Dissemination and implementation of suicide prevention training in one Scottish region

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>As part of a national co-ordinated and multifaceted response to the excess suicide rate, the <it>Choose Life </it>initiative, the Highland Choose Life Group launched an ambitious programme of training for National Health Service (NHS), Council and voluntary organisation staff. In this study of the dissemination and implementation of STORM (Skills-based Training On Risk Management), we set out to explore not only the outcomes of training, but key factors involved in the processes of diffusion, dissemination and implementation of the educational intervention.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Participants attending STORM training in Highland Region provided by 12 trained facilitators during the period March 2004 to February 2005 were recruited. Quantitative data collection from participants took place at three time points; immediately before training, immediately post-training and six months after training. Semi-structured telephone interviews were carried out with the training facilitators and with a sample of course participants 6 months after they had been trained. We have utilized the conceptual model described by Greenhalgh and colleagues in a Framework analysis of the data, for considering the determinants of diffusion, dissemination and implementation of interventions in health service delivery and organization.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Some 203 individuals completed a series of questionnaire measures immediately pre (time 1) and immediately post (time 2) training and there were significant improvements in attitudes and confidence of participants. Key factors in the diffusion, dissemination and implementation process were the presence of a champion or local opinion leader who supported and directed the intervention, local adaptation of the materials, commissioning of a group of facilitators who were provided with financial and administrative support, dedicated time to provide the training and regular peer-support.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Features that contributed to the success of STORM were <it>related to both the context </it>(the multi-dimensional support provided from the host organisation and the favourable policy environment) <it>and the intervention </it>(openness to local adaptation, clinical relevance and utility), and the dynamic interaction between context and the intervention.</p

Why do General Practitioners Decline Training to Improve Management of Medically Unexplained Symptoms?

BACKGROUND: General practitioners’ (GPs) communication with patients presenting medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) has the potential to somatize patients’ problems and intensify dependence on medical care. Several reports indicate that GPs have negative attitudes about patients with MUS. If these attitudes deter participation in training or other methods to improve communication, practitioners who most need help will not receive it. OBJECTIVE: To identify how GPs’ attitudes to patients with MUS might inhibit their participation with training to improve management. DESIGN: Qualitative study. PARTICIPANTS: GPs (N = 33) who had declined or accepted training in reattribution techniques in the context of a research trial. APPROACH: GPs were interviewed and their accounts analysed qualitatively. RESULTS: Although attitudes that devalued patients with MUS were common in practitioners who had declined training, these coexisted, in the same practitioners, with evidence of intuitive and elaborate psychological work with these patients. However, these practitioners devalued their psychological skills. GPs who had accepted training also described working psychologically with MUS but devalued neither patients with MUS nor their own psychological skills. CONCLUSIONS: GPs’ attitudes that suggested disengagement from patients with MUS belied their pursuit of psychological objectives. We therefore suggest that, whereas negative attitudes to patients have previously been regarded as the main barrier to involvement in measures to improve patient management, GPs devaluing of their own psychological skills with these patients may be more important

Is chronic pelvic pain a comfortable diagnosis for primary care practitioners: a qualitative study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) has a prevalence similar to asthma and chronic back pain, but little is known about how general practitioners (GPs) and practice nurses manage women with this problem. A clearer understanding of current management is necessary to develop appropriate strategies, in keeping with current health care policy, for the supported self-management of patients with long term conditions. The aim of this study was to explore GPs' and practice nurses' understanding and perspectives on the management of chronic pelvic pain.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Data were collected using semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of 21 GPs and 20 practice nurses, in three primary care trusts in the North West of England. Data were analysed using the principles of Framework analysis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Analysis suggests that women who present with CPP pose a challenge to GPs and practice nurses. CPP is not necessarily recognized as a diagnostic label and making the diagnosis was achieved only by exclusion. This contrasts with the relative acceptability of labels such as irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). GPs expressed elements of therapeutic nihilism about the condition. Despite practice nurses taking on increasing responsibilities for the management of patients with long term conditions, respondents did not feel that CPP was an area that they were comfortable in managing.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The study demonstrates an educational/training need for both GPs and practice nurses. GPs described a number of skills and clinical competencies which could be harnessed to develop a more targeted management strategy. There is potential to develop facilitated self- management for use in this patient group, given that this approach has been successful in patients with similar conditions such as IBS.</p

Multiorgan MRI findings after hospitalisation with COVID-19 in the UK (C-MORE): a prospective, multicentre, observational cohort study

Introduction: The multiorgan impact of moderate to severe coronavirus infections in the post-acute phase is still poorly understood. We aimed to evaluate the excess burden of multiorgan abnormalities after hospitalisation with COVID-19, evaluate their determinants, and explore associations with patient-related outcome measures. Methods: In a prospective, UK-wide, multicentre MRI follow-up study (C-MORE), adults (aged ≥18 years) discharged from hospital following COVID-19 who were included in Tier 2 of the Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID) and contemporary controls with no evidence of previous COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibody negative) underwent multiorgan MRI (lungs, heart, brain, liver, and kidneys) with quantitative and qualitative assessment of images and clinical adjudication when relevant. Individuals with end-stage renal failure or contraindications to MRI were excluded. Participants also underwent detailed recording of symptoms, and physiological and biochemical tests. The primary outcome was the excess burden of multiorgan abnormalities (two or more organs) relative to controls, with further adjustments for potential confounders. The C-MORE study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04510025. Findings: Of 2710 participants in Tier 2 of PHOSP-COVID, 531 were recruited across 13 UK-wide C-MORE sites. After exclusions, 259 C-MORE patients (mean age 57 years [SD 12]; 158 [61%] male and 101 [39%] female) who were discharged from hospital with PCR-confirmed or clinically diagnosed COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and Nov 1, 2021, and 52 non-COVID-19 controls from the community (mean age 49 years [SD 14]; 30 [58%] male and 22 [42%] female) were included in the analysis. Patients were assessed at a median of 5·0 months (IQR 4·2–6·3) after hospital discharge. Compared with non-COVID-19 controls, patients were older, living with more obesity, and had more comorbidities. Multiorgan abnormalities on MRI were more frequent in patients than in controls (157 [61%] of 259 vs 14 [27%] of 52; p&lt;0·0001) and independently associated with COVID-19 status (odds ratio [OR] 2·9 [95% CI 1·5–5·8]; padjusted=0·0023) after adjusting for relevant confounders. Compared with controls, patients were more likely to have MRI evidence of lung abnormalities (p=0·0001; parenchymal abnormalities), brain abnormalities (p&lt;0·0001; more white matter hyperintensities and regional brain volume reduction), and kidney abnormalities (p=0·014; lower medullary T1 and loss of corticomedullary differentiation), whereas cardiac and liver MRI abnormalities were similar between patients and controls. Patients with multiorgan abnormalities were older (difference in mean age 7 years [95% CI 4–10]; mean age of 59·8 years [SD 11·7] with multiorgan abnormalities vs mean age of 52·8 years [11·9] without multiorgan abnormalities; p&lt;0·0001), more likely to have three or more comorbidities (OR 2·47 [1·32–4·82]; padjusted=0·0059), and more likely to have a more severe acute infection (acute CRP &gt;5mg/L, OR 3·55 [1·23–11·88]; padjusted=0·025) than those without multiorgan abnormalities. Presence of lung MRI abnormalities was associated with a two-fold higher risk of chest tightness, and multiorgan MRI abnormalities were associated with severe and very severe persistent physical and mental health impairment (PHOSP-COVID symptom clusters) after hospitalisation. Interpretation: After hospitalisation for COVID-19, people are at risk of multiorgan abnormalities in the medium term. Our findings emphasise the need for proactive multidisciplinary care pathways, with the potential for imaging to guide surveillance frequency and therapeutic stratification