Understanding the inclusion and participation of adults from Black African Diaspora Communities (BAFDC) in health and care research in the UK: a realist review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: People from Black African Diaspora Communities (BAFDC) experience poorer health outcomes, have many long-term conditions and are persistently under-represented in health and care research. There is limited focus on programmes, or interventions that support inclusion and participation of people from BAFDC in research. Through coproduction, this realist review seeks to provide a programme theory explaining what context and mechanisms may be required, to produce outcomes that facilitate inclusion and participation for people from BAFDC in health and care research, in the UK. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A group of people from BAFDC with lived and professional experience, representing all levels of the health and care research system, will coproduce a realist review with a team of African-Caribbean, white British and white British of Polish origin health and care researchers. They will follow Pawson's five steps: (1) shaping the scope of the review; (2) searching for evidence; (3) document selection and appraisal; (4) data extraction and (5) data synthesis. The coproduction group will help to map the current landscape, identifying key issues that may inhibit or facilitate inclusion. Data will be extracted, analysed and synthesised following realist logic analysis, identifying and explaining how context and mechanisms are conceptualised in the literature and the types of contextual factors that exist and impact on inclusion and participation. Findings will be reported in accordance with Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis Evolving Standards . ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The coproduction group will agree an ethical approach considering accountability, responsibility and power dynamics, by establishing a terms of reference, taking a reflexive approach and coproducing an ethical framework. Findings will be disseminated to BAFDC and the research community through arts-based methods, peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations, agreeing a coproduced strategy for dissemination. Ethical review is not required. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024517124.

Tools for primary care patient safety: a narrative review.

BACKGROUND: Patient safety in primary care is a developing field with an embryonic but evolving evidence base. This narrative review aims to identify tools that can be used by family practitioners as part of a patient safety toolkit to improve the safety of the care and services provided by their practices. METHODS: Searches were performed in 6 healthcare databases in 2011 using 3 search stems; location (primary care), patient safety synonyms and outcome measure synonyms. Two reviewers analysed the results using a numerical and thematic analyses. Extensive grey literature exploration was also conducted. RESULTS: Overall, 114 Tools were identified with 26 accrued from grey literature. Most published literature originated from the USA (41%) and the UK (23%) within the last 10 years. Most of the literature addresses the themes of medication error (55%) followed by safety climate (8%) and adverse event reporting (8%). Minor themes included; informatics (4.5%) patient role (3%) and general measures to correct error (5%). The primary/secondary care interface is well described (5%) but few specific tools for primary care exist. Diagnostic error and results handling appear infrequently (<1% of total literature) despite their relative importance. The remainder of literature (11%) related to referrals, Out-Of-Hours (OOH) care, telephone care, organisational issues, mortality and clerical error. CONCLUSIONS: This review identified tools and indicators that are available for use in family practice to measure patient safety, which is crucial to improve safety and design a patient safety toolkit. However, many of the tools have yet to be used in quality improvement strategies and cycles such as plan-do-study-act (PDSA) so there is a dearth of evidence of their utility in improving as opposed to measuring and highlighting safety issues. The lack of focus on diagnostics, systems safety and results handling provide direction and priorities for future research.

Development of prescribing-safety indicators for GPs using the RAND Appropriateness Method.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, a process of revalidation is being introduced to allow doctors to demonstrate that they meet current professional standards, are up-to-date, and fit to practise. Given the serious risks to patients from hazardous use of medicines it will be appropriate, as part of the revalidation process, to assess the safety of prescribing by GPs. AIM: To identify a set of potential prescribing-safety indicators for the purposes of revalidation of individual GPs in the UK. DESIGN AND SETTING: The RAND Appropriateness Method was used to identify, develop, and obtain agreement on the indicators in UK general practice. METHOD: Twelve GPs from across the UK with a wide variety of characteristics assessed indicators for appropriateness of use in revalidation. RESULTS: Forty-seven safety indicators were considered appropriate for assessing the prescribing safety of individual GPs for the purposes of revalidation (appropriateness was defined as an overall panel median score of ≥ 7 (on a 1-9 scale), with no more than three panel members rating the indicator outside the 3-point distribution around the median]. After removing indicators that were variations on the same theme, a final set of 34 indicators was obtained; these cover hazardous prescribing across a range of therapeutic areas, hazardous drug-drug combinations, prescribing with a history of allergy, and inadequate laboratory-test monitoring. CONCLUSION: This study identified a set of 34 indicators that were considered, by a panel of 12 GPs, to be appropriate for use in assessing the safety of GP prescribing for the purposes of revalidation. Violation of any of the 34 indicators indicates a potential patient-safety problem.

Role-playing simulation as an educational tool for health care personnel: developing an embedded assessment framework.

Simulation- and video game-based role-playing techniques have been proven effective in changing behavior and enhancing positive decision making in a variety of professional settings, including education, the military, and health care. Although the need for developing assessment frameworks for learning outcomes has been clearly defined, there is a significant gap between the variety of existing multimedia-based instruction and technology-mediated learning systems and the number of reliable assessment algorithms. This study, based on a mixed methodology research design, aims to develop an embedded assessment algorithm, a Knowledge Assessment Module (NOTE), to capture both user interaction with the educational tool and knowledge gained from the training. The study is regarded as the first step in developing an assessment framework for a multimedia educational tool for health care professionals, Anatomy of Care (AOC), that utilizes Virtual Experience Immersive Learning Simulation (VEILS) technology. Ninety health care personnel of various backgrounds took part in online AOC training, choosing from five possible scenarios presenting difficult situations of everyday care. The results suggest that although the simulation-based training tool demonstrated partial effectiveness in improving learners' decision-making capacity, a differential learner-oriented approach might be more effective and capable of synchronizing educational efforts with identifiable relevant individual factors such as sociobehavioral profile and professional background.

Evaluating water quality investments using cost utility analysis.

This study borrows concepts from healthcare economics and uses cost utility analysis (CUA) to select an optimum portfolio of water quality enhancement projects in Perth, Western Australia. In CUA, costs are handled via standard discounted cash flow analysis, but the benefits, being intangible, are measured with a utility score. Our novel methodology combines CUA with a binary combinatorial optimisation solver, known as a 'knapsack algorithm', to identify the optimum portfolio of projects. We show how water quality projects can be selected to maximise an aggregate utility score while not exceeding a budget constraint. Our CUA model applies compromise programming (CP) to measure utility over multiple attributes in different units. CUA is shown to provide a transparent and analytically robust method to maximise benefits from water quality remediation investments under a constrained budget.