Frequency of reporting on patient and public involvement (PPI) in research studies published in a general medical journal : a descriptive study

Objectives While documented plans for patient and public involvement (PPI) in research are required in many grant applications, little is known about how frequently PPI occurs in practice. Low levels of reported PPI may mask actual activity due to limited PPI reporting requirements. This research analysed the frequency and types of reported PPI in the presence and absence of a journal requirement to include this information. Design and setting A before and after comparison of PPI reported in research papers published in The BMJ before and 1 year after the introduction of a journal policy requiring authors to report if and how they involved patients and the public within their papers. Results Between 1 June 2013 and 31 May 2014, The BMJ published 189 research papers and 1 (0.5%) reported PPI activity. From 1 June 2015 to 31 May 2016, following the introduction of the policy, The BMJ published 152 research papers of which 16 (11%) reported PPI activity. Patients contributed to grant applications in addition to designing studies through to coauthorship and participation in study dissemination. Patient contributors were often not fully acknowledged; 6 of 17 (35%) papers acknowledged their contributions and 2 (12%) included them as coauthors. Conclusions Infrequent reporting of PPI activity does not appear to be purely due to a failure of documentation. Reporting of PPI activity increased after the introduction of The BMJ ’s policy, but activity both before and after was low and reporting was inconsistent in quality. Journals, funders and research institutions should collaborate to move us from the current situation where PPI is an optional extra to one where PPI is fully embedded in practice throughout the research process

Perspectives on involvement in the peer-review process : surveys of patient and public reviewers at two journals

Objective In 2014/2015, The BMJ and Research Involvement and Engagement (RIE) became the first journals to routinely include patients and the public in the peer review process of journal articles. This survey explores the perspectives and early experiences of these reviewers. Design A cross-sectional survey. Setting and participants Patient and public reviewers for The BMJ and RIE who have been invited to review. Results The response rate was 69% (157/227) for those who had previously reviewed and 31% (67/217) for those who had not yet reviewed. Reviewers described being motivated to review by the opportunity to include the patient voice in the research process, influence the quality of the biomedical literature and ensure it meets the needs of patients. Of the 157 who had reviewed, 127 (81%) would recommend being a reviewer to other patients and carers. 144 (92%) thought more journals should adopt patient and public review. Few reviewers (16/224, 7%) reported concerns about doing open review. Annual acknowledgement on the journals’ websites was welcomed as was free access to journal information. Participants were keen to have access to more online resources and training to improve their reviewing skills. Suggestions on how to improve the reviewing experience included: allowing more time to review; better and more frequent communication; a more user-friendly process; improving guidance on how to review including videos; improving the matching of papers to reviewers’ experience; providing more varied sample reviews and brief feedback on the usefulness of reviews; developing a sense of community among reviewers; and publicising of the contribution that patient and public review brings. Conclusions Patient and public reviewers shared practical ideas to improve the reviewing experience and these will be reviewed to enhance the guidance and support given to them

Longitudinal qualitative evaluation of pharmacist integration into the urgent care setting

Purpose: To describe the most effective model for managing, educating, and training pharmacist advanced clinical practitioners (ACPs) in the urgent care center (UCC) setting, role evolution and how to measure their effectiveness. Participants and methods: Ethical approval was obtained to perform a qualitative longitudinal cohort study in three sites, with three pharmacists in each trained as ACPs from 2016 to 2017. ACP role, location, management, mentorship, and supervision were locally determined. ACPs attended focus groups (FGs) at 1 and 3 months (sites 1–3), 6 and 12 months (site 1 only), and the UCC staff were interviewed once with a topic guide regarding training, integration, role, and impact. Verbatim transcriptions were analyzed thematically. Results: Eight ACP FGs and 24 stakeholder interviews produced major themes of communication, management, education and training, role, and outcomes. Effective education, training, and integration required communication of role to address concerns regarding salary differentials, supportive management structure, and multi-professional learning. ACPs reported that the model of workplace training, experiential learning, and university-based education was appropriate. Training was better located in the minor injuries and general practitioner areas. Recommended measures of effectiveness included patient satisfaction and workload transfer. Conclusion: The education and training model was appropriate. Communication and management require careful consideration to ensure effective integration and role development. Pharmacists were better located initially in the minor illness rather than major trauma areas. Quality of patient experience resulting from the new role was important in addition to reassurance that the role represented a positive contribution to workload

Reducing health inequalities through general practice: protocol for a realist review (EQUALISE).

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare organisations recognise the moral imperative to address inequalities in health outcomes but often lack an understanding of which types of interventions are likely to reduce them. This realist review will examine the existing evidence on the types of interventions or aspects of routine care in general practice that are likely to decrease or increase health inequalities (ie, inequality-generating interventions) across cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Our realist review will follow Pawson's five iterative stages. We will start by developing an initial programme theory based on existing theories and discussions with stakeholders. To navigate the large volume of literature, we will access the primary studies through the identification of published systematic reviews of interventions delivered in general practice across the four key conditions. We will examine the primary studies included within each systematic review to identify those reporting on inequalities across PROGRESS-Plus categories. We will collect data on a range of clinical outcomes including prevention, diagnosis, follow-up and treatment. The data will be synthesised using a realist logic of analysis. The findings will be a description and explanation of the general practice interventions which are likely to increase or decrease inequalities across the major conditions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required because this study does not include any primary research. The findings will be integrated into a series of guiding principles and a toolkit for healthcare organisations to reduce health inequalities. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and user-friendly summaries. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020217871

A public panel reviews applications and questions applicants: Team member and public contributor discuss a transparent and inclusive approach to data access reviews

Objectives We created a panel with members of the public and longitudinal study participants who review our data access requests. This panel forms an integral part of our data access application process, giving the public a say who can access the data for research. Methods We advertised our lay member vacancies using social media, newsletters, word of mouth and the internet. We appointed six people to the public panel. Our panel includes study participants, NHS service users, parents, carers, and people with experience of disability, neurodiversity, and long-term health conditions. The Panel Terms of Reference were created with help from stakeholders and study teams involved in longitudinal studies that involve the public in data access applications. This ensured that the purpose of the panel was clear. The panel reviews lay summaries and makes sure that researchers have adequate public involvement in their project. Results Panel members have reviewed 28 applications. Researchers present their research at an online meeting with the panel then answer questions from the panel members. We publish meeting minutes on our website for transparency. A 6-month review was overwhelmingly positive - all panel members indicated they felt valued. They felt able to challenge and question researchers as part of the data access application process. This provides a level of public scrutiny to our work. “I feel there’s a real value in the panel. You get a real sense that this has got such potential to make a contribution.” (panel member) We are further developing the Panel Terms of Reference with panel members. We will consider additional areas of responsibility, for example, public benefit review. Conclusion We regularly review how to improve public involvement in our work. The panel has proven its value during our application process. Therefore we are exploring with the panel a new approach to assess the public benefit of applications and what is meant by ‘public benefit research’

Abstracts from the NIHR INVOLVE Conference 2017

n/

Impact of opioid-free analgesia on pain severity and patient satisfaction after discharge from surgery: multispecialty, prospective cohort study in 25 countries

Background: Balancing opioid stewardship and the need for adequate analgesia following discharge after surgery is challenging. This study aimed to compare the outcomes for patients discharged with opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after common surgical procedures.Methods: This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study collected data from patients undergoing common acute and elective general surgical, urological, gynaecological, and orthopaedic procedures. The primary outcomes were patient-reported time in severe pain measured on a numerical analogue scale from 0 to 100% and patient-reported satisfaction with pain relief during the first week following discharge. Data were collected by in-hospital chart review and patient telephone interview 1 week after discharge.Results: The study recruited 4273 patients from 144 centres in 25 countries; 1311 patients (30.7%) were prescribed opioid analgesia at discharge. Patients reported being in severe pain for 10 (i.q.r. 1-30)% of the first week after discharge and rated satisfaction with analgesia as 90 (i.q.r. 80-100) of 100. After adjustment for confounders, opioid analgesia on discharge was independently associated with increased pain severity (risk ratio 1.52, 95% c.i. 1.31 to 1.76; P < 0.001) and re-presentation to healthcare providers owing to side-effects of medication (OR 2.38, 95% c.i. 1.36 to 4.17; P = 0.004), but not with satisfaction with analgesia (beta coefficient 0.92, 95% c.i. -1.52 to 3.36; P = 0.468) compared with opioid-free analgesia. Although opioid prescribing varied greatly between high-income and low- and middle-income countries, patient-reported outcomes did not.Conclusion: Opioid analgesia prescription on surgical discharge is associated with a higher risk of re-presentation owing to side-effects of medication and increased patient-reported pain, but not with changes in patient-reported satisfaction. Opioid-free discharge analgesia should be adopted routinely

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Reducing health inequalities through general practice.

Although general practice can contribute to reducing health inequalities, existing evidence provides little guidance on how this reduction can be achieved. We reviewed interventions influencing health and care inequalities in general practice and developed an action framework for health professionals and decision makers. We conducted a realist review by searching MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for systematic reviews of interventions into health inequality in general practice. We then screened the studies in the included systematic reviews for those that reported their outcomes by socioeconomic status or other PROGRESS-Plus (Cochrane Equity Methods Group) categories. 159 studies were included in the evidence synthesis. Robust evidence on the effect of general practice on health inequalities is scarce. Focusing on common qualities of interventions, we found that to reduce health inequalities, general practice needs to be informed by five key principles: involving coordinated services across the system (ie, connected), accounting for differences within patient groups (ie, intersectional), making allowances for different patient needs and preferences (ie, flexible), integrating patient worldviews and cultural references (ie, inclusive), and engaging communities with service design and delivery (ie, community-centred). Future work should explore how these principles can inform the organisational development of general practice

Reducing health inequalities through general practice : a realist review and action framework

Background Socio-economic inequalities in health have been in the public agenda for decades. General practice has an influential role to play in mitigating the impact of inequalities especially regarding chronic conditions. At the moment, general practice is dealing with serious challenges in relation to workforce shortages, increasing workload and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is important to identify effective ways so that general practice can play its role in reducing health inequalities. Objectives We explored what types of interventions and aspects of routine care in general practice decrease or increase inequalities in health and care-related outcomes. We focused on cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. We explored for whom these interventions and aspects of care work best, why, and in what circumstances. Our main objective was to synthesise this evidence into specific guidance for healthcare professionals and decision-makers about how best to achieve equitable general practice. Design Realist review. Main outcome measures Clinical or care-related outcomes by socio-economic group, or other PROGRESS-Plus criteria. Review methods Realist review based on Pawson’s five steps: (1) locating existing theories, (2) searching for evidence, (3) selecting articles, (4) extracting and organising data and (5) synthesising the evidence. Results Three hundred and twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria and 159 of them were selected for the evidence synthesis. Evidence about the impact of general practice interventions on health inequalities is limited. To reduce health inequalities, general practice needs to be: connected so that interventions are linked and coordinated across the sector; intersectional to account for the fact that people’s experience is affected by many of their characteristics; flexible to meet patients’ different needs and preferences; inclusive so that it does not exclude people because of who they are; community-centred so that people who receive care engage with its design and delivery. These qualities should inform action across four domains: structures like funding and workforce distribution, organisational culture, everyday regulated procedures involved in care delivery, interpersonal and community relationships. Limitations The reviewed evidence offers limited detail about the ways and the extent to which specific interventions increase or decrease inequalities in general practice. Therefore, we focused on the underpinning principles that were common across interventions to produce higher-level, transferrable conclusions about ways to achieve equitable care. Conclusions Inequalities in general practice result from complex processes across four different domains that include structures, ideas, regulated everyday procedures, and relationships among individuals and communities. To achieve equity, general practice needs to be connected, intersectional, flexible, inclusive and community-centred. Future work Future work should focus on how these five essential qualities can be better used to shape the organisational development of future general practice. Study registration This trial is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020217871. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR130694) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 7. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information