physical examination, and investigations ordered. Measures evaluated by a specialist registrar in anaesthetics and placed in four categories: correct, overassessment, underassessment not affecting management, and underassessment possibly affecting management (primary outcome). Results 1907 patients were randomised, and 1874 completed the study; 926 were assessed by house officers and 948 by nurses. Overall 121/948 (13%) assessments carried out by nurses were judged to have possibly affected management compared with 138/926 (15%) of those performed by house officers. Nurses were judged to be non-inferior to house officers in assessment, although there was variation among them in terms of the quality of history taking. The house officers ordered considerably more unnecessary tests than the nurses (218/926 (24%) v 129/948 (14%). Conclusions There is no reason to inhibit the development of nurse led preoperative assessment provided that the nurses involved receive adequate training. However, house officers will continue to require experience in preoperative assessment

Liaison psychiatry—measurement and evaluation of service types, referral patterns and outcomes (LP-MAESTRO): a protocol

Introduction: We describe the protocol for a project that will use linkage of routinely collected NHS data to answer a question about the nature and effectiveness of liaison psychiatry services in acute hospitals in England. Methods and analysis: The project will use three data sources: (1) Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), a database controlled by NHS Digital that contains patient data relating to emergency department (ED), inpatient and outpatient episodes at hospitals in England; (2) ResearchOne, a research database controlled by The Phoenix Partnership (TPP) that contains patient data relating to primary care provided by organisations using the SystmOne clinical information system and (3) clinical databases controlled by mental health trusts that contain patient data relating to care provided by liaison psychiatry services. We will link patient data from these sources to construct care pathways for patients who have been admitted to a particular hospital and determine those patients who have been seen by a liaison psychiatry service during their admission. Patient care pathways will form the basis of a matched cohort design to test the effectiveness of liaison intervention. We will combine healthcare utilisation within care pathways using cost figures from national databases. We will compare the cost of each care pathway and the impact of a broad set of health-related outcomes to obtain preliminary estimates of cost-effectiveness for liaison psychiatry services. We will carry out an exploratory incremental cost-effectiveness analysis from a whole system perspective. Ethics and dissemination: Individual patient consent will not be feasible for this study. Favourable ethical opinion has been obtained from the NHS Research Ethics Committee (North of Scotland) (REF: 16/NS/0025) for Work Stream 2 (phase 1) of the Liaison psychiatry—measurement and evaluation of service types, referral patterns and outcomes study. The Confidentiality Advisory Group at the Health Research Authority determined that Section 251 approval under Regulation 5 of the Health Service (Control of Patient Information) Regulations 2002 was not required for the study ‘on the basis that there is no disclosure of patient identifiable data without consent’ (REF: 16/CAG/0037). Results of the study will be published in academic journals in health services research and mental health. Details of the study methodology will also be published in an academic journal. Discussion papers will be authored for health service commissioners

Experiences of people seen in an acute hospital setting by a liaison mental health service: responses from an online survey

Background- In recent years the UK has expanded the provision of liaison mental health services (LMHS). Little work has been undertaken to explore first-hand experiences of them. Aims- The aim of this study was to gain insights into the experiences of users of LMHS in both emergency departments and acute inpatient wards in the UK. Methods- This cross-sectional internet survey was initially advertised from May-July 2017 using the social media platform Facebook. Due to a paucity of male respondents, it was re-run from November 2017-February 2018, specifically targeting male respondents. The survey featured a structured questionnaire divided into three categories: the profile of the respondent, perceived professionalism of LMHS and overall opinion of the service. Analysis- Responses to the structured questionnaire were analysed using descriptive statistics and latent class analysis. Free-text responses were transcribed verbatim and interpreted using thematic analysis. Results- 184 people responded to the survey. 147 were service users and 37 were partners, friends or family members of service users. Only 31% of service users and 27% of close others found their overall contact helpful. Latent class analysis identified three clusters − 46% of service users generally disliked their contact, 36% had an overall positive experience, and 18% did not answer most questions about helpfulness or usefulness. Features most frequently identified as important were the provision of a 24/7 service, assessment by a variety of healthcare professionals and national standardisation of services. Respondents indicated that the least important feature was the provision of a separate service for older people. They desired faster assessments following referral from the parent team, clearer communication about next steps and greater knowledge of local services and third sector organisations. Conclusions- This survey identified mixed responses, but overall experiences were more negative than indicated in the limited previous research. The evaluation and adaptation of LMHS along the lines suggested in our survey should be prioritised to enhance their inherent therapeutic value and to improve engagement with treatment and future psychiatric care

Safety of disinvestment in mid- to late-term follow-up post primary hip and knee replacement: The UK SAFE evidence synthesis and recommendations

Background: Joint replacement surgery has revolutionised the management of degenerative joint disease. Increasing demand for surgery and post-surgical reviews has overwhelmed orthopaedic services and, consequently, many centres have reduced or stopped follow-up. Such disinvestment is without an evidence base and raises questions regarding the consequences to patients.Objectives: To produce evidence- and consensus-based recommendations as to how, when and on whom follow-up should be conducted. Our research question was ‘Is it safe to disinvest in mid- to late-term follow-up of hip and knee replacement?’.MethodsThe study comprised three complementary evidence synthesis work packages to inform a final consensus process. Work package 1 was a systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness literature. Work package 2 used routine national data sets (i.e. the Clinical Practice Research Datalink–Hospital Episode Statistics, Hospital Episode Statistics–National Joint Registry–patient-reported outcome measures) to identify pre, peri and postoperative predictors of mid- to late-term revision, and prospective data from 560 patients to understand how patients present for revision surgery. Work package 3 used a Markov model to simulate the survival, health-related quality of life and NHS costs of patients following hip or knee replacement surgery. Finally, evidence from work packages 1–3 informed a face-to-face consensus panel, which involved 32 stakeholders.Results: Our overarching statements are as follows: (1) these recommendations apply to post primary hip and knee replacement follow-up; (2) the 10-year time point in these recommendations is based on a lack of robust evidence beyond 10 years; and (3) in these recommendations, the term ‘complex cases’ refers to individual patient and surgical factors that may increase the risk of replacement failure. Our recommendations are as follows: for Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel 10A* (ODEP-10A*) minimum implants, it is safe to disinvest in routine follow-up from 1 to 10 years post non-complex hip and knee replacement provided that there is rapid access to orthopaedic review; (2) for ODEP-10A* minimum implants in complex cases or non-ODEP-10A* minimum implants, periodic follow-up post hip and knee replacement may be required from 1 to 10 years; (3) at 10 years post hip and knee replacement, clinical and radiographic evaluation is recommended; and (4) after 10 years post hip and knee replacement, frequency of further follow-up should be based on the 10-year assessment (note that ongoing rapid access to orthopaedic review is still required) [Stone M, Smith L, Kingsbury S, Czoski-Murray C, Judge A, Pinedo-Villanueva R, et al. Evidence-based follow-up recommendations following primary hip and knee arthroplasty (UK SAFE). Orthop Proc 2020;102–B:13. https://doi.org/10.1302/1358-992X.2020.5.013].Limitations: The current absence of data beyond 10 years restricted the evidence base.Conclusions: For ODEP-10A* prostheses, the UK SAFE programme demonstrated that it is safe to disinvest in routine follow-up in the 1- to 10-year period after non-complex hip and knee replacement. At 10 years, clinical and radiographic review is recommended. Complex cases, implants not meeting the 10A* criteria and follow-up after revision surgery are not covered by this recommendation.Future work: The evidence base for follow-up after 10 years requires further evaluation. Further work should establish the most clinically effective and cost-effective model of delivering a rapid access service and evaluate alternative models for follow-up services, such as virtual clinics. Finally, the needs and outcomes of patients who are symptomatic but do not have appropriate follow-up should be investigated

A programme theory for liaison mental health services in England

Background: Mechanisms by which liaison mental health services (LMHS) may bring about improved patient and organisational outcomes are poorly understood. A small number of logic models have been developed, but they fail to capture the complexity of clinical practice. Method: We synthesised data from a variety of sources including a large national survey, 73 in-depth interviews with acute and liaison staff working in hospitals with different types of liaison mental health services, and relevant local, national and international literature. We generated logic models for two common performance indicators used to assess organisational outcomes for LMHS: response times in the emergency department and hospital length of stay for people with mental health problems. Results: We identified 8 areas of complexity that influence performance, and 6 trade-offs which drove the models in different directions depending upon the balance of the trade-off. The logic models we developed could only be captured by consideration of more than one pass through the system, the complexity in which they operated, and the trade-offs that occurred. Conclusions: Our findings are important for commissioners of liaison services. Reliance on simple target setting may result in services that are unbalanced and not patient-centred. Targets need to be reviewed on a regular basis, together with other data that reflect the wider impact of the service, and any external changes in the system that affect the performance of LMHS, which are beyond their control

Understanding barriers for research involvement among paediatric trainees: a mixed methods study

Background: Child Health research is reported to be at worryingly low level by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. Recent survey showed that 54.5% of paediatric consultants in the United Kingdom do not do any research at all. We conducted a mixed methods study to understand barriers and facilitators for research involvement among paediatric trainees who are going to fill these consultant posts in the future. Methods: A questionnaire based on a validated index for research and development was completed by 136 paediatric trainees within a region in the North of England (Yorkshire and Humber). Twelve semi-structured interviews were conducted with stratified purposive sampling. Descriptive statistics and Chi-Square test for independence were used for quantitative analysis. Thematic content analysis was done for interviews based on analysis method framework. Results: 136 out of 396 trainees responded to the survey. There was a significant relationship between confidence in using research in practice and ability to understand research terminology. This was not related to research experience or training. Males were significantly more likely to have presented a research paper, know how research influences practice and have more confidence in using research in practice than females. There was no significant relationship between gender and research training or highest qualification. Time constraints and lack of academic culture were the most frequently mentioned barriers in the survey. Over-arching themes identified from the interviews were related to lack of academic culture, opportunities provided in current training scheme and constraints related to time availability along with workforce management. Conclusion: Paediatric research requires a supportive academic culture with more flexibility in training scheme and immediate attention to a pressing staffing crisis

What are the consequences of disinvestment in hip and knee arthroplasty follow-up? A systematic review of care pathways

Research question: What is the clinical evidence base for current and emerging follow-up care pathways for hip and knee joint replacement and the consequences for patients

Using Financial Incentives and Improving Information to Increase Labour Market Success: A Non-Parametric Evaluation of the ‘Want2Work’ Programme

The 'Want2Work' programme was designed to help individuals back into work. This article uses propensity score matching to evaluate the success of a policy that cannot otherwise be evaluated using standard parametric techniques. Using a range of estimation methods, sub-samples and types of job, the scheme was successful. Our most conservative estimates indicate that participants were 4-7 percentage points more likely to find employment than a control group of non-treated job-seekers. Effects were even stronger for Incapacity Benefit recipients. Moreover, there is little evidence that participants were placed in low quality or temporary jobs.Active labour market policy, re-employment likelihood, propensity score matching

Usefulness of a short-term register for health technology assessment where the evidence base is poor

Objectives: This study reviews the coverage and usefulness of a short-term register, established specifically for health technology assessment of a novel interventional procedure (minimally invasive repair of pectus excavatum, or the Nuss procedure).Methods: Coverage of the register during 2004–07 was assessed by comparison with Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES) for England. Its usefulness was assessed by comparing safety and efficacy data with the published literature and by feedback from committee members who in 2009 were involved in reviewing NICE's original guidance from 2003.Results: The register reported 260 cases from thirteen UK hospitals during nearly 9 years. During a coverage evaluation period of 3 years, there were 152 registered Nuss procedures. An additional 246 repairs of pectus excavatum were undertaken in twenty-six previously unidentified hospitals. Of the 246, 23 were Nuss procedures (from two hospitals), 140 were open procedures (from eleven hospitals), and 3 were coding errors. No details were available for eighty cases undertaken at ten hospitals. The quantity of published literature had increased substantially since publication of original guidance in 2003. It related mostly to technical and safety outcomes, whereas the register included patient reported outcomes. The literature and the register reported similar rates of major adverse events such as bar displacement (2–10 percent). Committee members considered that the Register made a useful contribution to guidance development.Conclusions: This study shows that a register set up to support a health technology assessment process can produce useful data both about safety and about patient-reported outcomes. Coverage may be improved by active follow-up based on routine hospital statistics. Improvement in coding for new procedures is needed in the United Kingdom

A comparative study of patients presenting for planned and unplanned revision hip or knee arthroplasty

AIMS: The aim of this study was to conduct a cross-sectional, observational cohort study of patients presenting for revision of a total hip, or total or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, to understand current routes to revision surgery and explore differences in symptoms, healthcare use, reason for revision, and the revision surgery (surgical time, components, length of stay) between patients having regular follow-up and those without. METHODS: Data were collected from participants and medical records for the 12 months prior to revision. Patients with previous revision, metal-on-metal articulations, or hip hemiarthroplasty were excluded. Participants were retrospectively classified as 'Planned' or 'Unplanned' revision. Multilevel regression and propensity score matching were used to compare the two groups. RESULTS: Data were analyzed from 568 patients, recruited in 38 UK secondary care sites between October 2017 and October 2018 (43.5% male; mean (SD) age 71.86 years (9.93); 305 hips, 263 knees). No significant inclusion differences were identified between the two groups. For hip revision, time to revision > ten years (odds ratio (OR) 3.804, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.353 to 10.694), p = 0.011), periprosthetic fracture (OR 20.309, 95% CI (4.574 to 90.179), p < 0.001), and dislocation (OR 12.953, 95% CI (4.014 to 41.794), p < 0.001), were associated with unplanned revision. For knee, there were no associations with route to revision. Revision after ten years was more likely for those who were younger at primary surgery, regardless of route to revision. No significant differences in cost outcomes, length of surgery time, and access to a health professional in the year prior to revision were found between the two groups. When periprosthetic fractures, dislocations, and infections were excluded, healthcare use was significantly higher in the unplanned revision group. CONCLUSION: Differences between characteristics for patients presenting for planned and unplanned revision are minimal. Although there was greater healthcare use in those having unplanned revision, it appears unlikely that routine orthopaedic review would have detected many of these issues. It may be safe to disinvest in standard follow-up provided there is rapid access to orthopaedic review. Cite this article: Bone Joint J2022;104-B(1):59-67