Health and social care delivery research 

About: Health and social care delivery research is an academic journal published by NIHR Journals Library. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Medicine & Psychological intervention. It has an ISSN identifier of 2755-0060. Over the lifetime, 46 publications have been published receiving 49 citations.

Early evaluation of the Children and Young People's Mental Health Trailblazer programme: a rapid mixed-methods study.

Abstract: Background The Children and Young People's Mental Health Trailblazer programme is funding the creation of new mental health support teams to work in schools and further education colleges. Mental health support teams directly support children and young people with 'mild to moderate' mental health problems and work with school and college staff to promote well-being for all. A new workforce of education mental health practitioners is being trained for the teams. Objective(s) The National Institute for Health and Care Research Birmingham, RAND and Cambridge Evaluation Rapid Evaluation Centre and Policy Innovation and Evaluation Research Unit undertook an early evaluation of the Trailblazer programme to examine the development, implementation and early progress of mental health support teams in the programme's first 25 'Trailblazer' sites. Design A mixed-methods evaluation, comprising three work packages: 1. Establishing the baseline and understanding the development and early impacts of the Trailblazer sites, including two rounds of surveys with key informants and participating education settings in all 25 sites. 2. More detailed research in five purposively selected Trailblazer sites, including interviews with a range of stakeholders and focus groups with children and young people. 3. Scoping and developing options for a longer-term assessment of the programme's outcomes and impacts. Fieldwork was undertaken between November 2020 and February 2022. The University of Birmingham Institute for Mental Health Youth Advisory Group was involved throughout the study, including co-producing the focus groups with children and young people. Results Substantial progress had been made implementing the programme, in challenging circumstances, and there was optimism about what it had the potential to achieve. The education mental health practitioner role had proven popular, but sites reported challenges in retaining education mental health practitioners, and turnover left mental health support teams short-staffed and needing to re-recruit. Education settings welcomed additional mental health support and reported positive early outcomes, including staff feeling more confident and having faster access to advice about mental health issues. At the same time, there were concerns about children who had mental health problems that were more serious than 'mild to moderate' but not serious enough to be accepted for specialist help, and that the interventions offered were not working well for some young people. Mental health support teams were generally spending more time supporting children with mental health problems than working with education settings to develop 'whole school' approaches to mental health and well-being, and service models in some sites appeared to be more clinically oriented, with a strong focus on mental health support teams' therapeutic functions. Limitations Despite efforts to maximise participation, survey response rates were relatively low and some groups were less well represented than others. We were not able to gather sufficiently detailed data to develop a typology of Trailblazer sites, as was planned. Conclusions Key lessons for future programme implementation include: - Whether mental health support teams should expand support to children and young people with more complex and serious mental health problems. - How to keep the twin aims of prevention and early intervention in balance. - How to retain education mental health practitioners once trained. Future work The findings have important implications for the design of a longer-term impact evaluation of the programme, which is due to commence in summer 2023. Study registration Ethical approval from the University of Birmingham (ERN_19-1400 - RG_19-190) and London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (Ref: 18040) and Health Research Authority approval (IRAS 270760). Funding The Birmingham, RAND and Cambridge Evaluation Rapid Evaluation Centre is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme (HSDR 16/138/31). The Policy Innovation and Evaluation Research Unit is funded by the NIHR Policy Research Programme (PR-PRU-1217-20602).

General practitioners working in or alongside the emergency department: the GPED mixed-methods study

Abstract: Emergency care is facing a steadily rising demand. In response, hospitals have implemented new models of care that locate general practitioners in or alongside the emergency department. We aimed to explore the effects of general practitioners working in or alongside the emergency department on patient care, the primary care and acute hospital team, and the wider system, as well as to determine the differential effects of different service models. This was a mixed-methods study in three work packages. Work package A classified current models of general practitioners working in or alongside the emergency department in England. We interviewed national and local leaders, staff and patients to identify the hypotheses underpinning these services. Work package B used a retrospective analysis of routinely available data. Outcome measures included waiting times, admission rates, reattendances, mortality and the number of patient attendances. We explored potential cost savings. Work package C was a detailed mixed-methods case study in 10 sites. We collected and synthesised qualitative and quantitative data from non-participant observations, interviews and a workforce survey. Patients and the public were involved throughout the development, delivery and dissemination of the study. High-level goals were shared between national policy-makers and local leads; however, there was disagreement about the anticipated effects. We identified eight domains of influence: performance against the 4-hour target, use of investigations, hospital admissions, patient outcome and experience, service access, workforce recruitment and retention, workforce behaviour and experience, and resource use. General practitioners working in or alongside the emergency department were associated with a very slight reduction in the rate of reattendance within 7 days; however, the clinical significance of this was judged to be negligible. For all other indicators, there was no effect on performance or outcomes. However, there was a substantial degree of heterogeneity in these findings. This is explained by the considerable variation observed in our case study sites, and the sensitivity of service implementation to local factors. The effects on the workforce were complex; they were often positive for emergency department doctors and general practitioners, but less so for nursing staff. The patient-streaming process generated stress and conflict for emergency department nurses and general practitioners. Patients and carers were understanding of general practitioners working in or alongside the emergency department. We found no evidence that staff concerns regarding the potential to create additional demand were justified. Any possible cost savings associated with reduced reattendances were heavily outweighed by the cost of the service. The reliability of our data sources varied and we were unable to complete our quantitative analysis entirely as planned. Participation in interviews and at case study sites was voluntary. Service implementation was highly subject to local context and micro-level influences. Key success factors were interprofessional working, staffing and training, streaming, and infrastructure and support. Further research should study the longer-term effects of these services, clinician attitudes to risk and the implementation of streaming. Additional work should also examine the system effects of national policy initiatives, develop methodologies to support rapid service evaluation and study the relationship between primary and secondary care. This trial is registered as ISRCTN51780222. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 10, No. 30. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Prehospital video triage of potential stroke patients in North Central London and East Kent: rapid mixed-methods service evaluation

Abstract: In response to COVID-19, alongside other service changes, North Central London and East Kent implemented prehospital video triage: this involved stroke and ambulance clinicians communicating over FaceTime (Apple Inc., Cupertino, CA, USA) to assess suspected stroke patients while still on scene. To evaluate the implementation, experience and impact of prehospital video triage in North Central London and East Kent. A rapid mixed-methods service evaluation (July 2020 to September 2021) using the following methods. (1) Evidence reviews: scoping review (15 reviews included) and rapid systematic review (47 papers included) on prehospital video triage for stroke, covering usability (audio-visual and signal quality); acceptability (whether or not clinicians want to use it); impact (on outcomes, safety, experience and cost-effectiveness); and factors influencing implementation. (2) Clinician views of prehospital video triage in North Central London and East Kent, covering usability, acceptability, patient safety and implementation: qualitative analysis of interviews with ambulance and stroke clinicians (n = 27), observations (n = 12) and documents (n = 23); a survey of ambulance clinicians (n = 233). (3) Impact on safety and quality: analysis of local ambulance conveyance times (n = 1400; April to September 2020). Analysis of national stroke audit data on ambulance conveyance and stroke unit delivery of clinical interventions in North Central London, East Kent and the rest of England (n = 137,650; July 2018 to December 2020). (1) Evidence: limited but growing, and sparse in UK settings. Prehospital video triage can be usable and acceptable, requiring clear network connection and audio-visual signal, clinician training and communication. Key knowledge gaps included impact on patient conveyance, patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness. (2) Clinician views. Usability – relied on stable Wi-Fi and audio-visual signals, and back-up processes for when signals failed. Clinicians described training as important for confidence in using prehospital video triage services, noting potential for ‘refresher’ courses and joint training events. Ambulance clinicians preferred more active training, as used in North Central London. Acceptability – most clinicians felt that prehospital video triage improved on previous processes and wanted it to continue or expand. Ambulance clinicians reported increased confidence in decisions. Stroke clinicians found doing assessments alongside their standard duties a source of pressure. Safety – clinical leaders monitored and managed potential patient safety issues; clinicians felt strongly that services were safe. Implementation – several factors enabled prehospital video triage at a system level (e.g. COVID-19) and more locally (e.g. facilitative governance, receptive clinicians). Clinical leaders reached across and beyond their organisations to engage clinicians, senior managers and the wider system. (3) Impact on safety and quality: we found no evidence of increased times from symptom onset to arrival at services or of stroke clinical interventions reducing in studied areas. We found several significant improvements relative to the rest of England (possibly resulting from other service changes). We could not interview patients and carers. Ambulance data had no historic or regional comparators. Stroke audit data were not at patient level. Several safety issues were not collected routinely. Our survey used a convenience sample. Prehospital video triage was perceived as usable, acceptable and safe in both areas. Qualitative research with patients, carers and other stakeholders and quantitative analysis of patient-level data on care delivery, outcomes and cost-effectiveness, using national controls. Focus on sustainability and roll-out of services. This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021254209. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 10, No. 26. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Understanding approaches to continence care for people living with dementia in acute hospital settings: an ethnographic study

Abstract: The acute hospital setting has become a key site of care for people living with dementia. People living with dementia are one of the largest populations in our hospitals, with the Department of Health and Social Care recognising that 25–50% of all acute hospital admissions are people who are also living with dementia. However, people living with dementia are a highly vulnerable group in the hospital setting and, following an acute admission, their functional abilities can deteriorate quickly and significantly. Detailed research is required to explore what constitutes ‘good care’. This study’s focus was a common, but poorly understood, aspect of everyday care for people living with dementia during an acute admission, that is continence care. We asked the following questions: what caring practices are observable when interacting with this patient group? How do ward teams respond to and manage continence needs? What informs these approaches? What are staff doing and why? This ethnography was informed by the symbolic interactionist research tradition, focusing on understanding how action and meaning are constructed within a setting. In-depth evidence-based analysis of everyday care enabled us to examine how ward staff responded to the continence care needs of people living with dementia and to follow the consequences of their actions. We carried out a mixed-methods systematic narrative review to refine our approach to fieldwork and analysis. This ethnography was carried out for 180 days, across 12 months, in six wards in three hospitals across England and Wales that were purposefully selected to represent a range of hospital types, geographies and socioeconomic catchments. In addition to general observations, 108 individuals participated directly in this study, contributing to 562 ethnographic interviews. Ten detailed case studies were also undertaken with people living with dementia. This study identified ‘pad cultures’ as an embedded practice on these acute wards. The routine use of continence pads among people living with dementia (regardless of continence and independence) was widespread. The use of continence pads was viewed as a precautionary strategy, the rationale being to provide safeguards, ensure containment and prevent ‘accidents’ or incontinence episodes, with an expectation that patients living with dementia not only will wear pads, but will use them. These ‘pad cultures’ enabled the number of unscheduled interruptions to the institutionally mandated timetabled work of these wards to be reduced, but had significant impacts on people living with dementia and, in turn, wider consequences for these individuals and their identities. Ward staff described feeling abandoned with the responsibility of caring for large numbers of people living with dementia, believing that it was impossible to work in other ways to support their patient’s continence. The limitations identified included the potential for the Hawthorne effect to influence data collection. In collaboration with a specialist dementia care and continence teams, the findings are informing the development of education and training at the interactional and organisational level. This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018119495. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 10, No. 14. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Design and evaluation of an interactive quality dashboard for national clinical audit data: a realist evaluation

Abstract: National audits aim to reduce variations in quality by stimulating quality improvement. However, varying provider engagement with audit data means that this is not being realised. The aim of the study was to develop and evaluate a quality dashboard (i.e. QualDash) to support clinical teams’ and managers’ use of national audit data. The study was a realist evaluation and biography of artefacts study. The study involved five NHS acute trusts. In phase 1, we developed a theory of national audits through interviews. Data use was supported by data access, audit staff skilled to produce data visualisations, data timeliness and quality, and the importance of perceived metrics. Data were mainly used by clinical teams. Organisational-level staff questioned the legitimacy of national audits. In phase 2, QualDash was co-designed and the QualDash theory was developed. QualDash provides interactive customisable visualisations to enable the exploration of relationships between variables. Locating QualDash on site servers gave users control of data upload frequency. In phase 3, we developed an adoption strategy through focus groups. ‘Champions’, awareness-raising through e-bulletins and demonstrations, and quick reference tools were agreed. In phase 4, we tested the QualDash theory using a mixed-methods evaluation. Constraints on use were metric configurations that did not match users’ expectations, affecting champions’ willingness to promote QualDash, and limited computing resources. Easy customisability supported use. The greatest use was where data use was previously constrained. In these contexts, report preparation time was reduced and efforts to improve data quality were supported, although the interrupted time series analysis did not show improved data quality. Twenty-three questionnaires were returned, revealing positive perceptions of ease of use and usefulness. In phase 5, the feasibility of conducting a cluster randomised controlled trial of QualDash was assessed. Interviews were undertaken to understand how QualDash could be revised to support a region-wide Gold Command. Requirements included multiple real-time data sources and functionality to help to identify priorities. Audits seeking to widen engagement may find the following strategies beneficial: involving a range of professional groups in choosing metrics; real-time reporting; presenting ‘headline’ metrics important to organisational-level staff; using routinely collected clinical data to populate data fields; and dashboards that help staff to explore and report audit data. Those designing dashboards may find it beneficial to include the following: ‘at a glance’ visualisation of key metrics; visualisations configured in line with existing visualisations that teams use, with clear labelling; functionality that supports the creation of reports and presentations; the ability to explore relationships between variables and drill down to look at subgroups; and low requirements for computing resources. Organisations introducing a dashboard may find the following strategies beneficial: clinical champion to promote use; testing with real data by audit staff; establishing routines for integrating use into work practices; involving audit staff in adoption activities; and allowing customisation. The COVID-19 pandemic stopped phase 4 data collection, limiting our ability to further test and refine the QualDash theory. Questionnaire results should be treated with caution because of the small, possibly biased, sample. Control sites for the interrupted time series analysis were not possible because of research and development delays. One intervention site did not submit data. Limited uptake meant that assessing the impact on more measures was not appropriate. The extent to which national audit dashboards are used and the strategies national audits use to encourage uptake, a realist review of the impact of dashboards, and rigorous evaluations of the impact of dashboards and the effectiveness of adoption strategies should be explored. This study is registered as ISRCTN18289782. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 10, No. 12. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.