A comparative assessment of two tools designed to support patient safety culture in UK general practice.

BACKGROUND: The NHS has recognised the importance of a high quality patient safety culture in the delivery of primary health care in the rapidly evolving environment of general practice. Two tools, PC-SafeQuest and MapSaf, were developed with the intention of assessing and improving patient safety culture in this setting. Both have been made widely available through their inclusion in the Royal College of General Practitioners' Patient Safety Toolkit and our work offerss a timely exploration of the tools to inform practice staff as to how each might be usefully applied and in which circumstances. Here we present a comparative analysis of their content, and describe the perspectives of staff on their design, outputs and the feasibility of their sustained use. METHODS: We have used a content analysis to provide the context for the qualitative study of staff experiences of using the tools at a representative range of practices recruited from across the Midlands (UK). Data was collected through moderated focus groups using an identical topic guide. RESULTS: A total of nine practices used the PC-SafeQuest tool and four the MapSaf tool. A total of 159 staff completed the PC-SafeQuest tool 52 of whom took part in the subsequent focus group discussions, and 25 staff completed the MapSaf tool all of whom contributed to the focus group discussions. PC-SafeQuest was perceived as quick and easy to use with direct questions pertinent to the work of GP practices providing useful quantitative insight into important areas of safety culture. Though MaPSaF was more logistically challenging, it created a forum for synchronous cross- practice discussions raising awareness of perceptions of safety culture across the practice team. CONCLUSIONS: Both tools were able to promote reflective and reflexive practice either in individual staff members or across the broader practice team and the oversight they granted provided useful direction for senior staff looking to improve patient safety. Because PC SafeQuest can be easily disseminated and independently completed it is logistically suited to larger practice organisations, whereas the MapSaf tool lends itself to smaller practices where assembling staff in a single workshop is more readily achieved.

Development of the prototype concise safe systems checklist tool for general practice.

BACKGROUND: In the course of producing a patient safety toolkit for primary care, we identified the need for a concise safe-systems checklist designed to address areas of patient safety which are under-represented in mandatory requirements and existing tools. This paper describes the development of a prototype checklist designed to be used in busy general practice environments to provide an overview of key patient safety related processes and prompt practice wide-discussion. METHODS: An extensive narrative review and a survey of world-wide general practice organisations were used to identify existing primary care patient safety issues and tools. A RAND panel of international experts rated the results, summarising the findings for importance and relevance. The checklist was created to include areas that are not part of established patient safety tools or mandatory and legal requirements. Four main themes were identified: information flow, practice safety information, prescribing, and use of IT systems from which a 13 item checklist was trialled in 16 practices resulting in a nine item prototype checklist, which was tested in eight practices. Qualitative data on the utility and usability of the prototype was collected through a series of semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: In testing the prototype four of nine items on the checklist were achieved by all eight practices. Three items were achieved by seven of eight practices and two items by six of eight practices. Participants welcomed the brevity and ease of use of the prototype, that it might be used within time scales at their discretion and its ability to engage a range of practice staff in relevant discussions on the safety of existing processes. The items relating to prescribing safety were considered particularly useful. CONCLUSIONS: As a result of this work the concise patient safety checklist tool, specifically designed for general practice, has now been made available as part of an online Patient Safety Toolkit hosted by the Royal College of General Practitioners. Senior practice staff such as practice managers and GP partners should find it a useful tool to understand the safety of less explored yet important safety processes within the practice.

Influences on the adoption of patient safety innovation in primary care: a qualitative exploration of staff perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Primary care is changing rapidly to meet the needs of an ageing and chronically ill population. New ways of working are called for yet the introduction of innovative service interventions is complicated by organisational challenges arising from its scale and diversity and the growing complexity of patients and their care. One such intervention is the multi-strand, single platform, Patient Safety Toolkit developed to help practices provide safer care in this dynamic and pressured environment where the likelihood of adverse incidents is increasing. Here we describe the attitudes of staff toward these tools and how their implementation was shaped by a number of contextual factors specific to each practice. METHODS: The Patient Safety Toolkit comprised six tools; a system of rapid note review, an online staff survey, a patient safety questionnaire, prescribing safety indicators, a medicines reconciliation tool, and a safe systems checklist. We implemented these tools at practices across the Midlands, the North West, and the South Coast of England and conducted semi-structured interviews to determine staff perspectives on their effectiveness and applicability. RESULTS: The Toolkit was used in 46 practices and a total of 39 follow-up interviews were conducted. Three key influences emerged on the implementation of the Toolkit these related to their ease of use and the novelty of the information they provide; whether their implementation required additional staff training or practice resource; and finally factors specific to the practice's local environment such as overlapping initiatives orchestrated by their CCG. CONCLUSIONS: The concept of a balanced toolkit to address a range of safety issues proved popular. A number of barriers and facilitators emerged in particular those tools that provided relevant information with a minimum impact on practice resource were favoured. Individual practice circumstances also played a role. Practices with IT aware staff were at an advantage and those previously utilising patient safety initiatives were less likely to adopt additional tools with overlapping outputs. By acknowledging these influences we can better interpret reaction to and adoption of individual elements of the toolkit and optimise future implementation.

Screening for At-Risk Alcohol Consumption in Primary Care: A Randomized Evaluation of Screening Approaches.

AIMS: The aim of the study was to explore the relative efficiency and effectiveness of targeted versus universal screening for at-risk alcohol use in a primary care population in the UK. METHODS: The study was a randomized evaluation of screening approach (targeted versus universal) for consecutive attendees at primary care aged 18 years or more. Targeted screening involved screening any patient attending with one of the targeted presentations, conditions associated with excessive alcohol consumption: mental health, gastrointestinal, hypertension, minor injuries or a new patient registration. In the universal arm of the study all presentations in the recruitment period were included. Universal screening included all patients presenting to allocated practices. RESULTS: A total of 3562 potential participants were approached. The odds ratio of being screen positive was higher for the targeted group versus the universal group. Yet the vast majority of those screening positive in the universal group of the study would have been missed by a targeted approach. A combination of age and gender was a more efficient approach than targeting by clinical condition or context. CONCLUSIONS: While screening targeted by age and gender is more efficient than universal screening, targeting by clinical condition or presentation is not. Further universal screening is more effective in identifying the full range of patients who could benefit from brief alcohol interventions, and would therefore have greater public health impact. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN06145674.

Alcohol screening and brief interventions for offenders in the probation setting (SIPS Trial): a pragmatic multicentre cluster randomized controlled trial.

AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness of different brief intervention strategies at reducing hazardous or harmful drinking in the probation setting. Offender managers were randomized to three interventions, each of which built on the previous one: feedback on screening outcome and a client information leaflet control group, 5 min of structured brief advice and 20 min of brief lifestyle counselling. METHODS: A pragmatic multicentre factorial cluster randomized controlled trial. The primary outcome was self-reported hazardous or harmful drinking status measured by Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) at 6 months (negative status was a score of <8). Secondary outcomes were AUDIT status at 12 months, experience of alcohol-related problems, health utility, service utilization, readiness to change and reduction in conviction rates. RESULTS: Follow-up rates were 68% at 6 months and 60% at 12 months. At both time points, there was no significant advantage of more intensive interventions compared with the control group in terms of AUDIT status. Those in the brief advice and brief lifestyle counselling intervention groups were statistically significantly less likely to reoffend (36 and 38%, respectively) than those in the client information leaflet group (50%) in the year following intervention. CONCLUSION: Brief advice or brief lifestyle counselling provided no additional benefit in reducing hazardous or harmful drinking compared with feedback on screening outcome and a client information leaflet. The impact of more intensive brief intervention on reoffending warrants further research.

Co-designing an Adaption of a Mobile App to Enhance Communication, Safety, and Well-being Among People Living at Home With Early-Stage Dementia: Protocol for an Exploratory Multiple Case Study.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing interest in using mobile apps to support communication, safety, and well-being. Evidence directly from people with dementia regarding the usability, usefulness, and relevance of mobile apps is limited. OBJECTIVE: This paper describes the protocol of a study that will evaluate an app designed for supporting communication, safety, and well-being among people living with dementia. The study aims to understand if the app can enhance safety through improved communication among users. METHODS: The study will use participatory qualitative methods over 3 cycles of evaluation with co-designers (service users, their families, and care practitioners). The study will be developed in partnership with a specialist home care service in England. Purposive case selection will be performed to ensure that the cases exemplify differences in experiences. The app will be evaluated in a walk-through workshop by people living with early-stage dementia and then trialed at home by up to 12 families in a try-out cycle. An amended version will be evaluated in a final walk-through workshop during cycle 3. Data will be collected from at least 4 data sources during the try-out phase and analyzed thematically. An explanatory multiple case study design will be used to synthesize and present the evidence from the three cycles, drawing on the Normalization Process Theory to support the interpretation of the findings. RESULTS: The study is ready to be implemented, but it was paused to protect vulnerable individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. The findings will be particularly relevant for understanding how to support vulnerable people living in the community during social distancing and the period following the pandemic as well as for providing insight into the challenges of social isolation that arise from living with dementia. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluating a mobile app for enhancing communication, safety, and well-being among people living with dementia contributes to the key ambitions enshrined in policy and practice-championing the use of digital technology and supporting people with dementia to live safely in their own homes. The study will involve co-designers living with dementia, so that the voices of service users can be used to highlight the benefits and challenges of assistive technology and shape the future development of apps that enhance safety by improving communication. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/19543.

From policy to patient: Using a socio-ecological framework to explore the factors influencing safe practice in UK primary care.

BACKGROUND: The recent and rapid changes in the model of primary care delivery have led to an increased focus on patient safety in what is one of the most diverse and complex healthcare settings. However, previous initiatives have failed to deliver the expected improvements, leading to calls for a better understanding of how a range of personal and contextual factors influence the decisions and behaviours of individual care providers. METHODS: The socio-ecological framework, successfully used in public health settings to interpret the complex influences on individual behaviours, enabled a post-hoc deductive analysis of a series of semi-structured interviews conducted with clinical staff and senior managers at a range of practices across five geographically diverse regions in England to explore their perspectives on the factors that influence safe practice. RESULTS: The five levels of the socio-ecological framework successfully helped unpick the myriad influences on safe primary care practice, including, at the Individual level, assumptions of responsibility and previous experience; at the Interpersonal, equitable communication in support of a team ethos; at the Organisational, the physical infrastructure, size and complexity of the practice; at the Community, the health profile and literacy of patients; and at the Policy, meeting the demands of competing local and national governing bodies. CONCLUSIONS: Coherent, realistic and achievable goals are needed for improving patient safety in primary care addressing personal, organisational and environmental factors. Such goals and the tools and interventions designed to meet them must therefore be sympathetic to the demands on resources and the characteristics of patients, staff, and their organisations. Using the framework to interpret our findings provided much needed insight into the impact of these varying influences, and highlights the importance of recognising and communicating the relationship between specific contextual factors and the ability of individual providers to provide safe primary care.

A Patient Safety Toolkit for Family Practices.

OBJECTIVE: Major gaps remain in our understanding of primary care patient safety. We describe a toolkit for measuring patient safety in family practices. METHODS: Six tools were used in 46 practices. These tools were as follows: National Health Service Education for Scotland Trigger Tool, National Health Service Education for Scotland Medicines Reconciliation Tool, Primary Care Safequest, Prescribing Safety Indicators, Patient Reported Experiences and Outcomes of Safety in Primary Care, and Concise Safe Systems Checklist. RESULTS: Primary Care Safequest showed that most practices had a well-developed safety climate. However, the trigger tool revealed that a quarter of events identified were associated with moderate or substantial harm, with a third originating in primary care and avoidable. Although medicines reconciliation was undertaken within 2 days in more than 70% of cases, necessary discussions with a patient/carer did not always occur. The prescribing safety indicators identified 1435 instances of potentially hazardous prescribing or lack of recommended monitoring (from 92,649 patients). The Concise Safe Systems Checklist found that 25% of staff thought that their practice provided inadequate follow-up for vulnerable patients discharged from hospital and inadequate monitoring of noncollection of prescriptions. Most patients had a positive perception of the safety of their practice although 45% identified at least one safety problem in the past year. CONCLUSIONS: Patient safety is complex and multidimensional. The Patient Safety Toolkit is easy to use and hosted on a single platform with a collection of tools generating practical and actionable information. It enables family practices to identify safety deficits that they can review and change procedures to improve their patient safety across a key sets of patient safety issues.

Screening and brief interventions for hazardous and harmful alcohol use in primary care: a cluster randomised controlled trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: There have been many randomized controlled trials of screening and brief alcohol intervention in primary care. Most trials have reported positive effects of brief intervention, in terms of reduced alcohol consumption in excessive drinkers. Despite this considerable evidence-base, key questions remain unanswered including: the applicability of the evidence to routine practice; the most efficient strategy for screening patients; and the required intensity of brief intervention in primary care. This pragmatic factorial trial, with cluster randomization of practices, will evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different models of screening to identify hazardous and harmful drinkers in primary care and different intensities of brief intervention to reduce excessive drinking in primary care patients. METHODS AND DESIGN: GPs and nurses from 24 practices across the North East (n=12), London and South East (n=12) of England will be recruited. Practices will be randomly allocated to one of three intervention conditions: a leaflet-only control group (n=8); brief structured advice (n=8); and brief lifestyle counselling (n=8). To test the relative effectiveness of different screening methods all practices will also be randomised to either a universal or targeted screening approach and to use either a modified single item (M-SASQ) or FAST screening tool. Screening randomisation will incorporate stratification by geographical area and intervention condition. During the intervention stage of the trial, practices in each of the three arms will recruit at least 31 hazardous or harmful drinkers who will receive a short baseline assessment followed by brief intervention. Thus there will be a minimum of 744 patients recruited into the trial. DISCUSSION: The trial will evaluate the impact of screening and brief alcohol intervention in routine practice; thus its findings will be highly relevant to clinicians working in primary care in the UK. There will be an intention to treat analysis of study outcomes at 6 and 12 months after intervention. Analyses will include patient measures (screening result, weekly alcohol consumption, alcohol-related problems, public service use and quality of life) and implementation measures from practice staff (the acceptability and feasibility of different models of brief intervention.) We will also examine organisational factors associated with successful implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN06145674.

Screening and brief interventions for hazardous and harmful alcohol use in probation services: a cluster randomised controlled trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: A large number of randomised controlled trials in health settings have consistently reported positive effects of brief intervention in terms of reductions in alcohol use. However, although alcohol misuse is common amongst offenders, there is limited evidence of alcohol brief interventions in the criminal justice field. This factorial pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial with Offender Managers (OMs) as the unit of randomisation will evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different models of screening to identify hazardous and harmful drinkers in probation and different intensities of brief intervention to reduce excessive drinking in probation clients. METHODS AND DESIGN: Ninety-six OMs from 9 probation areas across 3 English regions (the North East Region (n = 4) and London and the South East Regions (n = 5)) will be recruited. OMs will be randomly allocated to one of three intervention conditions: a client information leaflet control condition (n = 32 OMs); 5-minute simple structured advice (n = 32 OMs) and 20-minute brief lifestyle counselling delivered by an Alcohol Health Worker (n = 32 OMs). Randomisation will be stratified by probation area. To test the relative effectiveness of different screening methods all OMs will be randomised to either the Modified Single Item Screening Questionnaire (M-SASQ) or the Fast Alcohol Screening Test (FAST). There will be a minimum of 480 clients recruited into the trial. There will be an intention to treat analysis of study outcomes at 6 and 12 months post intervention. Analysis will include client measures (screening result, weekly alcohol consumption, alcohol-related problems, re-offending, public service use and quality of life) and implementation measures from OMs (the extent of screening and brief intervention beyond the minimum recruitment threshold will provide data on acceptability and feasibility of different models of brief intervention). We will also examine the practitioner and organisational factors associated with successful implementation. DISCUSSION: The trial will evaluate the impact of screening and brief alcohol intervention in routine probation work and therefore its findings will be highly relevant to probation teams and thus the criminal justice system in the UK.Ethical approval was given by Northern & Yorkshire REC. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 19160244.

Screening and brief interventions for hazardous alcohol use in accident and emergency departments: a randomised controlled trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: There is a wealth of evidence regarding the detrimental impact of excessive alcohol consumption on the physical, psychological and social health of the population. There also exists a substantial evidence base for the efficacy of brief interventions aimed at reducing alcohol consumption across a range of healthcare settings. Primary research conducted in emergency departments has reinforced the current evidence regarding the potential effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Within this body of evidence there is marked variation in the intensity of brief intervention delivered, from very minimal interventions to more intensive behavioural or lifestyle counselling approaches. Further the majority of primary research has been conducted in single centre and there is little evidence of the wider issues of generalisability and implementation of brief interventions across emergency departments. METHODS/DESIGN: The study design is a prospective pragmatic factorial cluster randomised controlled trial. Individual Emergency Departments (ED) (n = 9) are randomised with equal probability to a combination of screening tool (M-SASQ vs FAST vs SIPS-PAT) and an intervention (Minimal intervention vs Brief advice vs Brief lifestyle counselling). The primary hypothesis is that brief lifestyle counselling delivered by an Alcohol Health Worker (AHW) is more effective than Brief Advice or a minimal intervention delivered by ED staff. Secondary hypotheses address whether short screening instruments are more acceptable and as efficient as longer screening instruments and the cost-effectiveness of screening and brief interventions in ED. Individual participants will be followed up at 6 and 12 months after consent. The primary outcome measure is performance using a gold-standard screening test (AUDIT). Secondary outcomes include; quantity and frequency of alcohol consumed, alcohol-related problems, motivation to change, health related quality of life and service utilisation. DISCUSSION: This paper presents a protocol for a large multi-centre pragmatic factorial cluster randomised trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening and brief interventions for hazardous alcohol users attending emergency departments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 93681536.

Low identification of alcohol use disorders in general practice in England.

AIMS: The prevalence of alcohol use disorders (AUDs) in the United Kingdom is estimated at 25%, and primary care has been identified as the first line of treatment for this population. However, there is a paucity of evidence regarding the current rates of identification of AUDs in primary care. The aim of the present study was to compare the observed rates of AUDs in general practice with expected rates, which are based on general population prevalence rates of AUDs. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS AND MEASUREMENTS: Epidemiological data on individuals aged 16-64 years with an AUD was obtained from the General Practice Research Database. General population prevalence rates of AUDs were obtained from the Psychiatric Morbidity Survey. Chi(2) tests and identification ratios were used to analyse the data. RESULTS: There was a significant relationship between type of AUD and identification (chi(2)=1466.89, P<0.001), and general practitioners were poorer at identifying harmful/hazardous drinkers when compared with dependent drinkers. No gender differences in the identification of hazardous/harmful drinking were found, but female dependent drinkers were significantly more likely to be identified than males (identification ratio 0.07; 95% confidence interval 0.06-0.07). The identification of AUDs was significantly lower for the 16-24-year age group compared with all other age groups. CONCLUSION: Despite attempts at targeting hazardous/harmful drinkers for brief interventions in primary care, the present findings suggest that this group are still under-identified. Furthermore, this under-identification is even more apparent in men and in young people who have high general population prevalence rates for AUDs. In conclusion, increasing identification rates could be incorporated into brief intervention strategies in primary care.

Patients' evaluations of patient safety in English general practices: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Description of safety problems and harm in general practices has previously relied on information from health professionals, with scarce attention paid to experiences of patients. AIM: To examine patient-reported experiences and outcomes of patient safety in primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional study in 45 general practices across five regions in the north, centre, and south of England. METHOD: A version of the Patient Reported Experiences and Outcomes of Safety in Primary Care (PREOS-PC) questionnaire was sent to a random sample of 6736 patients. Main outcome measures included 'practice activation' (what a practice does to create a safe environment); 'patient activation' (how proactive are patients in ensuring safe healthcare delivery); 'experiences of safety events' (safety errors); 'outcomes of safety' (harm); and 'overall perception of safety' (how safe patients rate their practice). RESULTS: Questionnaires were returned by 1244 patients (18.4%). Scores were high for 'practice activation' (mean [standard error] = 80.4 out of 100 [2.0]) and low for 'patient activation' (26.3 out of 100 [2.6]). Of the patients, 45% reported experiencing at least one safety problem in the previous 12 months, mostly related to appointments (33%), diagnosis (17%), patient provider communication (15%), and coordination between providers (14%). Twenty-three per cent of the responders reported some degree of harm in the previous 12 months. The overall assessment of level of safety of practices was generally high (86.0 out of 100 [16.8]). CONCLUSION: Priority areas for patient safety improvement in general practices in England include appointments, diagnosis, communication, coordination, and patient activation.

Adult attachment, reassurance seeking and hypochondriacal concerns in college students.

An individual's attachment style can be conceptualized as a working model for interactions with others, developed as result of experiences with childhood caregivers. People with hypochondriacal tendencies are preoccupied with thoughts of having an illness and constantly seek medical reassurance. We hypothesized that students with preoccupied attachment would score highly on a measure of hypochondriasis and investigated whether the association would be explained by the general tendency to seek reassurance in relationships. A total of 117 undergraduate students completed questionnaires measuring attachment style; negative affectivity; reassurance seeking in relationships and hypochondriasis. Participants with preoccupied attachment style (n = 17, 15%) had significantly higher hypochondriasis scores than those with other attachment styles. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis suggested that the association between the preoccupied attachment style and hypochondriasis was explained by the general tendency to seek reassurance in relationships, with negative affectivity, a dispositional variable, also acting as a significant predictor of hypochondriasis.

The effectiveness of alcohol screening and brief intervention in emergency departments: a multicentre pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol misuse is common in people attending emergency departments (EDs) and there is some evidence of efficacy of alcohol screening and brief interventions (SBI). This study investigated the effectiveness of SBI approaches of different intensities delivered by ED staff in nine typical EDs in England: the SIPS ED trial. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Pragmatic multicentre cluster randomized controlled trial of SBI for hazardous and harmful drinkers presenting to ED. Nine EDs were randomized to three conditions: a patient information leaflet (PIL), 5 minutes of brief advice (BA), and referral to an alcohol health worker who provided 20 minutes of brief lifestyle counseling (BLC). The primary outcome measure was the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) status at 6 months. Of 5899 patients aged 18 or more presenting to EDs, 3737 (63·3%) were eligible to participate and 1497 (40·1%) screened positive for hazardous or harmful drinking, of whom 1204 (80·4%) gave consent to participate in the trial. Follow up rates were 72% (n = 863) at six, and 67% (n = 810) at 12 months. There was no evidence of any differences between intervention conditions for AUDIT status or any other outcome measures at months 6 or 12 in an intention to treat analysis. At month 6, compared to the PIL group, the odds ratio of being AUDIT negative for brief advice was 1·103 (95% CI 0·328 to 3·715). The odds ratio comparing BLC to PIL was 1·247 (95% CI 0·315 to 4·939). A per protocol analysis confirmed these findings. CONCLUSIONS: SBI is difficult to implement in typical EDs. The results do not support widespread implementation of alcohol SBI in ED beyond screening followed by simple clinical feedback and alcohol information, which is likely to be easier and less expensive to implement than more complex interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 93681536.

Effectiveness of screening and brief alcohol intervention in primary care (SIPS trial): pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of different brief intervention strategies at reducing hazardous or harmful drinking in primary care. The hypothesis was that more intensive intervention would result in a greater reduction in hazardous or harmful drinking. DESIGN: Pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Primary care practices in the north east and south east of England and in London. PARTICIPANTS: 3562 patients aged 18 or more routinely presenting in primary care, of whom 2991 (84.0%) were eligible to enter the trial: 900 (30.1%) screened positive for hazardous or harmful drinking and 756 (84.0%) received a brief intervention. The sample was predominantly male (62%) and white (92%), and 34% were current smokers. INTERVENTIONS: Practices were randomised to three interventions, each of which built on the previous one: a patient information leaflet control group, five minutes of structured brief advice, and 20 minutes of brief lifestyle counselling. Delivery of the patient leaflet and brief advice occurred directly after screening and brief lifestyle counselling in a subsequent consultation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was patients' self reported hazardous or harmful drinking status as measured by the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT) at six months. A negative AUDIT result (score <8) indicated non-hazardous or non-harmful drinking. Secondary outcomes were a negative AUDIT result at 12 months, experience of alcohol related problems (alcohol problems questionnaire), health utility (EQ-5D), service utilisation, and patients' motivation to change drinking behaviour (readiness to change) as measured by a modified readiness ruler. RESULTS: Patient follow-up rates were 83% at six months (n=644) and 79% at 12 months (n=617). At both time points an intention to treat analysis found no significant differences in AUDIT negative status between the three interventions. Compared with the patient information leaflet group, the odds ratio of having a negative AUDIT result for brief advice was 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.52 to 1.39) and for brief lifestyle counselling was 0.78 (0.48 to 1.25). A per protocol analysis confirmed these findings. CONCLUSIONS: All patients received simple feedback on their screening outcome. Beyond this input, however, evidence that brief advice or brief lifestyle counselling provided important additional benefit in reducing hazardous or harmful drinking compared with the patient information leaflet was lacking. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN06145674.

A survey of staff attitudes to smoking-related policy and intervention in psychiatric and general health care settings.

BACKGROUND: Although the move to smoke-free hospital settings is generally a popular initiative, it may be a more challenging and controversial issue in mental health care. A survey was carried out to investigate differences in attitudes between clinical staff in psychiatric and general medical settings to smoke-free policy and intervention. METHOD: The sample comprised 2574 NHS staff working in two Acute Hospital Trusts and one Mental Health Trust in England. Attitudes were examined on two factors: health care settings as smoke-free environments and the role of staff in stop smoking intervention. RESULTS: The findings indicated that attitudes on the two factors were only moderately correlated. Psychiatric staff expressed significantly less favourable attitudes than general staff to smoke-free health care settings and also to the role of staff in stop smoking intervention. The largest difference between the settings concerned the implementation of smoking bans. While approximately 1 in 10 staff in the general setting disagreed with a smoking ban in their wards or clinics, nearly one in three psychiatric staff was against such a ban in their setting. CONCLUSIONS: Staff attitudes need to be carefully considered, particularly in psychiatric settings, in attempts to implement smoke-free policies in health care settings.