A preventative lifestyle intervention for older adults (lifestyle matters): a randomised controlled trial

to test whether an occupation-based lifestyle intervention can sustain and improve the mental well-being of adults aged 65 years or over compared to usual care, using an individually randomised controlled trial. 288 independently living adults aged 65 years or over, with normal cognition, were recruited from two UK sites between December 2011 and November 2015. lifestyle Matters is a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommended multi-component preventive intervention designed to improve the mental well-being of community living older people at risk of decline. It involves weekly group sessions over 4 months and one to one sessions. the primary outcome was mental well-being at 6 months (mental health (MH) dimension of the SF-36). Secondary outcomes included physical health dimensions of the SF-36, extent of depression (PHQ-9), quality of life (EQ-5D) and loneliness (de Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale), assessed at 6 and 24 months. data on 262 (intervention = 136; usual care = 126) participants were analysed using intention to treat analysis. Mean SF-36 MH scores at 6 months differed by 2.3 points (95 CI: -1.3 to 5.9; P = 0.209) after adjustments. analysis shows little evidence of clinical or cost-effectiveness in the recruited population with analysis of the primary outcome revealing that the study participants were mentally well at baseline. The results pose questions regarding how preventive interventions to promote well-being in older adults can be effectively targeted in the absence of proactive mechanisms to identify those who at risk of decline. ISRCTN67209155

A ‘telephone first’ approach to demand management in English general practice: a multimethod evaluation

Background: The increasing difficulty experienced by general practices in meeting patient demand is leading to new approaches being tried, including greater use of telephone consulting. Objectives: To evaluate a ‘telephone first’ approach, in which all patients requesting a general practitioner (GP) appointment are asked to speak to a GP on the telephone first. Methods: The study used a controlled before-and-after (time-series) approach using national reference data sets; it also incorporated economic and qualitative elements. There was a comparison between 146 practices using the ‘telephone first’ approach and control practices in England with regard to GP Patient Survey scores and secondary care utilisation (Hospital Episode Statistics). A practice manager survey was used in the ‘telephone first’ practices. There was an analysis of practice data and the patient surveys conducted in 20 practices using the ‘telephone first’ approach. Interviews were conducted with 43 patients and 49 primary care staff. The study also included an analysis of costs. Results: Following the introduction of the ‘telephone first’ approach, the average number of face-to-face consultations in practices decreased by 38% [95% confidence interval (CI) 29% to 45%; p < 0.0001], whereas there was a 12-fold increase in telephone consultations (95% CI 6.3-fold to 22.9-fold; p < 0.0001). The average durations of consultations decreased, which, when combined with the increased number of consultations, we estimate led to an overall increase of 8% in the mean time spent consulting by GPs, although there was a large amount of uncertainty (95% CI –1% to 17%; p = 0.0883). These average workload figures mask wide variation between practices, with some practices experiencing a substantial reduction in workload. Comparing ‘telephone first’ practices with control practices in England in terms of scores in the national GP Patient Survey, there was an improvement of 20 percentage points in responses to the survey question on length of time to get to see or speak to a doctor or nurse. Other responses were slightly negative. The introduction of the ‘telephone first’ approach was followed by a small (2%) increase in hospital admissions; there was no initial change in accident and emergency (A&E) department attendance, but there was a subsequent small (2%) decrease in the rate of increase in A&E attendances. We found no evidence that the ‘telephone first’ approach would produce net reductions in secondary care costs. Patients and staff expressed a wide range of both positive and negative views in interviews. Conclusions: The ‘telephone first’ approach shows that many problems in general practice can be dealt with on the telephone. However, the approach does not suit all patients and is not a panacea for meeting demand for care, and it is unlikely to reduce secondary care costs. Future research could include identifying how telephone consulting best meets the needs of different patient groups and practices in varying circumstances and how resources can be tailored to predictable patterns of demand.The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Partnerships between young people and their parents in the management of asthma and diabetes

EThOS - Electronic Theses Online ServiceGBUnited Kingdo

Framework for Assessing, Improving and Enhancing Health Service Planning

Based on case studies of Germany, Austria, Canada, and New Zealand, proposes criteria for assessing and improving health planning systems for the efficient allocation of resources, including comprehensiveness, accountability, and high-quality data

“No point having a voice if no-one’s listening” – The views of members on the current and future challenges for Patient Participation Groups

Background: Patient and public involvement in the development of health services is central to current government policy. In 2011 new financial incentives were introduced to promote the establishment of Patient participation groups (PPGs) which led to an increase in the number of PPG groups in England. PPGs are now well established in many practices. Objectives: The aim of this study was to explore PPG members’ views of the current and future challenges for Patient Participation Groups. Methods: Six focus groups were conducted with members of PPGs (n=31). They were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Qualitative analysis followed established principles with data coded and recoded into categories and themes. Results: Beyond acting as a conduit for patient feedback and as advisors to their practices, there was variation and some confusion about the roles of PPGs. All groups struggled to engage the interest of the patients they purport to represent. Their ability to improve quality of care was limited by several factors including the information available to them, their ability to interpret it, their perceived remit, and their relationship with the practice team. Many participants foresaw a future expanded role in relation to commissioning but this had yet to be defined in practice. Conclusions PPG members are willing and eager to contribute to service development at practice level. However, their roles were confined by the boundaries within which they were able to operate. Government policy literature and funding, through the Direct Enhanced Service payment, advocates input from patients into primary care. Yet this research demonstrates limitations in the support PPGs are able to provide to surgeries

Barriers and facilitators to integrating care: experiences from the English Integrated Care Pilots

Background. In 2008, the English Department of Health appointed 16 'Integrated Care Pilots' which used a range of approaches to provide better integrated care. We report qualitative analyses from a three year multi-method evaluation to identify barriers and facilitators to successful integration of care. Theory and methods. Data were analysed from transcripts of 213 in-depth staff interviews, and from semi-structured questionnaires (the 'Living Document') completed by staff in pilot sites at six points over a two-year period. Emerging findings were therefore built from 'bottom up' and grounded in the data. However, we were then interested in how these findings compared and contrasted with more generic analyses. Therefore after our analyses were complete we then systematically compared and contrasted the findings with the analysis of barriers and facilitators to quality improvement identified in a systematic review by Kaplan et al (2010) and the analysis of more micro-level shapers of behaviour found in Normalisation Process Theory (May et al 2007). Neither of these approaches claims to be full blown theories but both claim to provide mid-range theoretical arguments which may be used to structure existing data and which can be undercut or reinforced by new data.Results and discussion. Many barriers and facilitators to integrating care are those of any large scale organisational change. These include issues relating to leadership, organisational culture, information technology, physician involvement, and availability of resources. However, activities which appear particularly important for delivering integrated care include personal relationships between leaders in different organisations, the scale of planned activities, governance and finance arrangements, support for staff in new roles, and organisational and staff stability. We illustrate our analyses with a 'routemap' which identifies questions that providers may wish to consider when planning interventions to improve the integration of care

GPs' and practice staff's views of a telephone first approach to demand management: a qualitative study in primary care.

BACKGROUND: To better manage patient demand, some general practices have implemented a 'telephone first' approach in which all patients seeking a face-to-face appointment first have to speak to a GP on the telephone. Previous studies have suggested that there is considerable scope for this new approach, but there remain significant concerns. AIM: To understand the views of GPs and practice staff of the telephone first approach, and to identify enablers and barriers to successful adoption of the approach. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative study of the telephone first approach in 12 general practices that have adopted it, and two general practices that have tried the approach but reverted to their previous system. METHOD: A total of 53 qualitative interviews with GPs and practice staff were conducted. Transcriptions of the interviews were systematically analysed. RESULTS: Staff in the majority of practices reported that the approach was an improvement on their previous system, but all practices experienced challenges; for example, where practices did not have the capacity to meet the increase in demand for telephone consultations. Staff were also aware that the new system suited some patients better than others. Adoption of the telephone first approach could be very stressful, with a negative impact on morale, especially reported in interviews with the two practices that had tried but stopped the approach. Interviewees identified enablers and barriers to the successful adoption of a telephone first approach in primary care. Enablers to successful adoption were: understanding demand, practice staff as pivotal, making modifications to the approach, and educating patients. CONCLUSION: Practices considering adopting or clinical commissioning groups considering funding a telephone first approach should consider carefully a practice's capacity and capability before launching

GPs' and practice staff's views of a telephone first approach to demand management: a qualitative study in primary care.

BACKGROUND: To better manage patient demand, some general practices have implemented a 'telephone first' approach in which all patients seeking a face-to-face appointment first have to speak to a GP on the telephone. Previous studies have suggested that there is considerable scope for this new approach, but there remain significant concerns. AIM: To understand the views of GPs and practice staff of the telephone first approach, and to identify enablers and barriers to successful adoption of the approach. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative study of the telephone first approach in 12 general practices that have adopted it, and two general practices that have tried the approach but reverted to their previous system. METHOD: A total of 53 qualitative interviews with GPs and practice staff were conducted. Transcriptions of the interviews were systematically analysed. RESULTS: Staff in the majority of practices reported that the approach was an improvement on their previous system, but all practices experienced challenges; for example, where practices did not have the capacity to meet the increase in demand for telephone consultations. Staff were also aware that the new system suited some patients better than others. Adoption of the telephone first approach could be very stressful, with a negative impact on morale, especially reported in interviews with the two practices that had tried but stopped the approach. Interviewees identified enablers and barriers to the successful adoption of a telephone first approach in primary care. Enablers to successful adoption were: understanding demand, practice staff as pivotal, making modifications to the approach, and educating patients. CONCLUSION: Practices considering adopting or clinical commissioning groups considering funding a telephone first approach should consider carefully a practice's capacity and capability before launching

Qualitative study of patient views on a 'telephone-first' approach in general practice in England: speaking to the GP by telephone before making face-to-face appointments.

OBJECTIVE: To understand patients' views on a 'telephone-first' approach, in which all appointment requests in general practice are followed by a telephone call from the general practitioner (GP). DESIGN: Qualitative interviews with patients and carers. SETTING: Twelve general practices in England. PARTICIPANTS: 43 patients, including 30 women, nine aged over 75 years, four parents of young children, five carers, five patients with hearing impairment and two whose first language was not English. RESULTS: Patients expressed varied views, often strongly held, ranging from enthusiasm for to hostility towards the 'telephone-first' approach. The new system suited some patients, avoiding the need to come into the surgery but was problematic for others, for example, when it was difficult for someone working in an open plan office to take a call-back. A substantial proportion of negative comments were about the operation of the scheme itself rather than the principles behind it, for example, difficulty getting through on the phone or being unable to schedule when the GP would phone back. Some practices were able to operate the scheme in a way that met their patients' needs better than others and practices varied significantly in how they had implemented the approach. CONCLUSIONS: The 'telephone-first' approach appears to work well for some patients, but others find it much less acceptable. Some of the reported problems related to how the approach had been implemented rather than the 'telephone-first' approach in principle and suggests there may be potential for some of the challenges experienced by patients to be overcome