Key experiences of primary social groups in Unspecified Kidney Donation.

BACKGROUND: The role of family members in directed kidney donation is well documented in the literature from both a physiological and psychosocial perspective. The experiences of families, or primary social groups (PSGs), where one member considers donating a kidney via unspecified altruistic kidney donation route (UKD) is poorly understood. This is pertinent as lack of family support has been identified as a potential contributor to donation withdrawal. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore the relevant psychosocial factors underpinning completed and uncompleted donations. DESIGN: A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Qualitative interviews were conducted in the United Kingdom with 35 individuals comprising of: 11 donors who donated their kidney altruistically and 8 of their PSG members, and 11 donors who withdrew and 5 of their PSG members. APPROACH: Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using Framework Analysis. RESULTS: Two major themes were identified: (1) Supportability, which contained experiences fundamental to proceeding to donate, underpinned by four subthemes Acceptability, Awareness and Information, Family Risk and Ambivalence;(2) Seeking Resolution, contained discussions of experiences following either withdrawal from or completion of the donation, and comprised two sub-themes, Unfinished Business and Resolve. CONCLUSIONS: There are key differences in the experiences between those who completed their donation and those who withdrew. It is clear from this study that UKD operates within a PSG's social framework. Clinical implications suggest interventions at the level of addressing ambivalence within the PSG and the need for promotion of better psychosocial outcomes both following completion or withdrawal from donation.

Implementing telephone triage in general practice: a process evaluation of a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Telephone triage represents one strategy to manage demand for face-to-face GP appointments in primary care. However, limited evidence exists of the challenges GP practices face in implementing telephone triage. We conducted a qualitative process evaluation alongside a UK-based cluster randomised trial (ESTEEM) which compared the impact of GP-led and nurse-led telephone triage with usual care on primary care workload, cost, patient experience, and safety for patients requesting a same-day GP consultation. The aim of the process study was to provide insights into the observed effects of the ESTEEM trial from the perspectives of staff and patients, and to specify the circumstances under which triage is likely to be successfully implemented. Here we report perspectives of staff. METHODS: The intervention comprised implementation of either GP-led or nurse-led telephone triage for a period of 2-3 months. A qualitative evaluation was conducted using staff interviews recruited from eight general practices (4 GP triage, 4 Nurse triage) in the UK, implementing triage as part of the ESTEEM trial. Qualitative interviews were undertaken with 44 staff members in GP triage and nurse triage practices (16 GPs, 8 nurses, 7 practice managers, 13 administrative staff). RESULTS: Staff reported diverse experiences and perceptions regarding the implementation of telephone triage, its effects on workload, and on the benefits of triage. Such diversity were explained by the different ways triage was organised, the staffing models used to support triage, how the introduction of triage was communicated across practice staff, and by how staff roles were reconfigured as a result of implementing triage. CONCLUSION: The findings from the process evaluation offer insight into the range of ways GP practices participating in ESTEEM implemented telephone triage, and the circumstances under which telephone triage can be successfully implemented beyond the context of a clinical trial. Staff experiences and perceptions of telephone triage are shaped by the way practices communicate with staff, prepare for and sustain the changes required to implement triage effectively, as well as by existing practice culture, and staff and patient behaviour arising in response to the changes made. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN20687662. Registered 28 May 2009.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of telephone triage for managing same-day consultation requests in general practice: a cluster randomised controlled trial comparing general practitioner-led and nurse-led management systems with usual care (the ESTEEM trial).

BACKGROUND: Telephone triage is proposed as a method of managing increasing demand for primary care. Previous studies have involved small samples in limited settings, and focused on nurse roles. Evidence is limited regarding the impact on primary care workload, costs, and patient safety and experience when triage is used to manage patients requesting same-day consultations in general practice. OBJECTIVES: In comparison with usual care (UC), to assess the impact of GP-led telephone triage (GPT) and nurse-led computer-supported telephone triage (NT) on primary care workload and cost, patient experience of care, and patient safety and health status for patients requesting same-day consultations in general practice. DESIGN: Pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial, incorporating economic evaluation and qualitative process evaluation. SETTING: General practices (n = 42) in four regions of England, UK (Devon, Bristol/Somerset, Warwickshire/Coventry, Norfolk/Suffolk). PARTICIPANTS: Patients requesting same-day consultations. INTERVENTIONS: Practices were randomised to GPT, NT or UC. Data collection was not blinded; however, analysis was conducted by a statistician blinded to practice allocation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary - primary care contacts [general practice, out-of-hours primary care, accident and emergency (A&E) and walk-in centre attendances] in the 28 days following the index consultation request. Secondary - resource use and costs, patient safety (deaths and emergency hospital admissions within 7 days of index request, and A&E attendance within 28 days), health status and experience of care. RESULTS: Of 20,990 eligible randomised patients (UC n = 7283; GPT n = 6695; NT n = 7012), primary outcome data were analysed for 16,211 patients (UC n = 5572; GPT n = 5171; NT n = 5468). Compared with UC, GPT and NT increased primary outcome contacts (over 28-day follow-up) by 33% [rate ratio (RR) 1.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.30 to 1.36] and 48% (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.44 to 1.52), respectively. Compared with GPT, NT was associated with a marginal increase in primary outcome contacts by 4% (RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.08). Triage was associated with a redistribution of primary care contacts. Although GPT, compared with UC, increased the rate of overall GP contacts (face to face and telephone) over the 28 days by 38% (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.50), GP face-to-face contacts were reduced by 39% (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.69). NT reduced the rate of overall GP contacts by 16% (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.91) and GP face-to-face contacts by 20% (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.90), whereas nurse contacts increased. The increased rate of primary care contacts in triage arms is largely attributable to increased telephone contacts. Estimated overall patient-clinician contact time on the index day increased in triage (GPT = 10.3 minutes; NT = 14.8 minutes; UC = 9.6 minutes), although patterns of clinician use varied between arms. Taking account of both the pattern and duration of primary outcome contacts, overall costs over the 28-day follow-up were similar in all three arms (approximately £75 per patient). Triage appeared safe, and no differences in patient health status were observed. NT was somewhat less acceptable to patients than GPT or UC. The process evaluation identified the complexity associated with introducing triage but found no consistency across practices about what works and what does not work when implementing it. CONCLUSIONS: Introducing GPT or NT was associated with a redistribution of primary care workload for patients requesting same-day consultations, and at similar cost to UC. Although triage seemed to be safe, investigation of the circumstances of a larger number of deaths or admissions after triage might be warranted, and monitoring of these events is necessary as triage is implemented. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN20687662. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Learning from people with long-term conditions: new insights for governance in primary healthcare.

The introduction of top-down centrally driven solutions to governance of healthcare, at the same time as increasing policy emphasis on greater 'bottom up' patient and public involvement in all aspects of healthcare, has set up complex tensions for policy implementation and healthcare practice. This paper explores the interplay of these agendas in the context of changes in primary healthcare services provided by the National Health Service in England. Specifically, it looks at service user involvement in a qualitative study of the professional response to changes in the governance and incentives in the care of people with long-term conditions. Service users influenced and guided the study at local and national levels. Vignettes of patient stories developed by service users informed in-depth interviews with 56 health and social care professionals engaged in the development of local policies and services for people with complex long-term illness, and themes generated by cross case analysis were validated through service users. The findings presented here focus on four themes about risk and comparison of professionals' and service users' perspectives of the issues: managing risks/consistent support, the risks of letting go/feeling in control, professional identity/helping people to help themselves, and managing expectations/professionals losing out. In this study, service user involvement added value by validating understandings of governance, framing debates to focus on what matters at the point of care and enabling perspective sharing and interaction. We suggest that more collaborative forms of governance in healthcare that take account of service user perspectives and enable interaction with professional groups could help validate processes of quality assurance and provide motivation for continuous quality improvement. We offer a model for 'opening up' collaborative projects to evaluation and critical reflection of the interrelationships between the context, methods and outcomes of service user involvement.

People and teams matter in organizational change: professionals' and managers' experiences of changing governance and incentives in primary care.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the experiences of governance and incentives during organizational change for managers and clinical staff. STUDY SETTING: Three primary care settings in England in 2006-2008. STUDY DESIGN: Data collection involved three group interviews with 32 service users, individual interviews with 32 managers, and 56 frontline professionals in three sites. The Realistic Evaluation framework was used in analysis to examine the effects of new policies and their implementation. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Integrating new interprofessional teams to work effectively is a slow process, especially if structures in place do not acknowledge the painful feelings involved in change and do not support staff during periods of uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: Eliciting multiple perspectives, often dependent on individual occupational positioning or place in new team configurations, illuminates the need to incorporate the emotional as well as technocratic and system factors when implementing change. Some suggestions are made for facilitating change in health care systems. These are discussed in the context of similar health care reform initiatives in the United States.

Financial and clinical risk in health care reform: a view from below.

OBJECTIVES: This paper examines how the interaction between financial and clinical risk at two critical phases of health care reform in England has been experienced by frontline staff caring for vulnerable patients with long term conditions. METHODS: The paper draws on contracting theory and two interdisciplinary and in-depth qualitative research studies undertaken in 1995 and 2007. Methods common to both studies included documentary analysis and interviews with managers and front line professionals. The 1995 study employed action-based research and included observation of community care; the 2007 study used realistic evaluation and included engagement with service user groups. RESULTS: In both reform processes, financial risk was increasingly devolved to frontline practitioners and smaller organizational units such as GP commissioning groups, with payment by unit of activity, aimed at changing professionals' behaviour. This financing increased perceived clinical risk and fragmented the delivery of health and social care services requiring staff efforts to improve collaboration and integration, and created some perverse incentives and staff demoralisation. CONCLUSIONS: Health services reform should only shift financial risk to frontline professionals to the extent that it can be efficiently borne. Where team work is required, contracts should reward collaborative multi-professional activity.