An Evaluation of Management Placements for nursing students in UK General Practice

General practice is facing a shortage of nurses and it can be difficult to recruit and retain staff. Nursing students need exposure to primary care nursing roles if they are to consider them in their future career and to develop the skills needed for this environment. A study was designed explore the experiences and perceptions of students on their final placement in general practice. The data were thematically analysed and three themes were derived from the data: myth busting, the teaching and learning environment, and attaining competency

Afraid to leave the house: issues leading to social exclusion and loneliness for people with a learning disability

© 2019, Emerald Publishing Limited. Purpose: Tackling social exclusion, which can lead to social isolation and loneliness, is an important current issue. People with a learning disability have a right to be full members of their communities, yet often experience social exclusion. Community connections play a key role in people developing reciprocal relationships. It is therefore important to know the barriers to full inclusion. The paper aims to discuss this issue. Design/methodology/approach: This paper builds on an inclusive research project exploring these issues (Mooney et al., 2019) and aims to place that study’s main findings in a broader academic, policy and practice context. Findings: Whilst there is a wide range of literature about social exclusion, lack of friendships and loneliness experienced by people with a learning disability, there is a gap in knowledge regarding some of the specific social barriers that prevent wider social inclusion, and therefore opportunities to make and keep friends. Originality/value: This paper relates the findings of an inclusive research project to the current literature. It identifies the social barriers that limit community involvement and draws on the experience of people with a learning disability to find possible ways forward.Published versio

Predictive risk stratification model: a randomised stepped-wedge trial in primary care (PRISMATIC)

Background: With a higher proportion of older people in the UK population, new approaches are needed to reduce emergency hospital admissions, thereby shifting care delivery out of hospital when possible and safe. Study aim: To evaluate the introduction of predictive risk stratification in primary care. Objectives: To (1) measure the effects on service usage, particularly emergency admissions to hospital; (2) assess the effects of the Predictive RIsk Stratification Model (PRISM) on quality of life and satisfaction; (3) assess the technical performance of PRISM; (4) estimate the costs of PRISM implementation and its effects; and (5) describe the processes of change associated with PRISM. Design: Randomised stepped-wedge trial with economic and qualitative components. Setting: Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board, south Wales. Participants: Patients registered with 32 participating general practices. Intervention: PRISM software, which stratifies patients into four (emergency admission) risk groups; practice-based training; and clinical support. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome – emergency hospital admissions. Secondary outcomes – emergency department (ED) and outpatient attendances, general practitioner (GP) activity, time in hospital, quality of life, satisfaction and costs. Data sources: Routine anonymised linked health service use data, self-completed questionnaires and staff focus groups and interviews. Results: Across 230,099 participants, PRISM implementation led to increased emergency admissions to hospital [ΔL = 0.011, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.010 to 0.013], ED attendances (ΔL = 0.030, 95% CI 0.028 to 0.032), GP event-days (ΔL = 0.011, 95% CI 0.007 to 0.014), outpatient visits (ΔL = 0.055, 95% CI 0.051 to 0.058) and time spent in hospital (ΔL = 0.029, 95% CI 0.026 to 0.031). Quality-of-life scores related to mental health were similar between phases (Δ = –0.720, 95% CI –1.469 to 0.030); physical health scores improved in the intervention phase (Δ = 1.465, 95% CI 0.774 to 2.157); and satisfaction levels were lower (Δ = –0.074, 95% CI – 0.133 to –0.015). PRISM implementation cost £0.12 per patient per year and costs of health-care use per patient were higher in the intervention phase (Δ = £76, 95% CI £46 to £106). There was no evidence of any significant difference in deaths between phases (9.58 per 1000 patients per year in the control phase and 9.25 per 1000 patients per year in the intervention phase). PRISM showed good general technical performance, comparable with existing risk prediction tools (c-statistic of 0.749). Qualitative data showed low use by GPs and practice staff, although they all reported using PRISM to generate lists of patients to target for prioritised care to meet Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) targets. Limitations: In Wales during the study period, QOF targets were introduced into general practice to encourage targeting care to those at highest risk of emergency admission to hospital. Within this dynamic context, we therefore evaluated the combined effects of PRISM and this contemporaneous policy initiative. Conclusions: Introduction of PRISM increased emergency episodes, hospitalisation and costs across, and within, risk levels without clear evidence of benefits to patients. Future research: (1) Evaluation of targeting of different services to different levels of risk; (2) investigation of effects on vulnerable populations and health inequalities; (3) secondary analysis of the Predictive Risk Stratification: A Trial in Chronic Conditions Management data set by health condition type; and (4) acceptability of predictive risk stratification to patients and practitioners. Trial and study registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN55538212 and PROSPERO CRD42015016874. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services Delivery and Research programme

Exploring the perspectives of clinical professionals and support staff on implementing supported self-management for asthma in UK general practice: an IMP2ART qualitative study

The IMP2 ART study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research, Programme Grants for Applied Research. Grant no: RP-DG-1213-10008. S.T. was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) North Thames at Bart’s Health NHS Trust. L.D. is an Academic Fellow in General Practice supported by the Scottish School of Primary Care

Integrated care to address the physical health needs of people with severe mental illness : a rapid review

Background People with mental health conditions have a lower life expectancy and poorer physical health outcomes than the general population. Evidence suggests that this discrepancy is driven by a combination of clinical risk factors, socioeconomic factors and health system factors. Objective(s) To explore current service provision and map the recent evidence on models of integrated care addressing the physical health needs of people with severe mental illness (SMI) primarily within the mental health service setting. The research was designed as a rapid review of published evidence from 2013–15, including an update of a comprehensive 2013 review, together with further grey literature and insights from an expert advisory group. Synthesis We conducted a narrative synthesis, using a guiding framework based on nine previously identified factors considered to be facilitators of good integrated care for people with mental health problems, supplemented by additional issues emerging from the evidence. Descriptive data were used to identify existing models, perceived facilitators and barriers to their implementation, and any areas for further research. Findings and discussion The synthesis incorporated 45 publications describing 36 separate approaches to integrated care, along with further information from the advisory group. Most service models were multicomponent programmes incorporating two or more of the nine factors: (1) information sharing systems; (2) shared protocols; (3) joint funding/commissioning; (4) colocated services; (5) multidisciplinary teams; (6) liaison services; (7) navigators; (8) research; and (9) reduction of stigma. Few of the identified examples were described in detail and fewer still were evaluated, raising questions about the replicability and generalisability of much of the existing evidence. However, some common themes did emerge from the evidence. Efforts to improve the physical health care of people with SMI should empower people (staff and service users) and help remove everyday barriers to delivering and accessing integrated care. In particular, there is a need for improved communication between professionals and better information technology to support them, greater clarity about who is responsible and accountable for physical health care, and awareness of the effects of stigmatisation on the wider culture and environment in which services are delivered. Limitations and future work The literature identified in the rapid review was limited in volume and often lacked the depth of description necessary to acquire new insights. All members of our advisory group were based in England, so this report has limited information on the NHS contexts specific to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. A conventional systematic review of this topic would not appear to be appropriate in the immediate future, although a more interpretivist approach to exploring this literature might be feasible. Wherever possible, future evaluations should involve service users and be clear about which outcomes, facilitators and barriers are likely to be context-specific and which might be generalisable

Cross-national mixed methods comparative case study of recovery-focused mental health care planning and coordination in acute inpatient mental health settings (COCAPP-A)

Background: Serious concerns have been identified in relation to care planning, patient involvement and consent to treatment in mental health wards, including for those patients detained under the Mental Health Act. Further evidence is needed to develop care planning interventions that embed dignity, recovery and participation for all people using inpatient mental health care. Design: We propose to undertake a cross-national comparative study of recovery-focused mental health care planning in inpatient settings. This two-phase exploratory mixed methods study will produce theory and empirical evidence to complement that developed in our current study of community mental health services to inform a future whole systems intervention study. The study is guided by a theoretical framework emphasising the connections between different 'levels' of organisation (macro/meso/micro). In phase 1 we study the macro-level through the comparative analysis of English and Welsh policy contexts. In phase 2 concurrent quantitative and qualitative data will be collected at 6 NHS Trust/Health Board case study sites (meso-level) and within each site, a single micro-level mental health ward will be selected to provide in-depth qualitative data related to care planning processes. Phase 1: We will extend our current meta-narrative mapping review (Wong et al 2013) of English and Welsh policies and the international literature on personalised recovery-oriented care planning and coordination in community settings to include inpatient settings. We will provide a review of evidence that is useful, rigorous and relevant for service providers and decision-makers and to inform Phase 2. Phase 2: We are employing a concurrent transformative mixed methods approach with embedded case studies (Creswell 2009: 215). We will conduct six in-depth meso-level case study investigations across contrasting NHS Trusts in England (n=4) and Local Health Boards in Wales (n=2), selected to reflect variety in geography and population and include a mix of rural, urban and inner city settings providing routine inpatient care. A large sample of service users (total n=300), inpatient staff (n=300) and informal carers (n=150) will be surveyed about perceptions of acute mental health care and care planning, recovery oriented practices, therapeutic relationships and empowerment using validated questionnaires. Documents and interviews with managers, consultant psychiatrists, ward staff and informal carers (n=60) will also be generated relating to local contexts, policies and practices. In each site we will also select a single inpatient ward and conduct a series of case studies embedded within each organisational case study, to explore care planning in detail. We will invite a sample of service users (total n=36) to participate in in-depth interviews about care planning and structured narrative reviews of their care plans; undertake a structured review of anonymised care plans for a further sample (n=60) of consecutively discharged patients; and conduct observation of care planning processes (n= 18). Framework method will be employed to integrate and compare textual and statistical summaries of qualitative and quantitative analyses within each case study site, informed by the theoretical framework focused on recovery and personalisation. Armed with our set of six within-case analyses we will then conduct a cross-case analysis to draw out key findings from across all sites

Cross-national comparative mixed-methods case study of recovery-focused mental health care planning and co-ordination: Collaborative Care Planning Project (COCAPP)

The care programme approach in England and care and treatment planning in Wales are systems designed to provide mental health service users with a named care co-ordinator who meets regularly with the service user, oversees their care and develops a written plan to guide the care that they receive. These approaches are meant to help people towards recovery. In this study, we investigated whether care is organised to help people’s recovery and whether this is done in a personalised way. We identified six NHS trust/health board sites in England and Wales, and surveyed staff and service users to measure views on recovery, empowerment and therapeutic relationships. At each site we also interviewed managers, clinical staff care co-ordinators, service users and carers about their experiences of care planning. We found that good relationships are important for service users, carers and care co-ordinators in care planning and supporting recovery. Experiences of care planning and co-ordination varied within all sites. People do not always feel involved in their own care. The understanding of recovery and personalisation varied among the service users and staff interviewed. Workers say that there is too much paperwork and, like service users, they rarely look at care plans once written. Staff focus on risk but this does not often appear to be discussed with people using services, which may be problematic. We recommend research to investigate new ways of working and training to increase staff contact time with service users and carers and to improve a focus on recovery

The ‘vicious cycle’ of personalised asthma action plan implementation in primary care: a qualitative study of patients and health professionals’ views

Background: Personal asthma action plans (PAAPs) have been guideline recommended for years, but consistentlyunder-issued by health professionals and under-utilised by patients. Previous studies have investigated sub-optimalPAAP implementation but more insight is needed into barriers to their use from the perspective of professionals,patients and primary care teams.Methods: A maximum variation sample of professional and patient participants were recruited from five demographicallydiverse general practices and another group of primary care professionals in one Scottish region. Interviews were digitallyrecorded and data thematically analysed using NVivo.Results: Twenty-nine semi-structured interviews were conducted (11 adults with asthma, seven general practitioners, tenpractice nurses, one hospital respiratory nurse). Three over-arching themes emerged: 1) patients generally do not valuePAAPs, 2) professionals do not fully value PAAPs and, 3) multiple barriers reduce the value of PAAPs in primary care. Sixpatients had a PAAP but these were outdated, not reflecting their needs and not used. Patients reported not wanting orneeding PAAPs, yet identified circumstances when these could be useful. Fifteen professionals had selectively issuedPAAPs with eight having reviewed one. Many professionals did not value PAAPs as they did not see patients using theseand lacked awareness of times when patients could have benefited from one. Multi-level compounding barriers emerged.Individual barriers included poor patient awareness and professionals not reinforcing PAAP use. Organisational barriersincluded professionals having difficulty accessing PAAP templates and fragmented processes including patients not beingasked to bring PAAPs to their asthma appointments.Conclusions: Primary care PAAP implementation is in a vicious cycle. Professionals infrequently review/update PAAPswith patients; patients with out-dated PAAPs do not value or use these; professionals observing patients’ lack of interestin PAAPs do not discuss these. Patients observing this do not refer to their plans and perceive them to be of little valuein asthma self-management. Twenty-five years after PAAPs were first recommended, primary care practices are still notready to support their implementation. Breaking this vicious cycle to create a healthcare context more conducive to PAAPimplementation requires a whole systems approach with multi-faceted interventions addressing patient, professional andorganisational barriers