Realist evaluation of the implementation and impact of the NHS carbon reduction strategy in the UK

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the extent to which organisational factors facilitate or inhibit the implementation of the National Health Service (NHS) carbon reduction strategy within acute hospital settings. SETTING: A single acute NHS Trust with four satellite sites which serve more than 2 million patients annually in Central England. PARTICIPANTS: Interviews with a purposive sample of 10 stakeholders, including those who conceptualised the intervention and those who were responsible for its implementation. INTERVENTION: The NHS is a major carbon emitter and therefore developed the ‘NHS carbon reduction strategy (NHSCRS)’ in 2009. NHS organisations are contractually obliged to develop a local carbon reduction strategy known as a Sustainable Development Management Plan (SDMP) which details carbon reduction measures (CRM), as described in the NHSCRS. However, the organisational context within which the SDMP is implemented is likely to determine the extent of its success. We undertook an adapted realist evaluation cycle to develop refined initial programme theories. Documents were analysed using thematic content analysis. Interview data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: CRM were most likely to be implemented if the Trust Board were sufficiently pressured by staff and reputational fears, and the potential impacts of CRM were perceived to align with wider organisational aims. Differences in implementation of CRM across hospital sites were related to logistical factors, accessibility to regional partners and contractual relationships. There were expected carbon, energy and long-term financial savings, with variability in the effectiveness of some CRM post implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Organisational factors, particularly Board leadership and internal implementation pathways, have a significant bearing on whether CRM are implemented or not. However, greater national support and guidance is needed for NHS organisations to effectively reduce their carbon emissions. Further cycles of this evaluation are necessary in multiple case study sites to illuminate the path to a net-zero NHS carbon footprint by 2045

Collaboration for impact: co-creating a workforce development toolkit using an arts-based approach

Introduction: The identification, communication and management of health risk is a core task of Community Health Workers who operate at the boundaries of community and primary care, often through not-for-profit community interest companies. However, there are few opportunities or resources for workforce development. Publicly funded researchers have an obligation to be useful to the public and furthermore, university funding is increasingly contingent on demonstrating the social impact of academic research. Collaborative work with participants and other stakeholders can have reciprocal benefits to all but may be daunting to some researchers, unused to such approaches. Methods: This case study is an account of the co-creation of a (freely accessible) workforce development toolkit, as part of a collaboration between academics, community interest companies, patients and services users and arts practitioners. Results: Our collaborative group produced three short films, fictionalising encounters between Community Health Workers and their clients. These were used within a series of five discussion-led workshops with facilitator guidance to explore issues generated by the films. Two collaborating community-based, not-for-profit organisations piloted the toolkit before its launch. Conclusion: We aim to encourage other academics to maximise the impact of their own research through collaborative projects with those outside of academia, including research participants and to consider the potential value of arts-based approaches to explore and facilitate reflection on complex tasks and tensions that make up daily work practices. Whilst publication of findings from such projects may be commonplace, accounts of the process are unusual. This detailed account highlights some of the benefits and challenges involved

Remote home monitoring (virtual wards) for confirmed or suspected COVID-19 patients:a rapid systematic review

Background: the aim of this review was to analyze the implementation and impact of remote home monitoring models (virtual wards) for confirmed or suspected COVID-19 patients, identifying their main components, processes of implementation, target patient populations, impact on outcomes, costs and lessons learnt. Methods: we carried out a rapid systematic review on models led by primary and secondary care across seven countries (US, Australia, Canada, The Netherlands, Ireland, China, UK). The main outcomes included in the review were: impact of remote home monitoring on virtual length of stay, escalation, emergency department attendance/reattendance, admission/readmission and mortality. The search was updated on February 2021. We used the PRISMA statement and the review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD: 42020202888). Findings: the review included 27 articles. The aim of the models was to maintain patients safe in the appropriate setting. Most models were led by secondary care and confirmation of COVID-19 was not required (in most cases). Monitoring was carried via online platforms, paper-based systems with telephone calls or (less frequently) through wearable sensors. Models based on phone calls were considered more inclusive. Patient/career training was identified as a determining factor of success. We could not reach substantive conclusions regarding patient safety and the identification of early deterioration due to lack of standardized reporting and missing data. Economic analysis was not reported for most of the models and did not go beyond reporting resources used and the amount spent per patient monitored. Interpretation: future research should focus on staff and patient experiences of care and inequalities in patients' access to care. Attention needs to be paid to the cost-effectiveness of the models and their sustainability, evaluation of their impact on patient outcomes by using comparators, and the use of risk-stratification tools

Early evaluation of the Children and Young People's Mental Health Trailblazer programme:a rapid mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND: The Children and Young People’s Mental Health Trailblazer programme is funding the creation of new mental health support teams to work in schools and further education colleges. Mental health support teams directly support children and young people with ‘mild to moderate’ mental health problems and work with school and college staff to promote well-being for all. A new workforce of education mental health practitioners is being trained for the teams. OBJECTIVE(S): The National Institute for Health and Care Research Birmingham, RAND and Cambridge Evaluation Rapid Evaluation Centre and Policy Innovation and Evaluation Research Unit undertook an early evaluation of the Trailblazer programme to examine the development, implementation and early progress of mental health support teams in the programme’s first 25 ‘Trailblazer’ sites. DESIGN: A mixed-methods evaluation, comprising three work packages: 1. Establishing the baseline and understanding the development and early impacts of the Trailblazer sites, including two rounds of surveys with key informants and participating education settings in all 25 sites. 2. More detailed research in five purposively selected Trailblazer sites, including interviews with a range of stakeholders and focus groups with children and young people. 3. Scoping and developing options for a longer-term assessment of the programme’s outcomes and impacts. Fieldwork was undertaken between November 2020 and February 2022. The University of Birmingham Institute for Mental Health Youth Advisory Group was involved throughout the study, including co-producing the focus groups with children and young people. RESULTS: Substantial progress had been made implementing the programme, in challenging circumstances, and there was optimism about what it had the potential to achieve. The education mental health practitioner role had proven popular, but sites reported challenges in retaining education mental health practitioners, and turnover left mental health support teams short-staffed and needing to re-recruit. Education settings welcomed additional mental health support and reported positive early outcomes, including staff feeling more confident and having faster access to advice about mental health issues. At the same time, there were concerns about children who had mental health problems that were more serious than ‘mild to moderate’ but not serious enough to be accepted for specialist help, and that the interventions offered were not working well for some young people. Mental health support teams were generally spending more time supporting children with mental health problems than working with education settings to develop ‘whole school’ approaches to mental health and well-being, and service models in some sites appeared to be more clinically oriented, with a strong focus on mental health support teams’ therapeutic functions. LIMITATIONS: Despite efforts to maximise participation, survey response rates were relatively low and some groups were less well represented than others. We were not able to gather sufficiently detailed data to develop a typology of Trailblazer sites, as was planned. CONCLUSIONS: Key lessons for future programme implementation include: - Whether mental health support teams should expand support to children and young people with more complex and serious mental health problems. - How to keep the twin aims of prevention and early intervention in balance. - How to retain education mental health practitioners once trained. FUTURE WORK: The findings have important implications for the design of a longer-term impact evaluation of the programme, which is due to commence in summer 2023