Implementation fidelity of the Falls Management Exercise Programme: a mixed methods analysis using a conceptual framework for implementation fidelity.

OBJECTIVES: Falls in older adults cause significant morbidity and mortality and incur cost to health and care services. The Falls Management Exercise (FaME) programme is a 24-week intervention for older adults that, in clinical trials, improves balance and functional strength and leads to fewer falls. Similar but more modest outcomes have been found when FaME is delivered in routine practice. Understanding the degree to which the programme is delivered with fidelity is important if 'real-world' delivery of FaME is to achieve the same magnitude of outcome as in clinical trials. The objective of this study was to examine the implementation fidelity of FaME when delivered in the community to inform quality improvement strategies that maximise programme effectiveness. STUDY DESIGN: A mixed methods implementation study of FaME programme delivery. METHODS: Data from programme registers, expert observations of FaME classes, and semistructured interviews with FaME instructors were triangulated using a conceptual framework for implementation fidelity. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: In total, 356 participants enrolled on 29 FaME programmes, and 143 (40%) participants completed at least 75% of the classes within a programme. Observations showed that 72%-78% of programme content was delivered, and 80%-84% quality criteria were met. Important content that was most often left out included home exercises, Tai Chi moves, and floor work, whereas quality items most frequently missed out included asking about falls in the previous week, following up attendance absence and explaining the purpose of exercises. Only 24% of class participants made the expected strength training progression. Interviews with FaME instructors helped explain why elements of programme content and quality were not delivered. Strategies for improving FaME delivery were established and helped to maintain quality and fidelity. CONCLUSIONS: FaME programmes delivered in the 'real world' can be implemented with a high degree of fidelity, although important deviations were found. Facilitation strategies could be used to further improve programme fidelity and maximise participant outcomes.

What can trauma patients' experiences and perspectives tell us about the perceived quality of trauma care? a qualitative study set within the UK National Health Service.

The global drive for improvements in the efficiency and quality of healthcare has led to the development of frameworks to assist in defining and measuring 'good quality care'. However, such frameworks lack a systematic or meaningful definition of what 'good quality care' means from the patients' perspective. The present research provides an in-depth analysis of patients' experiences in a hospital setting from a quality of care perspective. Forty-five adults (aged 16-70) hospitalised in one of four UK NHS trusts following an unintentional injury were interviewed about their experiences of care. The findings show variability in perceived quality of care within the same hospital episode which cannot be meaningfully captured by existing frameworks. The context of trauma care (e.g. distressing nature of injury, patient vulnerability, expectations of hospitalisation and participants' interaction with different service providers) defined the care experience and the value of being 'cared for'. Participants identified some aspects of good and care which related to holistic, person-centred and personalised care beyond the medical needs. Participants discussed the value of being understood, staff thinking of their needs beyond hospitalisation, staff trying 'their best' despite constrains of current care, having their emotional needs recognised and addressed and staff competence. Patients reported also poor quality of care and 'not being cared for' by specific staff groups which they expected to fulfil this role, rushed and unsympathetic care, lack of recognition for emotional impact of injury mapped onto existing quality frameworks e.g. safety, equity, accessibility and patient-centeredness as well as quality of interaction with providers, empathetic care which extended beyond medical needs, coordination of care, and the positivity of care delivery as important dimensions of quality care with implications for their recovery. The findings have implications for quality frameworks and theoretical definitions of quality of care; they demonstrate the importance of patient experience in addition to clinical effectiveness and safety as an essential dimension of quality care. In terms of practice, the findings support the need to incorporate knowledge and training of injured adults' psychological needs, and the value of interaction with professionals as a patient defined dimension of the quality of care.

Injury prevention training: a cluster randomised controlled trial assessing its effect on the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of midwives and health visitors.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of injury prevention training. DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Primary care facilities in the East Midlands area of the United Kingdom. SUBJECTS: Midwives and health visitors. INTERVENTION: Evidence based training session on the risks associated with baby walkers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measures were knowledge of baby walker use and walker related injury, attitudes towards walkers and towards walker education, and practices relating to walker health education. RESULTS: Trained midwives and health visitors had greater knowledge of the risks associated with baby walkers than untrained midwives and health visitors (difference between the means 0.22; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 0.33). Trained health visitors had more negative attitudes to baby walkers (difference between the means 0.35; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.59) and more positive attitudes towards baby walker health education (difference between the means 0.31; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.62) than untrained health visitors. Midwives who had been trained were more likely to discuss baby walkers in the antenatal period than those who were not trained (odds ratio 9.92; 95% CI 2.02 to 48.83). CONCLUSIONS: Injury prevention training was associated with increased knowledge, more negative attitudes towards walkers, and more positive attitudes towards walker education. Trained midwives were more likely to give advice antenatally. Training did not impact on other practices. Larger trials are required to assess the impact of training on parental safety behaviours, the adoption of safety practices, and injury reduction.

The role of radiography in primary care patients with low back pain of at least 6 weeks duration: a randomised (unblinded) controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To test the hypotheses that: (1) Lumbar spine radiography in primary care patients with low back pain is not associated with improved patient outcomes, including pain, disability, health status, sickness absence, reassurance, and patient satisfaction or belief in the value of radiography. (2) Lumbar spine radiography in primary care patients with low back pain is not associated with changes in patient management, including medication use, and the use of primary and secondary care services, physical therapies and complementary therapies. (3) Participants choosing their treatment group (i.e. radiography or no radiography) do not have better outcomes than those randomised to a treatment group. (4) Lumbar spine radiography is not cost-effective compared with usual care without lumbar spine radiography. DESIGN: A randomised unblinded controlled trial. SETTING: Seventy-three general practices in Nottingham, North Nottinghamshire, Southern Derbyshire, North Lincolnshire and North Leicestershire. Fifty-two practices recruited participants to the trial. SUBJECTS: Randomised arm: 421 participants with low back pain, with median duration of 10 weeks. Patient preference arm: 55 participants with low back pain, with median duration of 11 weeks. INTERVENTION: Lumbar spine radiography and usual care versus usual care without radiography. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Roland adaptation of the Sickness Impact Profile, visual analogue pain scale, health status scale, EuroQol, use of primary and secondary care services, and physical and complementary therapies, sickness absence, medication use, patient satisfaction, reassurance and belief in value of radiography at 3 and 9 months post-randomisation. RESULTS: Participants randomised to receive an X-ray were more likely to report low back pain at 3 months (odds ratio (OR) = 1.56; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.02 to 2.40) and had a lower overall health status score (p = 0.02). There were no differences in health or functional status at 9 months. A higher proportion of participants consulted the general practitioner (GP) in the 3 months following an X-ray (OR = 2.72; 95% CI, 1.80 to 4.10). There were no differences in use of any other services, medication use or sickness absence at 3 or 9 months. No serious spinal pathology was identified in either group. The commonest X-ray reports were of discovertebral degeneration and normal findings. Many patients did not perceive their information needs were met within the consultation. Satisfaction with care was greater in the group receiving radiography at 9 months. Participants randomised to receive an X-ray were not less worried, or more reassured about serious disease causing their low back pain. Satisfaction was associated with meeting participants' information needs and reduced belief in the necessity for investigations for low back pain, including X-rays and blood tests. In both groups, at 3 and 9 months 80% of participants would choose to have an X-ray if the choice was available. Participants in the patient preference group achieved marginally better outcomes than those randomised to a treatment group, but the clinical significance of these differences is unclear. Lumbar spine radiography was associated with a net economic loss at 3 and 9 months. CONCLUSIONS: Lumbar spine radiography in primary care patients with low back pain of at least 6 weeks duration is not associated with improved functioning, severity of pain or overall health status, and is associated with an increase in GP workload. Participants receiving X-rays are more satisfied with their care, but are not less worried or more reassured about serious disease causing their low back pain. CONCLUSIONS - RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: Further work is required to develop and test an educational package that educates patients and GPs about the utility of radiography and provides strategies for identifying and meeting the information needs of patients, and the needs of patients and GPs to be reassured about missing serious disease. Guidelines on the management of low back pain in primary care should be consistent about not recommending lumbar spine radiography in patients with low back pain in the absence of red flags for serious spinal pathology, even if the pain has persisted for at least 6 weeks.

Injury prevention programmes in primary care: a high risk group or a whole population approach?

OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between risk factors for childhood unintentional injury and injury outcome and to assess the feasibility of using risk factors to identify children at high risk of injury. SETTING: One general practice in Nottingham, UK. METHOD: A postal questionnaire survey to all parents of children registered with the practice (n = 771) to obtain data on risk and sociodemographic factors. All children still registered with the practice one year later were followed up for occurrence of a medically attended injury. RESULTS: The response rate was 78%. The injury rate over the follow up year was 246 injuries per 1000 children. Previous medically attended injury was associated with each of the injury outcomes (odds ratio (confidence interval) for all attendances, 2.33 (1.37 to 4.05); for accident and emergency attendances, 2.27 (1.15 to 4.4); and for primary health care team attendances, 2.58 (1.33 to 5.0)). Male sex was associated only with accident and emergency department attendance (odds ratio 2.13 (1.06 to 4.2)). Maternal age and previous injury were associated with a higher number of injuries in the subsequent year on univariate and multivariate analyses. The sensitivity and positive predictive value of the risk factors were low, except for previous injury and male sex. The number of children needing an injury prevention intervention to prevent one injury as identified by the risk factors was not significantly different from that required if a whole population approach were to be used. CONCLUSION: Primary care based injury prevention programmes, at present, should not be targeted at children identified as being at 'high risk' of injury. Nevertheless, a larger study using a wider cross section of the population is needed to address this issue further.