Clinical effectiveness of a modified muscle sparing posterior technique compared with a standard lateral approach in hip hemiarthroplasty for displaced intracapsular fractures (HemiSPAIRE): a multicenter, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial.

Objectives: Assess the effect of a modified muscle sparing posterior approach; SPAIRE (Save Piriformis and Internus, Repairing Externus), in hip hemiarthroplasty for displaced intracapsular fractures on postoperative mobility and function compared with a standard lateral approach. Design: Pragmatic, superiority, multicenter, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial (with internal pilot). Participants, ward staff, and research staff conducting postoperative assessments were blinded to allocation. A CTU allocated treatments centrally using computer-generated lists. Setting: Six hospitals in Southwest England, recruiting November 25, 2019-April 25, 2022. Participants: 244 adults (≥60 years) requiring hip hemiarthroplasty (122 allocated to each approach). 90 and 85 participants allocated to SPAIRE and lateral, respectively, had primary outcome data within the prespecified data collection window. Interventions: Surgery using SPAIRE or standard lateral approach. Follow-up 3 days and 120 days postoperation. Main outcome measure: Oxford Hip Score (OHS), via telephone at 120 days. Secondary outcomes: function and mobility (3 days), pain (3 days, 120 days), discharge destination, length of hospital stay, complications and mortality (within 120 days), quality of life and place of residence (120 days). Results: Participants' mean age was 84.6 years (SD 7.2); 168 (69%) were women. Primary outcome: little evidence of a difference in OHS at 120 days; adjusted mean difference (SPAIRE-lateral) -1.23 (95% CI -3.96 to 1.49, p=0.37). Secondary outcomes: indication of lower participant-reported pain at 3 days in SPAIRE arm; no differences between arms for remaining outcomes. Conclusions: Participants' mobility and function are similar in the short term (3 days) and longer term (120 days), whether receiving the SPAIRE or lateral approach. Neither approach confers benefit over the other in terms of length of hospital stay, return to prefracture residence, survival within 120 days, or quality of life at 120 days. Participants receiving SPAIRE approach may experience less pain in the early postoperative period. Modifying the posterior approach in hip hemiarthroplasty to the SPAIRE approach gives equivalent patient outcomes to the lateral approach within 120 days. Trial registration number: NCT04095611.

Assessing deprescribing tools for implementation in care homes: A qualitative study of the views of care home staff.

BACKGROUND: Care home residents often experience polypharmacy (defined as taking five or more regular medicines). Therefore, we need to ensure that residents only take the medications that are appropriate or provide value (also known as medicines optimisation). To achieve this, deprescribing, or the reduction or stopping of prescription medicines that may no longer be providing benefit, can help manage polypharmacy and improve outcomes. Various tools, guides, and approaches have been developed to help support health professionals to deprescribe in regular practice. Little evaluation of these tools has been conducted and no work has been done in the care home setting. OBJECTIVE: This qualitative study aimed to assess distinct types of deprescribing tools for acceptability, feasibility, and suitability for the care home setting. METHODS: Cognitive (think-aloud) interviews with care home staff in England were conducted (from December 2021 to June 2022) to assess five different deprescribing tools. The tools included a general deprescribing guidance, a generic (non-drug specific) deprescribing framework, a drug-specific deprescribing guideline/guide, a tool for identifying potentially inappropriate medications, and an electronic clinical decision support tool. Participants were recruited via their participation in another deprescribing study. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research informed the data collection and analysis. RESULTS: Eight care home staff from 7 different care homes were interviewed. The five deprescribing tools were reviewed and assessed as not acceptable, feasible, or suitable for the care home setting. All would require significant modifications for use in the care home setting (e.g., language, design, and its function or use with different stakeholders). CONCLUSIONS: As none of the tools were deemed acceptable, feasible, and suitable, future work is warranted to develop and tailor deprescribing tools for the care home setting, considering its specific context and users. Deprescribing implemented safely and successfully in care homes can benefit residents and the wider health economy.

Determinants of implementing deprescribing for older adults in English care homes: a qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the factors that may help or hinder deprescribing practice for older people within care homes. DESIGN: Qualitative semistructured interviews using framework analysis informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). SETTING: Participants were recruited from two care home provider organisations (a smaller independently owned organisation and a large organisation) in England. PARTICIPANTS: A sample of 23 care home staff, 8 residents, 4 family members and 1 general practitioner were associated with 15 care homes. RESULTS: Participants discussed their experiences and perceptions of implementing deprescribing within care homes. Major themes of (1) deprescribing as a complex process and (2) internal and external contextual factors influencing deprescribing practice (such as beliefs, abilities and relationships) were interrelated and spanned several CFIR constructs and domains. The quality of local relationships with and support from healthcare professionals were considered more crucial factors than the type of care home management structure. CONCLUSIONS: Several influencing social and contextual factors need to be considered for implementing deprescribing for older adults in care homes. Additional training, tools, support and opportunities need to be made available to care home staff, so they can feel confident and able to question or raise concerns about medicines with prescribers. Further work is warranted to design and adopt a deprescribing approach which addresses these determinants to ensure successful implementation.

Detailed statistical analysis plan for a randomised controlled trial of the effects of a modified muscle sparing posterior technique (SPAIRE) in hip hemiarthroplasty for displaced intracapsular fractures on post-operative function compared to a standard lateral approach: HemiSPAIRE.

BACKGROUND: The HemiSPAIRE trial is being conducted to determine whether a modified muscle sparing technique (SPAIRE-"Save Piriformis and Internus, Repairing Externus") in hip hemiarthroplasty brings clinical benefits compared to the standard lateral technique in adults aged 60 years or older, with a displaced intracapsular hip fracture. This article describes the detailed statistical analysis plan for the trial.  METHODS AND DESIGN: HemiSPAIRE is a definitive, pragmatic, superiority, multicentre, randomised controlled trial (with internal pilot) with two parallel groups. Participants, ward staff and all research staff involved in post-operative assessments are blinded to allocation. This article describes in detail (1) the primary and secondary outcomes; (2) the statistical analysis principles, including a survivor average causal effect (SACE) method chosen specifically to address the issue of potential bias from differential survival between trial arms, which was seen from data review by the Trial Steering Committee, the participants that will be included in each analysis, the covariates that will be included in each analysis, and how the results will be presented; (3) planned main analysis of the primary outcome; (4) planned analyses of the secondary outcomes; and (5) planned additional analyses of the primary and secondary outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04095611. Registered on 19 September 2019.

R.A. Fisher, eugenics, and the campaign for family allowances in interwar Britain.

Ronald Aylmer Fisher (1890-1962) is today remembered as a giant of twentieth-century statistics, genetics and evolutionary theory. Alongside his influential scientific contributions, he was also, throughout the interwar years, a prominent figure within Britain's eugenics movement. This essay provides a close examination of his eugenical ideas and activities, focusing particularly upon his energetic advocacy of family allowances, which he hoped would boost eugenic births within the more 'desirable' middle and upper classes. Fisher's proposals, which were grounded in his distinctive explanation for the decay of civilizations throughout human history, enjoyed support from some influential figures in Britain's Eugenics Society and beyond. The ultimate failure of his campaign, though, highlights tensions both between the eugenics and family allowances movements, and within the eugenics movement itself. I show how these social and political movements represented a crucial but heretofore overlooked context for the reception of Fisher's evolutionary masterwork of 1930, The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, with its notorious closing chapters on the causes and cures of national and racial decline.

Effects of a modified muscle sparing posterior technique in hip hemiarthroplasty for displaced intracapsular fractures on postoperative function compared to a standard lateral approach (HemiSPAIRE): protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Currently National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical guidelines in the UK suggest that surgeons performing partial hip replacements (hemiarthroplasty) should consider using the lateral approach. Alternatively, a newer, modified posterior approach using a muscle sparing technique named 'Save Piriformis and Internus, Repairing Externus' (SPAIRE) can be used leaving the major muscles intact. This randomised controlled trial (RCT) aims to compare the SPAIRE approach to the standard lateral approach, to determine if it allows patients to mobilise better and experience improved function after surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: HemiSPAIRE is a two-arm, assessor-blinded, definitive pragmatic RCT with nested pilot and qualitative studies. Two hundred and twenty-eight participants with displaced intracapsular fractures requiring hip hemiarthroplasty will be individually randomised 1:1 to either the SPAIRE, or control (standard lateral approach) surgical procedure. Outcomes will be assessed at postoperative day 3 (POD3) and 120 (POD120). The primary outcome measure will be level of function and mobility using the Oxford Hip Score at POD120. Secondary outcomes include: De Morton Mobility Index (DEMMI), Cumulated Ambulatory Score and Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) at POD3; DEMMI, NPRS and EQ-5D-5L at POD120, complications, acute and total length of hospital stay, and mortality. Primary analysis will be on an intention-to-treat basis. Participant experiences of the impact of surgery and recovery period will be examined via up to 20 semi-structured telephone interviews. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol has been approved by Yorkshire and the Humber-Bradford Leeds Research Ethics Committee. Recruitment commenced in November 2019. Findings will be disseminated via research articles in peer-reviewed journals, presentations at conferences, public involvement events, patient groups and media releases. A summary of the trial findings will be shared with participants at the end of the study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04095611.

Understanding why primary care doctors leave direct patient care: a systematic review of qualitative research.

BACKGROUND: UK general practitioners (GPs) are leaving direct patient care in significant numbers. We undertook a systematic review of qualitative research to identify factors affecting GPs' leaving behaviour in the workforce as part of a wider mixed methods study (ReGROUP). OBJECTIVE: To identify factors that affect GPs' decisions to leave direct patient care. METHODS: Qualitative interview-based studies were identified and their quality was assessed. A thematic analysis was performed and an explanatory model was constructed providing an overview of factors affecting UK GPs. Non-UK studies were considered separately. RESULTS: Six UK interview-based studies and one Australian interview-based study were identified. Three central dynamics that are key to understanding UK GP leaving behaviour were identified: factors associated with low job satisfaction, high job satisfaction and those linked to the doctor-patient relationship. The importance of contextual influence on job satisfaction emerged. GPs with high job satisfaction described feeling supported by good practice relationships, while GPs with poor job satisfaction described feeling overworked and unsupported with negatively impacted doctor-patient relationships. CONCLUSIONS: Many GPs report that job satisfaction directly relates to the quality of the doctor-patient relationship. Combined with changing relationships with patients and interfaces with secondary care, and the gradual sense of loss of autonomy within the workplace, many GPs report a reduction in job satisfaction. Once job satisfaction has become negatively impacted, the combined pressure of increased patient demand and workload, together with other stress factors, has left many feeling unsupported and vulnerable to burn-out and ill health, and ultimately to the decision to leave general practice.

Identifying policies and strategies for general practitioner retention in direct patient care in the United Kingdom: a RAND/UCLA appropriateness method panel study.

BACKGROUND: The United Kingdom (UK) is experiencing a general practitioner (GP) workforce retention crisis. Research has focused on investigating why GPs intend to quit, but less is known about the acceptability and effectiveness of policies and strategies to improve GP retention. Using evidence from research and key stakeholder organisations, we generated a set of potential policies and strategies aimed at maximising GP retention and tested their appropriateness for implementation by systematically consulting with GPs. METHODS: 28 GP Partners and GPs working in national stakeholder organisations from South West England and London were purposively sampled, and asked to take part in a RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method panel. Panellists were asked to read an evidence briefing summary, and then complete an online survey on two occasions. During each round, participants rated the appropriateness of policies and strategies aimed at improving GP retention using a nine point scale (1 'extremely inappropriate' to 9 'extremely appropriate'). Fifty-four potential policies and strategies (equating to 100 statements) were tested, focusing on factors influencing job satisfaction (e.g. well-being, workload, incentives and remuneration, flexible working, human resources systems). Ratings were analysed for panel consensus and categorised based on appropriateness ('appropriate', 'uncertain', 'inappropriate'). RESULTS: 12/28 GPs approached agreed to take part, 9/28 completed two rounds of the online survey between February and June 2018. Panellists identified 24/54 policy and strategy areas (41/100 statements) as 'appropriate'. Examples included providing GP practices 'at risk' of experiencing GP shortages with a toolkit for managing recruitment and retention, and interventions to facilitate peer support to enhance health and wellbeing, or support portfolio careers. Strategies to limit GP workload, and manage patient demand were also endorsed. CONCLUSIONS: The panel of experienced GPs identified a number of practical ways to improve GP retention through interventions that might enhance job satisfaction and work-life balance. Future research should evaluate the impact of implementing these recommendations.

Against defaultism and towards localism in the contingency/inevitability conversation: Or, why we should shut up about putting-up.

Philosophers and historians of science have for some time now debated whether the results of current science are 'contingent' or 'inevitable'. Scholars have noted that inevitabilism often enjoys the status of a presumptive default position. Consequently, contingentists are, from the outset, lumbered with the burden of proof. This is evident in the case of the inevitabilist demand that the contingentist "put up or shut up" (PUSU). This paper adds to the existing case which says that inevitabilism's default-status is unjustified. However, whilst some have suggested that contingentism should replace inevitabilism as the default position, I argue that the contingency/inevitability (C/I) conversation should proceed sans default. This move is motivated largely by my claim that the C/I issue is best conceived as a 'local', rather than a global or universal one. The main problem with taking inevitabilism or contingentism as the default is the globalist nature of such a tack. Whilst localism is arguably an emergent reality of the growing C/I literature, its implications have not been fully realised. I suggest that fully and explicitly embracing localism, including the closely related move of doing away with defaults, represents the most promising way forward for the C/I conversation. In addition, I will show how these moves entail that we stop worrying about the inevitabilist PUSU demand, or more bluntly, that we shut up about putting-up.

Why do GPs leave direct patient care and what might help to retain them? A qualitative study of GPs in South West England.

OBJECTIVE: To identify factors influencing general practitioners' (GPs') decisions about whether or not to remain in direct patient care in general practice and what might help to retain them in that role. DESIGN: Qualitative, in-depth, individual interviews exploring factors related to GPs leaving, remaining in and returning to direct patient care. SETTING: South West England, UK. PARTICIPANTS: 41 GPs: 7 retired; 8 intending to take early retirement; 11 who were on or intending to take a career break; 9 aged under 50 years who had left or were intending to leave direct patient care and 6 who were not intending to leave or to take a career break. Plus 19 stakeholders from a range of primary care-related professional organisations and roles. RESULTS: Reasons for leaving direct patient care were complex and based on a range of job-related and individual factors. Three key themes underpinned the interviewed GPs' thinking and rationale: issues relating to their personal and professional identity and the perceived value of general practice-based care within the healthcare system; concerns regarding fear and risk, for example, in respect of medical litigation and managing administrative challenges within the context of increasingly complex care pathways and environments; and issues around choice and volition in respect of personal social, financial, domestic and professional considerations. These themes provide increased understanding of the lived experiences of working in today's National Health Service for this group of GPs. CONCLUSION: Future policies and strategies aimed at retaining GPs in direct patient care should clarify the role and expectations of general practice and align with GPs' perception of their own roles and identity; demonstrate to GPs that they are valued and listened to in planning delivery of the UK healthcare; target GPs' concerns regarding fear and risk, seeking to reduce these to manageable levels and give GPs viable options to support them to remain in direct patient care.