Experiences of implementing the 'Making Every Contact Count' initiative into a UK integrated care system: an interview study.

BACKGROUND: The 'Making Every Contact Count' (MECC) approach is in line with the current National Health Service (NHS) strategy to improve and prevent health conditions in England. Despite its importance and value for preventative healthcare, implementation of MECC varies. The aim of this study was to explore the barriers and facilitators of implementing MECC and MECC training into an integrated care system (ICS). METHODS: Remote semi-structured interviews were conducted with staff across an ICS in the North West of England who were involved in implementing and delivering MECC across the region. Data were analysed initially using an inductive thematic analysis approach and then interpreted using the 'Capability, Opportunity, Motivation = Behaviour' (COM-B) model of behaviour change. RESULTS: We interviewed nine stakeholders and identified three superordinate themes: (1) macro-level barriers and facilitators, e.g. funding; (2) organizational level barriers and facilitators, e.g. time and resource; and (3) individual-level barriers/facilitators for both MECC trainers and MECC agents. CONCLUSIONS: MECC has potential to meet the needs of the public's health, but barriers to its implementation exist. MECC must be successfully embedded into organizations and regions in which it is implemented, which relies on further development of an appropriate infrastructure including sustainable funding and a shift in culture to value preventative healthcare.

Educators' experiences and perspectives of child weight discussions with parents in primary school settings.

BACKGROUND: The role of schools in addressing rising childhood obesity levels has been acknowledged, and numerous diet- and physical activity-related interventions exist. Aside from formal interventions, opportunistic parent-educator conversations about child weight can arise, particularly in primary school settings, yet little is known about how useful these are. This study aimed to understand the utility of child weight related conversations with parents through exploring educators' experiences and perspectives. METHODS: This qualitative study consisted of semi-structured interviews conducted with primary school teaching staff in the United Kingdom (N = 23), recruited through purposive and subsequent snowball sampling. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants identified opportunities and need for child weight discussions in schools. However, conversations were prevented by the indirect and sensitive nature of conversations, and educators' professional identity beliefs. Using pre-existing face-to-face opportunities, good parent-teacher relationships and holistic approaches to child health and wellbeing were reported as important in optimising these conversations. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst educator-parent child weight discussions are necessary, discussions are highly challenging, with contradictory views on responsibility sometimes resulting in avoidance. Educators' roles should be clarified, and communication training tailored to increase teacher confidence and skills. Current social distancing will likely reduce opportunistic encounters, highlighting a need to further improve communication routes.

Managing depression in people with multimorbidity: a qualitative evaluation of an integrated collaborative care model.

BACKGROUND: Patients with comorbid depression and physical health problems have poorer outcomes compared with those with single long term conditions (LTCs), or multiple LTCs without depression. Primary care has traditionally struggled to provide integrated care for this group. Collaborative care can reduce depression in people with LTCs but evidence is largely based on trials conducted in the United States that adopted separate treat to target protocols for physical and mental health. Little is known about whether collaborative care that integrates depression care within the management of LTCs is implementable in UK primary care, and acceptable to patients and health care professionals. METHODS: Nested interview study within the COINCIDE trial of collaborative care for patients with depression and diabetes/CHD (ISRCTN80309252). The study was conducted in primary care practices in North West England. Professionals delivering the interventions (nurses, GPs and psychological well-being practitioners) and patients in the intervention arm were invited to participate in semi-structured qualitative interviews. RESULTS: Based on combined thematic analysis of 59 transcripts, we identified two major themes: 1) Integration: patients and professionals valued collaborative ways of working because it enhanced co-ordination of mental and physical health care and provided a sense that patients' health was being more holistically managed. 2) Division: patients and professionals articulated a preference for therapeutic and spatial separation between mental and physical health. Patients especially valued a separate space outside of their LTC clinic to discuss their emotional health problems. CONCLUSION: The COINCIDE care model, that sought to integrate depression care within the context of LTC management, achieved service level integration but not therapeutic integration. Patients preferred a protected space to discuss mental health issues, and professionals maintained barriers around physical and mental health expertise. Findings therefore suggest that in the context of mental-physical multimorbidity, collaborative care can facilitate access to depression care in ways that overcome stigma and enhance the confidence of multidisciplinary health teams to work together. However, such care models need to be flexible and patient centred to accommodate the needs of patients for whom their depression may be independent of their LTC.