Identification and prioritisation of items for a draft participant-reported questionnaire to measure use of social care, informal care, aids and adaptations.

BACKGROUND: Resource-use measurement is integral for assessing cost-effectiveness within trial-based economic evaluations. Methods for gathering resource-use data from participants are not well developed, with questionnaires typically produced for each trial and rarely validated. The healthcare module of a generic, modular resource-use measure, designed for collecting self-report resource-utilisation data, has recently been developed in the UK. The objective of this research is to identify and prioritise items for new, bolt-on modules, covering informal care, social care and personal expenses incurred due to health and care needs. METHODS: Identification and prioritisation, conducted between April and December 2021, involved a rapid review of questionnaires included in the Database of Instruments for Resource Use Measurement and economic evaluations published from 2011 to 2021 to identify candidate items, an online survey of UK-based social care professionals to identify omitted social care items and focus groups with UK-based health economists and UK-based people who access social care services either for themselves or as carers to prioritise items. RESULTS: The review identified 203 items. Over half of the 24 survey respondents reported no missing items. Five academic health economists and four people who access social care services participated in focus groups. Feedback shaped the social and informal care modules and indicated that no specific personal expenses were essential to collect in all trials. Aids/adaptations were highlighted as costly personal expenses when relevant; therefore, the personal expenses module was narrowed to aids/adaptations only. CONCLUSION: Draft informal care, social care and aids/adaptations modules were developed, ready for further testing.

General practitioners and emergency departments (GPED)-efficient models of care: a mixed-methods study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Pressure continues to grow on emergency departments in the UK and throughout the world, with declining performance and adverse effects on patient outcome, safety and experience. One proposed solution is to locate general practitioners to work in or alongside the emergency department (GPED). Several GPED models have been introduced, however, evidence of effectiveness is weak. This study aims to evaluate the impact of GPED on patient care, the primary care and acute hospital team and the wider urgent care system. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study will be divided into three work packages (WPs). WP-A; Mapping and Taxonomy: mapping, description and classification of current models of GPED in all emergency departments in England and interviews with key informants to examine the hypotheses that underpin GPED. WP-B; Quantitative Analysis of National Data: measurement of the effectiveness, costs and consequences of the GPED models identified in WP-A, compared with a no-GPED model, using retrospective analysis of Hospital Episode Statistics Data. WP-C; Case Studies: detailed case studies of different GPED models using a mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods including: non-participant observation of clinical care, semistructured interviews with staff, patients and carers; workforce surveys with emergency department staff and analysis of available local routinely collected hospital data. Prospective case study sites will be identified by completing telephone interviews with sites awarded capital funding by the UK government to implement GPED initiatives. The study has a strong patient and public involvement group that has contributed to study design and materials, and which will be closely involved in data interpretation and dissemination. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the National Health Service East Midlands-Leicester South Research Ethics Committee: 17/EM/0312. The results of the study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conferences and a planned programme of knowledge mobilisation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN51780222.

A multisite Canadian study of outcome of first-episode psychosis treated in publicly funded early intervention services.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine 1-year symptomatic outcome and its predictors in patients with FEP treated at 3 different publicly funded sites. METHOD: We evaluated FEP patients (n = 172) treated in specialized programs in 2 medium-sized centres and 1 large urban centre with an identical protocol for demographic variables, diagnosis, and duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) at entry, and positive, negative, and general psychopathology symptoms at entry, 6 months, and 1 year. We used a mixed model analysis of variance, with time and centre and interaction between time and centre as fixed effects and sex and DUP as covariates, to analyze data. RESULTS: A significant effect of time and time x centre interaction on positive, negative, and general symptom outcome was shown after controlling for ethnicity, education, and diagnosis. Patients showed significantly better outcome on all dimensions of symptoms in the 2 medium-sized centres, compared with the 1 large urban centre. Sex had a significant effect on negative and general symptoms, while DUP had no effect on any outcome measure. CONCLUSIONS: Similarly enriched EI services may produce different outcomes, even within a relatively homogeneous mental health system.