GPs’ involvement to improve care quality in care homes in the UK: a realist review

BackgroundOrganising health-care services for residents living in care homes is an important area of development in the UK and elsewhere. Medical care is provided by general practitioners in the UK, and the unique arrangement of the NHS means that general practitioners are also gatekeepers to other health services. Despite recent focus on improving health care for residents, there is a lack of knowledge about the role of general practitioners.ObjectivesFirst, to review reports of research and quality improvement (or similar change management) in care homes to explore how general practitioners have been involved. Second, to develop programme theories explaining the role of general practitioners in improvement initiatives and outcomes.DesignA realist review was selected to address the complexity of integration of general practice and care homes.SettingCare homes for older people in the UK, including residential and nursing homes.ParticipantsThe focus of the literature review was the general practitioner, along with care home staff and other members of multidisciplinary teams. Alongside the literature, we interviewed general practitioners and held consultations with a Context Expert Group, including a care home representative.InterventionsThe primary search did not specify interventions, but captured the range of interventions reported. Secondary searches focused on medication review and end-of-life care because these interventions have described general practitioner involvement.OutcomesWe sought to capture processes or indicators of good-quality care.Data sourcesSources were academic databases [including MEDLINE, EMBASE™ (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycInfo® (American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, USA), Web of Science™ (Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, PA, USA) and Cochrane Collaboration] and grey literature using Google Scholar (Google Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA).MethodsRealist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) guidelines were followed, comprising literature scoping, interviews with general practitioners, iterative searches of academic databases and grey literature, and synthesis and development of overarching programme theories.ResultsScoping indicated the distinctiveness of the health and care system in UK and, because quality improvement is context dependent, we decided to focus on UK studies because of potential problems in synthesising across diverse systems. Searches identified 73 articles, of which 43 were excluded. To summarise analysis, programme theory 1 was ‘negotiated working with general practitioners’ where other members of the multidisciplinary team led initiatives and general practitioners provided support with the parts of improvement where their skills as primary care doctors were specifically required. Negotiation enabled matching of the diverse ways of working of general practitioners with diverse care home organisations. We found evidence that this could result in improvements in prescribing and end-of-life care for residents. Programme theory 2 included national or regional programmes that included clearly specified roles for general practitioners. This provided clarity of expectation, but the role that general practitioners actually played in delivery was not clear.LimitationsOne reviewer screened all search results, but two reviewers conducted selection and data extraction steps.ConclusionsIf local quality improvement initiatives were flexible, then they could be used to negotiate to build a trusting relationship with general practitioners, with evidence from specific examples, and this could improve prescribing and end-of-life care for residents. Larger improvement programmes aimed to define working patterns and build suitable capacity in care homes, but there was little evidence about the extent of local general practitioner involvement.Future workFuture work should describe the specific role, capacity and expertise of general practitioners, as well as the diversity of relationships between general practitioners and care homes.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019137090

A quality improvement collaborative aiming for Proactive HEAlthcare of Older People in Care Homes (PEACH): a realist evaluation protocol

Introduction: This protocol describes a study of a Quality Improvement Collaborative (QIC) to support implementation and delivery of Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) in UK care homes. The QIC will be formed of health and social care professionals working in and with care homes and will be supported by clinical, quality improvement, and research specialists. QIC participants will receive quality improvement training using the Model for Improvement. An appreciative approach to working with care homes will be encouraged through facilitated shared learning events, quality improvement coaching, and assistance with project evaluation. Methods and analysis: The QIC will be delivered across a range of partnering organisations which plan, deliver and evaluate health services for care home residents in 4 local areas of one geographical region. A realist evaluation framework will be used to develop a programme theory informing how QICs are thought to work, for whom, and in what ways when used to implement and deliver CGA in care homes. Data collection will involve participant observations of the QIC over 18 months, and interviews/focus groups with QIC participants to iteratively define, refine, test, or refute the programme theory. Two researchers will analyse field notes, and interview/focus group transcripts, coding data using inductive and deductive analysis. The key findings and linked programme theory will be summarised as context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOs) describing what needs to be in place to use QICs to implement service improvements in care homes. Ethics and dissemination: The study protocol was reviewed by the NHS Health Research Authority (London Bromley research ethics committee reference: 205840) and the University of Nottingham ethics committee (reference: LT07092016). Both determined that the PEACH study was as a service and quality improvement initiative. Findings will be shared nationally and internationally through conference presentations, publication in peer-reviewed journals, a graphic illustration, and a dissemination video

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

SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 Delta variant replication and immune evasion

Abstract: The B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was first identified in the state of Maharashtra in late 2020 and spread throughout India, outcompeting pre-existing lineages including B.1.617.1 (Kappa) and B.1.1.7 (Alpha)1. In vitro, B.1.617.2 is sixfold less sensitive to serum neutralizing antibodies from recovered individuals, and eightfold less sensitive to vaccine-elicited antibodies, compared with wild-type Wuhan-1 bearing D614G. Serum neutralizing titres against B.1.617.2 were lower in ChAdOx1 vaccinees than in BNT162b2 vaccinees. B.1.617.2 spike pseudotyped viruses exhibited compromised sensitivity to monoclonal antibodies to the receptor-binding domain and the amino-terminal domain. B.1.617.2 demonstrated higher replication efficiency than B.1.1.7 in both airway organoid and human airway epithelial systems, associated with B.1.617.2 spike being in a predominantly cleaved state compared with B.1.1.7 spike. The B.1.617.2 spike protein was able to mediate highly efficient syncytium formation that was less sensitive to inhibition by neutralizing antibody, compared with that of wild-type spike. We also observed that B.1.617.2 had higher replication and spike-mediated entry than B.1.617.1, potentially explaining the B.1.617.2 dominance. In an analysis of more than 130 SARS-CoV-2-infected health care workers across three centres in India during a period of mixed lineage circulation, we observed reduced ChAdOx1 vaccine effectiveness against B.1.617.2 relative to non-B.1.617.2, with the caveat of possible residual confounding. Compromised vaccine efficacy against the highly fit and immune-evasive B.1.617.2 Delta variant warrants continued infection control measures in the post-vaccination era

Antifungal and phytochemical studies of Eupatorium birmanicum DC.

1868-1872The isolation of coumarin, β-sitosterol and β-sitosterol-D-glucoside from the chloroform extract; and o-coumaric acid, cerebroside 1, ceramide 2, and quercetin-3-o-rutinoside 3 from the methanol extract of the leaves of Eupatorium birmanicum DC. along with the antifungal study of the chloroform and methanol extracts from the plant are reported. The structures of the isolated compounds are characterized by different spectroscopic methods

A cost-effective liquid phase exfoliation process for large 2D-MoS2 nanosheets and its application in FET

2D-TMDC materials are supposed to be suitable materials for the electronic industry requirements due to tunable bandgap. 2D-MoS2 has an advantage over the graphene as it has direct bandgap and high on/off ratio. In this work, 2D-MoS2 nanostructures have been synthesized using a simple and cost-effective liquid phase exfoliation (LPE) method in the organic solvent without any additives. The synthesized MoS2 has up to 4-layer thick nanosheets structure which is confirm by the FESEM and Raman studies. From the UV-Visible absorption spectroscopy, the bandgap of the material is found to be 1.79 eV. This synthesized material is used as the channel material in the field effect transistor. The field effect transistor (FET) device have been fabricated in the top-gate configuration. It has been found that the current on/off ratio is of the order of 10(4

General Practitioners’ Role in Improving Health Care in Care Homes: A Realist Review

Background Despite recent focus on improving health care in care homes, it is unclear what role general practitioners (GPs) should play. To provide evidence for future practice we set out to explore how GPs have been involved in such improvements. Methods Realist review incorporated theory-driven literature searches and stakeholder interviews, supplemented by focussed searches on GP-led medication reviews and end-of-life care. Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library were searched. Grey literature was identified through internet searches and professional networks. Studies were included based upon relevance. Data were coded to develop and test contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes for improvements involving GPs. Results Evidence was synthesized from 30 articles. Programme theories described: (i) “negotiated working with GPs,” where other professionals led improvement and GPs provided expertise; and (ii) “GP involvement in national/regional improvement programmes.” The expertise of GPs was vital to many improvement programmes, with their medical expertise or role as coordinators of primary care proving pivotal. GPs had limited training in quality improvement (QI) and care home improvement work had to be negotiated in the context of wider primary care commitments. Conclusions GPs are central to QI in health care in care homes. Their contributions relate to their specialist expertise and recognition as leaders of primary care but are challenged by available time and resources to develop this role

General practitioners' role in improving health care in care homes: a realist review

Background: Despite recent focus on improving health care in care homes, it is unclear what role general practitioners (GPs) should play. To provide evidence for future practice we set out to explore how GPs have been involved in such improvements. Methods: Realist review incorporated theory-driven literature searches and stakeholder interviews, supplemented by focussed searches on GP-led medication reviews and end-of-life care. Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library were searched. Grey literature was identifed through internet searches and professional networks. Studies were included based upon relevance. Data were coded to develop and test contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes for improvements involving GPs.  Results: Evidence was synthesized from 30 articles. Programme theories described: (i) “negotiated working with GPs,” where other professionals led improvement and GPs provided expertise; and (ii) “GP involvement in national/regional improvement programmes.” The expertise of GPs was vital to many improvement programmes, with their medical expertise or role as coordinators of primary care proving pivotal. GPs had limited training in quality improvement (QI) and care home improvement work had to be negotiated in the context of wider primary care commitments. Conclusions: GPs are central to QI in health care in care homes. Their contributions relate to their specialist expertise and recognition as leaders of primary care but are challenged by available time and resources to develop this role.</p