Rethinking continuity in primary care for people with mesothelioma.

BACKGROUND: Mesothelioma is a terminal disease that is linked to asbestos exposure. Continuity is difficult for GPs, and other healthcare professionals (HCPs), to provide within the current NHS primary care system, but is highly valued by people with mesothelioma. AIM: To understand the experiences of continuity in primary care among people with mesothelioma, their close persons, and their HCPs; how they achieve this (or not); and how it affects their healthcare service use. METHOD: Realist case studies of patient journeys through the healthcare system (involving longitudinal interviews with people with mesothelioma, their close persons, and HCPs; and exploration of the organisational context). Data analysis allowed understanding of hidden mechanisms (resources and reasoning), triggered in certain contexts, leading to specific outcomes. RESULTS: Forty-eight interviews (involving 9 patients, 8 close persons, and 12 HCPs) were undertaken (totalling 30.8 hours/1848 minutes). Context-Mechanism-Outcome configurations related to: challenges unique to mesothelioma; capacity of patients/close persons/HCPs to facilitate continuity; multidisciplinary (MDT) approach differs from the family doctor model; and 'the NHS primary care system is broken'. CONCLUSION: Patients perceive their continuity needs to be unmet by the inflexible primary care system, which needs to adapt to a society in which people receive increasingly novel treatments and live longer with complex healthcare needs. A societal perspective shift is required to understand that an MDT now shares responsibility for care, rather than an individual family doctor. Policy documents continue to focus on access, and still do not advocate strongly enough for continuity, despite unequivocal evidence demonstrating its worth.

Ongoing Decline in Continuity With GPs in English General Practices: A Longitudinal Study Across the COVID-19 Pandemic.

PURPOSE: Relationship continuity of care has declined across English primary health care, with cross-sectional and longitudinal variations between general practices predicted by population and service factors. We aimed to describe cross-sectional and longitudinal variations across the COVID-19 pandemic and determine whether practice factors predicted the variations. METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal, ecological study of English general practices during 2018-2022 with continuity data, excluding practices with fewer than 750 patients or National Health Service (NHS) payments exceeding £500 per patient. Variables were derived from published data. The continuity measure was the product of weighted responses to 2 General Practice Patient Survey questions. In a multilevel mixed-effects model, the fixed effects were 11 variables' interactions with time: baseline continuity, NHS region, deprivation, location, percentage White ethnicity, list size, general practitioner and nurse numbers, contract type, NHS payments per patient, and percentage of patients seen on the same day as booking. The random effects were practices. RESULTS: Main analyses were based on 6,010 practices (out of 7,190 active practices). During 2018-2022, mean continuity in these practices declined (from 29.3% to 19.0%) and the coefficient of variation across practices increased (from 48.1% to 63.6%). Both slopes were steepest between 2021 and 2022. Practices having more general practitioners and higher percentages of patients seen the same day had slower declines. Practices having higher baseline continuity, located in certain non-London regions, and having higher percentages of White patients had faster declines. The remaining variables were not predictors. CONCLUSIONS: Variables potentially associated with greater appointment availability predicted slower declines in continuity, with worsening declines and relative variability immediately after the COVID-19 lockdown, possibly reflecting surges in demand. To achieve better levels of continuity for those seeking it, practices can increase appointment availability within appointment systems that prioritize continuity.

Integration of primary care and palliative care services to improve equality and equity at the end-of-life: Findings from realist stakeholder workshops.

BACKGROUND: Inequalities in access to palliative and end of life care are longstanding. Integration of primary and palliative care has the potential to improve equity in the community. Evidence to inform integration is scarce as research that considers integration of primary care and palliative care services is rare. AIM: To address the questions: 'how can inequalities in access to community palliative and end of life care be improved through the integration of primary and palliative care, and what are the benefits?' DESIGN: A theory-driven realist inquiry with two stakeholder workshops to explore how, when and why inequalities can be improved through integration. Realist analysis leading to explanatory context(c)-mechanism(m)-outcome(o) configurations(c) (CMOCs). FINDINGS: A total of 27 participants attended online workshops (July and September 2022): patient and public members (n = 6), commissioners (n = 2), primary care (n = 5) and specialist palliative care professionals (n = 14). Most were White British (n = 22), other ethnicities were Asian (n = 3), Black African (n = 1) and British mixed race (n = 1). Power imbalances and racism hinder people from ethnic minority backgrounds accessing current services. Shared commitment to addressing these across palliative care and primary care is required in integrated partnerships. Partnership functioning depends on trusted relationships and effective communication, enabled by co-location and record sharing. Positive patient experiences provide affirmation for the multi-disciplinary team, grow confidence and drive improvements. CONCLUSIONS: Integration to address inequalities needs recognition of current barriers. Integration grounded in trust, faith and confidence can lead to a cycle of positive patient, carer and professional experience. Prioritising inequalities as whole system concern is required for future service delivery and research.

Mesothelioma patient and carer experience research: A research prioritisation exercise.

OBJECTIVES: Incidence of mesothelioma worldwide is growing and the UK reports the highest global incidence. Mesothelioma is an incurable cancer with a high symptom burden. However, it is under researched when compared to other cancers. The aim of this exercise was to identify unanswered questions about the mesothelioma patient and carer experience in the UK and to prioritise research areas of most importance through consultation with patients, carers and professionals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A virtual Research Prioritisation Exercise was conducted. This involved a review of mesothelioma patient and carer experience literature to identify research gaps and a national online survey to identify and rank research gaps. Following this, a modified consensus method with mesothelioma experts (patients, carers and professionals from healthcare, legal, academic and volunteer organisations) was undertaken to reach a consensus regarding mesothelioma patient and carer experience research priorities. RESULTS: Survey responses were received from 150 patients, carers and professionals and 29 research priorities were identified. During consensus meetings, 16 experts refined these into a list of 11 key priorities. The five most urgent priorities were symptom management, receiving a mesothelioma diagnosis, palliative and end of life care, treatment experiences, barriers and facilitators to joined up service provision. CONCLUSION: This novel priority setting exercise will shape the national research agenda, contribute knowledge to inform nursing and wider clinical practice and ultimately improve the experiences of mesothelioma patients and carers.