Protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial assessing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Electronic RIsk-assessment for CAncer for patients in general practice (ERICA).

INTRODUCTION: The UK has worse cancer outcomes than most comparable countries, with a large contribution attributed to diagnostic delay. Electronic risk assessment tools (eRATs) have been developed to identify primary care patients with a ≥2% risk of cancer using features recorded in the electronic record. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial in English primary care. Individual general practices will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to intervention (provision of eRATs for six common cancer sites) or to usual care. The primary outcome is cancer stage at diagnosis, dichotomised to stage 1 or 2 (early) or stage 3 or 4 (advanced) for these six cancers, assessed from National Cancer Registry data. Secondary outcomes include stage at diagnosis for a further six cancers without eRATs, use of urgent referral cancer pathways, total practice cancer diagnoses, routes to cancer diagnosis and 30-day and 1-year cancer survival. Economic and process evaluations will be performed along with service delivery modelling. The primary analysis explores the proportion of patients with early-stage cancer at diagnosis. The sample size calculation used an OR of 0.8 for a cancer being diagnosed at an advanced stage in the intervention arm compared with the control arm, equating to an absolute reduction of 4.8% as an incidence-weighted figure across the six cancers. This requires 530 practices overall, with the intervention active from April 2022 for 2 years. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial has approval from London City and East Research Ethics Committee, reference number 19/LO/0615; protocol version 5.0, 9 May 2022. It is sponsored by the University of Exeter. Dissemination will be by journal publication, conferences, use of appropriate social media and direct sharing with cancer policymakers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN22560297.

Workforce predictive risk modelling: development of a model to identify general practices at risk of a supply-demand imbalance.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop a risk prediction model identifying general practices at risk of workforce supply-demand imbalance. DESIGN: This is a secondary analysis of routine data on general practice workforce, patient experience and registered populations (2012 to 2016), combined with a census of general practitioners' (GPs') career intentions (2016). SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: A hybrid approach was used to develop a model to predict workforce supply-demand imbalance based on practice factors using historical data (2012-2016) on all general practices in England (with over 1000 registered patients n=6398). The model was applied to current data (2016) to explore future risk for practices in South West England (n=368). PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome was a practice being in a state of workforce supply-demand imbalance operationally defined as being in the lowest third nationally of access scores according to the General Practice Patient Survey and the highest third nationally according to list size per full-time equivalent GP (weighted to the demographic distribution of registered patients and adjusted for deprivation). RESULTS: Based on historical data, the predictive model had fair to good discriminatory ability to predict which practices faced supply-demand imbalance (area under receiver operating characteristic curve=0.755). Predictions using current data suggested that, on average, practices at highest risk of future supply-demand imbalance are currently characterised by having larger patient lists, employing more nurses, serving more deprived and younger populations, and having considerably worse patient experience ratings when compared with other practices. Incorporating findings from a survey of GP's career intentions made little difference to predictions of future supply-demand risk status when compared with expected future workforce projections based only on routinely available data on GPs' gender and age. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to make reasonable predictions of an individual general practice's future risk of undersupply of GP workforce with respect to its patient population. However, the predictions are inherently limited by the data available.

The real costs of teaching medical students in general practice: a cost-collection survey of teaching practices across England.

BACKGROUND: Current funding arrangements for undergraduate medical student placements in general practice are widely regarded as outdated, inequitable, and in need of urgent review. AIM: To undertake a detailed costing exercise to inform the setting of a national English tariff for undergraduate medical student placements in general practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cost-collection survey in teaching practices across all regions of England between January 2017 and February 2017. METHOD: A cost-collection template was sent to 50 selected teaching practices across all 25 medical schools in England following the development of a cost-collection tool and an initial pilot study. Detailed guidance on completion was provided for practices. Data were analysed by the Department of Health and Social Care. RESULTS: A total of 49 practices submitted data. The mean cost per half-day student placement in general practice was 111 GBP, 95% confidence interval = 100 to 121 (146 USD), with small differences between students in different years of study. Based on 10 sessions per student per week this equated to around 1100 GBP (1460 USD) per student placement week. CONCLUSION: The costs of undergraduate placements in general practice are considerably greater than funding available at time of writing, and broadly comparable with secondary care funding in the same period. The actual cost of placing a medical student full time in general practice for a 37-week academic year is 40 700 GBP (53 640 USD) compared with the average payment rate of only 22 000 GBP (28 990 USD) per year at the time this study was undertaken.

Multicentred randomised controlled trial of an augmented exercise referral scheme using web-based behavioural support in individuals with metabolic, musculoskeletal and mental health conditions: protocol for the e-coachER trial.

INTRODUCTION: Physical activity is recommended for improving health among people with common chronic conditions such as obesity, diabetes, hypertension, osteoarthritis and low mood. One approach to promote physical activity is via primary care exercise referral schemes (ERS). However, there is limited support for the effectiveness of ERS for increasing long-term physical activity and additional interventions are needed to help patients overcome barriers to ERS uptake and adherence.This study aims to determine whether augmenting usual ERS with web-based behavioural support, based on the LifeGuide platform, will increase long-term physical activity for patients with chronic physical and mental health conditions, and is cost-effective. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multicentre parallel two-group randomised controlled trial with 1:1 individual allocation to usual ERS alone (control) or usual ERS plus web-based behavioural support (intervention) with parallel economic and mixed methods process evaluations. Participants are low active adults with obesity, diabetes, hypertension, osteoarthritis or a history of depression, referred to an ERS from primary care in the UK.The primary outcome measure is the number of minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) in ≥10 min bouts measured by accelerometer over 1 week at 12 months.We plan to recruit 413 participants, with 88% power at a two-sided alpha of 5%, assuming 20% attrition, to demonstrate a between-group difference of 36-39 min of MVPA per week at 12 months. An improvement of this magnitude represents an important change in physical activity, particularly for inactive participants with chronic conditions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approved by North West Preston NHS Research Ethics Committee (15/NW/0347). Dissemination will include publication of findings for the stated outcomes, parallel process evaluation and economic evaluation in peer-reviewed journals.Results will be disseminated to ERS services, primary healthcare providers and trial participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15644451; Pre-results.

Enhanced psychological care in cardiac rehabilitation services for patients with new-onset depression: the CADENCE feasibility study and pilot RCT.

BACKGROUND: Around 19% of people screened by UK cardiac rehabilitation programmes report having moderate or severe symptoms of depression. These individuals are at an increased risk of cardiac mortality and morbidity, reduced quality of life and increased use of health resources compared with their non-depressed counterparts. Maximising psychological health is a goal of cardiac rehabilitation, but psychological care is patchy. OBJECTIVE(S): To examine the feasibility and acceptability of embedding enhanced psychological care (EPC) within cardiac rehabilitation, we tested the feasibility of developing/implementing EPC and documented the key uncertainties associated with undertaking a definitive evaluation. DESIGN: A two-stage multimethods study; a feasibility study and a qualitative evaluation, followed by an external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) with a nested qualitative study. SETTING: UK comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation teams. PARTICIPANTS: Adults eligible for cardiac rehabilitation following an acute coronary syndrome with new-onset depressive symptoms on initial nurse assessment. Patients who had received treatment for depression in the preceding 6 months were excluded. INTERVENTIONS: The EPC intervention comprised nurse-led mental health-care co-ordination and behavioural activation within cardiac rehabilitation. The comparator was usual cardiac rehabilitation care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Measures at baseline, and at the 5- (feasibility and pilot) and 8-month follow-ups (pilot only). Process measures related to cardiac team and patient recruitment, and participant retention. Outcomes included depressive symptoms, cardiac mortality and morbidity, anxiety, health-related quality of life and service resource use. Interviews explored participant and nurses' views and experiences. RESULTS: Between September 2014 and May 2015, five nurses from four teams recruited participants into the feasibility study. Of the 203 patients screened, 30 were eligible and nine took part (the target was 20 participants). At interview, participants and nurses gave valuable insights into the EPC intervention design and delivery. Although acceptable, the EPC delivery was challenging for nurses (e.g. the ability to allocate sufficient time within existing workloads) and the intervention was modified accordingly. Between December 2014 and February 2015, 8 out of 20 teams approached agreed to participate in the pilot RCT [five were randomised to the EPC arm and three were randomised to the usual-care (UC) arm]. Of the 614 patients screened, 55 were eligible and 29 took part (the target was 43 participants). At baseline, the trial arms were well matched for sex and ethnicity, although the EPC arm participants were younger, from more deprived areas and had higher depression scores than the UC participants. A total of 27 out of 29 participants were followed up at 5 months. Interviews with 18 participants (12 in the EPC arm and six in the UC arm) and seven nurses who delivered EPC identified that both groups acknowledged the importance of receiving psychological support embedded within routine cardiac rehabilitation. For those experiencing/delivering EPC, the intervention was broadly acceptable, albeit challenging to deliver within existing care. LIMITATIONS: Both the feasibility and the pilot studies encountered significant challenges in recruiting patients, which limited the power of the pilot study analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac rehabilitation nurses can be trained to deliver EPC. Although valued by both patients and nurses, organisational and workload constraints were significant barriers to implementation in participating teams, suggesting that future research may require a modified approach to intervention delivery within current service arrangements. We obtained important data informing definitive research regarding participant recruitment and retention, and optimal methods of data collection. FUTURE RESEARCH: Consideration should be given to the delivery of EPC by dedicated mental health practitioners, working closely with cardiac rehabilitation services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN34701576. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 30. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Identifying Primary Care Pathways from Quality of Care to Outcomes and Satisfaction Using Structural Equation Modeling.

OBJECTIVE: To study the relationships between the different domains of quality of primary health care for the evaluation of health system performance and for informing policy decision making. DATA SOURCES: A total of 137 quality indicators collected from 7,607 English practices between 2011 and 2012. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study at the practice level. Indicators were allocated to subdomains of processes of care ("quality assurance," "education and training," "medicine management," "access," "clinical management," and "patient-centered care"), health outcomes ("intermediate outcomes" and "patient-reported health status"), and patient satisfaction. The relationships between the subdomains were hypothesized in a conceptual model and subsequently tested using structural equation modeling. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The model supported two independent paths. In the first path, "access" was associated with "patient-centered care" (ß = 0.63), which in turn was strongly associated with "patient satisfaction" (ß = 0.88). In the second path, "education and training" was associated with "clinical management" (ß = 0.32), which in turn was associated with "intermediate outcomes" (ß = 0.69). "Patient-reported health status" was weakly associated with "patient-centered care" (ß = -0.05) and "patient satisfaction" (ß = 0.09), and not associated with "clinical management" or "intermediate outcomes." CONCLUSIONS: This is the first empirical model to simultaneously provide evidence on the independence of intermediate health care outcomes, patient satisfaction, and health status. The explanatory paths via technical quality clinical management and patient centeredness offer specific opportunities for the development of quality improvement initiatives.

Clinical excellence: evidence on the assessment of senior doctors' applications to the UK Advisory Committee on Clinical Excellence Awards. Analysis of complete national data set.

OBJECTIVES: To inform the rational deployment of assessor resource in the evaluation of applications to the UK Advisory Committee on Clinical Excellence Awards (ACCEA). SETTING: ACCEA are responsible for a scheme to financially reward senior doctors in England and Wales who are assessed to be working over and above the standard expected of their role. PARTICIPANTS: Anonymised applications of consultants and senior academic GPs for awards were considered by members of 14 regional subcommittees and 2 national assessing committees during the 2014-2015 round of applications. DESIGN: It involved secondary analysis of complete anonymised national data set. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We analysed scores for each of 1916 applications for a clinical excellence award across 4 levels of award. Scores were provided by members of 16 subcommittees. We assessed the reliability of assessments and described the variance in the assessment of scores. RESULTS: Members of regional subcommittees assessed 1529 new applications and 387 renewal applications. Average scores increased with the level of application being made. On average, applications were assessed by 9.5 assessors. The highest contributions to the variance in individual assessors' assessments of applications were attributable to assessors or to residual variance. The applicant accounted for around a quarter of the variance in scores for new bronze applications, with this proportion decreasing for higher award levels. Reliability in excess of 0.7 can be attained where 4 assessors score bronze applications, with twice as many assessors being required for higher levels of application. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment processes pertaining in the competitive allocation of public funds need to be credible and efficient. The present arrangements for assessing and scoring applications are defensible, depending on the level of reliability judged to be required in the assessment process. Some relatively minor reconfiguration in approaches to scoring might usefully be considered in future rounds of assessment.

Using alternatives to face-to-face consultations: a survey of prevalence and attitudes in general practice.

BACKGROUND: The ubiquitous use of communication technologies has led to an expectation that a similar approach should extend to health care. Despite considerable rhetoric about the need for general practices to offer alternatives to face-to-face consultations, such as telephone, email, and internet video consultations, the extent to which such technologies are actually used at present is unclear. AIM: The aim of the survey was to identify the frequency and range of ways in which general practices are providing (or planning) alternatives to face-to-face consultations. DESIGN AND SETTING: A postal survey of practices around Bristol, Oxford, Lothian, the Highlands, and the Western Isles of Scotland. METHOD: A postal questionnaire survey was sent to each of the GPs and practice managers of 421 practices between January and May 2015. RESULTS: A response was received from 319/421 practices (76%). Although the majority of the practices reported that they were conducting telephone consultations frequently (n = 211/318, 66%), fewer were implementing email consultations (n = 18/318, 6%), and most (n = 169/318, 53%) had no plans to introduce this. None were currently using internet video, and 86% (n = 273/318) had no plans to introduce internet video consultations. These findings were repeated in the reported use of alternatives to face-to-face consultations at an individual GP level. Optional free text responses were completed by 28% of responders, and offered an explanation for the (often perceived) barriers and incentives for implementation. CONCLUSION: Despite policy pressure to introduce consultations by email and internet video, there is a general reluctance among GPs to implement alternatives to face-to-face consultations. This identifies a substantial gap between rhetoric and reality in terms of the likelihood of certain alternatives (email, video) changing practice in the near future.

Lessons learned from recruiting socioeconomically disadvantaged smokers into a pilot randomized controlled trial to explore the role of Exercise Assisted Reduction then Stop (EARS) smoking.

BACKGROUND: Research is needed on what influences recruitment to smoking reduction trials, and how to increase their reach. The present study aimed to i) assess the feasibility of recruiting a disadvantaged population, ii) examine the effects of recruitment methods on participant characteristics, iii) identify resource requirements for different recruitment methods, and iv) to qualitatively assess the acceptability of recruitment. This was done as part of a pilot two-arm trial of the effectiveness of a novel behavioral support intervention focused on increasing physical activity and reducing smoking, among disadvantaged smokers not wishing to quit. METHODS: Smokers were recruited through mailed invitations from three primary care practices (62 participants) and one National Health Stop Smoking Service (SSS) database (31 participants). Six other participants were recruited via a variety of other community-based approaches. Data were collected through questionnaires, field notes, work sampling, and databases. Chi-squared and t-tests were used to compare baseline characteristics of participants. RESULTS: We randomized between 5.1 and 11.1% of those invited through primary care and SSS, with associated researcher time to recruit one participant varying from 18 to 157 minutes depending on time and intensity invested.Only six participants were recruited through a wide variety of other community-based approaches, with an associated researcher time of 469 minutes to recruit one participant. Targets for recruiting a disadvantaged population were met, with 91% of the sample in social classes C2 to E (NRS social grades, UK), and 41% indicating mental health problems. Those recruited from SSS were more likely to respond to an initial letter, had used cessation aids before, and had attempted to quit in the past year. Overall, initial responders were more likely to be physically active than those who were recruited via follow-up telephone calls. No other demographics or behaviour characteristics were associated with recruitment approach or intensity of effort. Qualitative feedback indicated that participants had been attracted by the prospect of support that focused on smoking reduction rather than abrupt quitting. CONCLUSIONS: Mailed invitations, and follow-up, from health professionals was an effective method of recruiting disadvantaged smokers into a trial of an exercise intervention to aid smoking reduction. Recruitment via community outreach approaches was largely ineffective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN identifier: 13837944 , registered on 6 July 2010.

Why do patients with multimorbidity in England report worse experiences in primary care? Evidence from the General Practice Patient Survey.

OBJECTIVES: To describe and explain the primary care experiences of people with multiple long-term conditions in England. DESIGN AND METHODS: Using questionnaire data from 906,578 responders to the English 2012 General Practice Patient Survey, we describe the primary care experiences of patients with long-term conditions, including 583,143 patients who reported one or more long-term conditions. We employed mixed effect logistic regressions to analyse data on six items covering three care domains (access, continuity and communication) and a single item on overall primary care experience. We controlled for sociodemographic characteristics, and for general practice using a random effect, and further, controlled for, and explored the importance of, health-related quality of life measured using the EuroQoL (EQ-5D) scale. RESULTS: Most patients with long-term conditions report a positive experience of care at their general practice (after adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics and general practice, range 74.0-93.1% reporting positive experience of care across seven questions) with only modest variation by type of condition. For all three domains of patient experience, an increasing number of comorbid conditions is associated with a reducing percentage of patients reporting a positive experience of care. For example, compared with respondents with no long-term condition, the OR for reporting a positive experience is 0.83 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.87) for respondents with four or more long-term conditions. However, this relationship is no longer observed after adjusting for health-related quality of life (OR (95% CI) single condition=1.23 (1.21 to 1.26); four or more conditions=1.31 (1.25 to 1.37)), with pain making the greatest difference among five quality of life variables included in the analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with multiple long-term conditions more frequently report worse experiences in primary care. However, patient-centred measures of health-related quality of life, especially pain, are more important than the number of conditions in explaining why patients with multiple long-term conditions report worse experiences of care.

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.

Understanding high and low patient experience scores in primary care: analysis of patients' survey data for general practices and individual doctors.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the extent to which practice level scores mask variation in individual performance between doctors within a practice. DESIGN: Analysis of postal survey of patients' experience of face-to-face consultations with individual general practitioners in a stratified quota sample of primary care practices. SETTING: Twenty five English general practices, selected to include a range of practice scores on doctor-patient communication items in the English national GP Patient Survey. PARTICIPANTS: 7721 of 15,172 patients (response rate 50.9%) who consulted with 105 general practitioners in 25 practices between October 2011 and June 2013. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Score on doctor-patient communication items from post-consultation surveys of patients for each participating general practitioner. The amount of variance in each of six outcomes that was attributable to the practices, to the doctors, and to the patients and other residual sources of variation was calculated using hierarchical linear models. RESULTS: After control for differences in patients' age, sex, ethnicity, and health status, the proportion of variance in communication scores that was due to differences between doctors (6.4%) was considerably more than that due to practices (1.8%). The findings also suggest that higher performing practices usually contain only higher performing doctors. However, lower performing practices may contain doctors with a wide range of communication scores. CONCLUSIONS: Aggregating patients' ratings of doctors' communication skills at practice level can mask considerable variation in the performance of individual doctors, particularly in lower performing practices. Practice level surveys may be better used to "screen" for concerns about performance that require an individual level survey. Higher scoring practices are unlikely to include lower scoring doctors. However, lower scoring practices require further investigation at the level of the individual doctor to distinguish higher and lower scoring general practitioners.

Older patients and their GPs: shared decision making in enhancing trust.

BACKGROUND: Older patients differ from younger patients in their perceptions of trust in doctors; their sense of shared decision making is particularly associated with their trust in the GP. Enhancing trust and improving shared decision making are thought to have positive health outcomes. Older patients are sometimes reported as being less frequently involved in decisions about their health care, however, and in having more unmet healthcare needs than younger patients. AIM: This study explored older patients' trust in their GPs and their perceptions of shared decision making. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative methods were used. Systematic sampling identified 20 participants, aged ≥65 years, from three GP surgeries in Devon, UK. METHOD: A constant comparative approach was applied to thematic analysis of transcribed interviews. RESULTS: All participants valued feeling involved in decisions but differed regarding how they felt involved. Trust influenced preferences for shared decision making: a trusted GP 'ally', to competently manage participants' increasing health-information requirements throughout the vulnerable ageing process, was important. Trust was affected by factors contributing to the facilitation of involvement. GP characteristics, communication skills, consultation duration, and continuity of care were common themes. CONCLUSION: Although limited geographically and subsequently by ethnic group, the present sample allows for reasonable transferability of the study to other UK populations. A range of factors are highlighted for consideration when planning primary healthcare delivery: to facilitate the optimal involvement of older patients in decisions about their health care, while enhancing their trust in the GP; to help minimise potential health inequalities for this patient group.

Telephone triage for management of same-day consultation requests in general practice (the ESTEEM trial): a cluster-randomised controlled trial and cost-consequence analysis.

BACKGROUND: Telephone triage is increasingly used to manage workload in primary care; however, supporting evidence for this approach is scarce. We aimed to assess the effectiveness and cost consequences of general practitioner-(GP)-led and nurse-led telephone triage compared with usual care for patients seeking same-day consultations in primary care. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, cluster-randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation between March 1, 2011, and March 31, 2013, at 42 practices in four centres in the UK. Practices were randomly assigned (1:1:1), via a computer-generated randomisation sequence minimised for geographical location, practice deprivation, and practice list size, to either GP-led triage, nurse-led computer-supported triage, or usual care. We included patients who telephoned the practice seeking a same-day face-to-face consultation with a GP. Allocations were concealed from practices until after they had agreed to participate and a stochastic element was included within the minimisation algorithm to maintain concealment. Patients, clinicians, and researchers were not masked to allocation, but practice assignment was concealed from the trial statistician. The primary outcome was primary care workload (patient contacts, including those attending accident and emergency departments) in the 28 days after the first same-day request. Analyses were by intention to treat and per protocol. This trial was registered with the ISRCTN register, number ISRCTN20687662. FINDINGS: We randomly assigned 42 practices to GP triage (n=13), nurse triage (n=15), or usual care (n=14), and 20,990 patients (n=6695 vs 7012 vs 7283) were randomly assigned, of whom 16,211 (77%) patients provided primary outcome data (n=5171 vs 5468 vs 5572). GP triage was associated with a 33% increase in the mean number of contacts per person over 28 days compared with usual care (2·65 [SD 1·74] vs 1·91 [1·43]; rate ratio [RR] 1·33, 95% CI 1·30-1·36), and nurse triage with a 48% increase (2·81 [SD 1·68]; RR 1·48, 95% CI 1·44-1·52). Eight patients died within 7 days of the index request: five in the GP-triage group, two in the nurse-triage group, and one in the usual-care group; however, these deaths were not associated with the trial group or procedures. Although triage interventions were associated with increased contacts, estimated costs over 28 days were similar between all three groups (roughly £75 per patient). INTERPRETATION: Introduction of telephone triage delivered by a GP or nurse was associated with an increase in the number of primary care contacts in the 28 days after a patient's request for a same-day GP consultation, with similar costs to those of usual care. Telephone triage might be useful in aiding the delivery of primary care. The whole-system implications should be assessed when introduction of such a system is considered. FUNDING: Health Technology Assessment Programme UK National Institute for Health Research.

A pilot randomised trial to assess the methods and procedures for evaluating the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Exercise Assisted Reduction then Stop (EARS) among disadvantaged smokers.

BACKGROUND: There have been few rigorous studies on the effects of behavioural support for helping smokers to reduce who do not immediately wish to quit. While reduction may not have the health benefits of quitting, it may lead smokers to want to quit. Physical activity (PA) helps to reduce cravings and withdrawal symptoms, and also reduces weight gain after quitting, but smokers may be less inclined to exercise. There is scope to develop and determine the effectiveness of interventions to support smoking reduction and increase physical activity, for those not ready to quit. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) [Exercise Assisted Reduction then Stop (EARS) smoking study] to (1) design and evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of a PA and smoking-reduction counselling intervention [for disadvantaged smokers who do not wish to quit but do want to reduce their smoking (to increase the likelihood of quitting)], and (2) to inform the design of a large RCT to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the intervention. DESIGN: A single-centre, pragmatic, pilot trial with follow-up up to 16 weeks. A mixed methods approach assessed the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention and trial methods. Smokers were individually randomised to intervention or control arms. SETTING: General practices, NHS buildings, community venues, and the Stop Smoking Service (SSS) within Plymouth, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Aged > 18 years, smoking ≥ 10 cigarettes per day (for ≥ 2 years) who wished to cut down. We excluded individuals who were contraindicated for moderate PA, posed a safety risk to the research team, wished to quit immediately or use Nicotine Replacement Therapy, not registered with a general practitioner, or did not converse in English. INTERVENTION: We designed a client-centred, counselling-based intervention designed to support smoking reduction and increases in PA. Support sessions were delivered by trained counsellors either face to face or by telephone. Both intervention and control arms were given information at baseline on specialist SSS support available should they have wished to quit. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was 4-week post-quit expired air carbon monoxide (CO)-confirmed abstinence from smoking. Secondary outcomes included validated behavioural, cognitive and emotional/affective and health-related quality of life measures and treatment costs. RESULTS: The study randomised 99 participants, 49 to the intervention arm and 50 to the control arm, with a 62% follow-up rate at 16 weeks. In the intervention and control arms, 14% versus 4%, respectively [relative risk = 3.57; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 16.35], had expired CO-confirmed abstinence at least 4 and up to 8 weeks after quit day; 22% versus 6% (relative risk = 3.74; 95% CI 1.11 to 12.60) made a quit attempt; 10% versus 4% (relative risk = 92.55; 95% CI 0.52 to 12.53) achieved point-prevalent abstinence at 16 weeks; and 39% versus 20% (relative risk = 1.94; 95% CI 1.01 to 3.74) achieved at least a 50% reduction in the number of cigarettes smoked daily. The percentage reporting using PA for controlling smoking in the intervention versus control arms was 55% versus 22%, respectively at 8 weeks and 37% versus 16%, respectively, at 16 weeks. The counsellors generally delivered the intervention as planned and participants responded with a variety of smoking reduction strategies, sometimes supported by changes in PA. The intervention costs were approximately £192 per participant. Exploratory cost-effectiveness modelling indicates that the intervention may be cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: The study provided valuable information on the resources needed to improve study recruitment and retention. Offering support for smoking reduction and PA appears to have value in promoting reduction and cessation in disadvantaged smokers not currently motivated to quit. A large RCT is needed to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the intervention in this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 13837944. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment, Vol. 18, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of telephone triage of patients requesting same day consultations in general practice: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial comparing nurse-led and GP-led management systems (ESTEEM).

BACKGROUND: Recent years have seen an increase in primary care workload, especially following the introduction of a new General Medical Services contract in 2004. Telephone triage and telephone consultation with patients seeking health care represent initiatives aimed at improving access to care. Some evidence suggests that such approaches may be feasible but conclusions regarding GP workload, cost, and patients' experience of care, safety, and health status are equivocal. The ESTEEM trial aims to assess the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of nurse-led computer-supported telephone triage and GP-led telephone triage, compared to usual care, for patients requesting same-day consultations in general practice. METHODS/DESIGN: ESTEEM is a pragmatic, multi-centre cluster randomised clinical trial with patients randomised at practice level to usual care, computer decision-supported nurse triage, or GP-led triage. Following triage of 350-550 patients per practice we anticipate estimating and comparing total primary care workload (volume and time), the economic cost to the NHS, and patient experience of care, safety, and health status in the 4-week period following the index same-day consultation request across the three trial conditions.We will recruit all patients seeking a non-emergency same-day appointment in primary care. Patients aged 12.0-15.9 years and temporary residents will be excluded from the study.The primary outcome is the number of healthcare contacts taking place in the 4-week period following (and including) the index same-day consultation request. A range of secondary outcomes will be examined including patient flow, primary care NHS resource use, patients' experience of care, safety, and health status.The estimated sample size required is 3,751 patients (11,253 total) in each of the three trial conditions, to detect a mean difference of 0.36 consultations per patient in the four week follow-up period between either intervention group and usual care 90% power, 5% alpha, and an estimated intracluster correlation coefficient ICC of 0.05. The primary analysis will be based on the intention-to-treat principle and take the form of a random effects regression analysis taking account of the hierarchical nature of the study design. Statistical models will allow for adjustment for practice level minimisation variables and patient-level baseline covariates shown to differ at baseline. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISCRTN20687662.

Priorities for young adults when accessing UK primary care: literature review.

This literature review focuses on what matters to young adults when they access primary care services in the United Kingdom. Patients' access to and experience of primary care services differs across age groups. Existing research has largely focused on the needs and experiences of children, adolescents, and adults. There is some evidence to suggest the views of young adults (aged 18-25 years) that may differ from the views of other age groups, and research has not previously reported specifically on the views of this group of the population. The literature was reviewed to identify the views and priorities of young UK adults regarding primary healthcare provision, and furthermore, to identify those related topics that would benefit from further research. Relevant academic publications and grey literature published from 2000 onwards was reviewed and synthesised. We identified and reported emerging themes that were of importance to young adults in respect of the UK primary care provision. A total of 19 papers met our inclusion criteria. Young adults access primary care services less frequently than other age groups; this may be because of their experience of primary care throughout childhood and adolescence. Five aspects of primary care provision emerged as being of importance to young adults--the accessibility and availability of services, the confidentiality of health-related information, issues relating to communication with healthcare professionals, continuity of care, and behaviours and attitudes expressed towards young adults by healthcare professionals. There is a lack of focus of current research on the expectations, needs, and primary healthcare experiences of young adults. Young adults may hold views that are distinct from other age groups. Further research is needed to better understand the needs of a young adult population as their needs may impact the future use of services.

An exercise intervention to prevent falls in Parkinson's: an economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: People with Parkinson's (PwP) experience frequent and recurrent falls. As these falls may have devastating consequences, there is an urgent need to identify cost-effective interventions with the potential to reduce falls in PwP. The purpose of this economic evaluation is to compare the costs and cost-effectiveness of a targeted exercise programme versus usual care for PwP who were at risk of falling. METHODS: One hundred and thirty participants were recruited through specialist clinics, primary care and Parkinson's support groups and randomised to either an exercise intervention or usual care. Health and social care utilisation and health-related quality of life (EQ-5D) were assessed over the 20 weeks of the study (ten-week intervention period and ten-week follow up period), and these data were complete for 93 participants. Incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) was estimated. The uncertainty around costs and QALYs was represented using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: The mean cost of the intervention was £76 per participant. Although in direction of favour of exercise intervention, there was no statistically significant differences between groups in total healthcare (-£128, 95% CI: -734 to 478), combined health and social care costs (£-35, 95% CI: -817 to 746) or QALYs (0.03, 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.03) at 20 weeks. Nevertheless, exploration of the uncertainty surrounding these estimates suggests there is more than 80% probability that the exercise intervention is a cost-effective strategy relative to usual care. CONCLUSION: Whilst we found no difference between groups in total healthcare, total social care cost and QALYs, analyses indicate that there is high probability that the exercise intervention is cost-effective compared with usual care. These results require confirmation by larger trial-based economic evaluations and over the longer term.