Making it easy to do the right thing in healthcare: Advancing improvement science education through accredited pan European higher education modules

Background: Numerous international policy drivers espouse the need to improve healthcare. The application of Improvement Science has the potential to restore the balance of healthcare and transform it to a more person-centred and quality improvement focussed system. However there is currently no accredited Improvement Science education offered routinely to healthcare students. This means that there are a huge number of healthcare professionals who do not have the conceptual or experiential skills to apply Improvement Science in everyday practise. Methods: This article describes how seven European Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) worked together to develop four evidence informed accredited inter-professional Improvement Science modules for under and postgraduate healthcare students. It outlines the way in which a Policy Delphi, a narrative literature review, a review of the competency and capability requirements for healthcare professionals to practise Improvement Science, and a mapping of current Improvement Science education informed the content of the modules. Results: A contemporary consensus definition of Healthcare Improvement Science was developed. The four Improvement Science modules that have been designed are outlined. A framework to evaluate the impact modules have in practise has been developed and piloted. Conclusion: The authors argue that there is a clear need to advance healthcare Improvement Science education through incorporating evidence based accredited modules into healthcare professional education. They suggest that if Improvement Science education, that incorporates work based learning, becomes a staple part of the curricula in inter-professional education then it has real promise to improve the delivery, quality and design of healthcare.Erasmus+ Life long Learning Programme

An exploration of the factors influencing career choice in mental health

Aims and objectives: To identify the factors that are associated with considering a career in mental health. Background: The mental health specialty is facing a recruitment crisis in the United Kingdom but there is limited evidence about which factors encourage and discourage people from considering a career in mental health. Design: Quantitative, observational, online survey using a multiple ordinal logistic regression model to identify if there were any significant predictors of the extent to which participants would consider a career in mental health. The design and write up of the study were guided by the STROBE checklist. Method: We gathered the views of 231 participants (female = 188, 81.7%) aged between 16–65 (mean = 22.7, SD = 8.9), using an online survey, the majority of whom were studying on, or graduates of, psychology/social studies degrees. Information was gathered about the extent to which a range of factors influenced consideration of a career in mental health. Results: The majority (71.2%) of participants reported that they would definitely or probably consider undertaking a career in mental health, and over half (51.4%) would consider a career as a mental health nurse. The ability to help others and receiving appropriate training required for the role were important career choice factors. Being female, having a mental health condition and greater knowledge of mental health were associated with a significantly greater likelihood of considering a career in mental health, while having had experience of working with people with mental health difficulties was significantly negatively associated. Conclusions: Students and graduates of psychology and social studies degrees appear to be a large, untapped recruitment pool for mental health services. Relevance to clinical practice: The results can inform more targeted recruitment strategies and development of suitable career pathways for those interested in a career in mental health

A knowledge translation project on community-centred approaches in public health

This paper examines the development and impact of a national knowledge translation project aimed at improving access to evidence and learning on community-centred approaches for health and wellbeing. Structural changes in the English health system meant that knowledge on community engagement was becoming lost and a fragmented evidence base was seen to impact negatively on policy and practice. A partnership started between Public Health England, NHS England and Leeds Beckett University in 2014 to address these issues. Following a literature review and stakeholder consultation, evidence was published in a national guide to community-centred approaches. This was followed by a programme of work to translate the evidence into national strategy and local practice. The paper outlines the key features of the knowledge translation framework developed. Results include positive impacts on local practice and national policy, for example adoption within National Institute for Health and Care Evidence (NICE) guidance and Local Authority public health plans and utilisation as a tool for local audit of practice and commissioning. The framework was successful in its non-linear approach to knowledge translation across a range of inter-connected activity, built on national leadership, knowledge brokerage, coalition building and a strong collaboration between research institute and government agency

Non-clinical community interventions: a systematised review of social prescribing schemes

Abstract Background: This review focused on evaluation of United Kingdom social prescribing schemes published in peer-reviewed journals and reports. Schemes, including arts, books, education, and exercise ‘on prescription’ refer patients to community sources of non-clinical intervention. Method: A systematised review protocol appraised primary research material evaluating social prescribing schemes published 2000-15. Searches were performed in electronic databases using keywords, and articles were screened for evaluation of patient data, referral process, assessment method and outcomes; non-evaluated articles were excluded. Results: Of 86 schemes located including pilots, 40 evaluated primary research material: 17 used quantitative methods including six randomised controlled trials; 16 qualitative methods, and seven mixed methods; 9 exclusively involved arts on prescription. Conclusions: Outcomes included increase in self-esteem and confidence; improvement in mental wellbeing and positive mood; and reduction in anxiety, depression and negative mood. Despite positive findings, the review identifies a number of gaps in the evidence base and makes recommendations for future evaluation and implementation of referral pathways

Clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of low-intensity interventions in the management of obsessive–compulsive disorder: the Obsessive–Compulsive Treatment Efficacy randomised controlled Trial (OCTET)

Background: The Obsessive–Compulsive Treatment Efficacy randomised controlled Trial emerged from a research recommendation in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) guidelines, which specified the need to evaluate cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) treatment intensity formats. Objectives: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two low-intensity CBT interventions [supported computerised cognitive–behavioural therapy (cCBT) and guided self-help]: (1) compared with waiting list for high-intensity CBT in adults with OCD at 3 months; and (2) plus high-intensity CBT compared with waiting list plus high-intensity CBT in adults with OCD at 12 months. To determine patient and professional acceptability of low-intensity CBT interventions. Design: A three-arm, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Setting: Improving Access to Psychological Therapies services and primary/secondary care mental health services in 15 NHS trusts. Participants: Patients aged ≥ 18 years meeting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fourth Edition criteria for OCD, on a waiting list for high-intensity CBT and scoring ≥ 16 on the Yale–Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (indicative of at least moderate severity OCD) and able to read English. Interventions: Participants were randomised to (1) supported cCBT, (2) guided self-help or (3) a waiting list for high-intensity CBT. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was OCD symptoms using the Yale–Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale – Observer Rated. Results: Patients were recruited from 14 NHS trusts between February 2011 and May 2014. Follow-up data collection was complete by May 2015. There were 475 patients randomised: supported cCBT (n = 158); guided self-help (n = 158) and waiting list for high-intensity CBT (n = 159). Two patients were excluded post randomisation (one supported cCBT and one waiting list for high-intensity CBT); therefore, data were analysed for 473 patients. In the short term, prior to accessing high-intensity CBT, guided self-help demonstrated statistically significant benefits over waiting list, but these benefits did not meet the prespecified criterion for clinical significance [adjusted mean difference –1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) –3.27 to –0.55; p = 0.006]. Supported cCBT did not demonstrate any significant benefit (adjusted mean difference –0.71, 95% CI –2.12 to 0.70). In the longer term, access to guided self-help and supported cCBT, prior to high-intensity CBT, did not lead to differences in outcomes compared with access to high-intensity CBT alone. Access to guided self-help and supported cCBT led to significant reductions in the uptake of high-intensity CBT; this did not seem to compromise patient outcomes at 12 months. Taking a decision-making approach, which focuses on which decision has a higher probability of being cost-effective, rather than the statistical significance of the results, there was little evidence that supported cCBT and guided self-help are cost-effective at the 3-month follow-up compared with a waiting list. However, by the 12-month follow-up, data suggested a greater probability of guided self-help being cost-effective than a waiting list from the health- and social-care perspective (60%) and the societal perspective (80%), and of supported cCBT being cost-effective compared with a waiting list from both perspectives (70%). Qualitative interviews found that guided self-help was more acceptable to patients than supported cCBT. Professionals acknowledged the advantages of low intensity interventions at a population level. No adverse events occurred during the trial that were deemed to be suspected or unexpected serious events. Limitations: A significant issue in the interpretation of the results concerns the high level of access to high-intensity CBT during the waiting list period. Conclusions: Although low-intensity interventions are not associated with clinically significant improvements in OCD symptoms, economic analysis over 12 months suggests that low-intensity interventions are cost-effective and may have an important role in OCD care pathways. Further research to enhance the clinical effectiveness of these interventions may be warranted, alongside research on how best to incorporate them into care pathways

CHOICE: Choosing Health Options In Chronic Care Emergencies

Background Over 70% of the health-care budget in England is spent on the care of people with long-term conditions (LTCs), and a major cost component is unscheduled health care. Psychological morbidity is high in people with LTCs and is associated with a range of adverse outcomes, including increased mortality, poorer physical health outcomes, increased health costs and service utilisation. Objectives The aim of this programme of research was to examine the relationship between psychological morbidity and use of unscheduled care in people with LTCs, and to develop a psychosocial intervention that would have the potential to reduce unscheduled care use. We focused largely on emergency hospital admissions (EHAs) and attendances at emergency departments (EDs). Design A three-phase mixed-methods study. Research methods included systematic reviews; a longitudinal prospective cohort study in primary care to identify people with LTCs at risk of EHA or ED admission; a replication study in primary care using routinely collected data; an exploratory and feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care; and qualitative studies to identify personal reasons for the use of unscheduled care and factors in routine consultations in primary care that may influence health-care use. People with lived experience of LTCs worked closely with the research team. Setting Primary care. Manchester and London. Participants People aged ≥ 18 years with at least one of four common LTCs: asthma, coronary heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and diabetes. Participants also included health-care staff. Results Evidence synthesis suggested that depression, but not anxiety, is a predictor of use of unscheduled care in patients with LTCs, and low-intensity complex interventions reduce unscheduled care use in people with asthma and COPD. The results of the prospective study were that depression, not having a partner and life stressors, in addition to prior use of unscheduled care, severity of illness and multimorbidity, were independent predictors of EHA and ED admission. Approximately half of the cost of health care for people with LTCs was accounted for by use of unscheduled care. The results of the replication study, carried out in London, broadly supported our findings for risk of ED attendances, but not EHAs. This was most likely due to low rates of detection of depression in general practitioner (GP) data sets. Qualitative work showed that patients were reluctant to use unscheduled care, deciding to do so when they perceived a serious and urgent need for care, and following previous experience that unscheduled care had successfully and unquestioningly met similar needs in the past. In general, emergency and primary care doctors did not regard unscheduled care as problematic. We found there are missed opportunities to identify and discuss psychosocial issues during routine consultations in primary care due to the ‘overmechanisation’ of routine health-care reviews. The feasibility trial examined two levels of an intervention for people with COPD: we tried to improve the way in which practices manage patients with COPD and developed a targeted psychosocial treatment for patients at risk of using unscheduled care. The former had low acceptability, whereas the latter had high acceptability. Exploratory health economic analyses suggested that the practice-level intervention would be unlikely to be cost-effective, limiting the value of detailed health economic modelling. Limitations The findings of this programme may not apply to all people with LTCs. It was conducted in an area of high social deprivation, which may limit the generalisability to more affluent areas. The response rate to the prospective longitudinal study was low. The feasibility trial focused solely on people with COPD. Conclusions Prior use of unscheduled care is the most powerful predictor of unscheduled care use in people with LTCs. However, psychosocial factors, particularly depression, are important additional predictors of use of unscheduled care in patients with LTCs, independent of severity and multimorbidity. Patients and health-care practitioners are unaware that psychosocial factors influence health-care use, and such factors are rarely acknowledged or addressed in consultations or discussions about use of unscheduled care. A targeted patient intervention for people with LTCs and comorbid depression has shown high levels of acceptability when delivered in a primary care context. An intervention at the level of the GP practice showed little evidence of acceptability or cost-effectiveness. Future work The potential benefits of case-finding for depression in patients with LTCs in primary care need to be evaluated, in addition to further evaluation of the targeted patient intervention