Accessing primary health care: A meta-ethnography of the experiences of British South Asian patients with diabetes, coronary heart disease or a mental health problem

Objectives: To develop an explanatory framework of the problems accessing primary care health services experienced by British South Asian patients with a long-term condition or mental health problem. Methods: This study used meta-ethnographic methods. Published qualitative studies were identified from a structured search of six databases and themes synthesized across studies to develop a new explanatory framework. Results: Initial searches identified 951 potentially relevant records from which a total of 27 articles were identified that met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Twelve of these articles were chosen on the basis of their quality and relevance. These 12 articles described themes relating to the cultural, spatial and temporal dimensions of patient experiences of accessing and using health care. Our interpretive synthesis showed that access to primary care among British South Asians with diabetes, coronary heart disease and psychological health problems is co-constructed and negotiated over time and space along the key domains of the candidacy model of access: from help-seeking to interactions at the interface to following treatment advice. In the case of each condition, British South Asians’ claims to candidacy were constrained where their individual as well as broader social and cultural characteristics lacked fit with professionals’ ways of working and cultural typifications. Conclusion: Interventions that positively affect professionals’ capacity to support patient claims to candidacy are likely to help support British South Asians overcome a broad range of barriers to care for physical and mental health problems. </jats:p

Delivering the WISE (Whole Systems Informing Self-Management Engagement) training package in primary care: learning from formative evaluation

Background: The WISE (Whole System Informing Self-management Engagement) approach encompasses creating, finding, and implementing appropriate self-care support for people with long-term conditions. A training package for primary care to introduce the approach was developed and underwent formative evaluation. This entailed exploring the acceptability of the WISE approach and its effectiveness in changing communication within consultations. The study aimed to refine the patient, practitioner, and patient level components of the WISE approach and translate the principles of WISE into an operational intervention deliverable through National Health Service training methods. Methods: Normalisation Process Theory provided a framework for development of the intervention. Practices were recruited from an inner city Primary Care Trust in NW England. All practice staff were expected to attend two afternoon training sessions. The training sessions were observed by members of the training team. Post-training audio recordings of consultations from each general practitioner and nurse in the practices were transcribed and read to provide a narrative overview of the incorporation of WISE skills and tools into consultations. Face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted with staff post-training. Results: Two practices out of 14 deemed eligible agreed to take part. Each practice attended two sessions, although a third session on consultation skills training was needed for one practice. Fifty-four post-training consultations were recorded from 15 clinicians. Two members of staff were interviewed at each practice. Significant elements of the training form and methods of delivery fitted contemporary practice. There were logistical problems in getting a whole practice to attend both sessions, and administrative staff founds some sections irrelevant. Clinicians reported problems incorporating some of the tools developed for WISE, and this was confirmed in the overview of consultations, with limited overt use of WISE tools and missed opportunities to address patients' self-management needs. Conclusions: The formative evaluation approach and attention to normalisation process theory allowed the training team to make adjustments to content and delivery and ensure appropriate staff attended each session. The content of the course was simplified and focussed more clearly on operationalising the WISE approach. The patient arm of the approach was strengthened by raising expectations of a change in approach to self-care support by their practice. <br/

Facilitating professional liaison in collaborative care for depression in UK primary care; a qualitative study utilising normalisation process theory

This is a freely-available open access publication. Please cite the published version which is available via the DOI link in this record.Background: Collaborative care (CC) is an organisational framework which facilitates the delivery of a mental health intervention to patients by case managers in collaboration with more senior health professionals (supervisors and GPs), and is effective for the management of depression in primary care. However, there remains limited evidence on how to successfully implement this collaborative approach in UK primary care. This study aimed to explore to what extent CC impacts on professional working relationships, and if CC for depression could be implemented as routine in the primary care setting. Methods: This qualitative study explored perspectives of the 6 case managers (CMs), 5 supervisors (trial research team members) and 15 general practitioners (GPs) from practices participating in a randomised controlled trial of CC for depression. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and data was analysed using a two-step approach using an initial thematic analysis, and a secondary analysis using the Normalisation Process Theory concepts of coherence, cognitive participation, collective action and reflexive monitoring with respect to the implementation of CC in primary care. Results: Supervisors and CMs demonstrated coherence in their understanding of CC, and consequently reported good levels of cognitive participation and collective action regarding delivering and supervising the intervention. GPs interviewed showed limited understanding of the CC framework, and reported limited collaboration with CMs: barriers to collaboration were identified. All participants identified the potential or experienced benefits of a collaborative approach to depression management and were able to discuss ways in which collaboration can be facilitated. Conclusion: Primary care professionals in this study valued the potential for collaboration, but GPs’ understanding of CC and organisational barriers hindered opportunities for communication. Further work is needed to address these organisational barriers in order to facilitate collaboration around individual patients with depression, including shared IT systems, facilitating opportunities for informal discussion and building in formal collaboration into the CC framework. Trial registration: ISRCTN32829227 30/9/2008.UK Medical Research CouncilNIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health ResearchCare South West Peninsul

Dissemination and implementation of suicide prevention training in one Scottish region

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>As part of a national co-ordinated and multifaceted response to the excess suicide rate, the <it>Choose Life </it>initiative, the Highland Choose Life Group launched an ambitious programme of training for National Health Service (NHS), Council and voluntary organisation staff. In this study of the dissemination and implementation of STORM (Skills-based Training On Risk Management), we set out to explore not only the outcomes of training, but key factors involved in the processes of diffusion, dissemination and implementation of the educational intervention.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Participants attending STORM training in Highland Region provided by 12 trained facilitators during the period March 2004 to February 2005 were recruited. Quantitative data collection from participants took place at three time points; immediately before training, immediately post-training and six months after training. Semi-structured telephone interviews were carried out with the training facilitators and with a sample of course participants 6 months after they had been trained. We have utilized the conceptual model described by Greenhalgh and colleagues in a Framework analysis of the data, for considering the determinants of diffusion, dissemination and implementation of interventions in health service delivery and organization.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Some 203 individuals completed a series of questionnaire measures immediately pre (time 1) and immediately post (time 2) training and there were significant improvements in attitudes and confidence of participants. Key factors in the diffusion, dissemination and implementation process were the presence of a champion or local opinion leader who supported and directed the intervention, local adaptation of the materials, commissioning of a group of facilitators who were provided with financial and administrative support, dedicated time to provide the training and regular peer-support.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Features that contributed to the success of STORM were <it>related to both the context </it>(the multi-dimensional support provided from the host organisation and the favourable policy environment) <it>and the intervention </it>(openness to local adaptation, clinical relevance and utility), and the dynamic interaction between context and the intervention.</p

A qualitative study of referral to community mental health teams in the UK: exploring the rhetoric and the reality

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Generic community mental health teams (CMHTs) currently deliver specialist mental health care in England. Policy dictates that CMHTs focus on those patients with greatest need but it has proved difficult to establish consistent referral criteria. The aim of this study was to explore the referral process from the perspectives of both the referrers and the CMHTs.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Qualitative study nested in a randomised controlled trial. Interviews with general practitioner (GP) referrers, CMHT Consultant Psychiatrists and team leaders. Taping of referral allocation meetings.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There was a superficial agreement between the referrers and the referred to on the function of the CMHT, but how this was operationalised in practice resulted in a lack of clarity over the referral process, with tensions apparent between the views of the referrers (GPs) and the CMHT team leaders, and between team members. The process of decision-making within the team was inconsistent with little discussion of, or reflection on, the needs of the referred patient.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>CMHTs describe struggling to deal with GPs who are perceived as having variable expertise in managing patients with mental health problems. CMHT rhetoric about defined referral criteria is interpreted flexibly with CMHT managers and Psychiatrists concentrating on their own capacity, roles and responsibilities with limited consideration of the primary care perspective or the needs of the referred patient.</p> <p>Trial Registration number</p> <p>ISRCTN86197914</p

Beyond the limits of clinical governance? The case of mental health in English primary care

Background: Little research attention has been given to attempts to implement organisational initiatives to improve quality of care for mental health care, where there is a high level of indeterminacy and clinical judgements are often contestable. This paper explores recent efforts made at an organisational level in England to improve the quality of primary care for people with mental health problems through the new institutional processes of 'clinical governance'. Methods: Framework analysis, based on the Normalisation Process Model (NPM), of attempts over a five year period to develop clinical governance for primary mental health services in Primary Care Trusts (PCTs). The data come from a longitudinal qualitative multiple case-study approach in a purposive sample of 12 PCTs, chosen to reflect a maximum variety of organisational contexts for mental health care provision. Results: The constant change within the English NHS provided a difficult context in which to attempt to implement 'clinical governance' or, indeed, to reconstruct primary mental health care. In the absence of clear evidence or direct guidance about what 'primary mental health care' should be, and a lack of actors with the power or skills to set about realising it, the actors in 'clinical governance' had little shared knowledge or understanding of their role in improving the quality of mental health care. There was a lack of ownership of 'mental health' as an integral, normalised part of primary care. Conclusion: Despite some achievements in regard to monitoring and standardisation of prescribing practice, mental health care in primary care seems to have so far largely eluded the gaze of 'clinical governance'. Clinical governance in English primary mental health care has not yet become normalised. We make some policy recommendations which we consider would assist in the process normalisation and suggest other contexts to which our findings might apply

Cost-Effectiveness of Collaborative Care for Depression in UK Primary Care: Economic Evaluation of a Randomised Controlled Trial (CADET)

Background: Collaborative care is an effective treatment for the management of depression but evidence on its cost-effectiveness in the UK is lacking. Aims: To assess the cost-effectiveness of collaborative care in a UK primary care setting. Methods: An economic evaluation alongside a multi-centre cluster randomised controlled trial comparing collaborative care with usual primary care for adults with depression (n = 581). Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated over a 12-month follow-up, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services (i.e. Third Party Payer). Sensitivity analyses are reported, and uncertainty is presented using the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) and the cost-effectiveness plane. Results: The collaborative care intervention had a mean cost of £272.50 per participant. Health and social care service use, excluding collaborative care, indicated a similar profile of resource use between collaborative care and usual care participants. Collaborative care offered a mean incremental gain of 0.02 (95% CI: –0.02, 0.06) quality-adjusted life-years over 12 months, at a mean incremental cost of £270.72 (95% CI: –202.98, 886.04), and resulted in an estimated mean cost per QALY of £14,248. Where costs associated with informal care are considered in sensitivity analyses collaborative care is expected to be less costly and more effective, thereby dominating treatment as usual. Conclusion: Collaborative care offers health gains at a relatively low cost, and is cost-effective compared with usual care against a decision-maker willingness to pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. Results here support the commissioning of collaborative care in a UK primary care setting

Collaborative Depression Trial (CADET): multi-centre randomised controlled trial of collaborative care for depression - study protocol

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Comprising of both organisational and patient level components, collaborative care is a potentially powerful intervention for improving depression treatment in UK primary Care. However, as previous models have been developed and evaluated in the United States, it is necessary to establish the effect of collaborative care in the UK in order to determine whether this innovative treatment model can replicate benefits for patients outside the US. This Phase III trial was preceded by a Phase II patient level RCT, following the MRC Complex Intervention Framework.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>A multi-centre controlled trial with cluster-randomised allocation of GP practices. GP practices will be randomised to usual care control or to "collaborative care" - a combination of case manager coordinated support and brief psychological treatment, enhanced specialist and GP communication. The primary outcome will be symptoms of depression as assessed by the PHQ-9.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>If collaborative care is demonstrated to be effective we will have evidence to enable the NHS to substantially improve the organisation of depressed patients in primary care, and to assist primary care providers to deliver a model of enhanced depression care which is both effective and acceptable to patients.</p> <p>Trial Registration Number</p> <p>ISRCTN32829227</p

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