Process and impact evaluation of the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Health Impact Assessment

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>despite health impact assessment (HIA) being increasingly widely used internationally, fundamental questions about its impact on decision-making, implementation and practices remain. In 2005 a collaboration between public health and local government authorities performed an HIA on the Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Options paper in New Zealand. The findings of this were incorporated into the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy;</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>using multiple qualitative methodologies including key informant interviews, focus groups and questionnaires, this study performs process and impact evaluations of the Christchurch HIA including evaluation of costs and resource use;</p> <p>Results</p> <p>the evaluation found that the HIA had demonstrable direct impacts on planning and implementation of the final Urban Development Strategy as well as indirect impacts on understandings and ways of working within and between organisations. It also points out future directions and ways of working in this successful collaboration between public health and local government authorities. It summarises the modest resource use and discusses the important role HIA can play in urban planning with intersectoral collaboration and enhanced relationships as both catalysts and outcomes of the HIA process;</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>as one of the few evaluations of HIA that have been published to date, this paper makes a substantial contribution to the literature on the impact, utility and effectiveness of HIA.</p

Facilitating technology adoption in the NHS : negotiating the organisational and policy context : a qualitative study

Background: Proven clinical effectiveness and patient safety are insufficient to ensure adoption and implementation of new clinical technologies. Despite current government policy, clinical technologies are not yet demand-led through commissioning. Hence, adoption and implementation relies on providers. Introducing new technologies initially raises providers’ costs as they necessitate training, alter patient pathways and change patient management, and may lead to reduced patient throughput in the short term. The current funding regime for providers – Payment by Results (PbR) – rewards activity. It is not surprising, therefore, that providers often see new technologies as risky. Objectives: This study investigated the organisational and policy context for the adoption and implementation of clinical technologies, because this context may present barriers that slow – or even prevent – uptake. The research focused on three clinical technologies: insulin pump therapy (IPT); breast lymph node assay (BLNA), a diagnostic tool for metastases; and ultrawide field retinal imaging (UFRI). The implementation of these technologies had been supported by NHS Technology Adoption Centre (NTAC). Methods: The research method was qualitative case studies of these three clinical technologies. The primary data collection technique was semistructured interviews of NTAC staff, clinicians, managers and commissioners, supplemented by documentary evidence, participant and non-participant observation of meetings and videos. For IPT, we also conducted a survey of clinicians and analysed anonymised e-mails from patients. Results: NHS providers did not perceive any central ‘push’ from the Department of Health or the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to adopt, implement or diffuse new clinical technologies. There is a ‘bottom-up’ adoption culture: any trust could choose to adopt any, all or none of the three clinical technologies we investigated. This is undesirable, as clinically efficacious technologies should be equally available to all patients. Where there is NICE guidance, this acted as an enabler for adoption, but some trusts still did not offer IPT despite this. We found that PbR could be a major obstacle to adoption. Our evidence also indicates that, contrary to its intention, commissioning practice is more of a barrier than an enabler of innovation. Protracted negotiations over funding between providers and commissioners delayed implementation of BLNA and IPT. Organisational power and politics between hospitals and community-based services was a significant barrier for adoption of UFRI. Clinicians outside of specialist ophthalmology centres did not understand the clinical utility of UFRI (e.g. its diagnostic potential or how and when to use it). Conclusions: NTAC was successful in assisting trusts over the generic organisational barriers outlined above, particularly with regard to taking responsibility for the logistics of implementation, negotiating new patient pathways and ways of working with relevant stakeholders, and using their skills in project management and stakeholder engagement to drive processes forward. Where there were major obstacles, however, the NTAC process stalled. ‘Bottom-up’ adoption at individual trusts needs to be linked into wider national processes that offer vision, some central direction, further assessment and evaluation, and the infrastructure to ensure diffusion to sites that have the capabilities and capacities to best utilise the clinical technology

Reducing relapse and suicide in bipolar disorder:practical clinical approaches to identifying risk, reducing harm and engaging service users in planning and delivery of care the PARADES (Psychoeducation, Anxiety, Relapse, Advance Directive Evaluation and Suicidality) programme

Background Bipolar disorder (BD) costs £5.2B annually, largely as a result of incomplete recovery after inadequate treatment. Objectives A programme of linked studies to reduce relapse and suicide in BD. Design There were five workstreams (WSs): a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT) of group psychoeducation (PEd) versus group peer support (PS) in the maintenance of BD (WS1); development and feasibility RCTs of integrated psychological therapy for anxiety in bipolar disorder (AIBD) and integrated for problematic alcohol use in BD (WS2 and WS3); survey and qualitative investigations of suicide and self-harm in BD (WS4); and survey and qualitative investigation of service users’ (SUs) and psychiatrists’ experience of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), with reference to advance planning (WS5). Setting Participants were from England; recruitment into RCTs was limited to certain sites [East Midlands and North West (WS1); North West (WS2 and WS3)]. Participants Aged ≥ 18 years. In WS1–3, participants had their diagnosis of BD confirmed by the Structural Clinical Interview for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Interventions In WS1, group PEd/PS; in WS3 and WS4, individual psychological therapy for comorbid anxiety and alcohol use, respectively. Main outcome measures In WS1, time to relapse of bipolar episode; in WS2 and WS3, feasibility and acceptability of interventions; in WS4, prevalence and determinants of suicide and self-harm; and in WS5, professional training and support of advance planning in MCA, and SU awareness and implementation. Results Group PEd and PS could be routinely delivered in the NHS. The estimated median time to first bipolar relapse was 67.1 [95% confidence interval (CI) 37.3 to 90.9] weeks in PEd, compared with 48.0 (95% CI 30.6 to 65.9) weeks in PS. The adjusted hazard ratio was 0.83 (95% CI 0.62 to 1.11; likelihood ratio test p = 0.217). The interaction between the number of previous bipolar episodes (1–7 and 8–19, relative to 20+) and treatment arm was significant (χ2 = 6.80, degrees of freedom = 2; p = 0.034): PEd with one to seven episodes showed the greatest delay in time to episode. A primary economic analysis indicates that PEd is not cost-effective compared with PS. A sensitivity analysis suggests potential cost-effectiveness if decision-makers accept a cost of £37,500 per quality-adjusted life-year. AIBD and motivational interviewing (MI) cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) trials were feasible and acceptable in achieving recruitment and retention targets (AIBD: n = 72, 72% retention to follow-up; MI-CBT: n = 44, 75% retention) and in-depth qualitative interviews. There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes for either trial overall. The factors associated with risk of suicide and self-harm (longer duration of illness, large number of periods of inpatient care, and problems establishing diagnosis) could inform improved clinical care and specific interventions. Qualitative interviews suggested that suicide risk had been underestimated, that care needs to be more collaborative and that people need fast access to good-quality care. Despite SUs supporting advance planning and psychiatrists being trained in MCA, the use of MCA planning provisions was low, with confusion over informal and legally binding plans. Limitations Inferences for routine clinical practice from WS1 were limited by the absence of a ‘treatment as usual’ group. Conclusion The programme has contributed significantly to understanding how to improve outcomes in BD. Group PEd is being implemented in the NHS influenced by SU support. Future work Future work is needed to evaluate optimal approaches to psychological treatment of comorbidity in BD. In addition, work in improved risk detection in relation to suicide and self-harm in clinical services and improved training in MCA are indicated. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN62761948, ISRCTN84288072 and ISRCTN14774583. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 6, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project informatio