National evaluation of NHS genetics service investments: emerging issues from the cancer genetics pilots

In seeking to fulfil the ambition of the 2003 genetics white paper, Our Inheritance, Our Future, to ‘mainstream’ genetic knowledge and practices, the Department of Health provided start-up funding for pilot services in various clinical areas, including seven cancer genetics projects. To help to understand the challenges encountered by such an attempt at reconfiguring the organization and delivery of services in this field, a programme-level evaluation of the genetics projects was commissioned to consider the organizational issues faced. Using a qualitative approach, this research has involved comparative case-study work in 11 of the pilot sites, including four of the seven cancer genetics pilots. In this paper, the researchers present early findings from their work, focusing in particular on the cancer genetics pilots. They consider some of the factors that have influenced how the pilots have sought to address pre-existing sector, organizational and professional boundaries to these new ways of working. The article examines the relationship between these factors and the extent to which pilots have succeeded in setting up boundary-spanning services, dealing with human-resource issues and creating sustainable, ‘mainstreamed’ provision which attracts ongoing funding in a volatile NHS commissioning environment where funding priorities do not always favour preventive, risk-assessment services

The medium-term sustainability of organisational innovations in the national health service

Background: There is a growing recognition of the importance of introducing new ways of working into the UK's National Health Service (NHS) and other health systems, in order to ensure that patient care is provided as effectively and efficiently as possible. Researchers have examined the challenges of introducing new ways of working-'organisational innovations'-into complex organisations such as the NHS, and this has given rise to a much better understanding of how this takes place-and why seemingly good ideas do not always result in changes in practice. However, there has been less research on the medium-and longer-term outcomes for organisational innovations and on the question of how new ways of working, introduced by frontline clinicians and managers, are sustained and become established in day-to-day practice. Clearly, this question of sustainability is crucial if the gains in patient care that derive from organisational innovations are to be maintained, rather than lost to what the NHS Institute has called the 'improvement-evaporation effect'. Methods: The study will involve research in four case-study sites around England, each of which was successful in sustaining its new model of service provision beyond an initial period of pilot funding for new genetics services provided by the Department of Health. Building on findings relating to the introduction and sustainability of these services already gained from an earlier study, the research will use qualitative methods-in-depth interviews, observation of key meetings, and analysis of relevant documents-to understand the longer-term challenges involved in each case and how these were surmounted. The research will provide lessons for those seeking to sustain their own organisational innovations in wide-ranging clinical areas and for those designing the systems and organisations that make up the NHS, to make them more receptive contexts for the sustainment of innovation. Discussion: Through comparison and contrast across four sites, each involving different organisational innovations, different forms of leadership, and different organisational contexts to contend with, the findings of the study will have wide relevance. The research will produce outputs that are useful for managers and clinicians responsible for organisational innovation, policy makers and senior managers, and academics

Improving Delivery of Secondary Prophylaxis for Rheumatic Heart Disease in a High-Burden Setting: Outcome of a Stepped-Wedge, Community, Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND Health system strengthening is needed to improve delivery of secondary prophylaxis against rheumatic heart disease. METHODS AND RESULTS We undertook a stepped-wedge, randomized trial in northern Australia. Five pairs of Indigenous community clinics entered the study at 3-month steps. Study phases comprised a 12 month baseline phase, 3 month transition phase, 12 month intensive phase and a 3- to 12-month maintenance phase. Clinics received a multicomponent intervention supporting activities to improve penicillin delivery, aligned with the chronic care model, with continuous quality-improvement feedback on adherence. The primary outcome was the proportion receiving ≥80% of scheduled penicillin injections. Secondary outcomes included "days at risk" of acute rheumatic fever recurrence related to late penicillin and acute rheumatic fever recurrence rates. Overall, 304 patients requiring prophylaxis were eligible. The proportion receiving ≥80% of scheduled injections during baseline was 141 of 304 (46%)-higher than anticipated. No effect attributable to the study was evident: in the intensive phase, 126 of 304 (41%) received ≥80% of scheduled injections (odds ratio compared with baseline: 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-1.11). There was modest improvement in the maintenance phase among high-adhering patients (43% received ≥90% of injections versus 30% [baseline] and 28% [intensive], P<0.001). Also, the proportion of days at risk in the whole cohort decreased in the maintenance phase (0.28 versus 0.32 [baseline] and 0.34 [intensive], P=0.001). Acute rheumatic fever recurrence rates did not differ between study sites during the intensive phase and the whole jurisdiction (3.0 versus 3.5 recurrences per 100 patient-years, P=0.65). CONCLUSIONS This strategy did not improve adherence to rheumatic heart disease secondary prophylaxis within the study time frame. Longer term primary care strengthening strategies are needed. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: www.anzctr.org.au. Unique identifier: ACTRN12613000223730

Incorporating patient partner scores into high stakes assessment : an observational study into opinions and attitudes

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Improving mental healthcare access and experience for people from minority ethnic groups : an England-wide multisite experience-based codesign (EBCD) study

Background Long-standing ethnic inequalities in access and mental healthcare were worsened by the COVID-19 pandemic. Objectives Stakeholders coproduced local and national implementation plans to improve mental healthcare for people from minority ethnic groups. Methods Experience-based codesign conducted in four areas covered by National Health Service (NHS) mental health trusts: Coventry and Warwickshire, Greater Manchester, East London and Sheffield. Data were analysed using an interpretivist–constructivist approach, seeking validation from participants on their priority actions and implementation plans. Service users (n=29), carers (n=9) and health professionals (n=33) took part in interviews; focus groups (service users, n=15; carers, n=8; health professionals, n=24); and codesign workshops (service users, n=15; carers, n=5; health professionals, n=21) from July 2021 to July 2022. Findings Each study site identified 2–3 local priority actions. Three were consistent across areas: (1) reaching out to communities and collaborating with third sector organisations; (2) diversifying the mental healthcare offer to provide culturally appropriate therapeutic approaches and (3) enabling open discussions about ethnicity, culture and racism. National priority actions included: (1) co-ordination of a national hub to bring about system level change and (2) recognition of the centrality of service users and communities in the design and provision of services. Conclusions Stakeholder-led implementation plans highlight that substantial change is needed to increase equity in mental healthcare in England

The impact of reduced routine community mental healthcare on people from minority ethnic groups during the COVID-19 pandemic : qualitative study of stakeholder perspectives

Background: Enduring ethnic inequalities exist in mental healthcare. The COVID-19 pandemic has widened these. Aims: To explore stakeholder perspectives on how the COVID-19 pandemic has increased ethnic inequalities in mental healthcare. Method: A qualitative interview study of four areas in England with 34 patients, 15 carers and 39 mental health professionals from National Health Service (NHS) and community organisations (July 2021 to July 2022). Framework analysis was used to develop a logic model of inter-relationships between pre-pandemic barriers and COVID-19 impacts. Results: Impacts were largely similar across sites, with some small variations (e.g. positive service impacts of higher ethnic diversity in area 2). Pre-pandemic barriers at individual level included mistrust and thus avoidance of services and at a service level included the dominance of a monocultural model, leading to poor communication, disengagement and alienation. During the pandemic remote service delivery, closure of community organisations and media scapegoating exacerbated existing barriers by worsening alienation and communication barriers, fuelling prejudice and division, and increasing mistrust in services. Some minority ethnic patients reported positive developments, experiencing empowerment through self-determination and creative activities. Conclusions: During the COVID-19 pandemic some patients showed resilience and developed adaptations that could be nurtured by services. However, there has been a reduction in the availability of group-specific NHS and third-sector services in the community, exacerbating pre-existing barriers. As these developments are likely to have long-term consequences for minority ethnic groups’ engagement with mental healthcare, they need to be addressed as a priority by the NHS and its partners