Incivility experiences of racially minoritised hospital staff, consequences for them and implications for patient care: An international scoping review.

Workplace incivility is a pervasive complex problem within health care. Incivility manifests as subtle disrespectful behaviours, which seem inconsequential. However, evidence demonstrates that incivility can be harmful to targets and witnesses through negative emotions, poorer mental health, reduced job satisfaction, diminished performance and compromised patient care. It is unclear to what extent existing research critically explores how ethnicity, culture and racism influence how hospital staff experience incivility. This global scoping review systematically analysed existing research exploring the specific ways incivility manifests and impacts racially minoritised hospital workers. Of 2636 academic and 101 grey literature articles, 32 were included. Incivility experiences were categorised into four themes: (1) Cultural control, (2) Rejection of work contributions, (3) Disempowerment at work and (4) Managerial indifference. The included articles highlighted detrimental consequences, such as negative emotions, silencing, withdrawal and reduced support-seeking behaviours. Few studies presented evidence regarding the negative impacts of incivility on patient care. Racialisation and racial dynamics are a significant factor for hospital-based incivility. Currently we do not know the extent to which racialised incivility is associated directly or, perhaps either via burnout or disengagement, indirectly with poorer care. This knowledge can inform the creation of comprehensive, evidence-based interventions to address this important issue.

Developing a research community within an online healthcare feedback platform.

INTRODUCTION: Care Opinion is an online feedback platform supporting patients to author stories about their care. It is not known whether authors would be willing to be involved in improving care through research. The aims of this study were to explore the views and preferences of Care Opinion authors about joining an online research community and to pilot new research community functionality. METHODS: Five hundred and nine Care Opinion authors were invited to take part in an online survey in June 2019. Survey items included questions about participants' willingness to take part in research and their preferences for supporting processes. Data were analysed descriptively. Authors were invited to consent to join a research community and were asked to participate in three pilot studies. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-three people consented to take part in the survey (32%). Participants indicated they would like to know the time commitment to the project (146, 90%), details about the organization carrying out the research (124, 76%) and safeguarding information (124, 76%). Over half indicated that they did not know how to get involved in healthcare research (87, 53%). Subsequently, 667 authors were invited to join the research community, 183 (27%) accepted, and three studies were matched to their expressed preferences for project attributes or organization type. CONCLUSION: Many people who leave online feedback about their experiences of healthcare are also willing to join a research community via that platform. They have strong preferences for supporting University and NHS research. Eligibility and acceptance rates to join pilot research studies varied. Further work is needed to grow the research community, increase its diversity, and create relevant and varied opportunities to support research. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Four members of the Safety In Numbers patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) group advised about survey development.

Patient and public co-creation of healthcare safety and healthcare system resilience: The case of COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare system resilience is a conceptual approach that seeks to explore how health services adapt and respond to variability in demand and resources. As has been witnessed since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare services have undergone many reconfigurations. One understudied aspect of how the 'system' is able to adapt and respond is the contribution of key stakeholders-patients and families, and in the context of the pandemic, the general public as a whole. This study aimed to understand what people were doing during the first wave of the pandemic to protect the safety of their health, and the health of others from COVID-19, and the resilience of the healthcare system. METHODS: Social media (Twitter) was used as a method of recruitment due to its ability for social reach. Twenty-one participants took part in 57 semistructured interviews over three time points from June to September 2020. The included an initial interview and invitation to two follow-up interviews after 3 and 6 weeks. Interviews were conducted virtually using Zoom-an encrypted secure video conferencing software. A reflexive thematic analysis approach to analysis was used. RESULTS: Three themes, each with its own subthemes were identified in the analysis: (1) A 'new safety normal'; (2) Existing vulnerabilities and heightened safety and (3) Are we all in this together? CONCLUSION: This study found that the public had a role in supporting the resilience of healthcare services and systems during the first wave of the pandemic by adapting their behaviour to protect themselves and others, and to avoid overwhelming the National Health Service. People who had existing vulnerabilities were more likely to experience safety gaps in their care, and be required to step in to support their safety, despite it being more difficult for them to do so. It may be that the most vulnerable were previously required to do this extra work to support the safety of their care and that the pandemic has just illuminated this issue. Future research should explore existing vulnerabilities and inequalities, and the heightened safety consequences created by the pandemic. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Yorkshire and Humber Patient Safety Translational Research Centre (NIHR Yorkshire and Humber PSTRC), Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement Research Fellow and NIHR Yorkshire and Humber PSTRC Patient Involvement in Patient Safety theme lay leader are involved in the preparation of a lay version of the findings within this manuscript.

A rapid review of interventions to improve medicine self-management for older people living at home.

BACKGROUND: As people age, they are more likely to develop multiple long-term conditions that require complicated medicine regimens. Safely self-managing multiple medicines at home is challenging and how older people can be better supported to do so has not been fully explored. AIM: This study aimed to identify interventions to improve medicine self-management for older people living at home and the aspects of medicine self-management that they address. DESIGN: A rapid review was undertaken of publications up to April 2022. Eight databases were searched. Inclusion criteria were as follows: interventions aimed at people 65 years of age or older and their informal carers, living at home. Interventions needed to include at least one component of medicine self-management. Study protocols, conference papers, literature reviews and articles not in the English language were not included. The results from the review were reported through narrative synthesis, underpinned by the Resilient Healthcare theory. RESULTS: Database searches returned 14,353 results. One hundred and sixty-seven articles were individually appraised (full-text screening) and 33 were included in the review. The majority of interventions identified were educational. In most cases, they aimed to improve older people's adherence and increase their knowledge of medicines. Only very few interventions addressed potential issues with medicine supply. Only a minority of interventions specifically targeted older people with either polypharmacy, multimorbidities or frailty. CONCLUSION: To date, the emphasis in supporting older people to manage their medicines has been on the ability to adhere to medicine regimens. Most interventions identify and target deficiencies within the patient, rather than preparing patients for problems inherent in the medicine management system. Medicine self-management requires a much wider range of skills than taking medicines as prescribed. Interventions supporting older people to anticipate and respond to problems with their medicines may reduce the risk of harm associated with polypharmacy and may contribute to increased resilience in the system. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: A patient with lived experience of medicine self-management in older age contributed towards shaping the research question as well as the inclusion and exclusion criteria for this review. She is also the coauthor of this article. A patient advisory group oversaw the study.

Co-designing an intervention to improve the process of deprescribing for older people living with frailty in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: In older people living with frailty, polypharmacy can lead to preventable harm like adverse drug reactions and hospitalization. Deprescribing is a strategy to reduce problematic polypharmacy. All stakeholders should be actively involved in developing a person-centred deprescribing process that involves shared decision-making. OBJECTIVE: To co-design an intervention, supported by a logic model, to increase the engagement of older people living with frailty in the process of deprescribing. DESIGN: Experience-based co-design is an approach to service improvement, which uses service users and providers to identify problems and design solutions. This was used to create a person-centred intervention with the potential to improve the quality and outcomes of the deprescribing process. A 'trigger film' showing older people talking about their healthcare experiences was created and facilitated discussions about current problems in the deprescribing process. Problems were then prioritized and appropriate solutions were developed. The review located the solutions in the context of current processes and procedures. An ideal care pathway and a complex intervention to deliver better care were developed. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Older people living with frailty, their informal carers and professionals living and/or working in West Yorkshire, England, UK. Deprescribing was considered in the context of primary care. RESULTS: The current deprescribing process differed from an ideal pathway. A complex intervention containing seven elements was required to move towards the ideal pathway. Three of these elements were prototyped and four still need development. The complex intervention responded to priorities about (a) clarity for older people about what was happening at all stages in the deprescribing process and (b) the quality of one-to-one consultations. CONCLUSIONS: Priorities for improving the current deprescribing process were successfully identified. Solutions were developed and structured as a complex intervention. Further work is underway to (a) complete the prototyping of the intervention and (b) conduct feasibility testing. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Older people living with frailty (and their informal carers) have made a central contribution, as collaborators, to ensure that a complex intervention has the greatest possible potential to enhance the experience of deprescribing medicines.

Interventions for self-management of medicines for community-dwelling people with dementia and mild cognitive impairment and their family carers: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: people with dementia or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and their family carers face challenges in managing medicines. How medicine self-management could be supported for this population is unclear. This review identifies interventions to improve medicine self-management for people with dementia and MCI and their family carers, and the core components of medicine self-management that they address. METHODS: a database search was conducted for studies with all research designs and ongoing citation search from inception to December 2021. The selection criteria included community-dwelling people with dementia and MCI and their family carers, and interventions with a minimum of one medicine self-management component. The exclusion criteria were wrong population, not focusing on medicine management, incorrect medicine self-management components, not in English and wrong study design. The results are presented and analysed through narrative synthesis. The review is registered [PROSPERO (CRD42020213302)]. Quality assessment was carried out independently applying the QATSDD quality assessment tool. RESULTS: 13 interventions were identified. Interventions primarily addressed adherence. A limited number focused on a wider range of medicine self-management components. Complex psychosocial interventions with frequent visits considered the person's knowledge and understanding, supply management, monitoring effects and side effects and communicating with healthcare professionals, and addressed more resilience capabilities. However, these interventions were delivered to family carers alone. None of the interventions described patient and public involvement. CONCLUSION: interventions, and measures to assess self-management, need to be developed which can address all components of medicine self-management to better meet the needs of people with dementia and MCI and their family carers.

Experiences of patients with heart failure with medicines at transition intervention: Findings from the process evaluation of the Improving the Safety and Continuity of Medicines management at Transitions of care (ISCOMAT) programme.

BACKGROUND: Medicines are often suboptimally managed for heart failure patients across the transition from hospital to home, potentially leading to poor patient outcomes. The Improving the Safety and Continuity Of Medicines management at Transitions of care programme included: understanding the problems faced by patients and healthcare professionals; developing and co-designing the Medicines at Transitions of care Intervention (MaTI); a cluster randomized controlled trial testing the effectiveness of a complex behavioural MaTI aimed at improving medicines management at the interface between hospitals discharge and community care for patients with heart failure; and a process evaluation. The MaTI included a patient-held My Medicines Toolkit; enhanced communication between the hospital and the patient's community pharmacist and increased engagement of the community pharmacist postdischarge. This paper reports on the patients' experiences of the MaTI and its implementation from the process evaluation. DESIGN: Twenty one-to-one semi-structured patient interviews from six intervention sites were conducted between November 2018 and January 2020. Data were analysed using the Framework method, involving patients as co-analysts. Interview data were triangulated with routine trial data, the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and a logic model. RESULTS: Within the hospital setting patients engaged with the toolkit according to whether staff raised awareness of the My Medicines Toolkit's importance and the time and place of its introduction. Patients' engagement with community pharmacy depended on their awareness of the community pharmacist's role, support sources and perceptions of involvement in medicines management. The toolkit's impact on patients' medicines management at home included reassurance during gaps in care, increased knowledge of medicines, enhanced ability to monitor health and seek support and supporting sharing medicines management between formal and informal care networks. CONCLUSION: Many patients perceived that the MaTI offered them support in their medicines management when transitioning from hospital into the community. Importantly, it can be incorporated into and built upon patients' lived experiences of heart failure. Key to its successful implementation is the quality of engagement of healthcare professionals in introducing the intervention. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients were involved in the study design, as qualitative data co-analysts and as co-authors.

Supporting medicines management for older people at care transitions - a theory-based analysis of a systematic review of 24 interventions.

BACKGROUND: Older patients are at severe risk of harm from medicines following a hospital to home transition. Interventions aiming to support successful care transitions by improving medicines management have been implemented. This study aimed to explore which behavioural constructs have previously been targeted by interventions, which individual behaviour change techniques have been included, and which are yet to be trialled. METHOD: This study mapped the behaviour change techniques used in 24 randomised controlled trials to the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy. Once elicited, techniques were further mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework to explore which determinants of behaviour change had been targeted, and what gaps, if any existed. RESULTS: Common behaviour change techniques used were: goals and planning; feedback and monitoring; social support; instruction on behaviour performance; and prompts/cues. These may be valuable when combined in a complex intervention. Interventions mostly mapped to between eight and 10 domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework. Environmental context and resources was an underrepresented domain, which should be considered within future interventions. CONCLUSION: This study has identified behaviour change techniques that could be valuable when combined within a complex intervention aiming to support post-discharge medicines management for older people. Whilst many interventions mapped to eight or more determinants of behaviour change, as identified within the Theoretical Domains Framework, careful assessment of the barriers to behaviour change should be conducted prior to intervention design to ensure all appropriate domains are targeted.

Successful care transitions for older people: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of interventions that support medication continuity.

BACKGROUND: medication-related problems occur frequently when older patients are discharged from hospital. Interventions to support medication use have been developed; however, their effectiveness in older populations are unknown. This review evaluates interventions that support successful transitions of care through enhanced medication continuity. METHODS: a database search for randomised controlled trials was conducted. Selection criteria included mean participant age of 65 years and older, intervention delivered during hospital stay or following recent discharge and including activities that support medication continuity. Primary outcome of interest was hospital readmission. Secondary outcomes related to the safe use of medication and quality of life. Outcomes were pooled by random-effects meta-analysis where possible. RESULTS: twenty-four studies (total participants = 17,664) describing activities delivered at multiple time points were included. Interventions that bridged the transition for up to 90 days were more likely to support successful transitions. The meta-analysis, stratified by intervention component, demonstrated that self-management activities (RR 0.81 [0.74, 0.89]), telephone follow-up (RR 0.84 [0.73, 0.97]) and medication reconciliation (RR 0.88 [0.81, 0.96]) were statistically associated with reduced hospital readmissions. CONCLUSION: our results suggest that interventions that best support older patients' medication continuity are those that bridge transitions; these also have the greatest impact on reducing hospital readmission. Interventions that included self-management, telephone follow-up and medication reconciliation activities were most likely to be effective; however, further research needs to identify how to meaningfully engage with patients and caregivers to best support post-discharge medication continuity. Limitations included high subjectivity of intervention coding, study heterogeneity and resource restrictions.

Post-discharge medicines management: the experiences, perceptions and roles of older people and their family carers.

BACKGROUND: Multiple changes are made to older patients' medicines during hospital admission, which can sometimes cause confusion and anxiety. This results in problems with post-discharge medicines management, for example medicines taken incorrectly, which can lead to harm, hospital readmission and reduced quality of life. AIM: To explore the experiences of older patients and their family carers as they enacted post-discharge medicines management. DESIGN: Semi-structured interviews took place in participants' homes, approximately two weeks after hospital discharge. Data analysis used the Framework method. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Recruitment took place during admission to one of two large teaching hospitals in North England. Twenty-seven participants aged 75 plus who lived with long-term conditions and polypharmacy, and nine family carers, were interviewed. FINDINGS: Three core themes emerged: impact of the transition, safety strategies and medicines management role. Conversations between participants and health-care professionals about medicines changes often lacked detail, which disrupted some participants' knowledge and medicines management capabilities. Participants used multiple strategies to support post-discharge medicines management, such as creating administration checklists, seeking advice or supporting primary care through prompts to ensure medicines were supplied on time. The level to which they engaged with these activities varied. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Participants experienced gaps in their post-discharge medicines management, which they had to bridge through implementing their own strategies or by enlisting support from others. Areas for improvement were identified, mainly through better communication about medicines changes and wider involvement of patients and family carers in their medicines-related care during the hospital-to-home transition.

Experience-based co-design-Adapting the method for a researcher-initiated study in a multi-site setting.

BACKGROUND: Experience-based co-design (EBCD) brings patients and staff together to co-design services. It is normally conducted in one organization which initiates and implements the process. We used the traditional EBCD method with a number of adaptations as part of a larger research study in the British National Health Service. METHODS: The primary aim was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of conducting research-initiated EBCD, to enhance intervention development prior to testing. As well as embedding the method in a research study, there were 3 further key adaptations: (a) working across primary and secondary care sectors, (b) working on multiple sites and (c) incorporating theory-informed analysis. RESULTS: We recruited four sites (covering both primary and secondary care) and, on each site, conducted the initial traditional EBCD meetings, with separate staff and patient groups-followed by a single joint patient-staff event, where four priority areas for co-design were agreed. This event was driven by theory-informed analysis, as well as the traditional trigger film of patient experiences. Each site worked on one priority area, and the four co-design groups met over 2-3 months to design prototype tools. A second joint event was held (not usually undertaken in single-site EBCD) where they shared and compared outputs. The research team combined elements of these outputs to create an intervention, now being tested in a cluster randomized controlled trial. CONCLUSIONS: EBCD can be successfully adapted for use across an entire patient pathway with multiple organizations and as part of a research process to identify an intervention for subsequent testing in a randomized trial. Our pragmatic approach used the patient experience to identify areas for improvement and co-designed an intervention which directly reflected patient priorities.

Making it work for me: beliefs about making a personal health record relevant and useable.

BACKGROUND: A Personal Health Record (PHR) is an electronic record that individuals use to manage and share their health information, e.g. data from their medical records and data collected by apps. However, engagement with their record can be low if people do not find it beneficial to their health, wellbeing or interactions with health and other services. We have explored the beliefs potential users have about a PHR, how it could be made personally relevant, and barriers to its use. METHODS: A qualitative design comprising eight focus groups, each with 6-8 participants. Groups included adults with long-term health conditions, young people, physically active adults, data experts, and members of the voluntary sector. Each group lasted 60-90 min, was audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. We analysed the data using thematic analysis to address the question "What are people's beliefs about making a Personal Health Record have relevance and impact?" RESULTS: We found four themes. Making it work for me is about how to encourage individuals to actively engage with their PHR. I control my information is about individuals deciding what to share and who to share it with. My concerns is about individuals' concerns about information security and if and how their information will be acted upon. Potential impact shows the potential benefits of a PHR such as increasing self-efficacy, uptake of health-protective behaviours, and professionals taking a more holistic approach to providing care and facilitating behaviour change. CONCLUSIONS: Our research shows the functionality that a PHR requires in order for people to engage with it. Interactive functions and integration with lifestyle and health apps are particularly important. A PHR could increase the effectiveness of behaviour change apps by specifying evidence-based behaviour change techniques that apps should incorporate. A PHR has the potential to increase health-protective behaviours and facilitate a more person-driven health and social care system. It could support patients to take responsibility for self-managing their health and treatment regimens, as well as helping patients to play a more active role when care transfers across boundaries of responsibility.

Proportion of Antipsychotics with CYP2D6 Pharmacogenetic (PGx) Associations Prescribed in an Early Intervention in Psychosis (EIP) Cohort: A Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Prescribing drugs for psychosis (antipsychotics) is challenging due to high rates of poor treatment outcomes, which are in part explained by an individual's genetics. Pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing can help clinicians tailor the choice or dose of psychosis drugs to an individual's genetics, particularly psychosis drugs with known variable response due to CYP2D6 gene variants ('CYP2D6-PGx antipsychotics'). AIMS: This study aims to investigate differences between demographic groups prescribed 'CYP2D6-PGx antipsychotics' and estimate the proportion of patients eligible for PGx testing based on current pharmacogenomics guidance. METHODS: A cross-sectional study took place extracting data from 243 patients' medical records to explore psychosis drug prescribing, including drug transitions. Demographic data such as age, sex, ethnicity, and clinical sub-team were collected and summarised. Descriptive statistics explored the proportion of 'CYP2D6-PGx antipsychotic' prescribing and the nature of transitions. We used logistic regression analysis to investigate associations between demographic variables and prescription of 'CYP2D6-PGx antipsychotic' versus 'non-CYP2D6-PGx antipsychotic'. RESULTS: Two-thirds (164) of patients had been prescribed a 'CYP2D6-PGx antipsychotic' (aripiprazole, risperidone, haloperidol or zuclopenthixol). Over a fifth (23%) of patients would have met the suggested criteria for PGx testing, following two psychosis drug trials. There were no statistically significant differences between age, sex, or ethnicity in the likelihood of being prescribed a 'CYP2D6-PGx antipsychotic'. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated high rates of prescribing 'CYP2D6-PGx-antipsychotics' in an EIP cohort, providing a rationale for further exploration of how PGx testing can be implemented in EIP services to personalise the prescribing of drugs for psychosis.

Barriers and facilitators of implementing proactive deprescribing within primary care: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Proactive deprescribing - identifying and discontinuing medicines where harms outweigh benefits - can minimise problematic polypharmacy, but has yet to be implemented into routine practice. Normalisation process theory (NPT) can provide a theory-informed understanding of the evidence base on what impedes or facilitates the normalisation of routine and safe deprescribing in primary care. This study systematically reviews the literature to identify barriers and facilitators to implementing routine safe deprescribing in primary care and their effect on normalisation potential using NPT.PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, CINAHL, PsycINFO and The Cochrane Library were searched (1996-2022). Studies of any design investigating the implementation of deprescribing in primary care were included. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and the Quality Improvement Minimum Quality Criteria Set were used to appraise quality. Barriers and facilitators from included studies were extracted and mapped to the constructs of NPT. KEY FINDINGS: A total of 12,027 articles were identified, 56 articles included. In total, 178 barriers and 178 facilitators were extracted and condensed into 14 barriers and 16 facilitators. Common barriers were negative deprescribing perceptions and suboptimal deprescribing environments, while common facilitators were structured education and training on proactive deprescribing and utilising patient-centred approaches. Very few barriers and facilitators were associated with reflexive monitoring, highlighting a paucity of evidence on how deprescribing interventions are appraised. SUMMARY: Through NPT, multiple barriers and facilitators were identified that impede or facilitate the implementation and normalisation of deprescribing in primary care. However, more research is needed into the appraisal of deprescribing post-implementation.

Barriers and enablers to healthcare system uptake of direct oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: a qualitative interview study with healthcare professionals and policy makers in England.

OBJECTIVE: To better understand the factors influencing the uptake of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) across different health economies in National Health Service England from the perspective of health professionals and other health economy stakeholders. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study using a critical realism perspective and informed by the Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organisations model. SETTING: Three health economies in the North of England, United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: Healthcare professionals involved in the management of patients requiring oral anticoagulants, stakeholders involved in the implementation of DOACs and representatives of pharmaceutical industry companies and patient support groups. INTERVENTION: Semistructured interviews (face-to-face or telephone) were conducted with 46 participants. Interviews were analysed using the Framework method. RESULTS: Identified factors having an impact on the uptake of DOACs were grouped into four themes: perceived value of the innovation, clinician practice environment, local health economy readiness for change, and the external health service context. Together, these factors influenced what therapy options were offered and prescribed to patients with atrial fibrillation. The interviews also highlighted strategies used to improve or restrict the uptake of DOACs and tensions between providing patient-centred care and managing financial implications for commissioners. CONCLUSIONS: The findings contribute to the wider literature by providing a new and in-depth understanding on the uptake of DOACs. The findings may be applicable to other new medicines used in chronic health conditions.

Person-centred deprescribing for patients living with frailty: a qualitative interview study and proposal of a collaborative model.

OBJECTIVES: (1) Present deprescribing experiences of patients living with frailty, their informal carers and healthcare professionals; (2) interpret whether their experiences are reflective of person-centred/collaborative care; (3) complement our findings with existing evidence to present a model for person-centred deprescribing for patients living with frailty, based on a previous collaborative care model. METHODS: Qualitative design in English primary care (general practice). Semi-structured interviews were undertaken immediately post-deprescribing and 5/6 weeks later with nine patients aged 65+ living with frailty and three informal carers of patients living with frailty. Fourteen primary care professionals with experience in deprescribing were also interviewed. In total, 38 interviews were conducted. A two-staged approach to data analysis was undertaken. KEY FINDINGS: Three themes were developed: attitudes, beliefs and understanding of medicines management and responsibility; attributes of a collaborative, person-centred deprescribing consultation; organisational factors to support person-centred deprescribing. Based on these findings and complementary to existing evidence, we offer a model for person-centred deprescribing for patients living with frailty. CONCLUSIONS: Previous models of deprescribing for patients living with frailty while, of value, do not consider the contextual factors that govern the implementation and success of models in practice. In this paper, we propose a novel person-centred model for deprescribing for people living with frailty, based on our own empirical findings, and the wider evidence base.

Barriers and facilitators of successful deprescribing as described by older patients living with frailty, their informal carers and clinicians: a qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the barriers/facilitators to deprescribing in primary care in England from the perspectives of clinicians, patients living with frailty who reside at home, and their informal carers, drawing on the Theoretical Domains Framework to identify behavioural components associated with barriers/facilitators of the process. DESIGN: Exploratory qualitative study. SETTING: General practice (primary care) in England. PARTICIPANTS: 9 patients aged 65+ living with frailty who attended a consultation to reduce or stop a medicine/s. 3 informal carers of patients living with frailty. 14 primary care clinicians including general practitioners, practice pharmacists and advanced nurse practitioners. METHODS: Qualitative semistructured interviews took place with patients living with frailty, their informal carers and clinicians. Patients (n=9) and informal carers (n=3) were interviewed two times: immediately after deprescribing and 5/6 weeks later. Clinicians (n=14) were interviewed once. In total, 38 interviews were undertaken. Framework analysis was applied to manage and analyse the data. RESULTS: 6 themes associated with facilitators and barriers to deprescribing were generated, respectively, with each supported by between two and three subthemes. Identified facilitators of deprescribing with patients living with frailty included shared decision-making, gradual introduction of the topic, clear communication of the topic to the patient and multidisciplinary working. Identified barriers of deprescribing included consultation constraints, patients' fear of negative consequences and inaccessible terminology and information. CONCLUSIONS: This paper offers timely insight into the barriers and facilitators to deprescribing for patients living with frailty within the context of primary care in England. As deprescribing continues to grow in national and international significance, it is important that future deprescribing interventions acknowledge the current barriers and facilitators and their associated behavioural components experienced by clinicians, patients living with frailty and their informal carers to improve the safety and effectiveness of the process.

Mapping the resilience performance of community pharmacy to maintain patient safety during the Covid-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The first UK wave of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020 placed unprecedented stress on community pharmacy. Various policies and initiatives were announced during this period to support community pharmacy to continue to perform in a manner that prioritised patient safety. However, little is understood about how these policies and initiatives were implemented by staff working in community pharmacy, and the system adaptions and responses that were initiated to maintain patient safety. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to investigate how staff working in UK community pharmacy during the first waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 responded and adapted to system stressors to maintain patient safety. METHODS: We adopted a qualitative interview approach, underpinned by Resilient Healthcare theory, with interview data collected between July 2020 and January 2021. Data were synthesised and analysed using Framework Analysis. RESULTS: 23 community pharmacy staff from England and Scotland were interviewed. We identified five themes supported by between two and six sub-themes: 1. Covid-19, an impending threat to system; 2. Patient safety stressors during the first waves of Covid-19; 3. Altering the system, responding to system stressors; 4. Monitoring and adjusting and 5. Learning for the future. CONCLUSION: Privileging the accounts of community pharmacy staff working on the frontline during the pandemic illuminated how responses and adaptions were developed and deployed, how continual monitoring occurred, and the factors that supported or hindered system resilience. The key learning derived from this study can serve to shorten the gap between 'work as imagined' and 'work as done', and in doing so, support the future resilience performance of community pharmacy during future outbreaks of Covid-19 or similar events.

Using routine healthcare data to evaluate the impact of the Medicines at Transitions Intervention (MaTI) on clinical outcomes of patients hospitalised with heart failure: protocol for the Improving the Safety and Continuity Of Medicines management at Transitions of care (ISCOMAT) cluster randomised controlled trial with embedded process evaluation, health economics evaluation and internal pilot.

INTRODUCTION: Heart failure affects 26 million people globally, approximately 900 thousand people in the UK, and is increasing in incidence. Appropriate management of medicines for heart failure at the time of hospital discharge reduces readmissions, improves quality of life and increases survival. The Improving the Safety and Continuity Of Medicines management at Transitions (ISCOMAT) trial tests the effectiveness of the Medicines at Transition Intervention (MaTI), which aims to enhance self-care and increase community pharmacy involvement in the medicines management of heart failure patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: ISCOMAT is a parallel-group cluster randomised controlled trial, randomising 42 National Health Service trusts with cardiology wards in England on a 1:1 basis to implement the MaTI or treatment as usual. Around 2100 patients over the age of 18 admitted to hospital with heart failure with at least moderate left ventricular systolic dysfunction within the last 5 years, and planned discharge to the geographical area of the cluster will be recruited. The MaTI consists of training for staff, a toolkit for participants, transfer of discharge information to community pharmacies and a medicines reconciliation/review. Treatment as usual is determined by local policy and practices. The primary outcome is a composite of all-cause mortality and heart failure-related hospitalisation at 12 months postregistration obtained from national electronic health records. The key secondary outcome is continued prescription of guideline-indicated therapies at 12 months measured via patient-reported data and Hospital Episode Statistics. The trial contains a parallel mixed-methods process evaluation and an embedded health economics study. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study obtained approval from the Yorkshire and the Humber-Bradford Leeds Research Ethics Committee; REC reference 18/YH/0017. Findings will be disseminated via academic and policy conferences, peer-reviewed publications and social media. Amendments to the protocol are disseminated to all relevant parties as required. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN66212970; Pre-results.

Co-creating social licence for sharing health and care data.

BACKGROUND: Optimising the use of patient data has the potential to produce a transformational change in healthcare planning, treatment, condition prevention and understanding disease progression. Establishing how people's trust could be secured and a social licence to share data could be achieved is of paramount importance. METHODS: The study took place across Yorkshire and the Humber, in the North of the England, using a sequential mixed methods approach comprising focus groups, surveys and co-design groups. Twelve focus groups explored people's response to how their health and social care data is, could, and should be used. A survey examined who should be able to see health and care records, acceptable uses of anonymous health and care records, and trust in different organisations. Case study cards addressed willingness for data to be used for different purposes. Co-creation workshops produced a set of guidelines for how data should be used. RESULTS: Focus group participants (n = 80) supported sharing health and care data for direct care and were surprised that this is not already happening. They discussed concerns about the currency and accuracy of their records and possible stigma associated with certain diagnoses, such as mental health conditions. They were less supportive of social care access to their records. They discussed three main concerns about their data being used for research or service planning: being identified; security limitations; and the potential rationing of care on the basis of information in their record such as their lifestyle choices. Survey respondents (n = 1031) agreed that their GP (98 %) and hospital doctors and nurses (93 %) should be able to see their health and care records. There was more limited support for pharmacists (37 %), care staff (36 %), social workers (24 %) and researchers (24 %). Respondents thought their health and social care records should be used to help plan services (88 %), to help people stay healthy (67 %), to help find cures for diseases (67 %), for research for the public good (58 %), but only 16 % for commercial research. Co-creation groups developed a set of principles for a social licence for data sharing based around good governance, effective processes, the type of organisation, and the ability to opt in and out. CONCLUSION: People support their data being shared for a range of purposes and co-designed a set of principles that would secure their trust and consent to data sharing.