Impact of the first national COVID-19 lockdown on referral of women experiencing domestic violence and abuse in England and Wales.

BACKGROUND: The lockdown periods to curb COVID-19 transmission have made it harder for survivors of domestic violence and abuse (DVA) to disclose abuse and access support services. Our study describes the impact of the first COVID-19 wave and the associated national lockdown in England and Wales on the referrals from general practice to the Identification and Referral to Improve Safety (IRIS) DVA programme. We compare this to the change in referrals in the same months in the previous year, during the school holidays in the 3 years preceding the pandemic and the period just after the first COVID-19 wave. School holiday periods were chosen as a comparator, since families, including the perpetrator, are together, affecting access to services. METHODS: We used anonymised data on daily referrals received by the IRIS DVA service in 33 areas from general practices over the period April 2017-September 2020. Interrupted-time series and non-linear regression were used to quantify the impact of the first national lockdown in March-June 2020 comparing analogous months the year before, and the impact of school holidays (01/04/2017-30/09/2020) on number of referrals, reporting Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR), 95% confidence intervals and p-values. RESULTS: The first national lockdown in 2020 led to reduced number of referrals to DVA services (27%, 95%CI = (21,34%)) compared to the period before and after, and 19% fewer referrals compared to the same period in the year before. A reduction in the number of referrals was also evident during the school holidays with the highest reduction in referrals during the winter 2019 pre-pandemic school holiday (44%, 95%CI = (32,54%)) followed by the effect from the summer of 2020 school holidays (20%, 95%CI = (10,30%)). There was also a smaller reduction (13-15%) in referrals during the longer summer holidays 2017-2019; and some reduction (5-16%) during the shorter spring holidays 2017-2019. CONCLUSIONS: We show that the COVID-19 lockdown in 2020 led to decline in referrals to DVA services. Our findings suggest an association between decline in referrals to DVA services for women experiencing DVA and prolonged periods of systemic closure proxied here by both the first COVID-19 national lockdown or school holidays. This highlights the need for future planning to provide adequate access and support for people experiencing DVA during future national lockdowns and during the school holidays.

PRimary care rEsponse to domestic violence and abuse in the COvid-19 panDEmic (PRECODE): protocol of a rapid mixed-methods study in the UK.

BACKGROUND: The implementation of lockdowns in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a system switch to remote primary care consulting at the same time as the incidence of domestic violence and abuse (DVA) increased. Lockdown-specific barriers to disclosure of DVA reduced the opportunity for DVA detection and referral. The PRECODE (PRimary care rEsponse to domestic violence and abuse in the COvid-19 panDEmic) study will comprise quantitative analysis of the impact of the pandemic on referrals from IRIS (Identification and Referral to Improve Safety) trained general practices to DVA agencies in the UK and qualitative analysis of the experiences of clinicians responding to patients affected by DVA and adaptations they have made transitioning to remote DVA training and patient support. METHODS/DESIGN: Using a rapid mixed method design, PRECODE will explore and explain the dynamics of DVA referrals and support before and during the pandemic on a national scale using qualitative data and over four years of referrals time series data. We will undertake interrupted-time series and non-linear regression analysis, including sensitivity analyses, on time series of referrals to DVA services from routinely collected data to evaluate the impact of the pandemic and associated lockdowns on referrals to the IRIS Programme, and analyse key determinants associated with changes in referrals. We will also conduct an interview- and observation-based qualitative study to understand the variation, relevance and feasibility of primary care responses to DVA before and during the pandemic and its aftermath. The triangulation of quantitative and qualitative findings using rapid analysis and synthesis will enable the articulation of multiscale trends in primary care responses to DVA and complex mechanisms by which these responses have changed during the pandemic. DISCUSSION: Our findings will inform the implementation of remote primary care and DVA service responses as services re-configure. Understanding the adaptation of clinical and service responses to DVA during the pandemic is crucial for the development of evidence-based, effective remote support and referral beyond the pandemic. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PRECODE is an observational epidemiologic study, not an intervention evaluation or trial. We will not be reporting results of an intervention on human participants.

Implementation of a Digitally Enabled Care Pathway (Part 1): Impact on Clinical Outcomes and Associated Health Care Costs.

BACKGROUND: The development of acute kidney injury (AKI) in hospitalized patients is associated with adverse outcomes and increased health care costs. Simple automated e-alerts indicating its presence do not appear to improve outcomes, perhaps because of a lack of explicitly defined integration with a clinical response. OBJECTIVE: We sought to test this hypothesis by evaluating the impact of a digitally enabled intervention on clinical outcomes and health care costs associated with AKI in hospitalized patients. METHODS: We developed a care pathway comprising automated AKI detection, mobile clinician notification, in-app triage, and a protocolized specialist clinical response. We evaluated its impact by comparing data from pre- and postimplementation phases (May 2016 to January 2017 and May to September 2017, respectively) at the intervention site and another site not receiving the intervention. Clinical outcomes were analyzed using segmented regression analysis. The primary outcome was recovery of renal function to ≤120% of baseline by hospital discharge. Secondary clinical outcomes were mortality within 30 days of alert, progression of AKI stage, transfer to renal/intensive care units, hospital re-admission within 30 days of discharge, dependence on renal replacement therapy 30 days after discharge, and hospital-wide cardiac arrest rate. Time taken for specialist review of AKI alerts was measured. Impact on health care costs as defined by Patient-Level Information and Costing System data was evaluated using difference-in-differences (DID) analysis. RESULTS: The median time to AKI alert review by a specialist was 14.0 min (interquartile range 1.0-60.0 min). There was no impact on the primary outcome (estimated odds ratio [OR] 1.00, 95% CI 0.58-1.71; P=.99). Although the hospital-wide cardiac arrest rate fell significantly at the intervention site (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.38-0.76; P<.001), DID analysis with the comparator site was not significant (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.63-1.99; P=.69). There was no impact on other secondary clinical outcomes. Mean health care costs per patient were reduced by £2123 (95% CI -£4024 to -£222; P=.03), not including costs of providing the technology. CONCLUSIONS: The digitally enabled clinical intervention to detect and treat AKI in hospitalized patients reduced health care costs and possibly reduced cardiac arrest rates. Its impact on other clinical outcomes and identification of the active components of the pathway requires clarification through evaluation across multiple sites.

COVID-19 adaptations to a training and support programme to improve primary care response to domestic abuse: a mixed methods rapid study.

BACKGROUND: Increased incidence and/or reporting of domestic abuse (DA) accompanied the COVID-19 pandemic. National lockdowns and enforced social isolation necessitated new ways of supporting victims of DA remotely. Identification and Referral to Improve Safety (IRIS) is a programme to improve the response to domestic abuse in general practice, providing training for general practice teams and support for patients affected by DA, which has previously been proven effective and cost-effective [1-3]. The COVID-19 pandemic required the adaptation of the programme to online training and remote support. METHODS: This study is mixed methods rapid research, which aimed to gather evidence around the relevance, desirability and acceptability of IRIS operating remotely. Quantitative IRIS referral data were triangulated with data from four surveys and 15 interviews. Participants were local IRIS teams, IRIS-trained clinicians, and victim-survivors supported by IRIS services. The study was designed using the Lean Impact approach, allowing quick evaluation of innovation and the impact of social interventions. We carried out a framework analysis of the interviews, which is a qualitative methodology widely used in policy and applied research that enables research teams to move from descriptive accounts to a conceptual explanation of findings [4, 5]. RESULTS: We found that the adaptation to online training and support of IRIS was acceptable and desirable. Most clinicians felt confident addressing DA over the phone and online, although most were more confident face-to-face. While referrals to IRIS services initially declined in March 2020, numbers of referrals increased to pre-pandemic levels by July 2020. Patients felt well supported remotely, although patients who had previously experienced face-to-face support preferred it. Technology was the most frequently mentioned barrier to the change from face-to-face training and support to online training and remote support. CONCLUSIONS: This study contributes to practice by asserting the desirability and acceptability of training clinicians to be able to identify, ask about DA and refer to the IRIS programme during telephone/online consultations. This is of relevance to health and public health commissioners when making commissioning decisions to improve the general practice response to domestic abuse.

Primary care system-level training and support programme for the secondary prevention of domestic violence and abuse: a cost-effectiveness feasibility model.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the prospective cost-effectiveness of the Identification and Referral to Improve Safety plus (IRIS+) intervention compared with usual care using feasibility data derived from seven UK general practice sites. METHOD: A cost-utility analysis was conducted to assess the potential cost-effectiveness of IRIS+, an enhanced model of the UK's usual care. IRIS+ assisted primary care staff in identifying, documenting and referring not only women, but also men and children who may have experienced domestic violence/abuse as victims, perpetrators or both. A perpetrator group programme was not part of the intervention per se but was linked to the IRIS+ intervention via a referral pathway and signposting. A Markov model was constructed from a societal perspective to estimate mean incremental costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of IRIS+ compared with to usual care over a 10-year time horizon. RESULTS: The IRIS+ intervention saved £92 per patient and produced QALY gains of 0.003. The incremental net monetary benefit was positive (£145) and the IRIS+ intervention was cost-effective in 55% of simulations at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000 per QALY. CONCLUSION: The IRIS+ intervention could be cost-effective or even cost saving from a societal perspective in the UK, though there are large uncertainties, reflected in the confidence intervals and simulation results.

Feasibility of a reconfigured domestic violence and abuse training and support intervention responding to affected women, men, children and young people through primary care.

BACKGROUND: Identification in UK general practice of women affected by domestic violence and abuse (DVA) is increasing, but men and children/young people (CYP) are rarely identified and referred for specialist support. To address this gap, we collaborated with IRISi (UK social enterprise) to strengthen elements of the IRIS + intervention which included the identification of men, direct engagement with CYP, and improved guidance on responding to information received from other agencies. IRIS + was an adaptation of the national IRIS (Identification and Referral to Improve Safety) model focused on the needs of women victim-survivors of DVA. Without diminishing the responses to women, IRIS + also responded to the needs of men experiencing or perpetrating DVA, and CYP living with DVA and/or experiencing it in their own relationships. Our study tested the feasibility of the adapted IRIS + intervention in England and Wales between 2019-21. METHODS: We used mixed method analysis to triangulate data from various sources (pre/post intervention questionnaires with primary care clinicians; data extracted from medical records and DVA agencies; semi-structured interviews with clinicians, service providers and referred adults and children) to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the IRIS + intervention. RESULTS: The rate of referral for women doubled (21.6/year/practice) from the rate (9.29/year/practice) in the original IRIS trial. The intervention also enabled identification and direct referral of CYP (15% of total referrals) and men (mostly survivors, 10% of total referrals). Despite an increase in self-reported clinician preparedness to respond to all patient groups, the intervention generated a low number of men perpetrator referrals (2% of all referrals). GPs were the principal patient referrers. Over two-thirds of referred women and CYP and almost half of all referred men were directly supported by the service. Many CYP also received IRIS + support indirectly, via the referred parents. Men and CYP supported by IRIS + reported improved physical and mental health, wellbeing, and confidence. CONCLUSIONS: Although the study showed acceptability and feasibility, there remains uncertainty about the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and scalability of IRIS + . Building on the success of this feasibility study, the next step should be trialling the effectiveness of IRIS + implementation to inform service implementation decisions.

Trends in outcomes used to measure the effectiveness of UK-based support interventions and services targeted at adults with experience of domestic and sexual violence and abuse: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: In the UK, a range of support services and interventions are available to people who have experienced or perpetrated domestic and sexual violence and abuse (DSVA). However, it is currently not clear which outcomes and outcome measures are used to assess their effectiveness. The objective of this review is to summarise, map and identify trends in outcome measures in evaluations of DSVA services and interventions in the UK. DESIGN: Scoping review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Social Policy and Practice, ASSIA, IBSS, Sociological abstracts and SSCI electronic databases were searched from inception until 21 June 2022. Grey literature sources were identified and searched. ELIGIBILITY: We included randomised controlled trials, non-randomised comparative studies, pre-post studies and service evaluations, with at least one outcome relating to the effectiveness of the support intervention or service for people who have experienced and/or perpetrated DSVA. Outcomes had to be assessed at baseline and at least one more time point, or compared with a comparison group. CHARTING METHODS: Outcome measures were extracted, iteratively thematically grouped into categories, domains and subdomains, and trends were explored. RESULTS: 80 studies reporting 87 DSVA interventions or services were included. A total of 426 outcome measures were extracted, of which 200 were used more than once. The most commonly reported outcome subdomain was DSVA perpetration. Cessation of abuse according to the Severity of Abuse Grid was the most common individual outcome. Analysis of temporal trends showed that the number of studies and outcomes used has increased since the 1990s. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight inconsistencies between studies in outcome measurement. The increase in the number of studies and variety of measures suggests that as evaluation of DSVA services and interventions matures, there is an increased need for a core of common, reliable metrics to aid comparability. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/frh2e.

General practice as a place to receive help for domestic abuse during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study in England and Wales.

BACKGROUND: General practice is an important place for patients experiencing or perpetrating domestic violence and abuse (DVA), and for their children to seek and receive help. While the incidence of DVA may have increased during the COVID- 19 pandemic, there has been a reduction in DVA identifications and referrals to specialist services from general practice. Concurrently there has been the imposition of lockdown measures and a shift to remote care in general practices in the UK. AIM: To understand the patient perspective of seeking and receiving help for DVA in general practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. This was then compared with experiences of general practice healthcare professionals. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative interview study in seven urban general practices in England and Wales, as part of a feasibility study of IRIS+, an integrated primary care DVA system-level training and support intervention. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews with 21 patients affected by DVA and 13 general practice healthcare professionals who had received IRIS+ training. Analysis involved a Framework approach. RESULTS: Patients recounted positive experiences of seeking help for DVA in general practice during the pandemic. However, there have been perceived problems with the availability of general practice and a strong preference for face-to-face consultations, over remote consultations, for the opportunities of non- verbal communication. There were also concerns from healthcare professionals regarding the invisibility of children affected by DVA. CONCLUSION: Perspectives of patients and their families affected by DVA should be prioritised in general practice service planning, including during periods of transition and change.

General practice wide adaptations to support patients affected by DVA during the COVID-19 pandemic: a rapid qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Reporting of domestic violence and abuse (DVA) increased globally during the pandemic. General Practice has a central role in identifying and supporting those affected by DVA. Pandemic associated changes in UK primary care included remote initial contacts with primary care and predominantly remote consulting. This paper explores general practice's adaptation to DVA care during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Remote semi-structured interviews were conducted by telephone with staff from six localities in England and Wales where the Identification and Referral to Improve Safety (IRIS) primary care DVA programme is commissioned.  We conducted interviews between April 2021 and February 2022 with three practice managers, three reception and administrative staff, eight general practice clinicians and seven specialist DVA staff. Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPI&E) advisers with lived experience of DVA guided the project. Together we developed recommendations for primary care teams based on our findings. RESULTS: We present our findings within four themes, representing primary care adaptations in delivering DVA care: 1. Making general practice accessible for DVA care: staff adapted telephone triaging processes for appointments and promoted availability of DVA support online. 2. General practice team-working to identify DVA: practices developed new approaches of collaboration, including whole team adaptations to information processing and communication 3. Adapting to remote consultations about DVA: teams were required to adapt to challenges including concerns about safety, privacy, and developing trust remotely. 4. Experiences of onward referrals for specialist DVA support: support from specialist services was effective and largely unchanged during the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Disruption caused by pandemic restrictions revealed how team dynamics and interactions before, during and after clinical consultations contribute to identifying and supporting patients experiencing DVA. Remote assessment complicates access to and delivery of DVA care. This has implications for all primary and secondary care settings, within the NHS and internationally, which are vital to consider in both practice and policy.

Cost analysis of photobiomodulation in tibia fracture in the Brazilian public health system.

Managing tibial fractures requires substantial health resources, which costs the health system. This study aimed to describe the costs of photobiomodulation (PBM) with LEDs in the healing process of soft tissue lesions associated with tibial fracture compared to a placebo. Economic analysis was performed based on a randomized controlled clinical trial, with a simulation of the cost-effectiveness and incremental cost model. Adults (n = 27) hospitalized with tibia fracture awaiting definitive surgery were randomized into two distinct groups: the PBM Group (n = 13) and the Control Group with simulated phototherapy (n = 14). To simulate the cost-effectiveness and incremental cost model, the outcome was the evolution of wound resolution by the BATES-JENSEN scale and time of wound resolution in days. The total cost of treatment for the Control group was R$21,164.56, and a difference of R$7,527.10 more was observed when compared to the treatment of the PBM group. The proposed intervention did not present incremental cost since the difference in the costs to reduce measures between the groups was smaller for the PBM group. When analyzing the ICER (Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio), it would be possible to save R$3,500.98 with PBM and decrease by 2.15 points in the daily average on the BATES-JENSEN scale. It is concluded, therefore, that PBM can be a supportive therapy of clinical and economic interest in a hospital setting.

Adapting domestic abuse training to remote delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study of views from general practice and support services.

BACKGROUND: Identifying and responding to patients affected by domestic violence and abuse (DVA) is vital in primary care. There may have been a rise in the reporting of DVA cases during the COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdown measures. Concurrently general practice adopted remote working that extended to training and education. IRIS (Identification and Referral to Improve Safety) is an example of an evidence-based UK healthcare training support and referral programme, focusing on DVA. IRIS transitioned to remote delivery during the pandemic. AIM: To understand the adaptations and impact of remote DVA training in IRIS-trained general practices by exploring perspectives of those delivering and receiving training. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative interviews and observation of remote training of general practice teams in England were undertaken. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 participants (three practice managers, three reception and administrative staff, eight general practice clinicians, and seven specialist DVA staff), alongside observation of eight remote training sessions. Analysis was conducted using a framework approach. RESULTS: Remote DVA training in UK general practice widened access to learners. However, it may have reduced learner engagement compared with face-to-face training and may challenge safeguarding of remote learners who are domestic abuse survivors. DVA training is integral to the partnership between general practice and specialist DVA services, and reduced engagement risks weakening this partnership. CONCLUSION: The authors recommend a hybrid DVA training model for general practice, including remote information delivery alongside a structured face-to-face element. This has broader relevance for other specialist services providing training and education in primary care.

The Implementation of Improvement Interventions for "Low Performing" and "High Performing" Organisations in Health, Education and Local Government: A Phased Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: There is limited understanding about whether and how improvement interventions are effective in supporting failing healthcare organisations and improving the quality of care in high-performing organisations. The aim of this review was to examine the underlying concepts guiding the design of interventions aimed at low and high performing healthcare organisations, processes of implementation, unintended consequences, and their impact on costs and quality of care. The review includes articles in the healthcare sector and other sectors such as education and local government. METHODS: We carried out a phased rapid systematic review of the literature. Phase one was used to develop a theoretical framework of organisational failure and turnaround, and the types of interventions implemented to improve quality. The framework was used to inform phase 2, which was targeted and focused on organisational failure and turnaround in healthcare, education and local government settings. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement to guide the reporting of the methods and findings and the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) as a quality assessment tool. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD: 42019131024). RESULTS: Failure is frequently defined as the inability of organisations to meet pre-established performance standards and turnaround as a linear process. Improvement interventions are designed accordingly and are focused on the organisation, with limited system-level thinking. Successful interventions included restructuring senior leadership teams, inspections, and organisational restructuring by external organisations. Limited attention was paid to the potential negative consequences of the interventions and their costs. CONCLUSION: Dominant definitions of success/failure and turnaround have led to the reduced scope of improvement interventions, the linear perception of turnaround, and lack of consideration of organisations within the wider system in which they operate. Future areas of research include an analysis of the costs of delivering these interventions in relation to their impact on quality of care.

Intimate partner violence, suicidality, and self-harm: a probability sample survey of the general population in England.

BACKGROUND: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a recognised risk factor for psychiatric disorders. There is little current evidence on IPV and self-harm and suicidality, and we therefore aimed to investigate the associations between experience of lifetime and past-year IPV with suicidal thoughts, suicide attempt, and self-harm in the past year. METHODS: We analysed the 2014 Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey, a cross-sectional survey of 7058 adults (aged ≥16 years) in England, which used a multistage random probability sampling design and involved face-to-face interviews. Participants were asked about experience of physical violence and sexual, economic, and emotional abuse from a current or former partner, and about suicidal thoughts, suicide attempts, and self-harm. Other adversities were recorded through an adapted version of the List of Threatening Experiences. Multivariable logistic regression models quantified associations between different indicators of lifetime and past-year IPV, with past-year non-suicidal self-harm, suicidal thoughts, and suicide attempts. All analyses were weighted. FINDINGS: Using weighted percentages, we found that a fifth (21·4%) of 7058 adults reported lifetime experience of IPV, and that 27·2% of women and 15·3% of men had experienced IPV. Among women, 19·6% had ever experienced emotional IPV, 18·7% physical IPV, 8·5% economic IPV, and 3·7% sexual IPV, which was higher than in men (8·6%, 9·3%, 3·6%, and 0·3%, respectively). Findings for ethnicity were unclear. Lifetime prevalence of IPV was higher in those living in rented accommodation or deprived neighbourhoods. Among people who had attempted suicide in the past year, 49·7% had ever experienced IPV and 23·1% had experienced IPV in the past year (including 34·8% of women and 9·4% of men). After adjusting for demographics, socioeconomics, and lifetime experience of adversities, the odds ratio of a past-year suicide attempt were 2·82 (95% CI 1·54-5·17) times higher in those who have ever experienced IPV, compared with those who had not. Fully adjusted odds ratios for past-year self-harm (2·20, 95% CI 1·37-3·53) and suicidal thoughts (1·85, 1·39-2·46) were also raised in those who had ever experienced IPV. INTERPRETATION: IPV is common in England, especially among women, and is strongly associated with self-harm and suicidality. People presenting to services in suicidal distress or after self-harm should be asked about IPV. Interventions designed to reduce the prevalence and duration of IPV might protect and improve the lives of people at risk of self-harm and suicide. FUNDING: UK Prevention Research Partnership.

A Board Level Intervention to Develop Organisation-Wide Quality Improvement Strategies: Cost-Consequences Analysis in 15 Healthcare Organisations.

BACKGROUND: Hospital boards have statutory responsibility for upholding the quality of care in their organisations. International research on quality in hospitals resulted in a research-based guide to help senior hospital leaders develop and implement quality improvement (QI) strategies, the QUASER Guide. Previous research has established a link between board practices and quality of care; however, to our knowledge, no board-level intervention has been evaluated in relation to its costs and consequences. The aim of this research was to evaluate these impacts when the QUASER Guide was implemented in an organisational development intervention (iQUASER). METHODS: We conducted a 'before and after' cost-consequences analysis (CCA), as part of a mixed methods evaluation. The analysis combined qualitative data collected from 66 interviews, 60 hours of board meeting observations and documents from 15 healthcare organisations, of which 6 took part on iQUASER, and included direct and opportunity costs associated with the intervention. The consequences focused on the development of an organisation-wide QI strategy, progress on addressing 8 dimensions of QI (the QUASER challenges), how organisations compared to benchmarks, engagement with the intervention and progress in the implementation of a QI project. RESULTS: We found that participating organisations made greater progress in developing an organisation-wide QI strategy and became more similar to the high-performing benchmark than the comparators. However, progress in addressing all 8 QUASER challenges was only observed in one organisation. Stronger engagement with the intervention was associated with the implementation of a QI project. On average, iQUASER costed £23 496 per participating organisation, of which approximately 44% were staff time costs. Organisations that engaged less with the intervention had lower than average costs (£21 267 per organisation), but also failed to implement an organisation-wide QI project. CONCLUSION: We found a positive association between level of engagement with the intervention, development of an organisation-wide QI strategy and the implementation of an organisation-wide QI project. Support from the board, particularly the chair and chief executive, for participation in the intervention, is important for organisations to accrue most benefit. A board-level intervention for QI, such as iQUASER, is relatively inexpensive as a proportion of an organisation's budget.

REducing unwarranted variation in the Delivery of high qUality hip fraCture services in England and Wales (REDUCE): protocol for a mixed-methods study.

INTRODUCTION: Substantial variation in the delivery of hip fracture care, and patient outcomes persists between hospitals, despite established UK national standards and guidelines. Patients' outcomes are partly explained by patient-level risk factors, but it is hypothesised that organisational-level factors account for the persistence of unwarranted variation in outcomes. The mixed-methods REducing unwarranted variation in the Delivery of high qUality hip fraCture services in England and Wales (REDUCE) study, aims to determine key organisational factors to target to improve patient care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Quantitative analysis will assess the outcomes of patients treated at 172 hospitals in England and Wales (2016-2019) using National Hip Fracture Database data combined with English Hospital Episodes Statistics; Patient Episode Database for Wales; Civil Registration (deaths) and multiple organisational-level audits to characterise each service provider. Statistical analyses will identify which organisational factors explain variation in patient outcomes, and typify care pathways with high-quality consistent patient outcomes. Documentary analysis of 20 anonymised British Orthopaedic Association hospital-initiated peer-review reports, and qualitative interviews with staff from four diverse UK hospitals providing hip fracture care, will identify barriers and facilitators to care delivery. The COVID-19 pandemic has posed a major challenge to the resilience of services and interviews will explore strategies used to adapt and innovate. This system-wide understanding will inform the development, in partnership with key national stakeholders, of an 'Implementation Toolkit' to inform and improve commissioning and delivery of hip fracture services. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved: quantitative study by London, City and East Research Ethics Committee (20/LO/0101); and qualitative study by Faculty of Health Sciences University of Bristol Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 108284), National Health Service (NHS) Health Research Authority (20/HRA/71) and each NHS Trust provided Research and Development approval. Findings will be disseminated through scientific conferences, peer-reviewed journals and online workshops.

Special Measures for Quality and Challenged Providers: Study Protocol for Evaluating the Impact of Improvement Interventions in NHS Trusts.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare organisations in England rated as inadequate in terms of leadership and one other domain enter the Special Measures for Quality (SMQ) regime to receive increased support and oversight. There is also a 'watch list' of challenged National Health Service (NHS) providers at risk of going into SMQ that receive support. There is limited knowledge about whether the interventions used to deliver this support drive improvements in quality, their costs, and whether they strike the right balance between support and scrutiny. The study will seek to determine how provider organisations respond to these interventions, and whether and how these interventions impact organisations' capacity to achieve and sustain quality improvements over time. METHODS: This is a multi-site, mixed methods study. We will carry out interviews at national level to understand the programme theory underpinning the interventions. We will conduct 8 NHS case studies to explore the impact and implementation of the interventions that form part of the SMQ and challenged providers programme. We will use a conceptual framework based on models of organisational readiness for change and draw on board maturity research for implementing quality improvement. We will also review the use of quantitative metrics and data for tracking the progress of improvements in quality of care and sustainability upon leaving SMQ, as well as the costs and benefits of the interventions through a cost-consequence analysis (CCA). DISCUSSION: High-quality interventions that successfully support struggling healthcare organisations are essential and an issue that is an international concern. Our study will allow a greater understanding of the programme theory, impact, and staff views and experiences of the SMQ and challenged providers regime. Formative feedback will be reported to key stakeholders.

Multiple inequity in health care: An example from Brazil.

The paper develops and illustrates a new multivariate approach to analysing inequity in health care. We measure multiple inequity in health care relating to multiple equity-relevant variables - including income, gender, ethnicity, rurality, insurance status and others - and decompose the contribution of each variable to multiple inequity. Our approach encompasses the standard bivariate approach as a special case in which there is only one equity-relevant variable, such as income. We illustrate through an application to physician visits in Brazil, using data from the Health and Health Care Supplement of the Brazilian National Household Sample Survey, comprising 391,868 individuals in the year 2008. We find that health insurance coverage and urban location both contribute more to multiple inequity than income. We hope this approach will help researchers and analysts shed light on the comparative size and importance of the many different inequities in health care of interest to decision makers, rather than focus narrowly on income-related inequity.

Cost-effectiveness of a domestic violence and abuse training and support programme in primary care in the real world: updated modelling based on an MRC phase IV observational pragmatic implementation study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the implementation of the Identification and Referral to Improve Safety (IRIS) programme using up-to-date real-world information on costs and effectiveness from routine clinical practice. A Markov model was constructed to estimate mean costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of IRIS versus usual care per woman registered at a general practice from a societal and health service perspective with a 10-year time horizon. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cost-utility analysis in UK general practices, including data from six sites which have been running IRIS for at least 2 years across England. PARTICIPANTS: Based on the Markov model, which uses health states to represent possible outcomes of the intervention, we stipulated a hypothetical cohort of 10 000 women aged 16 years or older. INTERVENTIONS: The IRIS trial was a randomised controlled trial that tested the effectiveness of a primary care training and support intervention to improve the response to women experiencing domestic violence and abuse, and found it to be cost-effective. As a result, the IRIS programme has been implemented across the UK, generating data on costs and effectiveness outside a trial context. RESULTS: The IRIS programme saved £14 per woman aged 16 years or older registered in general practice (95% uncertainty interval -£151 to £37) and produced QALY gains of 0.001 per woman (95% uncertainty interval -0.005 to 0.006). The incremental net monetary benefit was positive both from a societal and National Health Service perspective (£42 and £22, respectively) and the IRIS programme was cost-effective in 61% of simulations using real-life data when the cost-effectiveness threshold was £20 000 per QALY gained as advised by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. CONCLUSION: The IRIS programme is likely to be cost-effective and cost-saving from a societal perspective in the UK and cost-effective from a health service perspective, although there is considerable uncertainty surrounding these results, reflected in the large uncertainty intervals.

Implementing apportionment strategy to identify costs in a multidisciplinary clinic.

OBJECTIVE: To present the implementation of an apportionment strategy proportional to the productive areas of a multidisciplinary clinic, defining the minimum values to be passed monthly to health professionals who work there. METHODS: A study of the clinic structure was carried out, in which the area of occupation of each service was defined. Later the cost was prorated, allocating a value to each room, proportional to the space occupied. RESULTS: The apportionment implementation allowed the clinic managers to visualize the cost of each room, providing a value base for formation of a minimum amount necessary to be passed monthly to each professional, as a form of payment for rent of using their facilities. CONCLUSION: The risk of financial loss of the clinic was minimized due to variation of its productivity, as well as the conditions of transference at the time of hiring by professionals were clear, promoting greater confidence and safety in contract relations. OBJETIVO: Apresentar a implantação de uma estratégia de rateio proporcional às áreas produtivas de uma clínica multidisciplinar, definindo valores mínimos a serem repassados mensalmente aos profissionais de saúde que as ocupam. MÉTODOS: Estudo da estrutura da clínica, no qual foi definida, em metros quadrados, a área de ocupação de cada serviço. Em seguida, o custo foi rateado, alocando um valor a cada sala, proporcional ao espaço ocupado. RESULTADOS: A implantação do rateio possibilitou aos gestores da clínica estudada visualizar o custo de cada sala, fornecendo uma base de valor para formação de um valor mínimo necessário a ser repassado mensalmente para cada profissional, como forma de pagamento pelo aluguel de utilização de suas instalações. CONCLUSÃO: Minimizou-se o risco de prejuízo da clínica pela variação de sua produtividade, bem como ficaram claras as condições de repasse no momento de contratação do aluguel pelos profissionais, promovendo maior confiança e segurança na relação contratual.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of implementing HIV testing in primary care in East London: protocol for an interrupted time series analysis.

INTRODUCTION: HIV remains underdiagnosed. Guidelines recommend routine HIV testing in primary care, but evidence on implementing testing is lacking. In a previous study, the Rapid HIV Assessment 2 (RHIVA2) cluster randomised controlled trial, we showed that providing training and rapid point-of-care HIV testing at general practice registration (RHIVA2 intervention) in Hackney led to cost-effective, increased and earlier diagnosis of HIV. However, interventions effective in a trial context may be less so when implemented in routine practice. We describe the protocol for an MRC phase IV implementation programme, evaluating the impact of rolling out the RHIVA2 intervention in a post-trial setting. We will use a longitudinal study to examine if the post-trial implementation in Hackney practices is effective and cost-effective, and a cross-sectional study to compare Hackney with two adjacent boroughs providing usual primary care (Newham) and an enhanced service promoting HIV testing in primary care (Tower Hamlets). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Service evaluation using interrupted time series and cost-effectiveness analyses. We will include all general practices in three contiguous high HIV prevalence East London boroughs. All adults aged 16 and above registered with the practices will be included. The interventions to be examined are: a post-trial RHIVA2 implementation programme (including practice-based education and training, external quality assurance, incentive payments for rapid HIV testing and incorporation of rapid HIV testing in the sexual health Local Enhanced Service) in Hackney; the general practice sexual health Network Improved Service in Tower Hamlets and usual care in Newham. Coprimary outcomes are rates of HIV testing and new HIV diagnoses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The chair of the Camden and Islington NHS Research Ethics Committee, London, has endorsed this programme as an evaluation of routine care. Study results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and reported to commissioners.