Exploring the perceptions and experiences of community rehabilitation for Long COVID from the perspectives of Scottish general practitioners' and people living with Long COVID: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the experience of accessing Long COVID community rehabilitation from the perspectives of people with Long COVID and general practitioners (GPs). DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive study employing one-to-one semistructured virtual interviews analysed using the framework method. SETTING: Four National Health Service Scotland territorial health boards. PARTICIPANTS: 11 people with Long COVID (1 male, 10 female; aged 40-65 (mean 53) and 13 GPs (5 male, 8 female). RESULTS: Four key themes were identified: (1) The lived experience of Long COVID, describing the negative impact of Long COVID on participants' health and quality of life; (2) The challenges of an emergent and complex chronic condition, including uncertainties related to diagnosis and management; (3) Systemic challenges for Long COVID service delivery, including lack of clear pathways for access and referral, siloed services, limited resource and a perceived lack of holistic care, and (4) Perceptions and experiences of Long COVID and its management, including rehabilitation. In this theme, a lack of knowledge by GPs and people with Long COVID on the potential role of community rehabilitation for Long COVID was identified. Having prior knowledge of rehabilitation or being a healthcare professional appeared to facilitate access to community rehabilitation. Finally, people with Long COVID who had received rehabilitation had generally found it beneficial. CONCLUSIONS: There are several patient, GP and service-level barriers to accessing community rehabilitation for Long COVID. There is a need for greater understanding by the public, GPs and other potential referrers of the role of community rehabilitation professionals in the management of Long COVID. There is also a need for community rehabilitation services to be well promoted and accessible to the people with Long COVID for whom they may be appropriate. The findings of this study can be used by those (re)designing community rehabilitation services for people with Long COVID.

ACL reconstruction for all is not cost-effective after acute ACL rupture.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a cost-utility analysis for two commonly used treatment strategies for patients after ACL rupture; early ACL reconstruction (index) versus rehabilitation plus an optional reconstruction in case of persistent instability (comparator). METHODS: Patients aged between 18 and 65 years of age with a recent ACL rupture (<2 months) were randomised between either an early ACL reconstruction (index) or a rehabilitation plus an optional reconstruction in case of persistent instability (comparator) after 3 months of rehabilitation. A cost-utility analysis was performed to compare both treatments over a 2-year follow-up. Cost-effectiveness was calculated as incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, using two perspectives: the healthcare system perspective and societal perspective. The uncertainty for costs and health effects was assessed by means of non-parametric bootstrapping. RESULTS: A total of 167 patients were included in the study, of which 85 were randomised to the early ACL reconstruction (index) group and 82 to the rehabilitation and optional reconstruction group (comparator). From the healthcare perspective it takes 48 460 € and from a societal perspective 78 179 €, to gain a QALY when performing early surgery compared with rehabilitation plus an optional reconstruction. This is unlikely to be cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Routine early ACL reconstruction (index) is not considered cost-effective as compared with rehabilitation plus optional reconstruction for a standard ACL population (comparator) given the maximum willingness to pay of 20 000 €/QALY. Early recognition of the patients that have better outcome of early ACL reconstruction might make rehabilitation and optional reconstruction even more cost-effective.

A national survey of community rehabilitation service provision for people with long Covid in Scotland.

Background: Over 50 million cases of COVID-19 have been confirmed globally as of November 2020. Evidence is rapidly emerging on the epidemiology of COVID-19, and its impact on individuals and potential burden on health services and society. Between 10-35% of people with COVID-19 may experience post-acute long Covid. This currently equates to between 8,129 and 28,453 people in Scotland. Some of these people will require rehabilitation to support their recovery. Currently, we do not know how to optimally configure community rehabilitation services for people with long Covid. Methods: This national survey aimed to provide a detailed description of current community rehabilitation provision for people with long Covid in Scotland. We developed, piloted, and conducted a national electronic survey of current community rehabilitation service provision for people presenting with long Covid symptomatology. Our sample were the Allied Health Professions Directors of all 14 territorial NHS Health Boards in Scotland. Fixed response and narrative data were analysed descriptively. Results: Responses were received from all respondents (14/14), enabling a national picture to be gained. Almost all Health Boards (13/14) currently deliver rehabilitation for people with long Covid within pre-existing services. Fatigue (11/14) and respiratory conditions (9/14) were the two most common presenting problems of patients. Most long Covid community rehabilitation services are delivered through a combination of face-to-face and digital contact (13/14). Conclusions: Community rehabilitation for people with long Covid is an emerging reality. This survey provides a national picture of current community rehabilitation for people with long Covid. We do not know how community rehabilitation can be optimally delivered for this population. This is vital as community rehabilitation services were already under pressure prior to the emergence of COVID-19. Further research is urgently required to investigate the implementation, outcomes and cost-effectiveness of differing models of community rehabilitation for this patient population.

Policy addressing suicidality in children and young people: an international scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: To map key policy documents worldwide and establish how they address the treatment and care needs of children and young people (CYP) who are suicidal. DESIGN: We conducted a scoping review to systematically identify relevant key policy documents following a pre-established published protocol. DATA SOURCES: Four databases (CINAHL; Medline; PsycINFO; The Cochrane Database of Systematic reviews) and the websites of key government, statutory and non-statutory agencies were searched. Google and Google Scholar were used to identify other policy documents and relevant grey literature. Leading experts were consulted by email. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTED STUDIES: Policies, policy guidance, strategies, codes of conduct, national service frameworks, national practice guidance, white and green papers, and reviews of policy-concerned with indicated suicide prevention approaches for children up to 18 years old. Limited by English language and published after 2000. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted using a predetermined template. Second reviewers independently extracted 25%. Documents were categorised as international guidance, national policy and national guidance, and presented in a table providing a brief description of the policy, alongside how it specifically addresses suicidal CYP. Findings were further expressed using narrative synthesis. RESULTS: 35 policy documents were included in the review. Although many recognise CYP as being a high-risk or priority population, most do not explicitly address suicidal CYP. In general, national guidance documents were found to convey that suicidal children should be assessed by a child and adolescent mental health practitioner but offer no clear recommendations beyond this. CONCLUSION: The lack of specific reference within policy documents to the treatment and care of needs of children who are suicidal highlights a potential gap in policy that could lead to the needs of suicidal children being overlooked, and varying interpretations of appropriate responses and service provision.

Understanding successful development of complex health and healthcare interventions and its drivers from the perspective of developers and wider stakeholders: an international qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVE: Identify how individuals involved in developing complex health and healthcare interventions (developers), and wider stakeholders in the endeavour, such as funders, define successful intervention development and what factors influence how interventions are developed. DESIGN: In-depth interviews with developers and wider stakeholders to explore their views and experiences of developing complex health and healthcare interventions. SETTING: Interviews conducted with individuals in the UK, Europe and North America. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-one individuals were interviewed: 15 developers and 6 wider stakeholders. Seventeen participants were UK based. RESULTS: Most participants defined successful intervention development as a process that resulted in effective interventions that were relevant, acceptable and could be implemented in real-world contexts. Accounts also indicated that participants aimed to develop interventions that end users wanted, and to undertake a development process that was methodologically rigorous and provided research evidence for journal publications and future grant applications. Participants' ambitions to develop interventions that had real-world impact drove them to consider the intervention's feasibility and long-term sustainability early in the development process. However, this process was also driven by other factors: the realities of resource-limited health contexts; prespecified research funder priorities; a reluctance to deviate from grant application protocols to incorporate evidence and knowledge acquired during the development process; limited funding to develop interventions and the need for future randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to prove effectiveness. Participants expressed concern that these drivers discouraged long-term thinking and the development of innovative interventions, and prioritised evaluation over development and future implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Tensions exist between developers' goal of developing interventions that improve health in the real world, current funding structures, the limited resources within healthcare contexts, and the dominance of the RCT for evaluation of these interventions. There is a need to review funding processes and expectations of gold standard evaluation.

Policy addressing suicidality in children and young people: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Suicide is one of the leading causes of death among children and young people globally and a major public health issue. Government policies determine how much recognised health issues are prioritised and set the context for investment, development and delivery of services. A review of policies concerning children and young people who are suicidal could shed light on the extent that this public health issue is prioritised and highlight examples of best practice in this area. There has never been a review to explore how policy worldwide addresses the specific needs of this vulnerable population. This review will map the key policy documents and identify their relevance to the review question: how does policy address the treatment and care of children and young people who experience suicidality? (international, national (UK) and local (Scotland)). METHODOLOGY: Employing scoping review methodological guidance a systematic and transparent approach will be taken. Preliminary searches will facilitate the identification of MeSh terms, subject headings, individual database and platform nuances. A full search strategy will be created to search five databases: CINAHL, PsychInfo, Medline, Web of Science and Cochrane. Government and other key agency websites (eg, WHO, Unicef) will be searched to identify policy documents. The reference lists of identified documents will be checked. A second reviewer will independently screen and cross validate eligible studies for final inclusion. A data extraction template will then be used to extract key information. We will report our findings using narrative synthesis and tabulate findings, by agreed key components. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required to conduct a scoping review. We will disseminate the findings through a peer-reviewed publication and conference presentation.

PROPEL: implementation of an evidence based pelvic floor muscle training intervention for women with pelvic organ prolapse: a realist evaluation and outcomes study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP) is estimated to affect 41%-50% of women aged over 40. Findings from the multi-centre randomised controlled "Pelvic Organ Prolapse PhysiotherapY" (POPPY) trial showed that individualised pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) was effective in reducing symptoms of prolapse, improved quality of life and showed clear potential to be cost-effective. However, provision of PFMT for prolapse continues to vary across the UK, with limited numbers of women's health physiotherapists specialising in its delivery. Implementation of this robust evidence from the POPPY trial will require attention to different models of delivery (e.g. staff skill mix) to fit with differing care environments. METHODS: A Realist Evaluation (RE) of implementation and outcomes of PFMT delivery in contrasting NHS settings will be conducted using multiple case study sites. Involving substantial local stakeholder engagement will permit a detailed exploration of how local sites make decisions on how to deliver PFMT and how these lead to service change. The RE will track how implementation is working; identify what influences outcomes; and, guided by the RE-AIM framework, will collect robust outcomes data. This will require mixed methods data collection and analysis. Qualitative data will be collected at four time-points across each site to understand local contexts and decisions regarding options for intervention delivery and to monitor implementation, uptake, adherence and outcomes. Patient outcome data will be collected at baseline, six months and one year follow-up for 120 women. Primary outcome will be the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score (POP-SS). An economic evaluation will assess the costs and benefits associated with different delivery models taking account of further health care resource use by the women. Cost data will be combined with the primary outcome in a cost effectiveness analysis, and the EQ-5D-5L data in a cost utility analysis for each of the different models of delivery. DISCUSSION: Study of the implementation of varying models of service delivery of PFMT across contrasting sites combined with outcomes data and a cost effectiveness analysis will provide insight into the implementation and value of different models of PFMT service delivery and the cost benefits to the NHS in the longer term.

Achieving Good Outcomes for Asthma Living (GOAL): mixed methods feasibility and pilot cluster randomised controlled trial of a practical intervention for eliciting, setting and achieving goals for adults with asthma.

BACKGROUND: Despite being a core component of self-management, goal setting is rarely used in routine care. We piloted a primary care, nurse-led intervention called Achieving Good Outcomes for Asthma Living (GOAL) for adults with asthma. Patients were invited to identify and prioritise their goals in preparation for discussing and negotiating an action/coping plan with the nurse at a routine asthma review. METHODS: The 18-month mixed methods feasibility cluster pilot trial stratified and then randomised practices to deliver usual care (UC) or a goal-setting intervention (GOAL). Practice asthma nurses and adult patients with active asthma were invited to participate. The primary outcome was asthma-specific quality of life. Semi-structured interviews with a purposive patient sample (n = 14) and 10 participating nurses explored GOAL perception. The constructs of normalisation process theory (NPT) were used to analyse and interpret data. RESULTS: Ten practices participated (five in each arm), exceeding our target of eight. However, only 48 patients (target 80) were recruited (18 in GOAL practices). At 6 months post-intervention, the difference in mean asthma-related quality of life (mAQLQ) between intervention and control was 0.1 (GOAL 6.20: SD 0.76 (CI 5.76-6.65) versus UC 6.1: SD 0.81 (CI 5.63-6.57)), less than the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 0.5. However, change from baseline was stronger in the intervention group: at 6 months the change in the emotions sub-score was 0.8 for intervention versus 0.2 for control. Costs were higher in the intervention group by £22.17. Routine review with goal setting was considered more holistic, enhancing rapport and enabling patients to become active rather than passive participants in healthcare. However, time was a major barrier for nurses, who admitted to screening out patient goals they believed were unrelated to asthma. CONCLUSIONS: The difference in AQLQ score from baseline is larger in the intervention arm than the control, indicating the intervention may have impact if appropriately strengthened. The GOAL intervention changed the review dynamic and was well received by patients, but necessitated additional time, which was problematic in the confines of the traditional nurse appointment. Modification to recruitment methods and further development of the intervention are needed before proceeding to a definitive cluster randomised controlled trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN18912042 . Registered on 26 June 2012.

Goal-setting intervention in patients with active asthma: protocol for a pilot cluster-randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Supporting self-management behaviours is recommended guidance for people with asthma. Preliminary work suggests that a brief, intensive, patient-centred intervention may be successful in supporting people with asthma to participate in life roles and activities they value. We seek to assess the feasibility of undertaking a cluster-randomised controlled trial (cRCT) of a brief, goal-setting intervention delivered in the context of an asthma review consultation. METHODS/DESIGN: A two armed, single-blinded, multi-centre, cluster-randomised controlled feasibility trial will be conducted in UK primary care. Randomisation will take place at the practice level. We aim to recruit a total of 80 primary care patients with active asthma from at least eight practices across two health boards in Scotland (10 patients per practice resulting in ~40 in each arm). Patients in the intervention arm will be asked to complete a novel goal-setting tool immediately prior to an asthma review consultation. This will be used to underpin a focussed discussion about their goals during the asthma review. A tailored management plan will then be negotiated to facilitate achieving their prioritised goals. Patients in the control arm will receive a usual care guideline-based review of asthma. Data on quality of life, asthma control and patient confidence will be collected from both arms at baseline and 3 and 6 months post-intervention. Data on health services resource use will be collected from all patient records 6 months pre- and post-intervention. Semi-structured interviews will be carried out with healthcare staff and a purposive sample of patients to elicit their views and experiences of the trial. The outcomes of interest in this feasibility trial are the ability to recruit patients and healthcare staff, the optimal method of delivering the intervention within routine clinical practice, and acceptability and perceived utility of the intervention among patients and staff. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN18912042.

Using shared goal setting to improve access and equity: a mixed methods study of the Good Goals intervention in children's occupational therapy.

BACKGROUND: Access and equity in children's therapy services may be improved by directing clinicians' use of resources toward specific goals that are important to patients. A practice-change intervention (titled 'Good Goals') was designed to achieve this. This study investigated uptake, adoption, and possible effects of that intervention in children's occupational therapy services. METHODS: Mixed methods case studies (n = 3 services, including 46 therapists and 558 children) were conducted. The intervention was delivered over 25 weeks through face-to-face training, team workbooks, and 'tools for change'. Data were collected before, during, and after the intervention on a range of factors using interviews, a focus group, case note analysis, routine data, document analysis, and researchers' observations. RESULTS: Factors related to uptake and adoptions were: mode of intervention delivery, competing demands on therapists' time, and leadership by service manager. Service managers and therapists reported that the intervention: helped therapists establish a shared rationale for clinical decisions; increased clarity in service provision; and improved interactions with families and schools. During the study period, therapists' behaviours changed: identifying goals, odds ratio 2.4 (95% CI 1.5 to 3.8); agreeing goals, 3.5 (2.4 to 5.1); evaluating progress, 2.0 (1.1 to 3.5). Children's LoT decreased by two months [95% CI -8 to +4 months] across the services. Cost per therapist trained ranged from £1,003 to £1,277, depending upon service size and therapists' salary bands. CONCLUSIONS: Good Goals is a promising quality improvement intervention that can be delivered and adopted in practice and may have benefits. Further research is required to evaluate its: (i) impact on patient outcomes, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and (ii) transferability to other clinical contexts.

Uninterrupted warfarin for periprocedural anticoagulation in catheter ablation of typical atrial flutter: a safe and cost-effective strategy.

INTRODUCTION: Many patients undergoing catheter ablation of atrial flutter (AFL) require periprocedural anticoagulation. We compared a strategy of conversion to low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) periprocedure to uninterrupted warfarinization in a nonrandomized, case-controlled study. METHODS: One hundred and one consecutive patients requiring periprocedural anticoagulation for catheter ablation of typical AFL were studied. The first 51 patients underwent conversion to LMWH (enoxaparin 1 mg/kg bd) with a warfarin pause (LMWH group), the subsequent 50 continued with uninterrupted oral anticoagulation (Warfarin group). Primary endpoint was a composite of major and minor bleeding complications and groin symptoms. RESULTS: Fewer patients in the Warfarin group reached the primary endpoint (36.0% vs 56.8%, P = 0.013). Four patients in the LMWH group but no patient in the Warfarin group required hospital admission for bleeding-related complications. Cost analysis showed mean cost per patient of anticoagulation with LMWH to be pounds sterling 100.9 (95% CI 94.46-107.30) compared to pounds sterling 10.23 (4.49-15.97) in the Warfarin group (P < 0.0001). Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) was performed prior to ablation in 11 patients in the Warfarin group and in 3 patients in the LMWH (P = 0.019). When TEE costs were included, costs were pounds sterling 125.00 ($188.25) (96.80-153.60) for the LMWH strategy and pounds sterling 108.5 ($163.40) (54.92-162.1) for the Warfarin group (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Catheter ablation of typical AFL without interruption of warfarin appears safer and more cost-effective than periprocedural conversion to LMWH. It could be used as a routine anticoagulation strategy for the ablation of right-sided arrhythmias.