Rationale for the shielding policy for clinically vulnerable people in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Shielding aimed to protect those predicted to be at highest risk from COVID-19 and was uniquely implemented in the UK during the first year of the pandemic from March 2020. As the first stage in the EVITE Immunity evaluation (Effects of shielding for vulnerable people during COVID-19 pandemic on health outcomes, costs and immunity, including those with cancer:quasi-experimental evaluation), we generated a logic model to describe the programme theory underlying the shielding intervention. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: We reviewed published documentation on shielding to develop an initial draft of the logic model. We then discussed this draft during interviews with 13 key stakeholders involved in putting shielding into effect in Wales and England. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically to inform a final draft of the logic model. RESULTS: The shielding intervention was a complex one, introduced at pace by multiple agencies working together. We identified three core components: agreement on clinical criteria; development of the list of people appropriate for shielding; and communication of shielding advice. In addition, there was a support programme, available as required to shielding people, including food parcels, financial support and social support. The predicted mechanism of change was that people would isolate themselves and so avoid infection, with the primary intended outcome being reduction in mortality in the shielding group. Unintended impacts included negative impact on mental and physical health and well-being. Details of the intervention varied slightly across the home nations of the UK and were subject to minor revisions during the time the intervention was in place. CONCLUSIONS: Shielding was a largely untested strategy, aiming to mitigate risk by placing a responsibility on individuals to protect themselves. The model of its rationale, components and outcomes (intended and unintended) will inform evaluation of the impact of shielding and help us to understand its effect and limitations.

Evaluation of the shielding initiative in Wales (EVITE Immunity): protocol for a quasiexperimental study.

INTRODUCTION: Shielding aimed to protect those predicted to be at highest risk from COVID-19 and was uniquely implemented in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic. Clinically extremely vulnerable people identified through algorithms and screening of routine National Health Service (NHS) data were individually and strongly advised to stay at home and strictly self-isolate even from others in their household. This study will generate a logic model of the intervention and evaluate the effects and costs of shielding to inform policy development and delivery during future pandemics. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a quasiexperimental study undertaken in Wales where records for people who were identified for shielding were already anonymously linked into integrated data systems for public health decision-making. We will: interview policy-makers to understand rationale for shielding advice to inform analysis and interpretation of results; use anonymised individual-level data to select people identified for shielding advice in March 2020 and a matched cohort, from routine electronic health data sources, to compare outcomes; survey a stratified random sample of each group about activities and quality of life at 12 months; use routine and newly collected blood data to assess immunity; interview people who were identified for shielding and their carers and NHS staff who delivered healthcare during shielding, to explore compliance and experiences; collect healthcare resource use data to calculate implementation costs and cost-consequences. Our team includes people who were shielding, who used their experience to help design and deliver this study. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received approval from the Newcastle North Tyneside 2 Research Ethics Committee (IRAS 295050). We will disseminate results directly to UK government policy-makers, publish in peer-reviewed journals, present at scientific and policy conferences and share accessible summaries of results online and through public and patient networks.

Asylum seekers' and refugees' experiences of accessing health care: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Asylum seekers and refugees (ASRs) often experience poor health in host countries. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) requires hosts to ensure these sanctuary seekers have access to basic health care. AIM: To identify barriers and facilitators that affect access to health care by ASRs in Wales. DESIGN & SETTING: Participatory research approach using qualitative focus groups across Wales, which hosts 10 000 refugees. METHOD: Eight focus groups were undertaken with ASRs, support workers, and volunteers (n = 57). RESULTS: Specialist NHS-funded services and grant-aided non-governmental organisations (NGOs) facilitated access to health care, including primary care. Most ASRs understood the role of general practice in providing and coordinating care, but were unaware of out-of-hours services. Reported barriers included: language difficulties, health literacy, unrecognised needs, and the cost of travel to appointments. Participants recognised the importance of mental health, but were disappointed by the state of mental health care. Some feared seeking support for mental health from their GP, and few were aware they had the right to move practice if they were unhappy. Written information about health care was not as accessible to refugees as to asylum seekers (ASs). While some participants read such material before consulting, others struggled to access information when in need. Few participants were aware of health prevention services. Even when they knew about services, such as smoking cessation, these services' difficulty in accommodating ASRs was a barrier. CONCLUSION: The main barriers identified were: availability of interpreters; knowledge about entitlements; and access to specialist services.

Costs, effects and implementation of routine data emergency admission risk prediction models in primary care for patients with, or at risk of, chronic conditions: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency admission risk prediction models are increasingly used to identify patients, typically with one or more chronic conditions, for proactive management in primary care to avoid admissions, save costs and improve patient experience. AIM: To identify and review the published evidence on the costs, effects and implementation of emergency admission risk prediction models in primary care for patients with, or at risk of, chronic conditions. METHODS: We shall search for studies of healthcare interventions using routine data-generated emergency admission risk models. We shall report: the effects on emergency admissions and health costs; clinician and patient views; and implementation findings. We shall search ASSIA, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, HMIC, ISI Web of Science, MEDLINE and Scopus from 2005, review references in and citations of included articles, search key journals and contact experts. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment will be performed by two independent reviewers. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical permissions are required for this study using published data. Findings will be disseminated widely, including publication in a peer-reviewed journal and through conferences in primary and emergency care and chronic conditions. We judge our results will help a wide audience including primary care practitioners and commissioners, and policymakers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42015016874; Pre-results.

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 .

Predictive risk stratification model: a progressive cluster-randomised trial in chronic conditions management (PRISMATIC) research protocol.

BACKGROUND: An ageing population increases demand on health and social care. New approaches are needed to shift care from hospital to community and general practice. A predictive risk stratification tool (Prism) has been developed for general practice that estimates risk of an emergency hospital admission in the following year. We present a protocol for the evaluation of Prism. METHODS/DESIGN: We will undertake a mixed methods progressive cluster-randomised trial. Practices begin as controls, delivering usual care without Prism. Practices will receive Prism and training randomly, and thereafter be able to use Prism with clinical and technical support. We will compare costs, processes of care, satisfaction and patient outcomes at baseline, 6 and 18 months, using routine data and postal questionnaires. We will assess technical performance by comparing predicted against actual emergency admissions. Focus groups and interviews will be undertaken to understand how Prism is perceived and adopted by practitioners and policy makers. We will model data using generalised linear models and survival analysis techniques to determine whether any differences exist between intervention and control groups. We will take account of covariates and explanatory factors. In the economic evaluation we will carry out a cost-effectiveness analysis to examine incremental cost per emergency admission to hospital avoided and will examine costs versus changes in primary and secondary outcomes in a cost-consequence analysis. We will also examine changes in quality of life of patients across the risk spectrum. We will record and transcribe focus groups and interviews and analyse them thematically. We have received full ethical and R and D approvals for the study and Information Governance Review Panel (IGRP) permission for the use of routine data. We will comply with the CONSORT guidelines and will disseminate the findings at national and international conferences and in peer-reviewed journals. DISCUSSION: The proposed study will provide information on costs and effects of Prism; how it is used in practice, barriers and facilitators to its implementation; and its perceived value in supporting the management of patients with and at risk of developing chronic conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Controlled Clinical Trials ISRCTN no. ISRCTN55538212.

New models of emergency prehospital care that avoid unnecessary conveyance to emergency department: translation of research evidence into practice?

BACKGROUND: Achieving knowledge translation in healthcare is growing in importance but methods to capture impact of research are not well developed. We present an attempt to capture impact of a programme of research in prehospital emergency care, aiming to inform the development of EMS models of care that avoid, when appropriate, conveyance of patients to hospital for immediate care. METHODS: We describe the programme and its dissemination, present examples of its influence on policy and practice, internationally, and analyse routine UK statistics to determine whether conveyance practice has changed. RESULTS: The programme comprises eight research studies, to a value of > £4 m. Findings have been disseminated through 18 published papers, cited 274 times in academic journals. We describe examples of how evidence has been put into practice, including new models of care in Canada and Australia. Routine statistics in England show that, alongside rising demand, conveyance rates have fallen from 90% to 58% over a 12-year period, 2,721 million fewer journeys, with publication of key studies 2003-2008. COMMENT: We have set out the rationale, key features, and impact on practice of a programme of publicly funded research. We describe evidence of knowledge translation, whilst recognising limitations in methods for capturing impact.