Uptake of diabetes follow-up checks by minority community groups: a rapid review of the evidence for the CYMELL study.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes is a public health priority for the UK. A growing body of evidence has indicated ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in rates of diabetes prevalence and complications. Attendance at diabetes follow-up checks is key to ensuring complications are identified and managed at an early stage. The aim of this rapid review was to identify and summarise evidence of ways to improve diabetes management in ethnic minority groups. METHODS: In this rapid review, we searched PubMed, PsycInfo, and CINAHL for studies published in English between Jan 1, 2000, and Jan 31, 2023. Studies were included if the population was from ethnic minority groups and if the intervention was community-based and aimed to improve diabetes self-care. The comparisons were persuasion and behaviour change, and the outcomes were improved diabetes self-management including, glycaemic control, attending eye tests, kidney, and foot screening follow-up checks. This study is registered with PROSPERO 2023, CRD42023399283. FINDINGS: Nine studies were included, from Mexico (n=1), USA (n=7), and UK (n=1). Most studies reported on community engagement (n=8), and one focussed on peer support and diabetes self-management. Peer support and diabetes self-management education were found to significantly improve diabetes control in a Mayan community (n=29) in Mexico (p<0·0001) and in the Korean American (n=105), African American (n=107), and Latino American (n=56) communities in the USA. Another study showed that women from the Pakistani community in England also benefitted from a culturally appropriate and socially supportive environment when learning about diabetes self-management. Diabetic eye screening rates could be increased through education but not through incentive payments. INTERPRETATION: Culturally competent health-care policies and programmes have been shown to increase diabetes self-management including uptake of diabetes screening for people with diabetes from ethnic minority communities to avoid potential harmful and life limiting conditions. A strength of this review is that robust, recent, and relevant papers regarding self-management of diabetes were included. The main limitations were that none of the nine studies included any cost analyses, and only one UK-based study was included, indicating that further research is required to fill the evidence gap. FUNDING: Research for Patient and Public Benefit (RfPPB), Health and Care Research Wales.

Navigating challenges and workarounds: A qualitative study of healthcare and support workers' perceptions on providing care to people seeking sanctuary.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare and support workers play a pivotal role in delivering quality services and support to people seeking sanctuary who have experienced poor physical and mental health linked to previous trauma, relocation and loss of freedoms. However, they often encounter various challenges in their daily work, ranging from communication barriers to resource constraints. This qualitative study seeks to delve into the perspectives of healthcare and support workers' experience of workarounds, employed to overcome barriers to providing care. AIM: This study aims to describe healthcare providers', practitioners' and health and third sector support workers' views on barriers and workarounds to providing care for people seeking sanctuary, to inform policy and practice. DESIGN: A qualitative study was carried out using semi-structured telephone interviews. SETTING: This study focused on primary, secondary, community and specialist National Health Service (NHS) support services for people seeking sanctuary in Wales, United Kingdom (2018). METHOD: We interviewed 32 healthcare providers, practitioners and support workers employed by primary care and third sector organisations. Our approach involved obtaining verbal informed consent before digitally recording and transcribing all interviews. To analyse the data, we used the Four Levels of Change for Improving Quality model as a guiding framework for interpretation. RESULTS: Our study findings reveal that certain respondents expressed challenges in meeting the needs of people seeking sanctuary; notably, their experience of delivering care differed by care settings. Specifically, those involved in providing specialist NHS care believed that there was room for improvement. Mainstream primary, secondary and community health practitioners faced limitations due to resource constraints and lacked tailored information to address the unique circumstances and needs of sanctuary seekers. To address these gaps, workarounds emerged at both individual and local levels (team/departmental and organisational level). These included establishing informal communication channels between providers, fostering cross service collaboration to fill gaps and adapting existing services to enhance accessibility. CONCLUSION: Understanding healthcare providers', practitioners' and support workers' perspectives offers invaluable insights into ways to enhance healthcare delivery to sanctuary seekers. Acknowledging challenges and harnessing innovative workarounds can foster a more effective and compassionate service for this vulnerable population. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The HEAR study actively involved public contributors in the design, delivery and dissemination of the research. Two public contributors (S. M. and G. R.) who had personal experience of seeking asylum served as study co-applicants. They played pivotal roles in shaping the research by participating in its development and securing funding. Alongside other co-applicants, S. M. and G. R. formed the Research Management Group, overseeing study delivery. Their contributions extended to strategic decision-making and specific feedback at critical junctures, including participant recruitment, data collection, analysis and reporting. Additionally, S. M. and G. R. were instrumental in recruiting and supporting a team of peer researchers, enhancing respondent participation among people seeking sanctuary. To facilitate effective public involvement, we provided named contacts for support (A. K. and R. F.), research training, honoraria, reimbursement of expenses and accessible information in line with best practice.

Programme theories to describe how different general practitioner service models work in different contexts in or alongside emergency departments (GP-ED): realist evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Addressing increasing patient demand and improving ED patient flow is a key ambition for NHS England. Delivering general practitioner (GP) services in or alongside EDs (GP-ED) was advocated in 2017 for this reason, supported by £100 million (US$130 million) of capital funding. Current evidence shows no overall improvement in addressing demand and reducing waiting times, but considerable variation in how different service models operate, subject to local context. METHODS: We conducted mixed-methods analysis using inductive and deductive approaches for qualitative (observations, interviews) and quantitative data (time series analyses of attendances, reattendances, hospital admissions, length of stay) based on previous research using a purposive sample of 13 GP-ED service models (3 inside-integrated, 4 inside-parallel service, 3 outside-onsite and 3 with no GPs) in England and Wales. We used realist methodology to understand the relationship between contexts, mechanisms and outcomes to develop programme theories about how and why different GP-ED service models work. RESULTS: GP-ED service models are complex, with variation in scope and scale of the service, influenced by individual, departmental and external factors. Quantitative data were of variable quality: overall, no reduction in attendances and waiting times, a mixed picture for hospital admissions and length of hospital stay. Our programme theories describe how the GP-ED service models operate: inside the ED, integrated with patient flow and general ED demand, with a wider GP role than usual primary care; outside the ED, addressing primary care demand with an experienced streaming nurse facilitating the 'right patients' are streamed to the GP; or within the ED as a parallel service with most variability in the level of integration and GP role. CONCLUSION: GP-ED services are complex . Our programme theories inform recommendations on how services could be modified in particular contexts to address local demand, or whether alternative healthcare services should be considered.

Transient Ischaemic attack Emergency Referral (TIER): randomised feasibility trial results.

BACKGROUND: Early assessment of patients with suspected transient ischaemic attack (TIA) is crucial to provision of effective care, including initiation of preventive therapies and identification of stroke mimics. Many patients with TIA present to emergency medical services (EMS) but may not require hospitalisation. Paramedics could identify and refer patients with low-risk TIA, without conveyance to the ED. Safety and effectiveness of this model is unknown. AIM: To assess the feasibility of undertaking a fully powered randomised controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate clinical and cost-effectiveness of paramedic referral of patients who call EMS with low-risk TIA to TIA clinic, avoiding transfer to ED. METHODS: The Transient Ischaemic attack Emergency Referral (TIER) intervention was developed through a survey of UK ambulance services, a scoping review of evidence of prehospital care of TIA and convening a specialist clinical panel to agree its final form. Paramedics in South Wales, UK, were randomly allocated to trial intervention (TIA clinic referral) or control (usual care) arms, with patients' allocation determined by that of attending paramedics.Predetermined progression criteria considered: proportion of patients referred to TIA clinic, data retrieval, patient satisfaction and potential cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: From December 2016 to September 2017, eighty-nine paramedics recruited 53 patients (36 intervention; 17 control); 48 patients (31 intervention; 17 control) consented to follow-up via routine data. Three intervention patients, of seven deemed eligible, were referred to TIA clinic by paramedics. Contraindications recorded for the other intervention arm patients were: Face/Arms/Speech/Time positive (n=13); ABCD2 score >3 (n=5); already anticoagulated (n=2); crescendo TIA (n=1); other (n=8). Routinely collected electronic health records, used to report further healthcare contacts, were obtained for all consenting patients. Patient-reported satisfaction with care was higher in the intervention arm (mean 4.8/5) than the control arm (mean 4.2/5). Health economic analysis suggests an intervention arm quality-adjusted life-year loss of 0.0094 (95% CI -0.0371, 0.0183), p=0.475. CONCLUSION: The TIER feasibility study did not meet its progression criteria, largely due to low patient identification and referral rates. A fully powered RCT in this setting is not recommended. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN85516498.

Experiences and views of people who frequently call emergency ambulance services: A qualitative study of UK service users.

INTRODUCTION: People who call emergency ambulances frequently are often vulnerable because of health and social circumstances, have unresolved problems or cannot access appropriate care. They have higher mortality rates. Case management by interdisciplinary teams can help reduce demand for emergency services and is available in some UK regions. We report results of interviews with people who use emergency ambulance services frequently to understand their experiences of calling and receiving treatment. METHODS: We used a two-stage recruitment process. A UK ambulance service identified six people who were known to them as frequently calling emergency services. Through third-sector organisations, we also recruited nine individuals with healthcare experiences reflecting the characteristics of people who call frequently. We gained informed consent to record and transcribe all telephone interviews. We used thematic analysis to explore the results. RESULTS: People said they make frequent calls to emergency ambulance services as a last resort when they perceive their care needs are urgent and other routes to help have failed. Those with the most complex health needs generally felt their immediate requirements were not resolved and underlying mental and physical problems led them to call again. A third of respondents were also attended to by police and were arrested for behaviour associated with their health needs. Those callers receiving case management did not know they were selected for this. Some respondents were concerned that case management could label frequent callers as troublemakers. CONCLUSION: People who make frequent calls to emergency ambulance services feel their health and care needs are urgent and ongoing. They cannot see alternative ways to receive help and resolve problems. Communication between health professionals and service users appears inadequate. More research is needed to understand service users' motivations and requirements to inform design and delivery of accessible and effective services. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: People with relevant experience were involved in developing, undertaking and disseminating this research. Two public contributors helped design and deliver the study, including developing and analysing service user interviews and drafting this paper. Eight public members of a Lived Experience Advisory Panel contributed at key stages of study design, interpretation and dissemination. Two more public contributors were members of an independent Study Steering Committee.

The cost of implementing the COVID-19 shielding policy in Wales.

BACKGROUND: The EVITE Immunity study investigated the effects of shielding Clinically Extremely Vulnerable (CEV) people during the COVID-19 pandemic on health outcomes and healthcare costs in Wales, United Kingdom, to help prepare for future pandemics. Shielding was intended to protect those at highest risk of serious harm from COVID-19. We report the cost of implementing shielding in Wales. METHODS: The number of people shielding was extracted from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank. Resources supporting shielding between March and June 2020 were mapped using published reports, web pages, freedom of information requests to Welsh Government and personal communications (e.g. with the office of the Chief Medical Officer for Wales). RESULTS: At the beginning of shielding, 117,415 people were on the shielding list. The total additional cost to support those advised to stay home during the initial 14 weeks of the pandemic was £13,307,654 (£113 per person shielded). This included the new resources required to compile the shielding list, inform CEV people of the shielding intervention and provide medicine and food deliveries. The list was adjusted weekly over the 3-month period (130,000 people identified by June 2020). Therefore the cost per person shielded lies between £102 and £113 per person. CONCLUSION: This is the first evaluation of the cost of the measures put in place to support those identified to shield in Wales. However, no data on opportunity cost was available. The true costs of shielding including its budget impact and opportunity costs need to be investigated to decide whether shielding is a worthwhile policy for future health emergencies.

Paediatric frequent use of emergency medical services: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Frequent use of emergency medical services (EMS) is recognised to be a global phenomenon, although paediatric frequent use is poorly understood. This systematic review aimed to understand how paediatric frequent use of EMS is currently defined, identify factors associated with paediatric frequent use of EMS and determine effectiveness of interventions for paediatric patients who frequently use EMS. METHODS: Four electronic databases (Medline, CINAHL, Web of Science and PsycINFO) were searched to September 2022 for primary, peer-reviewed research studies published in English from January 2000. Studies were included that examined frequent use (>1 contact during study period) of EMS or other services with arrival via EMS. Paediatric patients were defined as <18 years of age or otherwise defined by study authors as paediatric/adolescent/children. Data were extracted using a structured proforma, and quality was assessed using the Standard Quality Assessment Criteria for Quantitative Studies but did not influence inclusion decisions. Data were presented using narrative synthesis. RESULTS: The search resulted in 4172 unique references, with 12 papers included in the review from 7 countries. Four were EMS studies, and eight Emergency Department with arrival via EMS. All studies used retrospective designs, with no interventional studies identified. Paediatric frequent EMS users were more likely to use services for medical reasons rather than trauma, including respiratory complaints, mental health and seizures, but data on gender and ethnicity were inconclusive and silent on socioeconomic status. There was no consistency in definitions of either a paediatric patient or of frequent use. CONCLUSION: The broad range of reasons for frequent use suggests that a single intervention is unlikely to be effective at addressing the causes of frequent use. There is a need for further research to better identify the underlying reasons for frequent EMS use among paediatric patients and to develop interventions in this population.

Care-pathways for patients presenting to emergency ambulance services with self-harm: national survey.

BACKGROUND: Self-harm is among the top five causes of acute hospital admissions and ambulance clinicians are often the first point of contact. However, the Emergency Department (ED) may not be the most appropriate place of care and little is known about the existence or nature of alternative pathways available to UK ambulance services. This survey describes the current management pathways used by ambulance services for patients who have self-harmed. METHODS: A structured questionnaire was sent to all UK ambulance services by email and followed up by telephone in 2018. Three independent researchers (two clinical) coded responses which were analysed thematically. RESULTS: All 13 UK ambulance services responded to the survey: nine by email and four by telephone interview. Two services reported a service-wide protocol for managing people presenting with self-harm, with referral to mental health crisis team available as an alternative to conveyance to ED, following on-scene psychosocial assessment. Four services reported local pathways for managing mental health patients which included care of patients who had self-harmed. Four services reported being in the process of developing pathways for managing mental health patients. Six services reported no service-wide nor local pathways for managing self-harm patients. No robust evaluation of new care models was reported. CONCLUSION: Practice in ambulance services in the UK is variable, with a minority having a specific clinical pathway for managing self-harm, with an option to avoid ED. New pathways for patients who have self-harmed must be evaluated in terms of safety, clinical and cost-effectiveness.

Emergency department clinical leads' experiences of implementing primary care services where GPs work in or alongside emergency departments in the UK: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: To manage increasing demand for emergency and unscheduled care NHS England policy has promoted services in which patients presenting to Emergency Departments (EDs) with non-urgent problems are directed to general practitioners (GPs) and other primary care clinicians working within or alongside emergency departments. However, the ways that hospitals have implemented primary care services in EDs are varied. The aim of this study was to describe ED clinical leads' experiences of implementing and delivering 'primary care services' and 'emergency medicine services' where GPs were integrated into the ED team. METHODS: We conducted interviews with ED clinical leads in England (n = 19) and Wales (n = 2). We used framework analysis to analyse interview transcripts and explore differences across 'primary care services', 'emergency medicine services' and emergency departments without primary care services. RESULTS: In EDs with separate primary care services, success was reported when having a distinct workforce of primary care clinicians, who improved waiting times and flow by seeing primary care-type patients in a timely way, using fewer investigations, and enabling ED doctors to focus on more acutely unwell patients. Some challenges were: trying to align their service with the policy guidance, inconsistent demand for primary care, accessible community primary care services, difficulties in recruiting GPs, lack of funding, difficulties in agreeing governance protocols and establishing effective streaming pathways. Where GPs were integrated into an ED workforce success was reported as managing the demand for both emergency and primary care and reducing admissions. CONCLUSIONS: Introducing a policy advocating a preferred model of service to address primary care demand was not useful for all emergency departments. To support successful and sustainable primary care services in or alongside EDs, policy makers and commissioners should consider varied ways that GPs can be employed to manage variation in local demand and also local contextual factors such as the ability to recruit and retain GPs, sustainable funding, clear governance frameworks, training, support and guidance for all staff. Whether or not streaming to a separate primary care service is useful also depended on the level of primary care demand.

A co-produced method to involve service users in research: the SUCCESS model.

BACKGROUND: Public and patient involvement is a routine element of health services research methods to produce better designed and reported studies. Although co-production is recommended when involving people in research, methods for involving people are usually designed and managed by researchers and there is little evidence about methods to co-produce models for effective public and patient involvement. We report the method used by a group of patient and carer service users to develop and implement a model for involving public members in research. METHOD: We recruited people with experience of chronic conditions, as patients and carers, and supported them to develop and implement the involvement model. We collected written records to describe the processes of co-production. RESULTS: Sixteen service users were involved through a series of workshop, meeting and email discussions. They specified principles and operating characteristics of the model which concerned an inclusive culture, adequate resources, accessibility, good communication and clarity of purpose and roles. Components of the model included an on-line Panel of members (n = 20), Steering Group meetings, representation and communication system, facilitator, supportive research environment and access to research activities. Over 8 years, members were active in 218 research activities and held 22 Steering Group meetings. The model was named SUCCESS standing for Service Users with Chronic Conditions Encouraging Sensible Solutions. CONCLUSION: We supported patients and carers to co-produce the SUCCESS model of involvement in research. The model's components, addressing their needs and priorities, led to sustained involvement in research over 8 years. Further work is needed to apply the model in different settings and assess impact of this method of involving people in research.

Trainee doctors' views on mental illness among their peers and access to support services.

The mental health of doctors in training raises two major concerns, first that they are reluctant to, and have difficulty accessing, treatment, and second that undiagnosed and untreated doctors expose patients to unacceptable risks. Four 1-h focus groups were held, with participants' views explored on their observations about mental health as an issue amongst doctors, their personal knowledge of, and preferences for, sources of support, and other related factors. Transcripts were analysed using a thematic framework approach.

What are emergency ambulance services doing to meet the needs of people who call frequently? A national survey of current practice in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Emergency ambulance services are integral to providing a service for those with unplanned urgent and life-threatening health conditions. However, high use of the service by a small minority of patients is a concern. Our objectives were to describe: service-wide and local policies or pathways for people classified as Frequent Caller; call volume; and results of any audit or evaluation. METHOD: We conducted a national survey of current practice in ambulance services in relation to the management of people who call the emergency ambulance service frequently using a structured questionnaire for completion by email and telephone interview. We analysed responses using a descriptive and thematic approach. RESULTS: Twelve of 13 UK ambulance services responded. Most services used nationally agreed definitions for 'Frequent Caller', with 600-900 people meeting this classification each month. Service-wide policies were in place, with local variations. Models of care varied from within-service care where calls are flagged in the call centre; contact made with callers; and their General Practitioner (GP) with an aim of discouraging further calls, to case management through cross-service, multi-disciplinary team meetings aiming to resolve callers' needs. Although data were available related to volume of calls and number of callers meeting the threshold for definition as Frequent Caller, no formal audits or evaluations were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Ambulance services are under pressure to meet challenging response times for high acuity patients. Tensions are apparent in the provision of care to patients who have complex needs and call frequently. Multi-disciplinary case management approaches may help to provide appropriate care, and reduce demand on emergency services. However, there is currently inadequate evidence to inform commissioning, policy or practice development.

Targeting Quorum Sensing: High-Throughput Screening to Identify Novel LsrK Inhibitors.

Since quorum sensing (QS) is linked to the establishment of bacterial infection, its inactivation represents one of the newest strategies to fight bacterial pathogens. LsrK is a kinase playing a key role in the processing of autoinducer-2 (AI-2), a quorum-sensing mediator in gut enteric bacteria. Inhibition of LsrK might thus impair the quorum-sensing cascade and consequently reduce bacterial pathogenicity. Aiming for the development of a target-based assay for the discovery of LsrK inhibitors, we evaluated different assay set-ups based on ATP detection and optimized an automation-compatible method for the high-throughput screening of chemical libraries. The assay was then used to perform the screening of a 2000-compound library, which provided 12 active compounds with an IC50 ≤ 10 µM confirming the effectiveness and sensitivity of our assay. Follow-up studies on the positive hits led to the identification of two compounds, harpagoside and rosolic acid, active in a cell-based AI-2 QS interference assay, which are at the moment the most promising candidates for the development of a new class of antivirulence agents based on LsrK inhibition.

A comparison of genomic islands of differentiation across three young avian species pairs.

Detailed evaluations of genomic variation between sister species often reveal distinct chromosomal regions of high relative differentiation (i.e., "islands of differentiation" in FST ), but there is much debate regarding the causes of this pattern. We briefly review the prominent models of genomic islands of differentiation and compare patterns of genomic differentiation in three closely related pairs of New World warblers with the goal of evaluating support for the four models. Each pair (MacGillivray's/mourning warblers; Townsend's/black-throated green warblers; and Audubon's/myrtle warblers) consists of forms that were likely separated in western and eastern North American refugia during cycles of Pleistocene glaciations and have now come into contact in western Canada, where each forms a narrow hybrid zone. We show strong differences between pairs in their patterns of genomic heterogeneity in FST , suggesting differing selective forces and/or differing genomic responses to similar selective forces among the three pairs. Across most of the genome, levels of within-group nucleotide diversity (πWithin ) are almost as large as levels of between-group nucleotide distance (πBetween ) within each pair, suggesting recent common ancestry and/or gene flow. In two pairs, a pattern of the FST peaks having low πBetween suggests that selective sweeps spread between geographically differentiated groups, followed by local differentiation. This "sweep-before-differentiation" model is consistent with signatures of gene flow within the yellow-rumped warbler species complex. These findings add to our growing understanding of speciation as a complex process that can involve phases of adaptive introgression among partially differentiated populations.

Paramedic Assessment of Older Adults After Falls, Including Community Care Referral Pathway: Cluster Randomized Trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We aim to determine clinical and cost-effectiveness of a paramedic protocol for the care of older people who fall. METHODS: We undertook a cluster randomized trial in 3 UK ambulance services between March 2011 and June 2012. We included patients aged 65 years or older after an emergency call for a fall, attended by paramedics based at trial stations. Intervention paramedics could refer the patient to a community-based falls service instead of transporting the patient to the emergency department. Control paramedics provided care as usual. The primary outcome was subsequent emergency contacts or death. RESULTS: One hundred five paramedics based at 14 intervention stations attended 3,073 eligible patients; 110 paramedics based at 11 control stations attended 2,841 eligible patients. We analyzed primary outcomes for 2,391 intervention and 2,264 control patients. One third of patients made further emergency contacts or died within 1 month, and two thirds within 6 months, with no difference between groups. Subsequent 999 call rates within 6 months were lower in the intervention arm (0.0125 versus 0.0172; adjusted difference -0.0045; 95% confidence interval -0.0073 to -0.0017). Intervention paramedics referred 8% of patients (204/2,420) to falls services and left fewer patients at the scene without any ongoing care. Intervention patients reported higher satisfaction with interpersonal aspects of care. There were no other differences between groups. Mean intervention cost was $23 per patient, with no difference in overall resource use between groups at 1 or 6 months. CONCLUSION: A clinical protocol for paramedics reduced emergency ambulance calls for patients attended for a fall safely and at modest cost.

Phosphorylation of ezrin on Thr567 is required for the synergistic activation of cell spreading by EPAC1 and protein kinase A in HEK293T cells.

Recent studies have demonstrated that the actin binding protein, ezrin, and the cAMP-sensor, EPAC1, cooperate to induce cell spreading in response to elevations in intracellular cAMP. To investigate the mechanisms underlying these effects we generated a model of EPAC1-dependent cell spreading based on the stable transfection of EPAC1 into HEK293T (HEK293T-EPAC1) cells. We found that direct activation of EPAC1 with the EPAC-selective analogue, 8-pCPT-2'-O-Me-cAMP (007), promoted cell spreading in these cells. In addition, co-activation of EPAC1 and PKA, with a combination of the adenylate cyclase activator, forskolin, and the cAMP phosphodiesterase inhibitor, rolipram, was found to synergistically enhance cell spreading, in association with cortical actin bundling and mobilisation of ezrin to the plasma membrane. PKA activation was also associated with phosphorylation of ezrin on Thr567, as detected by an electrophoretic band mobility shift during SDS-PAGE. Inhibition of PKA activity blocked ezrin phosphorylation and reduced the cell spreading response to cAMP elevation to levels induced by EPAC1-activation alone. Transfection of HEK293T-EPAC1 cells with inhibitory ezrin mutants lacking the key PKA phosphorylation site, ezrin-Thr567Ala, or the ability to associate with actin, ezrin-Arg579Ala, promoted cell arborisation and blocked the ability of EPAC1 and PKA to further promote cell spreading. The PKA phospho-mimetic mutants of ezrin, ezrin-Thr567Asp had no effect on EPAC1-driven cell spreading. Our results indicate that association of ezrin with the actin cytoskeleton and phosphorylation on Thr567 are required, but not sufficient, for PKA and EPAC1 to synergistically promote cell spreading following elevations in intracellular cAMP.

It could be a 'Golden Goose': a qualitative study of views in primary care on an emergency admission risk prediction tool prior to implementation.

BACKGROUND: Rising demand for health care has prompted interest in new technologies to support a shift of care from hospital to community and primary care, which may require clinicians to undertake new working practices. A predictive risk stratification tool (Prism) was developed for use in primary care to estimate patients' risk of an emergency hospital admission. As part of an evaluation of Prism, we aimed to understand what might be needed to bring Prism into effective use by exploring clinicians and practice managers' attitudes and expectations about using it. We were informed by Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) which examines the work needed to bring an innovation into use. METHODS: We conducted 4 focus groups and 10 interviews with a total of 43 primary care doctors and colleagues from 32 general practices. All were recorded and transcribed. Analysis focussed in particular on the construct of 'coherence' within NPT, which examines how people understand an innovation and its purpose. RESULTS: Respondents were in agreement that Prism was a technological formalisation of existing practice, and that it would function as a support to clinical judgment, rather than replacing it. There was broad consensus about the role it might have in delivering new models of care based on active management, but there were doubts about the scope for making a difference to some patients and about whether Prism could identify at-risk patients not already known to the clinical team. Respondents did not expect using the tool to be onerous, but were concerned about the work which might follow in delivering care. Any potential value would not be of the tool in isolation, but would depend on the availability of support services. CONCLUSIONS: Policy imperatives and the pressure of rising demand meant respondents were open to trying out Prism, despite underlying uncertainty about what difference it could make. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Controlled Clinical Trials no. ISRCTN55538212 .

Routine outcomes to investigate differences between ethnic minorities and White British people presenting to emergency services for injury: the stakeholder consultation.

Introduction: Research has found differences in processes and outcomes of care between people in ethnic minorities and White British populations in some clinical conditions, although findings have been mixed. The Building an understanding of Ethnic minority people's Service Use Relating to Emergency care for injuries study is investigating differences in presentation, experience and health outcomes between people from ethnic minorities and White British people who seek emergency health care for injury. Objective: Our aim was to consult with stakeholders to define measurable outcomes available in routine ambulance and emergency department data; to assess the appropriateness of existing outcome measures for ethnic minorities and White British people; and to identify any gaps. Method: Clinicians, public contributors, researchers, people from the third sector, public health, healthcare inclusion were invited to join an online workshop to discuss routine outcomes. Results: Twenty participants attended the stakeholder consultation, with only one being a public contributor, a limitation. Eleven were from a minority ethnic background and seven were female. The integrated list of outcomes included 25 items, combining routine outcomes from the Building an understanding of Ethnic minority people's Service Use Relating to Emergency care for injuries protocol and literature (n = 17) with additional outcomes (n = 8). Notably, the initial list lacked provisions for safeguarding referrals and cases of treatment refusal, which were new additions. Safety concerns arose due to the lack of safeguarding referrals, treatment refusal and self-discharge. Factors such as pre-existing health conditions, injury location and experiences of discrimination were identified as possible influences on care quality and waiting times for ethnic minority patients. Conclusion: Although the number of stakeholders taking part in our consultation was low, their participation identified outcomes not found in routine data, supporting the adoption of a mixed-methods approach to answer our research questions. A future consultation could look to include more public members and wider range of clinicians including those who work in safeguarding and rehabilitation services. Funding: This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme as award number NIHR132744.

Research has shown that people from ethnic minorities often have less favourable healthcare experiences and outcomes than white British people. Our BE SURE study aims to establish whether there are differences between these groups and whether this can be seen in routinely available health outcome data or through patients' own words through questionnaires and interviews. Before starting data collection, we wanted to consult with people who may deliver or receive emergency health care for injuries, about what routinely available healthcare measures and outcomes we should include in the study. Twenty stakeholders joined the meeting: clinicians, paramedics, researchers and representatives from healthcare organisations, the third sector and a public contributor. We firstly explained what the study was about, and what we hoped to achieve during the online consultation meeting. We presented examples of measurable outcomes that we had included in our original research proposal for injuries. We broke into small groups to discuss these outcome measures and identify gaps. We also asked for comments and suggestions to check the appropriateness of these measures. Participants agreed that the proposed measures were mostly appropriate; these included tests, treatments, waiting times, referrals to other doctors, leaving the hospital against medical advice and time spent in the emergency department. They identified two new outcomes, which were safeguarding referrals and refusal of treatment. The final agreed list of outcomes was 25. Participants also discussed disparities in medication and treatments provided to ethnic minorities compared to white British people, such as pain relief. Additionally, they explored various factors that could affect care differently across these groups. For instance, ethnic minorities may experience discrimination, have distinct health issues or experience variations in the location, nature and severity of injuries. These factors could influence waiting times, pain management and overall quality of care.

Emergency admission predictive risk stratification models: assessment of implementation consequences (PRISMATIC 2): protocol for a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Emergency admissions are costly, increasingly numerous, and associated with adverse patient outcomes. Policy responses have included the widespread introduction of emergency admission risk stratification (EARS) tools in primary care. These tools generate scores that predict patients' risk of emergency hospital admission and can be used to support targeted approaches to improve care and reduce admissions. However, the impact of EARS is poorly understood and there may be unintended consequences. AIM: To assess effects, mechanisms, costs, and patient and healthcare professionals' views related to the introduction of EARS tools in England. DESIGN & SETTING: Quasi-experimental mixed methods design using anonymised routine data and qualitative methods. METHOD: We will apply multiple interrupted time series analysis to data, aggregated at former Clinical Commissioning Group level, to look at changes in emergency admission and other healthcare use following EARS introduction across England. We will investigate GP decision-making at practice level using linked general practice and secondary care data to compare case-mix, demographics, indicators of condition severity and frailty associated with emergency admissions before and after EARS introduction. We will undertake interviews (n~48) with GPs and healthcare staff to understand how patient care may have changed. We will conduct focus groups (n=2) and interviews (n~16) with patients to explore how they perceive that communication of individual risk scores might affect their experiences and health seeking behaviours. CONCLUSION: Findings will provide policymakers, healthcare professionals, and patients, with a better understanding of the effects, costs and stakeholder perspectives related to the introduction of EARS tools.

Evaluation of different models of general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments: a mixed-methods realist evaluation.

Background: Emergency healthcare services are under intense pressure to meet increasing patient demands. Many patients presenting to emergency departments could be managed by general practitioners in general practitioner-emergency department service models. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness, safety, patient experience and system implications of the different general practitioner-emergency department models. Design: Mixed-methods realist evaluation. Methods: Phase 1 (2017-8), to understand current practice: rapid realist literature review, national survey and follow-up key informant interviews, national stakeholder event and safety data analysis. Phase 2 (2018-21), to collect and analyse qualitative (observations, interviews) and quantitative data (time series analysis); cost-consequences analysis of routine data; and case site data for 'marker condition' analysis from a purposive sample of 13 case sites in England and Wales. Phase 3 (2021-2), to conduct mixed-methods analysis for programme theory and toolkit development. Results: General practitioners commonly work in emergency departments, but delivery models vary widely in terms of the scope of the general practitioner role and the scale of the general practitioner service. We developed a taxonomy to describe general practitioner-emergency department service models (Integrated with the emergency department service, Parallel within the emergency department, Outside the emergency department on the hospital site) and present a programme theory as principal output of the study to describe how these service models were observed to operate. Routine data were of variable quality, limiting our analysis. Time series analysis demonstrated trends across intervention sites for: increased time spent in the emergency department; increased emergency department attendances and reattendances; and mixed results for hospital admissions. Evidence on patient experience was limited but broadly supportive; we identified department-level processes to optimise the safety of general practitioner-emergency department models. Limitations: The quality, heterogeneity and extent of routine emergency department data collection during the study period limited the conclusions. Recruitment was limited by criteria for case sites (time series requirements) and individual patients (with 'marker conditions'). Pandemic and other pressures limited data collection for marker condition analysis. Data collected and analysed were pre pandemic; new approaches such as 'telephone first' and their relevance to our findings remains unexplored. Conclusion: Findings suggest that general practitioner-emergency department service models do not meet the aim of reducing the overall emergency department waiting times and improving patient flow with limited evidence of cost savings. Qualitative data indicated that general practitioners were often valued as members of the wider emergency department team. We have developed a toolkit, based on our findings, to provide guidance for implementing and delivering general practitioner-emergency department services. Future work: The emergency care data set has since been introduced across England to help standardise data collection to facilitate further research. We would advocate the systematic capture of patient experience measures and patient-reported outcome measures as part of routine care. More could be done to support the development of the general practitioner in emergency department role, including a core set of competencies and governance structure, to reflect the different general practitioner-emergency department models and to evaluate the effectiveness and cost effectiveness to guide future policy. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017069741. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 15/145/04) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 10. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Hospital emergency departments are under huge pressure. Patients are waiting many hours to be seen, some with problems that general practitioners could deal with. To reduce waiting times and improve patient care, arrangements have been put in place for general practitioners to work in or alongside emergency departments (general practitioner­emergency department models). We studied the different ways of working to find out what works well, how and for whom. We brought together a lot of information. We reviewed existing evidence, sent out surveys to 184 emergency departments, spent time in the emergency departments observing how they operated and interviewing 106 staff in 13 hospitals and 24 patients who visited those emergency departments. We also looked at statistical information recorded by hospitals. Two public contributors were involved from the beginning, and we held two stakeholder events to ensure the relevance of our research to professionals and patients. Getting reliable figures to compare the various general practitioner­emergency department set-ups (inside, parallel to or outside the emergency department) was difficult. Our findings suggest that over time more people are coming to emergency departments and overall waiting times did not generally improve due to general practitioner­emergency department models. Evidence that general practitioners might admit fewer patients to hospital was mixed, with limited findings of cost savings. Patients were generally supportive of the care they received, although we could not speak to as many patients as we planned. The skills and experience of general practitioners were often valued as members of the wider emergency department team. We identified how the care provided was kept safe with: strong leaders, good communication between different types of staff, highly trained and experienced nurses responsible for streaming and specific training for general practitioners on how they were expected to work. We have produced a guide to help professionals develop and improve general practitioner­emergency department services and we have written easy-to-read summaries of all the articles we published.