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an information system (GPASS) which was provided free-of-charge by NHSScotland to a majority of GP practices has now been replaced by systems provided by two approved commercial providers.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

Anticipated regret to increase uptake of colorectal cancer screening (ARTICS):a randomised controlled trial

Objective. Screening is key to early detection of colorectal cancer. Our aim was to determine whether a simple anticipated regret (AR) intervention could increase colorectal cancer screening uptake. Methods. We conducted a randomised controlled trial of a simple, questionnaire-based AR intervention, delivered alongside existing pre-notification letters. 60,000 adults aged 50-74 from the Scottish National Screening programme were randomised to: 1) no questionnaire (control), 2) Health Locus of Control questionnaire (HLOC) or 3) HLOC plus anticipated regret questionnaire (AR). Primary outcome was guaiac Faecal Occult Blood Test (FOBT) return. Secondary outcomes included intention to return test kit and perceived disgust (ICK). Results. 59,366 people were analysed as allocated (Intentionto- treat (ITT)); there were no overall differences between treatment groups on FOBT uptake (control: 57.3%, HLOC: 56.9%, AR: 57.4%). 13,645 (34.2%) people returned questionnaires. Analysis of the secondary questionnaire measures showed that AR had an indirect effect on FOBT uptake via intention, whilst ICK had a direct effect on FOBT uptake over and above intention. The effect of AR on FOBT uptake was also moderated by intention strength: for less than strong intenders only, uptake was 4.2% higher in the AR (84.6%) versus the HLOC group (80.4%) (95% CI for difference (2.0, 6.5)). Conclusion. The findings show that psychological concepts including anticipated regret and perceived disgust (ICK) are important factors in determining FOBT uptake. However, there was no simple effect of the AR intervention in the ITT. We conclude that exposure to AR in those with low intentions may be required to increase FOBT uptake. Current controlled trials: www.controlledtrials. com number: ISRCTN74986452

“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