Experiences of coordinated care for people in the UK affected by rare diseases: cross-sectional survey of patients, carers, and healthcare professionals.

BACKGROUND: Poorly coordinated care can have major impacts on patients and families affected by rare conditions, with negative physical health, psychosocial and financial consequences. This study aimed to understand how care is coordinated for rare diseases in the United Kingdom. METHODS: We undertook a national survey in the UK involving 760 adults affected by rare diseases, 446 parents/carers of people affected by rare diseases, and 251 healthcare professionals who care for people affected by rare diseases. RESULTS: Findings suggested that a wide range of patients, parents and carers do not have coordinated care. For example, few participants reported having a care coordinator (12% patients, 14% parents/carers), attending a specialist centre (32% patients, 33% parents/carers) or having a care plan (10% patients, 44% parents/carers). A very small number of patients (2%) and parents/carers (5%) had access to all three-a care coordinator, specialist centre and care plan. Fifty four percent of patients and 33% of parents/carers reported access to none of these. On the other hand, a higher proportion of healthcare professionals reported that families with rare conditions had access to care coordinators (35%), specialist centres (60%) and care plans (40%). CONCLUSIONS: Care for families with rare conditions is generally not well coordinated in the UK, with findings indicating limited access to care coordinators, specialist centres and care plans. Better understanding of these issues can inform how care coordination might be improved and embrace the needs and preferences of patients and families affected by rare conditions.

Developing a taxonomy of care coordination for people living with rare conditions: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Improving care coordination is particularly important for individuals with rare conditions (who may experience multiple inputs into their care, across different providers and settings). To develop and evaluate strategies to potentially improve care coordination, it is necessary to develop a method for organising different ways of coordinating care for rare conditions. Developing a taxonomy would help to describe different ways of coordinating care and in turn facilitate development and evaluation of pre-existing and new models of care coordination for rare conditions. To the authors' knowledge, no studies have previously developed taxonomies of care coordination for rare conditions. This research aimed to develop and refine a care coordination taxonomy for people with rare conditions. METHODS: This study had a qualitative design and was conducted in the United Kingdom. To develop a taxonomy, six stages of taxonomy development were followed. We conducted interviews (n = 30 health care professionals/charity representatives/commissioners) and focus groups (n = 4 focus groups, 22 patients/carers with rare/ultra-rare/undiagnosed conditions). Interviews and focus groups were audio-recorded with consent, and professionally transcribed. Findings were analysed using thematic analysis. Themes were used to develop a taxonomy, and to identify which types of coordination may work best in which situations. To refine the taxonomy, we conducted two workshops (n = 12 patients and carers group; n = 15 professional stakeholder group). RESULTS: Our taxonomy has six domains, each with different options. The six domains are: (1) Ways of organising care (local, hybrid, national), (2) Ways of organising those involved in care (collaboration between many or all individuals, collaboration between some individuals, a lack of collaborative approach), (3) Responsibility for coordination (administrative support, formal roles and responsibilities, supportive roles and no responsibility), (4) How often appointments and coordination take place (regular, on demand, hybrid), (5) Access to records (full or filtered access), and (6) Mode of care coordination (face-to-face, digital, telephone). CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that there are different ways of coordinating care across the six domains outlined in our taxonomy. This may help to facilitate the development and evaluation of existing and new models of care coordination for people living with rare conditions.

Development of models of care coordination for rare conditions: a qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Improving care coordination for people with rare conditions may help to reduce burden on patients and carers and improve the care that patients receive. We recently developed a taxonomy of different ways of coordinating care for rare conditions. It is not yet known which models of care coordination are appropriate in different situations. This study aimed to: (1) explore what types of care coordination may be appropriate in different situations, and (2) use these findings to develop hypothetical models of care coordination for rare conditions. METHODS: To explore appropriateness of different types of care coordination, we conducted interviews (n = 30), four focus groups (n = 22) and two workshops (n = 27) with patients, carers, healthcare professionals, commissioners, and charity representatives. Participants were asked about preferences, benefits and challenges, and the factors influencing coordination. Thematic analysis was used to develop hypothetical models of care coordination. Models were refined following feedback from workshop participants. RESULTS: Stakeholders prefer models of care that: are nationally centralised or a hybrid of national and local care, involve professionals collaborating to deliver care, have clear roles and responsibilities outlined (including administrative, coordinator, clinical and charity roles), provide access to records and offer flexible appointments (in terms of timing and mode). Many factors influenced coordination, including those relating to the patient (e.g., condition complexity, patient's location and ability to coordinate their own care), the healthcare professional (e.g., knowledge and time), the healthcare environment (e.g., resources) and societal factors (e.g., availability of funding). We developed and refined ten illustrative hypothetical models of care coordination for rare conditions. CONCLUSION: Findings underline that different models of care coordination may be appropriate in different situations. It is possible to develop models of care coordination which are tailored to the individual in context. Findings may be used to facilitate planning around which models of care coordination may be appropriate in different services or circumstances. Findings may also be used by key stakeholders (e.g. patient organisations, clinicians and service planners) as a decision-making tool.

A five year review of paediatric burns and social deprivation: Is there a link?

AIM: To establish if there is a correlation between burn incidence and social deprivation in order to formulate a more effective burns prevention strategy. METHODS: A quantitative retrospective review of International Burn Injury Database (IBID) was carried out over a period from 2006 to 2011 to obtain data for children referred to our burns centre in West Midlands. Social deprivation scores for geographical areas were obtained from Office of National Statistics (ONS). Statistical analysis was carried out using Graphpad Prism. RESULTS: 1688 children were reviewed at our burns centre. Statistical analysis using Pearson correlation coefficient showed a slight association between social deprivation and increasing burn incidence r2=0.1268, 95% confidence interval 0.018-0.219, p value<0.0001. There was a slight male preponderance (58%). The most common mechanism of injury was scalding (61%). The most commonly affected age group were 1-2 year olds (38%). There were statistically significant differences in the ethnicity of children with significantly more children from Asian and African backgrounds being referred compared to Caucasian children. We found that appropriate first aid was administered in 67% of cases overall. We did not find a statistically significant link between first aid provision and social deprivation score. DISCUSSION: There was only a slight positive correlation between social deprivation and burn incidence. However, there did not seem to be any change in mechanism of burn in the most deprived groups compared to overall pattern, nor was there a significant difference in appropriate first aid provision. CONCLUSION: It would seem that dissemination of burn prevention strategies and first aid advice need to be improved across all geographical areas as this was uniformly lacking and the increased burn incidence in more socially deprived groups, although present, was not statistically significant.