Exploring advanced clinical practitioner perspectives on training, role identity and competence: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Advanced Clinical Practitioners (ACPs) are a new role that have been established to address gaps and support the existing medical workforce in an effort to help reduce increasing pressures on NHS services. ACPs have the potential to practice at a similar level to mid-grade medical staff, for example independently undertaking assessments, requesting and interpreting investigations, and diagnosing and discharging patients. These roles have been shown to improve both service outcomes and quality of patient care. However, there is currently no widespread formalised standard of training within the UK resulting in variations in the training experiences and clinical capabilities of ACPs. We sought to explore the training experiences of ACPs as well as their views on role identity and future development of the role. METHODS: Five online focus groups were conducted between March and May 2021 with trainee and qualified advanced clinical practitioners working in a range of healthcare settings, in the North of England. The focus groups aimed to explore the experiences of undertaking ACP training including supervision, gaining competence, role identity and career progression. Thematic analysis of the focus group transcripts was performed, informed by grounded theory principles. RESULTS: Fourteen advanced clinical practitioners participated. Analysis revealed that training was influenced by internal and external perceptions of the role, often acting as barriers, with structural aspects being significant contributory factors. Key themes identified (1) clinical training lacked structure and support, negatively impacting progress, (2) existing knowledge and experience acted as both an enabler and inhibitor, with implications for confidence, (3) the role and responsibilities are poorly understood by both advanced clinical practitioners and the wider medical profession and (4) advanced clinical practitioners recognised the value and importance of the role but felt changes were necessary, to provide security and sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate structure and support are crucial throughout the training process to enable staff to have a smooth transition to advanced level, ensuring they obtain the necessary confidence and competence. Structural changes and knowledge brokering are essential, particularly in relation to role clarity and its responsibilities, sufficient allocated time to learn and practice, role accreditation and continuous appropriate supervision.

What does the ideal urgent and emergency care system look like? A qualitative study of service user perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Policies aimed at diverting care from EDs to alternative services have not been successful in reducing ED attendances and have contributed to confusion for service users when making care-seeking decisions. It is important that service users are at the heart of decision making to ensure new services meet the needs of those who will be accessing them. In this study, service users were encouraged to think freely about the desirable qualities of an ideal urgent and emergency care (UEC) system. METHODS: From September to February 2019, an open inductive methodology was used to conduct focus groups with service users who had used UK UEC services within the previous year. Service users that had contact with NHS111, ambulance service, General Practice out-of-hours, minor injuries unit, walk-in centre or ED were purposively sampled and stratified into the following groups: (1) 18-45 years; (2)≥75 years; (3) adults with young children; (4) adults with long-term conditions. Focus groups were structured around experiences of accessing UEC services and perspectives of an 'ideal' UEC system. RESULTS: 30 service users took part in the study, across four focus groups. The ideal UEC system centred around three themes: a simplified UEC system (easier to understand and a single-point of access); more 'joined-up' UEC services and better communication between health staff and patients. CONCLUSION: Desirable qualities of an ideal UEC system from a service user perspective related to simplifying access for example, through a single point of access system where health professionals decide the appropriate service required and improving continuity of care through better integration of UEC services. Service users value reassurance and communication from health professionals about care pathways and care choices, and this helps service users feel more in control of their healthcare journey.

Risk of significant traumatic brain injury in adults with minor head injury taking direct oral anticoagulants: a cohort study and updated meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients taking direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) commonly undergo CT head imaging after minor head injury, regardless of symptoms or signs. However, the risk of intracranial haemorrhage (ICH) in such patients is unclear, and further research has been recommended by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence head injury guideline group. METHODS: An observational cohort study was performed in the UK South Yorkshire major trauma centre between 26 June and 3 September 2018. Adult patients taking DOACs with minor head injury were prospectively identified, with case ascertainment supplemented by screening of radiology and ED information technology systems. Clinical and outcome data were subsequently collated from patient records. The primary endpoint was adverse outcome within 30 days, comprising: neurosurgery, ICH or death due to head injury. A previously published meta-analysis was updated with the current results and the findings of other recent studies. RESULTS: 148 patients with minor head injury were included (GCS 15, n=107, 72%; GCS 14, n=41, 28%). Patients were elderly (median 82 years) and most frequently injured from ground level falls (n=142, 96%). Overall risk of adverse outcome was 3.4% (5/148, 95% CI 1.4% to 8.0%). Five patients had ICH, of whom one died within 30 days. One patient was treated with prothrombin complex concentrate but no patient received critical care management or underwent neurosurgical intervention. Updated random effects meta-analysis, including the current results and two further recent studies, showed a weighted overall risk of adverse outcome of 3.2% (n=29/787, 95% CI 2.0% to 4.4%). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of adverse outcome following mild head injury in patients taking DOACs appears low. These findings would support shared patient-clinician decision making, rather than routine imaging, following minor head injury while taking DOACs.

Understanding the management of patients with head injury taking warfarin: who should we scan and when? Lessons from the AHEAD study.

Anticoagulated patients represent an important and increasing proportion of the patients with head trauma attending the ED, but there is no international consensus for their appropriate investigation and management. International guidelines vary and are largely based on a small number of studies, which provide poor-quality evidence for the management of patients taking warfarin. This article provides an overview of the clinical research evidence for CT scanning head-injured patients taking warfarin and a discussion of interpretation of risk and acceptable risk. We aim to provide shop floor clinicians with an understanding of the limitations of the evidence in this field and the limitations of applying 'one-size-fits-all' guidelines to individual patients. There is good evidence for a more selective scanning approach to patients with head injuries taking warfarin than is currently recommended by most guidelines. Specifically, patients without any head injury-related symptoms and GCS score 15 have a reduced risk of adverse outcome and may not need to be scanned. We argue that there is evidence to support an individualised approach to decision to CT scan in mild head injuries on warfarin and that clinicians should feel able to discuss risks with patients and sometimes decide not to scan.

Why is it so difficult to recruit patients to research in emergency care? Lessons from the AHEAD study.

INTRODUCTION: In February 2014, all 23 National Institute for Health Research medical research specialities were failing to meet recruitment targets, with 'Injuries and Emergencies' research performing particularly poorly. In this paper, the multicentre AHEAD study was used to explore issues surrounding recruitment in UK emergency departments. METHOD: The AHEAD study investigated management and outcomes in over 3000 anticoagulated patients who suffered a head injury. Data from the study were used to compare patient recruitment at 33 Type-1 emergency departments. A questionnaire was sent to a research nurse at each of these sites and 30 replied (91% response rate). The survey investigated the difficulties encountered during patient recruitment and whether these were related to recruitment methods. More detailed interviews were conducted with three research nurses, to gain further insight into the barriers and facilitators involved. RESULTS: Overall recruitment varied widely between sites with an eightfold variation in recruitment rates. Population demographics and other uncontrollable factors will partly contribute to this variation. However, research nurses reported many problems, including site resources, lack of staff engagement and flaws in recruitment strategies, which could be improved. CONCLUSIONS: Many of the barriers to recruiting patients for research studies encountered by research nurses have previously been reported in the literature, but there remain consistent problems. Until solutions are found, researchers will continue to miss recruitment targets and this will have implications for the efficiency and quality of emergency medicine research in the UK.

The impact of senior doctor assessment at triage on emergency department performance measures: systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.

STUDY QUESTION: To determine if placing a senior doctor at triage versus standard single nurse in a hospital emergency department (ED) improves ED performance by reviewing evidence from comparative design studies using several quality indicators. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC), Web of Science, Clinical Trials Registry website. In addition, references from included studies and citation searches were used to identify relevant studies. REVIEW METHODS: Databases were searched for comparative studies examining the role of senior doctor triage (SDT), published from 1994 to 2014. Senior doctor was defined as a qualified medical doctor who completed high specialty training in emergency medicine. Articles with a primary aim to investigate the effect of SDT on ED quality indicators such as waiting time (WT), length of stay (LOS), left without being seen (LWBS) and left without treatment complete (LWTC) were included. Articles examining the adverse events and cost associated with SDT were also included. Only studies with a control group, either in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) or in an observational study with historical controls, were included. The systematic literature search was followed by assessment of relevance and risk of bias in each individual study fulfilling the inclusion criteria using the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) bias tool. Data extraction was based on a form designed and piloted by the authors for dichotomous and continuous data. DATA SYNTHESIS: Narrative synthesis and meta-analysis of homogenous data were performed. RESULTS: Of 4506 articles identified, 25 relevant studies were retrieved; 12 were of the weak pre-post study design, 9 were of moderate quality and 4 were of strong quality. The majority of the studies revealed improvements in ED performance measures favouring SDT. Pooled results from two Canadian RCTs showed a significant reduction in LOS of medium acuity patients (weighted means difference (WMD) -26.26 min, 95% CI -38.50 to -14.01). Another two RCTs revealed a significant reduction in WT (WMD -26.17 min, 95% CI -31.68 to -20.65). LWBS was reduced in two Canadian RCTs (risk ratio (RR)=0.79, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.94). This was echoed by the majority of pre-post study designs. SDT did not change the occurrence of adverse events. No clear benefit of SDT in terms of patient satisfaction or cost effectiveness could be identified. CONCLUSIONS: This review demonstrates that SDT can be an effective measure to enhance ED performance, although cost versus benefit analysis is needed. The potential high risk of bias in the evidence identified, however, mandates more robust multicentred studies to confirm these findings.

Creating a Real-World Linked Research Platform for Analyzing the Urgent and Emergency Care System.

BACKGROUND: This article describes the development of a system-based data platform for research developed to provide a detailed picture of the characteristics of the Urgent and Emergency Care system in 1 region of the United Kingdom. DATA SET DEVELOPMENT: CUREd is an integrated research data platform that describes the urgent and emergency care system in 1 region of the United Kingdom on almost 30 million patient contacts within the system. We describe regulatory approvals required, data acquisition, cleaning, and linkage. DATA SET ANALYSES: The data platform covers 2011 to 2017 for 14 acute National Health Service (NHS) Hospital Trusts, 1 ambulance service, the national telephone advice service (NHS 111), and 19 emergency departments. We describe 3 analyses undertaken: 1) Analyzing triage patterns from the NHS 111 telephone helpline using routine data linked to other urgent care services, we found that the current triage algorithms have high rates of misclassifying calls. 2) Applying an algorithm to consistently identify avoidable attendances for pediatric patients, we identified 21% of pediatric attendances to the emergency department as avoidable. 3) Using complex systems analysis to examine patterns of frequent attendance in urgent care, we found that frequent attendance is stable over time but varies by individual patient. This implies that frequent attendance is more likely to be a function of the system overall. DISCUSSION: We describe the processes necessary to produce research-ready data that link care across the components of the urgent and emergency care system. Making the use of routine data commonplace will require partnership between the collectors, owners, and guardians of the data and researchers and technical teams. HIGHLIGHTS: This article describes the development of a system-level data platform for research using routine patient-level data from the urgent and emergency care system in 1 region of the United Kingdom.The article describes how the data were acquired, cleaned, and linked and the challenges faced when undertaking analysis with the data.The data set has been used to understand patient use of the system, journeys once in the system, and outcomes following its use, for example, patterns of frequent use within urgent care and accuracy of referral decisions within the system.

AHEAD Study: an observational study of the management of anticoagulated patients who suffer head injury.

OBJECTIVES: Management of anticoagulated patients after head injury is unclear due to lack of robust evidence. This study aimed to determine the adverse outcome rate in these patients and identify risk factors associated with poor outcome. DESIGN: Multicentre, observational study using routine patient records. SETTING: 33 emergency departments in England and Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: 3566 adults (aged ≥16 years) who had suffered blunt head injury and were currently taking warfarin. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measure was rate of adverse outcome defined as death or neurosurgery following initial injury, clinically significant CT scan finding or reattendance with related complication within 10 weeks of initial hospital attendance. Secondary objectives included identifying risk factors for adverse outcome using univariable and multivariable analyses. RESULTS: Clinical data available for 3534/3566 patients (99.1%), median age 79 years; mean initial international normalised ratio (INR) 2.67 (SD 1.34); 81.2% Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) 15: 59.8% received a CT scan with significant head injury-related finding in 5.4% (n=208); 0.5% underwent neurosurgery; 1.2% patients suffered a head injury-related death. Overall adverse outcome rate was 5.9% (95% CI 5.2% to 6.7%). Patients with GCS=15 and no associated symptoms had lowest risk of adverse outcome (risk 2.7%; 95% CI 2.1 to 3.6). Patients with GCS=15 multivariable analysis (using imputation) found risk of adverse outcome to increase when reporting at least one associated symptom: vomiting (relative risk (RR) 1.8; 95% CI 1.0 to 3.4), amnesia (RR 3.5; 95% CI 2.1 to 5.7), headache (RR 1.3; 95% CI 0.8 to 2.2), loss of consciousness (RR 1.75; 95% CI 1.0 to 3.0). INR measurement did not predict adverse outcome in patients with GCS=15 (RR 1.1; 95% CI 1.0 to 1.2). CONCLUSIONS: In alert warfarinised patients following head injury, the presence of symptoms is associated with greater risk of adverse outcome. Those with GCS=15 and no symptoms are a substantial group and have a low risk of adverse outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02461498.

Should all anticoagulated patients with head injury receive a CT scan? Decision-analysis modelling of an observational cohort.

OBJECTIVES: It is not currently clear whether all anticoagulated patients with a head injury should receive CT scanning or only those with evidence of traumatic brain injury (eg, loss of consciousness or amnesia). We aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of CT for all compared with selective CT use for anticoagulated patients with a head injury. DESIGN: Decision-analysis modelling of data from a multicentre observational study. SETTING: 33 emergency departments in England and Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: 3566 adults (aged ≥16 years) who had suffered blunt head injury, were taking warfarin and underwent selective CT scanning. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Estimated expected benefits in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were the entire cohort to receive a CT scan; estimated increased costs of CT and also the potential cost implications associated with patient survival and improved health. These values were used to estimate the cost per QALY of implementing a strategy of CT for all patients compared with observed practice based on guidelines recommending selective CT use. RESULTS: Of the 1420 of 3534 patients (40%) who did not receive a CT scan, 7 (0.5%) suffered a potentially avoidable head injury-related adverse outcome. If CT scanning had been performed in all patients, appropriate treatment could have gained 3.41 additional QALYs but would have incurred £193 149 additional treatment costs and £130 683 additional CT costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £94 895/QALY gained for unselective compared with selective CT use is markedly above the threshold of £20-30 000/QALY used by the UK National Institute for Care Excellence to determine cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: CT scanning for all anticoagulated patients with head injury is not cost-effective compared with selective use of CT scanning based on guidelines recommending scanning only for those with evidence of traumatic brain injury. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT 02461498.