Developing a typology of interventions to support doctors' mental health and wellbeing.

BACKGROUND: The problem of mental ill-health in doctors is complex, accentuated by the COVID-19 pandemic, and impacts on healthcare provision and broader organisational performance. There are many interventions to address the problem but currently no systematic way to categorise them, which makes it hard to describe and compare interventions. As a result, implementation tends to be unfocussed and fall short of the standards developed for implementing complex healthcare interventions. This study aims to develop: 1) a conceptual typology of workplace mental health and wellbeing interventions and 2) a mapping tool to apply the typology within research and practice. METHODS: Typology development was based on iterative cycles of analysis of published and in-practice interventions, incorporation of relevant theories and frameworks, and team and stakeholder group discussions. RESULTS: The newly developed typology and mapping tool enable interventions to be conceptualised and/or mapped into different categories, for example whether they are designed to be largely preventative (by either improving the workplace or increasing personal resources) or to resolve problems after they have arisen. Interventions may be mapped across more than one category to reflect the nuance and complexity in many mental health and wellbeing interventions. Mapping of interventions indicated that most publications have not clarified their underlying assumptions about what causes outcomes or the theoretical basis for the intervention. CONCLUSION: The conceptual typology and mapping tool aims to raise the quality of future research and promote clear thinking about the nature and purpose of interventions, In doing so it aims to support future research and practice in planning interventions to improve the mental health and wellbeing of doctors.

How can NHS trusts in England optimise strategies to improve the mental health and well-being of hospital doctors? The Care Under Pressure 3 (CUP3) realist evaluation study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The growing incidence of mental ill health in doctors was a major issue in the UK and internationally, even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. It has significant and far-reaching implications, including poor quality or inconsistent patient care, absenteeism, workforce attrition and retention issues, presenteeism, and increased risk of suicide. Existing approaches to workplace support do not take into account the individual, organisational and social factors contributing to mental ill health in doctors, nor how interventions/programmes might interact with each other within the workplace. The aim of this study is to work collaboratively with eight purposively selected National Health Service (NHS) trusts within England to develop an evidence-based implementation toolkit for all NHS trusts to reduce doctors' mental ill health and its impacts on the workforce. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The project will incorporate three phases. Phase 1 develops a typology of interventions to reduce doctors' mental ill health. Phase 2 is a realist evaluation of the existing combinations of strategies being used by acute English healthcare trusts to reduce doctors' mental ill health (including preventative promotion of well-being), based on 160 interviews with key stakeholders. Phase 3 synthesises the insights gained through phases 1 and 2, to create an implementation toolkit that all UK healthcare trusts can use to optimise their strategies to reduce doctors' mental ill health and its impact on the workforce and patient care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted for phase 2 of the project from the NHS Research Ethics Committee (REC reference number 22/WA/0352). As part of the conditions for our ethics approval, the sites included in our study will remain anonymous. To ensure the relevance of the study's outputs, we have planned a wide range of dissemination strategies: an implementation toolkit for healthcare leaders, service managers and doctors; conventional academic outputs such as journal manuscripts and conference presentations; plain English summaries; cartoons and animations; and a media engagement campaign.

Integrating Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) into routine nurse-led primary care for patients with multimorbidity: a feasibility and acceptability study.

BACKGROUND: The use of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMS) in clinical practice has the potential to promote patient-centred care and improve patients' quality of life. Individualized PROMs may be particularly helpful in identifying, prioritizing and monitoring health problems of patients with multimorbidity. We aimed to develop an intervention centred around PROMs feedback as part of Primary Care annual reviews for patients with multimorbidity and evaluate its feasibility and acceptability. METHODS: We developed a nurse-oriented intervention including (a) training of nurses on PROMs; (b) administration to patients with multimorbidity of individualized and standardized PROMS; and (c) feedback to both patients and nurses of PROMs scores and interpretation guidance. We then tailored the intervention to patients with two or more highly prevalent conditions (asthma, COPD, diabetes, heart failure, depression, and hip/knee osteoarthritis) and designed a non-controlled feasibility and acceptability evaluation in a convenience sample of primary care practices (5). PROMs were administered and scores fed back immediately ahead of scheduled annual reviews with nurses. Patients and nurses rated the acceptability of the intervention using with a brief survey including optional free comments. Thematic analysis of qualitative interviews with a sample of participating patients (10) and nurses (4) and of survey free comments was conducted for further in-depth evaluation of acceptability. Feasibility was estimated based on rates of participation and completion. RESULTS: Out of 68 recruited patients (mean age 70; 47% female), 68 completed the PROMs (100%), received feedback (100%) and confirmed nurse awareness of their scores (100%). Most patients (83%) "agreed"/"strongly agreed" that the PROMs feedback had been useful, a view supported by nurses in 89% of reviews. Thematic analysis of rich qualitative data on PROMS administration, feedback and role in annual reviews indicated that both patients and nurses perceived the intervention as acceptable and promising, emphasizing its comprehensiveness and patient-centredness. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed and tested an intervention focusing on routine PROM assessment of patients with multimorbidity in Primary Care. Preliminary findings support its feasibility and a high degree of acceptability from both patients and nurses. The next step is to conduct a full-scale trial for evaluating the effectiveness of the proposed intervention.

Assessing Patient-Centred Outcomes in Lateral Elbow Tendinopathy: A Systematic Review and Standardised Comparison of English Language Clinical Rating Systems.

BACKGROUND: Lateral elbow tendinopathy (LET) is a common condition affecting adults. Although a lack of treatment consensus continues to prompt numerous effectiveness studies, there is a paucity of clear guidance on the choice of outcome measure. Our aim was to undertake a standardised evaluation of the available clinical rating systems that report patient-centred outcomes in LET. METHODS: A systematic review of studies reporting the development, assessment of metric properties and/or use of instruments aiming to quantify LET-specific patient-centred outcome measures was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL (inception-2017) adhering to PRISMA guidance. The evidence for each instrument was independently assessed by two reviewers using the standardised evaluating measures of patient-reported outcomes (EMPRO) method evaluating overall and attribute-specific instrument performance (metric properties and usability). EMPRO scores > 50/100 were considered indicative of high performance. RESULTS: Out of 7261 references, we identified 105 articles reporting on 15 instruments for EMPRO analysis. Median performance score was 41.6 (range 21.6-72.5), with four instruments meeting high-performance criteria: quick Disabilities of the Arm Shoulder and Hand score (qDASH) (72.5), DASH (66.9), Oxford Elbow Score (OES) (66.6) and Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) (57.0). One hundred seventy-nine articles reported instrument use internationally with DASH as the most frequent (29.7% articles) followed by PRTEE (25.6%), MEPS (15.1%) and qDASH (8.1%). The correlation between frequency of use and performance was r = 0.35 (95%CI - 0.11; 0.83). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to provide standardised guidance on the choice of measures for LET. A large number of clinical rating systems are both available and being used for patients with LETs. Robust evidence is available for four measures, the DASH, QDASH, PRTEE and OES. The use of instruments in the literature is only in part explained by instrument performance.