Using a theoretically informed process evaluation alongside a trial to improve oral health for care home residents

BACKGROUND: Poor oral health is common among older adults residing in care homes impacting their diet, quality of life, self-esteem, general health and well-being. The care home setting is complex and many factors may affect the successful implementation of oral care interventions. Exploring these factors and their embedded context is key to understanding how and why interventions may or may not be successfully implemented within their intended setting. OBJECTIVES: This methodology paper describes the approach to a theoretically informed process evaluation alongside a pragmatic randomised controlled trial, so as to understand contextual factors, how the intervention was implemented and important elements that may influence the pathways to impact. MATERIALS AND METHODS: SENIOR is a pragmatic randomised controlled trial designed to improve the oral health of care home residents in the United Kingdom. The trial uses a complex intervention to promote and provide oral care for residents, including education and training for staff. RESULTS: An embedded, theoretically informed process evaluation, drawing on the PAHRIS framework and utilising a qualitative approach, will help to understand the important contextual factors within the care home that influence both the trial processes and the implementation of the intervention. CONCLUSION: Utilising an implementation framework as the basis for a theoretically informed process evaluation provides an approach that specifically focuses on the contextual factors that may influence and shape the pathways to impact a given complex intervention a priori, while also providing an understanding of how and why an intervention may be effective. This contrasts with the more common post hoc approach that only focuses on implementation after the empirical results have emerged

Earlier cancer diagnosis in primary care: a feasibility economic analysis of ThinkCancer!

BackgroundUK cancer survival rates are much lower compared with other high-income countries. In primary care, there are opportunities for GPs and other healthcare professionals to act more quickly in response to presented symptoms that might represent cancer. ThinkCancer! is a complex behaviour change intervention aimed at primary care practice teams to improve the timely diagnosis of cancer.AimTo explore the costs of delivering the ThinkCancer! intervention to expedite cancer diagnosis in primary care.Design & settingFeasibility economic analysis using a micro-costing approach, which was undertaken in 19 general practices in Wales, UK.MethodFrom an NHS perspective, micro-costing methodology was used to determine whether it was feasible to gather sufficient economic data to cost the ThinkCancer!InterventionOwing to the COVID-19 pandemic, ThinkCancer! was mainly delivered remotely online in a digital format. Budget impact analysis (BIA) and sensitivity analysis were conducted to explore the costs of face-to-face delivery of the ThinkCancer! intervention as intended pre-COVID-19.ResultsThe total costs of delivering the ThinkCancer! intervention across 19 general practices in Wales was £25 030, with an average cost per practice of £1317 (standard deviation [SD]: 578.2). Findings from the BIA indicated a total cost of £34 630 for face-to-face delivery.ConclusionData collection methods were successful in gathering sufficient health economics data to cost the ThinkCancer!InterventionResults of this feasibility study will be used to inform a future definitive economic evaluation alongside a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT)

Protocol for a feasibility study incorporating a randomised pilot trial with an embedded process evaluation and feasibility economic analysis of ThinkCancer!: a primary care intervention to expedite cancer diagnosis in Wales

Abstract Background Compared to the rest of Europe, the UK has relatively poor cancer outcomes, with late diagnosis and a slow referral process being major contributors. General practitioners (GPs) are often faced with patients presenting with a multitude of non-specific symptoms that could be cancer. Safety netting can be used to manage diagnostic uncertainty by ensuring patients with vague symptoms are appropriately monitored, which is now even more crucial due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and its major impact on cancer referrals. The ThinkCancer! workshop is an educational behaviour change intervention aimed at the whole general practice team, designed to improve primary care approaches to ensure timely diagnosis of cancer. The workshop will consist of teaching and awareness sessions, the appointment of a Safety Netting Champion and the development of a bespoke Safety Netting Plan and has been adapted so it can be delivered remotely. This study aims to assess the feasibility of the ThinkCancer! intervention for a future definitive randomised controlled trial. Methods The ThinkCancer! study is a randomised, multisite feasibility trial, with an embedded process evaluation and feasibility economic analysis. Twenty-three to 30 general practices will be recruited across Wales, randomised in a ratio of 2:1 of intervention versus control who will follow usual care. The workshop will be delivered by a GP educator and will be adapted iteratively throughout the trial period. Baseline practice characteristics will be collected via questionnaire. We will also collect primary care intervals (PCI), 2-week wait (2WW) referral rates, conversion rates and detection rates at baseline and 6 months post-randomisation. Participant feedback, researcher reflections and economic costings will be collected following each workshop. A process evaluation will assess implementation using an adapted Normalisation Measure Development (NoMAD) questionnaire and qualitative interviews. An economic feasibility analysis will inform a future economic evaluation. Discussion This study will allow us to test and further develop a novel evidenced-based complex intervention aimed at general practice teams to expedite the diagnosis of cancer in primary care. The results from this study will inform the future design of a full-scale definitive phase III trial. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04823559. </jats:sec

Setting the context for a complex dental intervention of role substitution in care homes: initial process evaluation findings

Background The oral health and quality-of-life of older adults residing in care homes is poorer than those in the community. Oral health care provision is often unavailable and a concern and challenge for managers. The use of Dental Therapists and Dental Nurses rather than dentists could potentially meet these needs. ObjectivesSENIOR (uSing rolE-substitutioN In care homes to improve oRal health) is a randomised controlled trial designed to determine whether role substitution could improve oral health for this population. A parallel process evaluation was undertaken to understand context. This paper reports on the first phase of the process evaluation.Materials and MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 key stakeholders who either worked or had experience of dependent care settings. Questions were theoretically informed by the: Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PAHRIS) framework. The focus was on contextual factors that could influence adoption in practice and the pathway-to-impact. Interviews were fully transcribed and analysed thematically.ResultsThree themes (receptive context, culture, and leadership) and 11 codes were generated. Data shows the complexity of the setting and contextual factors that may work as barriers and facilitators to intervention delivery. Managers are aware of the issues regarding oral health and seek to provide best care, but face many challenges including staff turnover, time pressures, competing needs, access to services and financial constraints. Dental professionals recognise the need for improvement and view role substitution as a viable alternative to current practice. ConclusionAlthough role substitution could potentially meet the needs of this population, an in-depth understanding of contextual factors appeared important in understanding intervention delivery and implementation.<br/

CARer-ADministration of as-needed subcutaneous medication for breakthrough symptoms in homebased dying patients (CARiAD):study protocol for a UK-based open randomised pilot trial

Legal framework. (DOCX 23 kb

Carer administration of as-needed sub-cutaneous medication for breakthrough symptoms in people dying at home: the CARiAD feasibility RCT

Background Most people who are dying want to be cared for at home, but only half of them achieve this. The likelihood of a home death often depends on the availability of able and willing lay carers. When people who are dying are unable to take oral medication, injectable medication is used. When top-up medication is required, a health-care professional travels to the dying person’s home, which may delay symptom relief. The administration of subcutaneous medication by lay carers, although not widespread UK practice, has proven to be key in achieving better symptom control for those dying at home in other countries. Objectives To determine if carer administration of as-needed subcutaneous medication for common breakthrough symptoms in people dying at home is feasible and acceptable in the UK, and if it would be feasible to test this intervention in a future definitive randomised controlled trial. Design We conducted a two-arm, parallel-group, individually randomised, open pilot trial of the intervention versus usual care, with a 1 : 1 allocation ratio, using convergent mixed methods. Setting Home-based care without 24/7 paid care provision, in three UK sites. Participants Participants were dyads of adult patients and carers: patients in the last weeks of their life who wished to die at home and lay carers who were willing to be trained to give subcutaneous medication. Strict risk assessment criteria needed to be met before approach, including known history of substance abuse or carer ability to be trained to competency. Intervention Intervention-group carers received training by local nurses using a manualised training package. Main outcome measures Quantitative data were collected at baseline and 6–8 weeks post bereavement and via carer diaries. Interviews with carers and health-care professionals explored attitudes to, experiences of and preferences for giving subcutaneous medication and experience of trial processes. The main outcomes of interest were feasibility, acceptability, recruitment rates, attrition and selection of the most appropriate outcome measures. Results In total, 40 out of 101 eligible dyads were recruited (39.6%), which met the feasibility criterion of recruiting > 30% of eligible dyads. The expected recruitment target (≈50 dyads) was not reached, as fewer than expected participants were identified. Although the overall retention rate was 55% (22/40), this was substantially unbalanced [30% (6/20) usual care and 80% (16/20) intervention]. The feasibility criterion of > 40% retention was, therefore, considered not met. A total of 12 carers (intervention, n = 10; usual care, n = 2) and 20 health-care professionals were interviewed. The intervention was considered acceptable, feasible and safe in the small study population. The context of the feasibility study was not ideal, as district nurses were seriously overstretched and unfamiliar with research methods. A disparity in readiness to consider the intervention was demonstrated between carers and health-care professionals. Findings showed that there were methodological and ethics issues pertaining to researching last days of life care. Conclusion The success of a future definitive trial is uncertain because of equivocal results in the progression criteria, particularly poor recruitment overall and a low retention rate in the usual-care group. Future work regarding the intervention should include understanding the context of UK areas where this has been adopted, ascertaining wider public views and exploring health-care professional views on burden and risk in the NHS context. There should be consideration of the need for national policy and of the most appropriate quantitative outcome measures to use. This will help to ascertain if there are unanswered questions to be studied in a trial. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11211024. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 25. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Bringing Out the Dead: Curriculum History as Memory

n/