Design requirements for a digital aid to support adults with mild learning disabilities during clinical consultations: a qualitative study with experts

Background: Adults with mild learning disabilities (MLDs) face a plethora of obstacles when accessing effective health care. Central to many of these barriers is communication, with medical practitioners often remaining untrained on how to interact with patients who have learning disabilities (LDs). To date, research on how to promote this communication has largely centered on the development of low-tech aids. Objective: The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility of utilizing tablet technologies to promote communication between general practitioners and patients with MLDs. We achieved this by identifying a set of design requirements from experts in LDs. Methods: A set of design guidelines was formed during a 2-phase process. Phase 1 involved conducting a series of requirements-gathering interviews with 10 experts in LDs-the protocol of which emerged from the results of a separate scoping review. The interviews were subjected to a framework analysis to discern the key requirements discussed by the experts, and these were embedded within a technology probe. In phase 2, this probe was presented to a subset (n=4) of the experts during a round of usability studies, and the feedback received was used to update the requirements identified in phase 1. Results: An initial set of design requirements has been produced that may assist in the development of clinical Alternative and Augmentative Communication technologies for adults with MLDs. Factors that must be considered range from the health, physical and cognitive needs of stakeholders, to the more individual needs of users. Conclusions: The experts involved in the study were optimistic about the proposed app. They believe that such technologies can help to alleviate time constraints and promote communication by presenting information in a form understood by both practitioners and patients

Making the diagnosis of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalitis in primary care: a qualitative study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>NICE guidelines emphasise the role of the primary care team in the management of patients with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalitis (CFS/ME). A key stage in effective management is making an accurate early diagnosis, supported by appropriate referral.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A nested qualitative study within a multi-centre randomised controlled trial which aimed to explore GPs' views on their role in making the diagnosis of CFS/ME and subsequent management of patients in primary care. Semi-structured interviews with 22 GPs. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and an iterative approach used to develop themes from the dataset.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>GPs described difficulties in defining CFS/ME and suggested that their role in making a diagnosis was to exclude physical causes for the patient's symptoms, but they reported little confidence in positively attributing the label of CFS/ME to a patient and their symptoms. GPs suggested that the label of CFS/ME could be potentially harmful for the patient. The role of referral to secondary care was debated and GPs struggled defining their own role in management of this group of patients.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Until GPs feel comfortable making the diagnosis of CFS/ME and facilitating initial management, and have appropriate services to refer patients to, there will continue to be delays in confirming the diagnosis and patients presenting in primary care with fatigue may not receive appropriate care.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ISRCTN 74156610</p

Practice Nurses' views of their role in the management of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalagic Encephalitis: a qualitative study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>NICE guidelines suggest that patients with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalitis (CFS/ME) should be managed in Primary Care. Practice Nurses are increasingly being involved in the management of long-term conditions, so are likely to also have a growing role in managing CFS/ME. However their attitudes to, and experiences of patients with CFS/ME and its management must be explored to understand what barriers may exist in developing their role for this group of patients. The aim of this study was to explore Practice Nurses' understanding and beliefs about CFS/ME and its management.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Semi-structured interviews with 29 Practice Nurses. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and an iterative approach used to develop themes from the dataset.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Practice nurses had limited understanding about CFS/ME which had been largely gained through contact with patients, friends, personal experiences and the media rather than formal training. They had difficulty seeing CFS/ME as a long term condition. They did identify a potential role they could have in management of CFS/ME but devalued their own skills in psychological intervention, and suggested counselling would be an appropriate therapeutic option. They recognised a need for further training and on going supervision from both medical and psychological colleagues. Some viewed the condition as contentious and held pejorative views about CFS/ME. Such scepticism and negative attitudes will be a significant barrier to the management of patients with CFS/ME in primary care.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The current role of Practice Nurses in the ongoing management of patients with CFS/ME is limited. Practice Nurses have little understanding of the evidence-base for treatment of CFS/ME, particularly psychological therapies, describing management options in terms of advice giving, self-help or counselling. Practice Nurses largely welcomed the potential development of their role in this area, but identified barriers and training needs which must be addressed to enable them to feel confident managing of patients with this condition. Training must begin by addressing negative attitudes to patients with CFS/ME.</p

A Functional Taxonomy of Tumor Suppression in Oncogenic KRAS-Driven Lung Cancer

Cancer genotyping has identified a large number of putative tumor suppressor genes. Carcinogenesis is a multistep process, but the importance and specific roles of many of these genes during tumor initiation, growth, and progression remain unknown. Here we use a multiplexed mouse model of oncogenic KRAS–driven lung cancer to quantify the impact of 48 known and putative tumor suppressor genes on diverse aspects of carcinogenesis at an unprecedented scale and resolution. We uncover many previously understudied functional tumor suppressors that constrain cancer in vivo. Inactivation of some genes substantially increased growth, whereas the inactivation of others increases tumor initiation and/or the emergence of exceptionally large tumors. These functional in vivo analyses revealed an unexpectedly complex landscape of tumor suppression that has implications for understanding cancer evolution, interpreting clinical cancer genome sequencing data, and directing approaches to limit tumor initiation and progression. SIGNIFICANCE: Our high-throughput and high-resolution analysis of tumor suppression uncovered novel genetic determinants of oncogenic KRAS–driven lung cancer initiation, overall growth, and exceptional growth. This taxonomy is consistent with changing constraints during the life history of cancer and highlights the value of quantitative in vivo genetic analyses in autochthonous cancer models

Talking about depression: a qualitative study of barriers to managing depression in people with long term conditions in primary care

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The risk of depression is increased in people with long term conditions (LTCs) and is associated with poorer patient outcomes for both the depressive illness and the LTC, but often remains undetected and poorly managed. The aim of this study was to identify and explore barriers to detecting and managing depression in primary care in people with two exemplar LTCs: diabetes and coronary heart disease (CHD).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted with 19 healthcare professionals drawn predominately from primary care, along with 7 service users and 3 carers (n = 29). One focus group was then held with a set of 6 healthcare professionals and a set of 7 service users and 1 carer (n = 14). Interviews and the focus group were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed independently. The two data sets were then inspected for commonalities using a constant comparative method, leading to a final thematic framework used in this paper.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Barriers to detecting and managing depression in people with LTCs in primary care exist: i) when practitioners in partnership with patients conceptualise depression as a common and understandable response to the losses associated with LTCs - depression in the presence of LTCs is normalised, militating against its recognition and treatment; ii) where highly performanced managed consultations under the terms of the Quality and Outcomes Framework encourage reductionist approaches to case-finding in people with CHD and diabetes, and iii) where there is uncertainty among practitioners about how to negotiate labels for depression in people with LTCs in ways that might facilitate shared understanding and future management.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Depression was often normalised in the presence of LTCs, obviating rather than facilitating further assessment and management. Furthermore, structural constraints imposed by the QOF encouraged reductionist approaches to case-finding for depression in consultations for CHD and diabetes. Future work might focus on how interventions that draw on the principles of the chronic care model, such as collaborative care, could support primary care practitioners to better recognise and manage depression in patients with LTCs.</p

No More Free Drug Samples?

Susan Chimonas and Jerome Kassirer argue that giving out “free” drug samples is not effective in improving drug access for the indigent, does not promote rational drug use, and raises the cost of care

Rationale and design for SHAREHD: a quality improvement collaborative to scale up Shared Haemodialysis Care for patients on centre based haemodialysis.

BACKGROUND: The study objective is to assess the effectiveness and economic impact of a structured programme to support patient involvement in centre-based haemodialysis and to understand what works for whom in what circumstances and why. It implements a program of Shared Haemodialysis Care (SHC) that aims to improve experience and outcomes for those who are treated with centre-based haemodialysis, and give more patients the confidence to dialyse independently both at centres and at home. METHODS/DESIGN: The 24 month mixed methods cohort evaluation of 600 prevalent centre based HD patients is nested within a 30 month quality improvement program that aims to scale up SHC at 12 dialysis centres across England. SHC describes an intervention where patients who receive centre-based haemodialysis are given the opportunity to learn, engage with and undertake tasks associated with their treatment. Following a 6-month set up period, a phased implementation programme is initiated across 12 dialysis units using a randomised stepped wedge design with 6 centres participating in each of 2 steps, each lasting 6 months. The intervention utilises quality improvement methodologies involving rapid tests of change to determine the most appropriate mechanisms for implementation in the context of a learning collaborative. Running parallel with the stepped wedge intervention is a mixed methods cohort evaluation that employs patient questionnaires and interviews, and will link with routinely collected data at the end of the study period. The primary outcome measure is the number of patients performing at least 5 dialysis-related tasks collected using 3 monthly questionnaires. Secondary outcomes measures include: the number of people choosing to perform home haemodialysis or dialyse independently in-centre by the end of the study period; end-user recommendation; home dialysis establishment delay; staff impact and confidence; hospitalisation; infection and health economics. DISCUSSION: The results from this study will provide evidence of impact of SHC, barriers to patient and centre level adoption and inform development of future interventions to support its implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Number: 93999549 , (retrospectively registered 1st May 2017); NIHR Research Portfolio: 31566

Why do General Practitioners Decline Training to Improve Management of Medically Unexplained Symptoms?

BACKGROUND: General practitioners’ (GPs) communication with patients presenting medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) has the potential to somatize patients’ problems and intensify dependence on medical care. Several reports indicate that GPs have negative attitudes about patients with MUS. If these attitudes deter participation in training or other methods to improve communication, practitioners who most need help will not receive it. OBJECTIVE: To identify how GPs’ attitudes to patients with MUS might inhibit their participation with training to improve management. DESIGN: Qualitative study. PARTICIPANTS: GPs (N = 33) who had declined or accepted training in reattribution techniques in the context of a research trial. APPROACH: GPs were interviewed and their accounts analysed qualitatively. RESULTS: Although attitudes that devalued patients with MUS were common in practitioners who had declined training, these coexisted, in the same practitioners, with evidence of intuitive and elaborate psychological work with these patients. However, these practitioners devalued their psychological skills. GPs who had accepted training also described working psychologically with MUS but devalued neither patients with MUS nor their own psychological skills. CONCLUSIONS: GPs’ attitudes that suggested disengagement from patients with MUS belied their pursuit of psychological objectives. We therefore suggest that, whereas negative attitudes to patients have previously been regarded as the main barrier to involvement in measures to improve patient management, GPs devaluing of their own psychological skills with these patients may be more important