Enhancing the health of NHS staff: eTHOS - protocol for a randomised controlled pilot trial of an employee health screening clinic for NHS staff to reduce absenteeism and presenteeism, compared with usual care.

BACKGROUND: Staff absenteeism and presenteeism incur high costs to the NHS and are associated with adverse health outcomes. The main causes are musculoskeletal complaints and mental ill-health, which are potentially modifiable, and cardiovascular risk factors are also common. We will test the feasibility of an RCT to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an employee health screening clinic on reducing sickness absenteeism and presenteeism. METHODS: This is an individually randomised controlled pilot trial aiming to recruit 480 participants. All previously unscreened employees from four hospitals within three UK NHS hospital Trusts will be eligible. Those randomised to the intervention arm will be invited to attend an employee health screening clinic consisting of a screening assessment for musculoskeletal (STarT MSK and STarT Back), mental (PHQ-9 and GAD-7) and cardiovascular (NHS Health Check if aged ≥ 40, lifestyle check if < 40 years) health. Screen positives will be given advice and/or referral to recommended services. Those randomised to the control arm will receive usual care. Participants will complete a questionnaire at baseline and 26 weeks; anonymised absenteeism and staff demographics will also be collected from personnel records. The co-primary outcomes are as follows: recruitment, referrals and uptake of recommended services in the intervention arm. Secondary outcomes include the following: results of screening assessments, uptake of individual referrals, reported changes in health behaviours, acceptability and feasibility of intervention, indication of contamination and costs. Outcomes related to the definitive trial include self-reported and employee records of absenteeism with reasons. Process evaluation to inform a future trial includes interviews with participants, intervention delivery staff and service providers receiving referrals. Analyses will include presentation of descriptive statistics, framework analysis for qualitative data and costs and consequences presented for health economics. DISCUSSION: The study will provide data to inform the design of a definitive RCT which aims to find an effective and cost-effective method of reducing absenteeism and presenteeism amongst NHS staff. The feasibility study will test trial procedures, and process outcomes, including the success of strategies for including underserved groups, and provide information and data to help inform the design and sample size for a definitive trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN reference number 10237475 .

Core Items for a Standardized Resource Use Measure: Expert Delphi Consensus Survey.

BACKGROUND: Resource use measurement by patient recall is characterized by inconsistent methods and a lack of validation. A validated standardized resource use measure could increase data quality, improve comparability between studies, and reduce research burden. OBJECTIVES: To identify a minimum set of core resource use items that should be included in a standardized adult instrument for UK health economic evaluation from a provider perspective. METHODS: Health economists with experience of UK-based economic evaluations were recruited to participate in an electronic Delphi survey. Respondents were asked to rate 60 resource use items (e.g., medication names) on a scale of 1 to 9 according to the importance of the item in a generic context. Items considered less important according to predefined consensus criteria were dropped and a second survey was developed. In the second round, respondents received the median score and their own score from round 1 for each item alongside summarized comments and were asked to rerate items. A final project team meeting was held to determine the recommended core set. RESULTS: Forty-five participants completed round 1. Twenty-six items were considered less important and were dropped, 34 items were retained for the second round, and no new items were added. Forty-two respondents (93.3%) completed round 2, and greater consensus was observed. After the final meeting, 10 core items were selected, with further items identified as suitable for "bolt-on" questionnaire modules. CONCLUSIONS: The consensus on 10 items considered important in a generic context suggests that a standardized instrument for core resource use items is feasible.

Written reflection in assessment and appraisal: GP and GP trainee views.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, evidence of written reflection is part of licensing and revalidation for general practitioners (GPs). However, there is little evidence of specific benefits compared to other forms of reflective practice. AIM: To seek GPs' and general practice (GP) trainees' views on the role of written reflection in learning and assessment. DESIGN AND SETTING: An online survey of 1005 GPs and GP trainees (GPTs) in the UK. METHOD: An anonymous questionnaire containing 38 attitudinal items was administered. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse Likert scale responses, thematic analysis for free-text responses. RESULTS: In total 544 GPs and 461 GPTs completed the survey, with 842 (83.8%) agreeing they find verbal reflection with a colleague more useful than written reflection. Three quarters disagreed that written reflection is a way of identifying poorly performing GPs. Over 70% of respondents stated that summative, written reflection is a time-consuming, box-ticking exercise which distracts from other learning. They question its validity as part of assessment and state that its use may contribute to current difficulties with recruitment and retention to GP. CONCLUSIONS: For many GPs, written reflection is an onerous process rather than beneficial to their learning, indicating its continued use in assessment needs to be critically examined.

The provision of NHS health checks in a community setting: an ethnographic account.

BACKGROUND: The UK National Health Service Health Checks programme aims to reduce avoidable cardiovascular deaths, disability and health inequalities in England. However, due to the reported lower uptake of screening in specific black and minority ethnic communities who are recognised as being more at risk of cardiovascular disease, there are concerns that NHS Health Checks may increase inequalities in health. This study aimed to examine the feasibility and acceptability of community outreach NHS Health Checks targeted at the Afro-Caribbean community. METHODS: This paper reports findings from an ethnographic study including direct observation of four outreach events in four different community venues in inner-city Bristol, England and follow up semi-structured interviews with attendees (n = 16) and staff (n = 4). Interviews and field notes were transcribed, anonymized and analysed thematically using a process of constant comparison. RESULTS: Analysis revealed the value of community assets (community engagement workers, churches, and community centres) to publicise the event and engage community members. People were motivated to attend for preventative reasons, often prompted by familial experience of cardiovascular disease. Attendees valued outreach NHS Health Checks, reinforcing or prompting some to make healthy lifestyle changes. The NHS Health Check provided an opportunity for attendees to raise other health concerns with health staff and to discuss their test results with peers. For some participants, the communication of test results, risk and lifestyle information was confusing and unwelcome. The findings additionally highlight the need to ensure community venues are fit for purpose in terms of assuring confidentiality. CONCLUSIONS: Outreach events provide evidence of how local health partnerships (family practice staff and health trainers) and community assets, including informal networks, can enhance the delivery of outreach NHS Health Checks and in promoting the health of targeted communities. To deliver NHS Health Checks effectively, the location and timing of events needs to be carefully considered and staff need to be provided with the appropriate training to ensure patients are supported and enabled to make lifestyle changes.

Solicitations in GP, nurse and pharmacist prescriber consultations: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: The opening solicitation is a key element of the primary care consultation as it enables patients to express their ideas, concerns and expectations that can lead to improved patient outcomes. However, in practice, this may not always occur. With nurses and pharmacists now able to prescribe, this research explored the opening solicitation in a multi-professional context. OBJECTIVE: To compare the nature, frequency and response to opening solicitations used in consultations with nurse prescribers (NPs), pharmacist prescribers (PPs) and GPs. METHODS: An observational study using audio-recordings of NP, PP and GP patient consultations in 36 primary care practices in southern England. Between 7-13 prescriber-patient consultations were recorded per prescriber. A standardized pro forma based upon previous research was used to assess recordings. RESULTS: Five hundred and thirty-three patient consultations (213 GPs, 209 NPs, 111 PPs) were audio-recorded with 51 prescribers. Across the prescribing groups, pharmacists asked fewer opening solicitations, while GPs used more open questions than NPs and PPs. The mean number of patient agenda items was 1.3 with more items in GP consultations. Patients completed their opening agenda in 20% of consultations, which was unaffected by professional seen. Redirection of the patient's agenda occurred at 24 seconds (mean). CONCLUSION: All prescribers should be encouraged to use more open questions and ask multiple solicitations throughout the consultation. This is likely to result in greater expression of patients' concerns and improved patient outcomes.