10 research outputs found
Evidence for models of diagnostic service provision in the community: literature mapping exercise and focused rapid reviews
Background
Current NHS policy favours the expansion of diagnostic testing services in community and primary care settings.
Objectives
Our objectives were to identify current models of community diagnostic services in the UK and internationally and to assess the evidence for quality, safety and clinical effectiveness of such services. We were also interested in whether or not there is any evidence to support a broader range of diagnostic tests being provided in the community.
Review methods
We performed an initial broad literature mapping exercise to assess the quantity and nature of the published research evidence. The results were used to inform selection of three areas for investigation in more detail. We chose to perform focused reviews on logistics of diagnostic modalities in primary care (because the relevant issues differ widely between different types of test); diagnostic ultrasound (a key diagnostic technology affected by developments in equipment); and a diagnostic pathway (assessment of breathlessness) typically delivered wholly or partly in primary care/community settings. Databases and other sources searched, and search dates, were decided individually for each review. Quantitative and qualitative systematic reviews and primary studies of any design were eligible for inclusion.
Results
We identified seven main models of service that are delivered in primary care/community settings and in most cases with the possible involvement of community/primary care staff. Not all of these models are relevant to all types of diagnostic test. Overall, the evidence base for community- and primary care-based diagnostic services was limited, with very few controlled studies comparing different models of service. We found evidence from different settings that these services can reduce referrals to secondary care and allow more patients to be managed in primary care, but the quality of the research was generally poor. Evidence on the quality (including diagnostic accuracy and appropriateness of test ordering) and safety of such services was mixed.
Conclusions
In the absence of clear evidence of superior clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, the expansion of community-based services appears to be driven by other factors. These include policies to encourage moving services out of hospitals; the promise of reduced waiting times for diagnosis; the availability of a wider range of suitable tests and/or cheaper, more user-friendly equipment; and the ability of commercial providers to bid for NHS contracts. However, service development also faces a number of barriers, including issues related to staffing, training, governance and quality control.
Limitations
We have not attempted to cover all types of diagnostic technology in equal depth. Time and staff resources constrained our ability to carry out review processes in duplicate. Research in this field is limited by the difficulty of obtaining, from publicly available sources, up-to-date information about what models of service are commissioned, where and from which providers.
Future work
There is a need for research to compare the outcomes of different service models using robust study designs. Comparisons of ‘true’ community-based services with secondary care-based open-access services and rapid access clinics would be particularly valuable. There are specific needs for economic evaluations and for studies that incorporate effects on the wider health system. There appears to be no easy way of identifying what services are being commissioned from whom and keeping up with local evaluations of new services, suggesting a need to improve the availability of information in this area.
Funding
The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme
Recommended from our members
Improving outcomes for people in mental health crisis: a rapid synthesis of the evidence for available models of care
BACKGROUND: Crisis Concordat was established to improve outcomes for people experiencing a mental health crisis. The Crisis Concordat sets out four stages of the crisis care pathway: (1) access to support before crisis point; (2) urgent and emergency access to crisis care; (3) quality treatment and care in crisis; and (4) promoting recovery.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the models of care for improving outcomes at each stage of the care pathway.
DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases were searched for guidelines, reviews and, where necessary, primary studies. The searches were performed on 25 and 26 June 2014 for NHS Evidence, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and PROSPERO databases, and on 11 November 2014 for MEDLINE, PsycINFO and the Criminal Justice Abstracts databases. Relevant reports and reference lists of retrieved articles were scanned to identify additional studies.
STUDY SELECTION: When guidelines covered a topic comprehensively, further literature was not assessed; however, where there were gaps, systematic reviews and then primary studies were assessed in order of priority.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Systematic reviews were critically appraised using the Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews assessment tool, trials were assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, studies without a control group were assessed using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) prognostic studies tool and qualitative studies were assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme quality assessment tool. A narrative synthesis was conducted for each stage of the care pathway structured according to the type of care model assessed. The type and range of evidence identified precluded the use of meta-analysis.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: One review of reviews, six systematic reviews, nine guidelines and 15 primary studies were included. There was very limited evidence for access to support before crisis point. There was evidence of benefits for liaison psychiatry teams in improving service-related outcomes in emergency departments, but this was often limited by potential confounding in most studies. There was limited evidence regarding models to improve urgent and emergency access to crisis care to guide police officers in their Mental Health Act responsibilities. There was positive evidence on clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of crisis resolution teams but variability in implementation. Current work from the Crisis resolution team Optimisation and RElapse prevention study aims to improve fidelity in delivering these models. Crisis houses and acute day hospital care are also currently recommended by NICE. There was a large evidence base on promoting recovery with a range of interventions recommended by NICE likely to be important in helping people stay well.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Most evidence was rated as low or very low quality, but this partly reflects the difficulty of conducting research into complex interventions for people in a mental health crisis and does not imply that all research was poorly conducted. However, there are currently important gaps in research for a number of stages of the crisis care pathway. Particular gaps in research on access to support before crisis point and urgent and emergency access to crisis care were found. In addition, more high-quality research is needed on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of mental health crisis care, including effective components of inpatient care, post-discharge transitional care and Community Mental Health Teams/intensive case management teams.
STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013279. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research HTA programme
Community hospitals and their services in the NHS: identifying transferable learning from international developments - scoping review, systematic review, country reports and case studies
Background: The notion of a community hospital in England is evolving from the traditional model of a local hospital staffed by general practitioners and nurses and serving mainly rural populations. Along with the diversification of models, there is a renewed policy interest in community hospitals and their potential to deliver integrated care. However, there is a need to better understand the role of different models of community hospitals within the wider health economy and an opportunity to learn from experiences of other countries to inform this potential. Objectives This study sought to (1) define the nature and scope of service provision models that fit under the umbrella term ‘community hospital’ in the UK and other high-income countries, (2) analyse evidence of their effectiveness and efficiency, (3) explore the wider role and impact of community engagement in community hospitals, (4) understand how models in other countries operate and asses their role within the wider health-care system, and (5) identify the potential for community hospitals to perform an integrative role in the delivery of health and social care. Methods A multimethod study including a scoping review of community hospital models, a linked systematic review of their effectiveness and efficiency, an analysis of experiences in Australia, Finland, Italy, Norway and Scotland, and case studies of four community hospitals in Finland, Italy and Scotland. Results The evidence reviews found that community hospitals provide a diverse range of services, spanning primary, secondary and long-term care in geographical and health system contexts. They can offer an effective and efficient alternative to acute hospitals. Patient experience was frequently reported to be better at community hospitals, and the cost-effectiveness of some models was found to be similar to that of general hospitals, although evidence was limited. Evidence from other countries showed that community hospitals provide a wide spectrum of health services that lie on a continuum between serving a ‘geographic purpose’ and having a specific population focus, mainly older people. Structures continue to evolve as countries embark on major reforms to integrate health and social care. Case studies highlighted that it is important to consider local and national contexts when looking at how to transfer models across settings, how to overcome barriers to integration beyond location and how the community should be best represented. Limitations The use of a restricted definition may have excluded some relevant community hospital models, and the small number of countries and case studies included for comparison may limit the transferability of findings for England. Although this research provides detailed insights into community hospitals in five countries, it was not in its scope to include the perspective of patients in any depth. Conclusions At a time when emphasis is being placed on integrated and community-based care, community hospitals have the potential to assume a more strategic role in health-care delivery locally, providing care closer to people’s homes. There is a need for more research into the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of community hospitals, the role of the community and optimal staff profile(s). Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme
Crisis resolution teams for people experiencing mental health crises: the CORE mixed-methods research programme including two RCTs
Background Crisis resolution teams (CRTs) seek to avert hospital admissions by providing intensive home treatment for people experiencing a mental health crisis. The CRT model has not been highly specified. CRT care is often experienced as ending abruptly and relapse rates following CRT discharge are high. Aims The aims of CORE (Crisis resolution team Optimisation and RElapse prevention) workstream 1 were to specify a model of best practice for CRTs, develop a measure to assess adherence to this model and evaluate service improvement resources to help CRTs implement the model with high fidelity. The aim of CORE workstream 2 was to evaluate a peer-provided self-management programme aimed at reducing relapse following CRT support. Methods Workstream 1 was based on a systematic review, national CRT manager survey and stakeholder qualitative interviews to develop a CRT fidelity scale through a concept mapping process with stakeholders (n = 68). This was piloted in CRTs nationwide (n = 75). A CRT service improvement programme (SIP) was then developed and evaluated in a cluster randomised trial: 15 CRTs received the SIP over 1 year; 10 teams acted as controls. The primary outcome was service user satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included CRT model fidelity, catchment area inpatient admission rates and staff well-being. Workstream 2 was a peer-provided self-management programme that was developed through an iterative process of systematic literature reviewing, stakeholder consultation and preliminary testing. This intervention was evaluated in a randomised controlled trial: 221 participants recruited from CRTs received the intervention and 220 did not. The primary outcome was re-admission to acute care at 1 year of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included time to re-admission and number of days in acute care over 1 year of follow-up and symptoms and personal recovery measured at 4 and 18 months’ follow-up. Results Workstream 1 – a 39-item CRT fidelity scale demonstrated acceptability, face validity and promising inter-rater reliability. CRT implementation in England was highly variable. The SIP trial did not produce a positive result for patient satisfaction [median Client Satisfaction Questionnaire score of 28 in both groups at follow-up; coefficient 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) –1.02 to 2.97]. The programme achieved modest increases in model fidelity. Intervention teams achieved lower inpatient admission rates and less inpatient bed use. Qualitative evaluation suggested that the programme was generally well received. Workstream 2 – the trial yielded a statistically significant result for the primary outcome, in which rates of re-admission to acute care over 1 year of follow-up were lower in the intervention group than in the control group (odds ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.99; p = 0.044). Time to re-admission was lower and satisfaction with care was greater in the intervention group at 4 months’ follow-up. There were no other significant differences between groups in the secondary outcomes. Limitations Limitations in workstream 1 included uncertainty regarding the representativeness of the sample for the primary outcome and lack of blinding for assessment. In workstream 2, the limitations included the complexity of the intervention, preventing clarity about which were effective elements. Conclusions The CRT SIP did not achieve all its aims but showed potential promise as a means to increase CRT model fidelity and reduce inpatient service use. The peer-provided self-management intervention is an effective means to reduce relapse rates for people leaving CRT care. Study registration The randomised controlled trials were registered as Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN47185233 and ISRCTN01027104. The systematic reviews were registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006415 and CRD42017043048. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme
The 'Choice and Autonomy Framework' : implications for occupational therapy practice
Introduction
This paper presents findings from a PhD study exploring
autonomy of adults with physical disability. The plethora
of descriptions of autonomy in psychological, occupational
therapy and rehabilitation literature (e.g. Ryan and Deci 2000,
Rogers 1982, Cardol et al 2002) detracts from the centrality
of autonomy and results in difficulty incorporating it into
occupational therapy practice. This paper presents a framework
providing an integrated, clinically useful approach to autonomy.
Methods
Sixteen people were recruited, based on age, gender,
impairment and living circumstances (community/residential
settings). All have significant physical disability, use a wheelchair
and require personal assistance for some/all self-care activities.
Qualitative methods were used for data collection, including
life-history narrative, diary information and extensive interview.
An integrated method of analysis was used, including content
analysis and bracketing.
Results
The ‘Choice and Autonomy Framework’ consists of five strands,
including:
• the meaning of autonomy
• whether or not autonomy is a goal or value
• the experience of autonomy
• personality factors that impact autonomy
• environmental features that enhance or negate autonomy.
This paper will describe each strand, as derived from the
research. The results suggest that, contrary to common wisdom (Hmel and Pincus 2002), autonomy is not necessarily a universal
goal for people with physical disability; an understanding of the
person’s own perspective will enhance person-centred practice
and enable therapists to further recognise individuality of clients.
It will argue that the concept of autonomy needs to be further
understood and incorporated into occupational therapy practice
Editoriale. Ciò che la Psicologia ci dice delle scienze del nostro tempo
This is the final version of the article. Available from the publisher via the DOI in this record.Background: Chronic musculoskeletal pain is a common problem that is difficult to treat.
Self-management support interventions may help people to manage this condition better; however, there
is limited evidence showing that they improve clinical outcomes. Our overarching research question was
‘Does a self-management support programme improve outcomes for people living with chronic
musculoskeletal pain?’.
Aim: To develop, evaluate and test the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a theoretically
grounded self-management support intervention for people living with chronic musculoskeletal pain.
Methods: In phase 1 we carried out two systematic reviews to synthesise the evidence base for
self-management course content and delivery styles likely to help those with chronic pain. We also
considered the psychological theories that might underpin behaviour change and pain management
principles. Informed by these data we developed the Coping with persistent Pain, Evaluation Research in
Self-management (COPERS) intervention, a group intervention delivered over 3 days with a top-up session
after 2 weeks. It was led by two trained facilitators: a health-care professional and a layperson with
experience of chronic pain. To ensure that we measured the most appropriate outcomes we reviewed the
literature on potential outcome domains and measures and consulted widely with patients, tutors and
experts. In a feasibility study we demonstrated that we could deliver the COPERS intervention in English
and, to increase the generalisability of our findings, also in Sylheti for the Bangladeshi community.
In phase 2 we ran a randomised controlled trial to test the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of
adding the COPERS intervention to a best usual care package (usual care plus a relaxation CD and a pain
toolkit leaflet). We recruited adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain largely from primary care and
musculoskeletal physiotherapy services in two localities: east London and Coventry/Warwickshire.
We collected follow-up data at 12 weeks (self-efficacy only) and 6 and 12 months. Our primary outcome was pain-related disability (Chronic Pain Grade disability subscale) at 12 months. We also measured costs,
health utility (European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions), anxiety, depression [Hospital Anxiety and Depression
Scale (HADS)], coping, pain acceptance and social integration. Data on the use of NHS services by
participants were extracted from NHS electronic records.
Results: We recruited 703 participants with a mean age of 60 years (range 19–94 years); 81% were white
and 67% were female. Depression and anxiety symptoms were common, with mean HADS depression and
anxiety scores of 7.4 [standard deviation (SD) 4.1] and 9.2 (SD 4.6), respectively. Intervention participants
received 85% of the course content. At 12 months there was no difference between treatment groups in
our primary outcome of pain-related disability [difference –1.0 intervention vs. control, 95% confidence
interval (CI) –4.9 to 3.0]. However, self-efficacy, anxiety, depression, pain acceptance and social integration
all improved more in the intervention group at 6 months. At 1 year these differences remained for
depression (–0.7, 95% CI –1.2 to –0.2) and social integration (0.8, 95% CI, 0.4 to 1.2). The COPERS
intervention had a high probability (87%) of being cost-effective compared with usual care at a threshold
of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year.
Conclusions: Although the COPERS intervention did not affect our primary outcome of pain-related
disability, it improved psychological well-being and is likely to be cost-effective according to current
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence criteria. The COPERS intervention could be used as a
substitute for less well-evidenced (and more expensive) pain self-management programmes. Effective
interventions to improve hard outcomes in chronic pain patients, such as disability, are still needed.The project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for
Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research;
Vol. 4, No. 14. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information