118 research outputs found

    Developing Effective and Efficient care pathways in chronic Pain: DEEP study protocol

    Get PDF
    Background Pain affecting the face or mouth and lasting longer than three months (“chronic orofacial pain”, COFP) is relatively common in the UK. This study aims to describe and model current care pathways for COFP patients, identify areas where current pathways could be modified, and model whether these changes would improve outcomes for patients and use resources more efficiently. Methods/Design The study takes a prospective operations research approach. A cohort of primary and secondary care COFP patients (n = 240) will be recruited at differing stages of their care in order to follow and analyse their journey through care. The cohort will be followed for two years with data collected at baseline 6, 12, 18, and 24 months on: 1) experiences of the care pathway and its impacts; 2) quality of life; 3) pain; 4) use of health services and costs incurred; 5) illness perceptions. Qualitative in-depth interviews will be used to collect data on patient experiences from a purposive sub-sample of the total cohort (n = 30) at baseline, 12 and 24 months. Four separate appraisal groups (public, patient, clincian, service manager/commissioning) will then be given data from the pathway analysis and asked to determine their priority areas for change. The proposals from appraisal groups will inform an economic modelling exercise. Findings from the economic modelling will be presented as incremental costs, Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs), and the incremental cost per QALY gained. At the end of the modelling a series of recommendations for service change will be available for implementation or further trial if necessary. Discussion The recent white paper on health and the report from the NHS Forum identified chronic conditions as priority areas and whilst technology can improve outcomes, so can simple, appropriate and well-defined clinical care pathways. Understanding the opportunity cost related to care pathways benefits the wider NHS. This research develops a method to help design efficient systems built around one condition (COFP), but the principles should be applicable to a wide range of other chronic and long-term conditions

    The volume-mortality relation for radical cystectomy in England: retrospective analysis of hospital episode statistics

    Get PDF
    Objectives To investigate the relation between volume and mortality after adjustment for case mix for radical cystectomy in the English healthcare setting using improved statistical methodology, taking into account the institutional and surgeon volume effects and institutional structural and process of care factors

    Interventions to increase attendance for diabetic retinopathy screening

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Despite evidence supporting the effectiveness of diabetic retinopathy screening (DRS) in reducing the risk of sight loss, attendance for screening is consistently below recommended levels.OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of the review was to assess the effectiveness of quality improvement (QI) interventions that seek to increase attendance for DRS in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.Secondary objectives were:To use validated taxonomies of QI intervention strategies and behaviour change techniques (BCTs) to code the description of interventions in the included studies and determine whether interventions that include particular QI strategies or component BCTs are more effective in increasing screening attendance;To explore heterogeneity in effect size within and between studies to identify potential explanatory factors for variability in effect size;To explore differential effects in subgroups to provide information on how equity of screening attendance could be improved;To critically appraise and summarise current evidence on the resource use, costs and cost effectiveness.SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, ProQuest Family Health, OpenGrey, the ISRCTN, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that were designed to improve attendance for DRS or were evaluating general quality improvement (QI) strategies for diabetes care and reported the effect of the intervention on DRS attendance. We searched the resources on 13 February 2017. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the searches.SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs that compared any QI intervention to usual care or a more intensive (stepped) intervention versus a less intensive intervention.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We coded the QI strategy using a modification of the taxonomy developed by Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) and BCTs using the BCT Taxonomy version 1 (BCTTv1). We used Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender/sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, and Social capital (PROGRESS) elements to describe the characteristics of participants in the included studies that could have an impact on equity of access to health services.Two review authors independently extracted data. One review author entered the data into Review Manager 5 and a second review author checked them. Two review authors independently assessed risks of bias in the included studies and extracted data. We rated certainty of evidence using GRADE.MAIN RESULTS: We included 66 RCTs conducted predominantly (62%) in the USA. Overall we judged the trials to be at low or unclear risk of bias. QI strategies were multifaceted and targeted patients, healthcare professionals or healthcare systems. Fifty-six studies (329,164 participants) compared intervention versus usual care (median duration of follow-up 12 months). Overall, DRS attendance increased by 12% (risk difference (RD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 0.14; low-certainty evidence) compared with usual care, with substantial heterogeneity in effect size. Both DRS-targeted (RD 0.17, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.22) and general QI interventions (RD 0.12, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.15) were effective, particularly where baseline DRS attendance was low. All BCT combinations were associated with significant improvements, particularly in those with poor attendance. We found higher effect estimates in subgroup analyses for the BCTs 'goal setting (outcome)' (RD 0.26, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.36) and 'feedback on outcomes of behaviour' (RD 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.29) in interventions targeting patients, and 'restructuring the social environment' (RD 0.19, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.26) and 'credible source' (RD 0.16, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.24) in interventions targeting healthcare professionals.Ten studies (23,715 participants) compared a more intensive (stepped) intervention versus a less intensive intervention. In these studies DRS attendance increased by 5% (RD 0.05, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.09; moderate-certainty evidence).Fourteen studies reporting any QI intervention compared to usual care included economic outcomes. However, only five of these were full economic evaluations. Overall, we found that there is insufficient evidence to draw robust conclusions about the relative cost effectiveness of the interventions compared to each other or against usual care.With the exception of gender and ethnicity, the characteristics of participants were poorly described in terms of PROGRESS elements. Seventeen studies (25.8%) were conducted in disadvantaged populations. No studies were carried out in low- or middle-income countries.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review provide evidence that QI interventions targeting patients, healthcare professionals or the healthcare system are associated with meaningful improvements in DRS attendance compared to usual care. There was no statistically significant difference between interventions specifically aimed at DRS and those which were part of a general QI strategy for improving diabetes care. This is a significant finding, due to the additional benefits of general QI interventions in terms of improving glycaemic control, vascular risk management and screening for other microvascular complications. It is likely that further (but smaller) improvements in DRS attendance can also be achieved by increasing the intensity of a particular QI component or adding further components.</p

    Healthcare Cost and Impact of Persistent Orofacial Pain

    Get PDF
    Few data are available on the healthcare costs of those suffering from persistent orofacial pain (POFP). This cohort and cost analysis study examined the direct costs of POFP from the perspective of the healthcare provider (specifically, the UK National Health Service) in 2012 pounds sterling and sought to identify whether dichotomized (high, IIb to IV; low, 0 to IIa) graded chronic pain scale (GCPS) status is predictive of the total cost of healthcare over the last 6 mo. The healthcare utilization data of 198 patients with POFP were collected using a structured interview and a validated “use of services and productivity” questionnaire. Unit costs were used with these utilization data to calculate direct healthcare costs in 3 categories: consultation, medication, and appliances and interventions. Consultation costs were a significant proportion of cumulative healthcare cost (P < 0.001). Dichotomized GCPS status was predictive of increased healthcare cost over the last 6 mo, accounting for an average increase of £366 (95% confidence interval, 135 to 598; P < 0.01) when moving from a low GCPS status to a high GCPS status. Given the predictive capability of dichotomized GCPS status and the success of stratified models of care for other persistent pain conditions, dichotomized GCPS status may offer an opportunity to help determine stratification of care for patients with POFP

    "PROUD to have been involved": an evaluation of participant and community involvement in the PROUD HIV prevention trial.

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: The PROUD trial, a HIV prevention trial in men who have sex with men and trans women, set out to involve community representatives and trial participants in several ways. PROUD also aimed to evaluate participant involvement, to learn lessons and make recommendations for future clinical trials. METHODS: Two structured surveys, one of participant and community representatives involved in the PROUD study, and the other of researchers from the PROUD team, were carried out in 2017. The results from the surveys were reviewed quantitatively and qualitatively, and themes emerging from the data identified and synthesised. RESULTS: Survey invitations were sent to 88 involved participants, 11 community representatives and 10 researchers. The overall response rate was 55% (60/109). Overall, participants were younger than community representatives, and the majority were from Greater London. As expected, participants were predominantly involved in participant involvement meetings and community representatives in management committees.Participants and community representatives cited different motivations for getting involved in PROUD. Overall, participants were positive about their involvement; only two participants rated their experience unfavourably. Community representatives were also broadly positive. Most participants and all community representatives felt their involvement made a difference to the trial, themselves and / or the organisations they represented. However, some participant answers reflected the impact of participation in the trial rather than involvement in PPI activities.Researchers felt that PPI had positive impact across the entire trial cycle. Half felt they would have liked there to have been more PPI activity in PROUD. Researchers noted some challenges and recommendations for the future, including need for adequate funding, more engagement in PPI by all researchers, the need for PPI expertise to facilitate involvement activities and training and mentoring in PPI. CONCLUSIONS: Involving clinical trial participants and wider community representatives as active partners in PPI is feasible and valuable in trials. Researchers are encouraged to consider and appropriately resource participant involvement and prospectively evaluate all PPI within their trials

    Changing healthcare professionals' non-reflective processes to improve the quality of care

    Get PDF
    Rationale. Translating research evidence into clinical practice to improve care involves healthcare professionals adopting new behaviours and changing or stopping their existing behaviours. However, changing healthcare professional behaviour can be difficult, particularly when it involves changing repetitive, ingrained ways of providing care. There is an increasing focus on understanding healthcare professional behaviour in terms of non-reflective processes, such as habits and routines, in addition to the more often studied deliberative processes. Theories of habit and routine provide two complementary lenses for understanding healthcare professional behaviour, although to date, each perspective has only been applied in isolation. Objectives To combine theories of habit and routine to generate a broader understanding of healthcare professional behaviour and how it might be changed. Methods Sixteen experts met for a two-day multidisciplinary workshop on how to advance implementation science by developing greater understanding of non-reflective processes. Results From a psychological perspective ‘habit’ is understood as a process that maintains ingrained behaviour through a learned link between contextual cues and behaviours that have become associated with those cues. Theories of habit are useful for understanding the individual's role in developing and maintaining specific ways of working. Theories of routine add to this perspective by describing how clinical practices are formed, adapted, reinforced and discontinued in and through interactions with colleagues, systems and organisational procedures. We suggest a selection of theory-based strategies to advance understanding of healthcare professionals' habits and routines and how to change them. Conclusion Combining theories of habit and routines has the potential to advance implementation science by providing a fuller understanding of the range of factors, operating at multiple levels of analysis, which can impact on the behaviours of healthcare professionals, and so quality of care provision.Peer reviewe
    corecore