A study of general practitioners' perspectives on electronic medical records systems in NHS Scotland

<b>Background</b> Primary care doctors in NHSScotland have been using electronic medical records within their practices routinely for many years. The Scottish Health Executive eHealth strategy (2008-2011) has recently brought radical changes to the primary care computing landscape in Scotland: an information system (GPASS) which was provided free-of-charge by NHSScotland to a majority of GP practices has now been replaced by systems provided by two approved commercial providers. The transition to new electronic medical records had to be completed nationally across all health-boards by March 2012. <p></p><b> Methods</b> We carried out 25 in-depth semi-structured interviews with primary care doctors to elucidate GPs' perspectives on their practice information systems and collect more general information on management processes in the patient surgical pathway in NHSScotland. We undertook a thematic analysis of interviewees' responses, using Normalisation Process Theory as the underpinning conceptual framework. <p></p> <b>Results</b> The majority of GPs' interviewed considered that electronic medical records are an integral and essential element of their work during the consultation, playing a key role in facilitating integrated and continuity of care for patients and making clinical information more accessible. However, GPs expressed a number of reservations about various system functionalities - for example: in relation to usability, system navigation and information visualisation. <b>Conclusion </b>Our study highlights that while electronic information systems are perceived as having important benefits, there remains substantial scope to improve GPs' interaction and overall satisfaction with these systems. Iterative user-centred improvements combined with additional training in the use of technology would promote an increased understanding, familiarity and command of the range of functionalities of electronic medical records among primary care doctors

“Should I stay or should I go now?” : A qualitative study of why UK doctors retire

Funding information Our thanks go to the University of Aberdeen Development Trust and the British Medical Association (Scotland) for funding this work. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Our thanks to all those doctors who participated in the study. Our thanks also to the BMA (Scotland) for distributing the invitation to take part in the study to their members. No patients or any members of the public were involved in this study.Peer reviewedPostprintPostprin

An observational study of Donor Ex Vivo Lung Perfusion in UK lung transplantation: DEVELOP-UK

Background: Many patients awaiting lung transplantation die before a donor organ becomes available. Ex vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) allows initially unusable donor lungs to be assessed and reconditioned for clinical use. Objective: The objective of the Donor Ex Vivo Lung Perfusion in UK lung transplantation study was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of EVLP in increasing UK lung transplant activity. Design: A multicentre, unblinded, non-randomised, non-inferiority observational study to compare transplant outcomes between EVLP-assessed and standard donor lungs. Setting: Multicentre study involving all five UK officially designated NHS adult lung transplant centres. Participants: Patients aged ≥ 18 years with advanced lung disease accepted onto the lung transplant waiting list. Intervention: The study intervention was EVLP assessment of donor lungs before determining suitability for transplantation. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was survival during the first 12 months following lung transplantation. Secondary outcome measures were patient-centred outcomes that are influenced by the effectiveness of lung transplantation and that contribute to the health-care costs. Results: Lungs from 53 donors unsuitable for standard transplant were assessed with EVLP, of which 18 (34%) were subsequently transplanted. A total of 184 participants received standard donor lungs. Owing to the early closure of the study, a non-inferiority analysis was not conducted. The Kaplan–Meier estimate of survival at 12 months was 0.67 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.83] for the EVLP arm and 0.80 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.85) for the standard arm. The hazard ratio for overall 12-month survival in the EVLP arm relative to the standard arm was 1.96 (95% CI 0.83 to 4.67). Patients in the EVLP arm required ventilation for a longer period and stayed longer in an intensive therapy unit (ITU) than patients in the standard arm, but duration of overall hospital stay was similar in both groups. There was a higher rate of very early grade 3 primary graft dysfunction (PGD) in the EVLP arm, but rates of PGD did not differ between groups after 72 hours. The requirement for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support was higher in the EVLP arm (7/18, 38.8%) than in the standard arm (6/184, 3.2%). There were no major differences in rates of chest radiograph abnormalities, infection, lung function or rejection by 12 months. The cost of EVLP transplants is approximately £35,000 higher than the cost of standard transplants, as a result of the cost of the EVLP procedure, and the increased ECMO use and ITU stay. Predictors of cost were quality of life on joining the waiting list, type of transplant and number of lungs transplanted. An exploratory model comparing a NHS lung transplant service that includes EVLP and standard lung transplants with one including only standard lung transplants resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £73,000. Interviews showed that patients had a good understanding of the need for, and the processes of, EVLP. If EVLP can increase the number of usable donor lungs and reduce waiting, it is likely to be acceptable to those waiting for lung transplantation. Study limitations include small numbers in the EVLP arm, limiting analysis to descriptive statistics and the EVLP protocol change during the study. Conclusions: Overall, one-third of donor lungs subjected to EVLP were deemed suitable for transplant. Estimated survival over 12 months was lower than in the standard group, but the data were also consistent with no difference in survival between groups. Patients receiving these additional transplants experience a higher rate of early graft injury and need for unplanned ECMO support, at increased cost. The small number of participants in the EVLP arm because of early study termination limits the robustness of these conclusions. The reason for the increased PGD rates, high ECMO requirement and possible differences in lung injury between EVLP protocols needs evaluation

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgical options for the management of anterior and/or posterior vaginal wall prolapse: two randomised controlled trials within a comprehensive cohort study results from the PROSPECT Study

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Occupational advice for Patients undergoing Arthroplasty of the Lower limb: An intervention development and feasibility study (The OPAL Study)

Background Hip and knee replacements are regularly performed for patients who work. There is little evidence about these patients’ needs and the factors influencing their return to work. There is a paucity of guidance to help patients return to work after surgery and a need for structured occupational advice to enable them to return to work safely and effectively. Objective(s) To develop an occupational advice intervention to support early recovery to usual activities including work which is tailored to the requirements of patients undergoing hip and knee replacements. To test the acceptability, practicality and feasibility of this intervention within current care frameworks Design An intervention mapping (IM) approach was used to develop the intervention. The research methods employed were: rapid evidence synthesis; qualitative interviews with patients and stakeholders; prospective cohort study; survey of clinical practice; modified Delphi consensus process. The developed intervention was implemented and assessed during the final feasibility stage of the IM process. Setting Orthopaedic departments within NHS secondary care. Participants Patients in work, and intending to return to work following primary elective hip and knee replacement surgery; healthcare professionals and employers. Interventions Occupational advice intervention. Main outcome measures Development of an occupational advice intervention. Fidelity of the developed intervention when delivered in a clinical setting. Patient and clinician perspectives of the intervention. Preliminary assessments of intervention effectiveness and cost. Results A cohort study (154 patients), 110 stakeholder interviews, survey of practice (152 respondents) and evidence synthesis provided the necessary information to develop the intervention. The intervention included information resources, personalized return to work plan and co-ordination from the healthcare team to support the delivery of 13 patient and 20 staff performance objectives (POs). To support delivery, a range of tools (e.g. occupational checklists, patient workbooks, employer information), roles (e.g. return-to-work coordinator) and training resources were created. Feasibility was assessed in 21 of the 26 patients recruited from 3 NHS trusts. Adherence with the defined performance objectives was 75% for patient POs and 74% for staff POs. The intervention was generally well received although the short timeframe available for implementation and concurrent research evaluation led to some confusion amongst patients and those delivering the intervention regarding its purpose and the roles and responsibilities of key staff. Limitations Implementation and uptake of the intervention was not standardized and was limited by the study timeframe. Evaluation of the intervention involved a small number of patients which limited the ability to assess it. Conclusions The developed occupational advice intervention supports best practice. Evaluation demonstrated good rates of adherence against defined performance objectives. However, a number of operational and implementation issues require further attention Future work The intervention warrants a randomised controlled trial to assess its clinical and cost effectiveness to improve rates and timing of sustained return to work after surgery. This research should include the development of a robust implementation strategy to ensure adoption is sustained. Funding This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme (project number 15/28/02) Trial Registrations International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number Trial ID: ISRCTN27426982 International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) Registration: CRD4201604523