Understanding the challenges of identifying, supporting, and signposting patients with alcohol use disorder in secondary care hospitals, post COVID-19: a qualitative analysis from the North East and North Cumbria, England.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol-related mortality and morbidity increased during the COVID-19 pandemic in England, with people from lower-socioeconomic groups disproportionately affected. The North East and North Cumbria (NENC) region has high levels of deprivation and the highest rates of alcohol-related harm in England. Consequently, there is an urgent need for the implementation of evidence-based preventative approaches such as identifying people at risk of alcohol harm and providing them with appropriate support. Non-alcohol specialist secondary care clinicians could play a key role in delivering these interventions, but current implementation remains limited. In this study we aimed to explore current practices and challenges around identifying, supporting, and signposting patients with Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) in secondary care hospitals in the NENC through the accounts of staff in the post COVID-19 context. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 30 non-alcohol specialist staff (10 doctors, 20 nurses) in eight secondary care hospitals across the NENC between June and October 2021. Data were analysed inductively and deductively to identify key codes and themes, with Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) then used to structure the findings. RESULTS: Findings were grouped using the NPT domains 'implementation contexts' and 'implementation mechanisms'. The following implementation contexts were identified as key factors limiting the implementation of alcohol prevention work: poverty which has been exacerbated by COVID-19 and the prioritisation of acute presentations (negotiating capacity); structural stigma (strategic intentions); and relational stigma (reframing organisational logics). Implementation mechanisms identified as barriers were: workforce knowledge and skills (cognitive participation); the perception that other departments and roles were better placed to deliver this preventative work than their own (collective action); and the perceived futility and negative feedback cycle (reflexive monitoring). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19, has generated additional challenges to identifying, supporting, and signposting patients with AUD in secondary care hospitals in the NENC. Our interpretation suggests that implementation contexts, in particular structural stigma and growing economic disparity, are the greatest barriers to implementation of evidence-based care in this area. Thus, while some implementation mechanisms can be addressed at a local policy and practice level via improved training and support, system-wide action is needed to enable sustained delivery of preventative alcohol work in these settings.

New models of health and social care for people in later life: mapping of innovation in services in two regions of the United Kingdom using a mixed method approach.

BACKGROUND: Innovation for reforming health and social care is high on the policy agenda in the United Kingdom in response to the growing needs of an ageing population. However, information about new innovations of care being implemented is sparse. METHODS: We mapped innovations for people in later life in two regions, North East England and South East Scotland. Data collection included discussions with stakeholders (n = 51), semi-structured interviews (n = 14) and website searches that focused on technology, evaluation and health inequalities. We analysed qualitative data using framework and thematic analyses. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively. RESULTS: One hundred eleven innovations were identified across the two regions. Interviewees reported a wide range of technologies that had been rapidly introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic and many remained in use. Digital exclusion of certain groups of older people was an ongoing concern. Innovations fell into two groups; system-level ones that aimed to alleviate systems pressures such as preventing hospital (re)admissions, and patient-level ones which sought to enhance health and wellbeing directly. Interviewees were aware of the importance of health inequalities but lacked data to monitor the impact of innovations on these, and evaluation was challenging due to lack of time, training, and support. Quantitative findings revealed that two thirds of innovations (n = 74, 67%) primarily focused on the system level, whilst a third (n = 37, 33%) primarily focused on the patient-level. Overall, over half (n = 65, 59%) of innovations involved technologies although relatively few (n = 12, 11%) utilised advanced technologies. Very few (n = 16, 14%) focused on reducing health inequalities, and only a minority of innovations (n = 43, 39%) had undergone evaluation (most of which were conducted by the service providers themselves). CONCLUSIONS: We found a wide range of innovative care services being developed for people in later life, yet alignment with key policy priorities, such as addressing health inequalities, was limited. There was a strong focus on technology, with little consideration for the potential to widen the health inequality gap. The absence of robust evaluation was also a concern as most innovations were implemented without support to monitor effectiveness and/or without plans for sustainability and spread.

Effectiveness of shared medical appointments delivered in primary care for improving health outcomes in patients with long-term conditions: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness of shared medical appointments (SMAs) compared with one-to-one appointments in primary care for improving health outcomes and reducing demand on healthcare services by people with one or more long-term conditions (LTCs). DESIGN: A systematic review of the published literature. DATA SOURCES: Six databases, including MEDLINE and Web of Science, were searched 2013-2023. Relevant pre-2013 trials identified by forward and backward citation searches of the included trials were included. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of SMAs delivered in a primary care setting involving adults over 18 years with one or more LTCs. Studies were excluded if the SMA did not include one-to-one patient-clinician time. All countries were eligible for inclusion. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted and outcomes narratively synthesised, meta-analysis was undertaken where possible. RESULTS: Twenty-nine unique trials were included. SMA models varied in terms of components, mode of delivery and target population. Most trials recruited patients with a single LTC, most commonly diabetes (n=16). There was substantial heterogeneity in outcome measures. Meta-analysis showed that participants in SMA groups had lower diastolic blood pressure than those in usual care (d=-0.086, 95% CI=-0.16 to -0.02, n=10) (p=0.014). No statistically significant differences were found across other outcomes. Compared with usual care, SMAs had no significant effect on healthcare service use. For example, no difference between SMAs and usual care was found for admissions to emergency departments at follow-up (d=-0.094, 95% CI=-0.27 to 0.08, n=6, p=0.289). CONCLUSIONS: There was a little difference in the effectiveness of SMAs compared with usual care in terms of health outcomes or healthcare service use in the short-term (range 12 weeks to 24 months). To strengthen the evidence base, future studies should include a wider array of LTCs, standardised outcome measures and more details on SMA components to help inform economic evaluation. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020173084.