How can pain management in the emergency department be improved? Findings from multiple case study analysis of pain management in three UK emergency departments

Introduction: Inadequate pain management in EDs is a worldwide problem, yet there has been little progress in understanding how pain management can be improved. There is only weak evidence and limited rationale to support interventions to improve pain management. We used naturalistic, qualitative methods to understand the factors that influence how pain is managed within the adult ED. Methods: We used a multiple case study design incorporating 143-hour non-participant observation, documentary analysis and semistructured interviews with 37 staff and 19 patients at three EDs in the North of England between 2014 and 2016. We analysed data using thematic analysis. Results: Our analysis demonstrated that pain management was not well aligned with the core priorities of the ED and was overlooked when other works took priority. We identified that (1) pain management was not perceived to be a key organisational priority for which staff were held accountable and staff had limited awareness of their performance, (2) pain management was not a core component of ED education and training, (3) ED processes and structures were not aligned with pain management and pain reassessment was overlooked unless staff escalated pain management outside of normal processes and (4) staff held embedded beliefs that conceptualised pain management as distinct from core priorities and limited their capacity to improve. However, EDs were able to improve pain management by aligning processes of pain management with other core works, particularly patient flow (eg, nurse-initiated analgesia at triage). Implications: EDs may be able to improve pain management by ensuring pain management processes align with key ED priorities. Undertaking multifaceted changes to structures and processes may enable staff to improve pain management and develop a culture in which pain management can be prioritised more easily. Future interventions need to be compatible with the wider work of the ED and enable patient flow in order to be adopted and maintained

Socioeconomic disparities in access to intensive insulin regimens for adults with type 1 diabetes : a qualitative study of patient and healthcare professional perspectives

Background Type 1 diabetes is a complex chronic condition which requires lifelong treatment with insulin. Health outcomes are dependent on ability to self-manage the condition. Socioeconomic inequalities have been demonstrated in access to treatment and health outcomes for adults with type 1 diabetes; however, there is a paucity of research exploring how these disparities occur. This study explores the influence of socioeconomic factors in gaining access to intensive insulin regimens for adults with type 1 diabetes. Methods We undertook a qualitative descriptive study informed by a phenomenological perspective. In-depth face-to-face interviews were conducted with 28 patients and 6 healthcare professionals involved in their care. The interviews were analysed using a thematic approach. The Candidacy theory for access to healthcare for vulnerable groups framed the analysis. Results Access to intensive insulin regimens was through hospital-based specialist services in this sample. Patients from lower socioeconomic groups had difficulty accessing hospital-based services if they were in low paid work and because they lacked the ability to navigate the healthcare system. Once these patients were in the specialist system, access to intensive insulin regimens was limited by non-alignment with healthcare professional goals, poor health literacy, psychosocial problems and poor quality communication. These factors could also affect access to structured diabetes education which itself improved access to intensive insulin regimens. Contact with diabetes specialist nurses and attendance at structured diabetes education courses could ameliorate these barriers. Conclusions Access to intensive insulin regimens was hindered for people in lower socioeconomic groups by a complex mix of factors relating to the permeability of specialist services, ability to navigate the healthcare system and patient interactions with healthcare providers. Improving access to diabetes specialist nurses and structured diabetes education for vulnerable patients could lessen socioeconomic disparities in both access to services and health outcomes

Health literacy levels of British adults: a cross-sectional survey using two domains of the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ)

Background A person’s health literacy determines whether they are able to make appropriate health decisions and are able to follow treatment instructions. This is important because low health literacy is associated with mortality and extra costs to the healthcare system. Our aim was to describe the health literacy levels of British adults using a nationally representative population survey, and show how health literacy levels vary by population characteristics. Methods A population based cross-sectional survey including questions from two domains from the Health Literacy Questionnaire™: 1) Understanding health information well enough to know what to do, and 2) Ability to actively engage with health care providers. Both domains are made up of 5 Likert style questions with 5 levels ranging from ‘cannot do or always difficult’ (1) to ‘always easy’ (5). The survey was conducted by NatCen in Britain (2018) as part of the annual British Social Attitudes survey. We used weighted descriptive analyses and regression to explore the relationship between population characteristics and health literacy. Weighted analyses were used to ensure the sample was representative of the British population. Results A total of 2309 responded to the questionnaire. The mean score for ‘understanding information’ was 3.98 (95% CI: 3.94, 4.02) and for ‘ability to engage’ was 3.83 (95% CI: 3.80, 3.87), where 5 is the highest score. 19.4% had some level of difficulty reading and understanding written health information, and 23.2% discussing health concerns with health care providers. The adjusted logistic regression for ‘understanding information’ showed that those with lower health literacy were more likely to be in the most socially deprived quintile (OR 2.500 95% CI: 1.180, 5.296), have a limiting health condition or disability (OR 4.326 95% CI: 2.494, 7.704), and have no educational qualifications (OR 7.588 95% CI: 3.305, 17.422). This was similar for the ‘ability to engage’ domain. Conclusions This study described the distribution of health literacy levels for the British population in 2018. Interventions to improve health literacy will best be targeted at those with lower levels of education, those living in the most deprived areas, and those with a limiting health condition or disability

Delphi consensus reached to produce a decision tool for SelecTing Approaches forRapid Reviews (STARR)

OBJECTIVES: There are many rapid review methods; however, there is little pragmatic guidance on which methods to select. This study aimed to reach consensus among international rapid review experts outlining areas to consider when selecting approaches for rapid reviews. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A two-round modified online Delphi survey was conducted between May and July 2018. Participants were asked to rank the importance of a predefined list of 19 items. A consensus definition of at least 70% agreement for each item was decided a priori. RESULTS: Thirty experts from ten countries participated in Round 1 and 24 in Round 2. During Round 1, consensus was reached on all items. One additional item on quality assessment was suggested by respondents and comments suggested wording changes to improve clarity and understanding of the tool. Respondents in the second round indicated a high level of importance and all 20 items achieved consensus. These items addressed interaction with commissioners, scoping and searching the evidence-base, data extraction and synthesis methods, and reporting of rapid review methods. CONCLUSIONS: International consensus was reached to produce the STARR decision tool for planning rapid reviews and will lead to improved shared understanding between review teams and review commissioners

The role of qualitative research in adding value to a randomised controlled trial: lessons from a pilot study of a guided e-learning intervention for managers to improve employee wellbeing and reduce sickness absence

The GEM study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research Programme (project number 10/3007/06)

Maximising the impact of qualitative research in feasibility studies for randomised controlled trials: guidance for researchers

Feasibility studies are increasingly undertaken in preparation for randomised controlled trials in order to explore uncertainties and enable trialists to optimise the intervention or the conduct of the trial. Qualitative research can be used to examine and address key uncertainties prior to a full trial. We present guidance that researchers, research funders and reviewers may wish to consider when assessing or undertaking qualitative research within feasibility studies for randomised controlled trials. The guidance consists of 16 items within five domains: research questions, data collection, analysis, teamwork and reporting. Appropriate and well conducted qualitative research can make an important contribution to feasibility studies for randomised controlled trials. This guidance may help researchers to consider the full range of contributions that qualitative research can make in relation to their particular trial. The guidance may also help researchers and others to reflect on the utility of such qualitative research in practice, so that trial teams can decide when and how best to use these approaches in future studies

Supporting people with Motor Neuron Disease (MND) to make decisions about gastrostomy feeding tube placement: a survey of UK healthcare professionals’ practice and beliefs

Objective Understand the practice and beliefs of healthcare professionals (HCPs) supporting the decision-making of people with MND (pwMND) about gastrostomy placement, including identifying differences between professions. Methods An online cross-sectional survey disseminated to HCPs who support the decision-making of pwMND about gastrostomy placement. Results A total of 139 participants completed the survey including representation from a range of healthcare professions. A third (36/101, 36%) initiated discussions about gastrostomy later in practice than they believed was ideal. In relation to the outcome of declining compared to accepting gastrostomy, participants were more likely to discuss aspiration (80% vs. 68%), choking (76% vs. 58%) and prognosis (36% vs. 22%). Participants believed gastrostomies should be placed after a mean 8.1% weight loss since symptom-onset. More participants favored gastrostomy placement before pwMND presented with respiratory symptoms (45%) compared to onset of dysphagia (11%). Half believed pwMND placed gastrostomies too late. Participants were more likely to ‘often’/‘always’ recommend pwMND to have a gastrostomy (23%) than continue without (7%) or decline (4%) gastrostomy, when believing these were the best option for pwMND. Nurses and dietitians discussed the broadest range of information, while doctors were more likely to discuss mortality risk and prognosis. Conclusion There is variation in HCPs practice and beliefs about initiating discussions, the sharing of information and recommendations, and timing, about gastrostomy placement. The information shared varies by profession and there is evidence of sub-optimal communication between HCPs. Further research is required to understand how these findings may impact on the decision-making of pwMND about gastrostomy

Understanding variation in ambulance service non-conveyance rates: a mixed methods study

Background In England in 2015/16, ambulance services responded to nearly 11 million calls. Ambulance Quality Indicators show that half of the patients receiving a response by telephone or face to face were not conveyed to an emergency department. A total of 11% of patients received telephone advice only. A total of 38% of patients were sent an ambulance but were not conveyed to an emergency department. For the 10 large ambulance services in England, rates of calls ending in telephone advice varied between 5% and 17%. Rates of patients who were sent an ambulance but not conveyed to an emergency department varied between 23% and 51%. Overall non-conveyance rates varied between 40% and 68%. Objective To explain variation in non-conveyance rates between ambulance services. Design A sequential mixed methods study with five work packages. Setting Ten of the 11 ambulance services serving > 99% of the population of England. Methods (1) A qualitative interview study of managers and paramedics from each ambulance service, as well as ambulance commissioners (totalling 49 interviews undertaken in 2015). (2) An analysis of 1 month of routine data from each ambulance service (November 2014). (3) A qualitative study in three ambulance services with different published rates of calls ending in telephone advice (120 hours of observation and 20 interviews undertaken in 2016). (4) An analysis of routine data from one ambulance service linked to emergency department attendance, hospital admission and mortality data (6 months of 2013). (5) A substudy of non-conveyance for people calling 999 with breathing problems. Results Interviewees in the qualitative study identified factors that they perceived to affect non-conveyance rates. Where possible, these perceptions were tested using routine data. Some variation in non-conveyance rates between ambulance services was likely to be due to differences in the way rates were calculated by individual services, particularly in relation to telephone advice. Rates for the number of patients sent an ambulance but not conveyed to an emergency department were associated with patient-level factors: age, sex, deprivation, time of call, reason for call, urgency level and skill level of attending crew. However, variation between ambulance services remained after adjustment for patient-level factors. Variation was explained by ambulance service-level factors after adjustment for patient-level factors: the percentage of calls attended by advanced paramedics [odds ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 1.07], the perception of ambulance service staff and commissioners that advanced paramedics were established and valued within the workforce of an ambulance service (odds ratio 1.84, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.33), and the perception of ambulance service staff and commissioners that senior management was risk averse regarding non-conveyance within an ambulance service (odds ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.98). Limitations Routine data from ambulance services are complex and not consistently collected or analysed by ambulance services, thus limiting the utility of comparative analyses. Conclusions Variation in non-conveyance rates between ambulance services in England could be reduced by addressing variation in the types of paramedics attending calls, variation in how advanced paramedics are used and variation in perceptions of the risk associated with non-conveyance within ambulance service management. Linking routine ambulance data with emergency department attendance, hospital admission and mortality data for all ambulance services in the UK would allow comparison of the safety and appropriateness of their different non-conveyance rates. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme