Choosing Healthy Eating for Infant Health (CHErIsH) study: protocol for a feasibility study.

INTRODUCTION: Childhood obesity is a public health challenge. There is evidence for associations between parents' feeding behaviours and childhood obesity risk. Primary care provides a unique opportunity for delivery of infant feeding interventions for childhood obesity prevention. Implementation strategies are needed to support infant feeding intervention delivery. The Choosing Healthy Eating for Infant Health (CHErIsH) intervention is a complex infant feeding intervention delivered at infant vaccination visits, alongside a healthcare professional (HCP)-level implementation strategy to support delivery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol provides a description of a non-randomised feasibility study of an infant feeding intervention and implementation strategy, with an embedded process evaluation and economic evaluation. Intervention participants will be parents of infants aged ≤6 weeks at recruitment, attending a participating HCP in a primary care practice. The intervention will be delivered at the infant's 2, 4, 6, 12 and 13 month vaccination visits and involves brief verbal infant feeding messages and additional resources, including a leaflet, magnet, infant bib and sign-posting to an information website. The implementation strategy encompasses a local opinion leader, HCP training delivered prior to intervention delivery, electronic delivery prompts and additional resources, including a training manual, poster and support from the research team. An embedded mixed-methods process evaluation will examine the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention, the implementation strategy and study processes including data collection. Qualitative interviews will explore parent and HCP experiences and perspectives of delivery and receipt of the intervention and implementation strategy. Self-report surveys will examine fidelity of delivery and receipt, and acceptability, suitability and comprehensiveness of the intervention, implementation strategy and study processes. Data from electronic delivery prompts will also be collected to examine implementation of the intervention. A cost-outcome description will be conducted to measure costs of the intervention and the implementation strategy. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study received approval from the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the Cork Teaching Hospitals. Study findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

Impact of a hospice rapid response service on preferred place of death, and costs.

BACKGROUND: Many people with a terminal illness would prefer to die at home. A new palliative rapid response service (RRS) provided by a large hospice provider in South East England was evaluated (2010) to provide evidence of impact on achieving preferred place of death and costs. The RRS was delivered by a team of trained health care assistants and available 24/7. The purpose of this study was to (i) compare the characteristics of RRS users and non-users, (ii) explore differences in the proportions of users and non-users dying in the place of their choice, (iii) monitor the whole system service utilisation of users and non-users, and compare costs. METHODS: All hospice patients who died with a preferred place of death recorded during an 18 month period were included. Data (demographic, preferences for place of death) were obtained from hospice records. Dying in preferred place was modelled using stepwise logistic regression analysis. Service use data (period between referral to hospice and death) were obtained from general practitioners, community providers, hospitals, social services, hospice, and costs calculated using validated national tariffs. RESULTS: Of 688 patients referred to the hospice when the RRS was operational, 247 (35.9%) used it. Higher proportions of RRS users than non-users lived in their own homes with a co-resident carer (40.3% vs. 23.7%); more non-users lived alone or in residential care (58.8% vs. 76.3%). Chances of dying in the preferred place were enhanced 2.1 times by being a RRS user, compared to a non-user, and 1.5 times by having a co-resident carer, compared to living at home alone or in a care home. Total service costs did not differ between users and non-users, except when referred to hospice very close to death (users had higher costs). CONCLUSIONS: Use of the RRS was associated with increased likelihood of dying in the preferred place. The RRS is cost neutral. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current controlled trials ISRCTN32119670, 22 June 2012.