'Something that helped the whole picture': Experiences of parents offered rapid prenatal exome sequencing in routine clinical care in the English National Health Service.

OBJECTIVES: In October 2020, rapid prenatal exome sequencing (pES) was introduced into routine National Health Service (NHS) care in England. This study aimed to explore parent experiences and their information and support needs from the perspective of parents offered pES and of health professionals involved in its delivery. METHODS: In this qualitative study, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 42 women and 6 male partners and 63 fetal medicine and genetic health professionals. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Overall views about pES were positive and parents were grateful to be offered the test. Highlighted benefits of pES included the value of the additional information for pregnancy management and planning for future pregnancies. An anxious wait for results was common, often associated with the need to make decisions near to 24 weeks in pregnancy when there are legal restrictions for late termination. Descriptions of dealing with uncertainty were also common, even when results had been returned. Many parents described pES results as informing decision-making around whether or not to terminate pregnancy. Some professionals were concerned that a non-informative result could be overly reassuring and highlighted that careful counselling was needed to ensure parents have a good understanding of what the result means for their pregnancy. Emotional support from professionals was valued; however, some parents felt that post-test support was lacking. CONCLUSION: Parents and professionals welcomed the introduction of pES. Results inform parents' decision-making around the termination of pregnancy. When there are no diagnostic findings or uncertain findings from pES, personalised counselling that considers scans and other tests are crucial. Directing parents to reliable online sources of information and providing emotional support throughout could improve their experiences of care.

Patients' experiences of, and engagement with, remote home monitoring services for COVID-19 patients: A rapid mixed-methods study.

INTRODUCTION: Remote home monitoring models were implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic to shorten hospital length of stay, reduce unnecessary hospital admission, readmission and infection and appropriately escalate care. Within these models, patients are asked to take and record readings and escalate care if advised. There is limited evidence on how patients and carers experience these services. This study aimed to evaluate patient experiences of, and engagement with, remote home monitoring models for COVID-19. METHODS: A rapid mixed-methods study was carried out in England (conducted from March to June 2021). We remotely conducted a cross-sectional survey and semi-structured interviews with patients and carers. Interview findings were summarized using rapid assessment procedures sheets and data were grouped into themes (using thematic analysis). Survey data were analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: We received 1069 surveys (18% response rate) and conducted interviews with patients (n = 59) or their carers (n = 3). 'Care' relied on support from staff members and family/friends. Patients and carers reported positive experiences and felt that the service and human contact reassured them and was easy to engage with. Yet, some patients and carers identified problems with engagement (e.g., hesitancy to self-escalate care). Engagement was influenced by patient factors such as health and knowledge, support from family/friends and staff, availability and ease of use of informational and material resources (e.g., equipment) and service factors. CONCLUSION: Remote home monitoring models place responsibility on patients to self-manage symptoms in partnership with staff; yet, many patients required support and preferred human contact (especially for identifying problems). Caring burden and experiences of those living alone and barriers to engagement should be considered when designing and implementing remote home monitoring services. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The study team met with service users and public members of the evaluation teams throughout the project in a series of workshops. Workshops informed study design, data collection tools and data interpretation and were conducted to also discuss study dissemination. Public patient involvement (PPI) members helped to pilot patient surveys and interview guides with the research team. Some members of the public also piloted the patient survey. Members of the PPI group were given the opportunity to comment on the manuscript, and the manuscript was amended accordingly.

Feasibility and acceptability evaluation of the Promoting Independence in Dementia (PRIDE) intervention for living well with dementia.

OBJECTIVES: Post-diagnostic psychosocial interventions could play an important role in supporting people with mild dementia remain independent. The Promoting Independence in Dementia (PRIDE) intervention was developed to address this. METHOD: The mixed methods non-randomized, pre-post feasibility study occurred across England. Facilitators were recruited from the voluntary sector and memory services. Participants and their supporters took part in the three-session intervention. Outcome measures were collected at baseline and follow-up. To evaluate acceptability, focus groups and interviews were conducted with a subsample of participants and facilitators. RESULTS: Contextual challenges to delivery including national research governance changes, affected recruitment of study sites. Thirty-four dyads consented, with 14 facilitators providing the intervention. Dyads took part in at least two sessions (79%), and 73% in all three. Outcome measures were completed by 79% without difficulty, with minimal missing data. No significant changes were found on pre and post assessments. Post hoc analysis found moderate effect size improvements for self-management (SMAS instrument) in people with dementia (d = 0.41) and quality of life (EQ5D measure) in carers (d = 0.40). Qualitative data indicated that dyads found PRIDE acceptable, as did intervention facilitators. CONCLUSIONS: The three-session intervention was well accepted by participant-dyads and intervention facilitators. A randomized controlled trial of PRIDE would need to carefully consider recruitment potential across geographically varied settings and site stratification according to knowledge of contextual factors, such as the diversity of post-diagnostic services across the country. Letting sites themselves be responsible for identifying suitable intervention facilitators was successful. The self-report measures showed potential to be included in the main trial.

Rapid prioritisation of topics for rapid evaluation: the case of innovations in adult social care and social work.

BACKGROUND: Prioritisation processes are widely used in healthcare research and increasingly in social care research. Previous research has recommended using consensus development methods for inclusive research agenda setting. This research has highlighted the need for transparent and systematic methods for priority setting. Yet there has been little research on how to conduct prioritisation processes using rapid methods. This is a particular concern when prioritisation needs to happen rapidly. This paper aims to describe and discuss a process of rapidly identifying and prioritising a shortlist of innovations for rapid evaluation applied in the field of adult social care and social work. METHOD: We adapted the James Lind Alliance approach to priority setting for rapid use. We followed four stages: (1) Identified a long list of innovations, (2) Developed shortlisting criteria, (3) Grouped and sifted innovations, and (4) Prioritised innovations in a multi-stakeholder workshop (n = 23). Project initiation through to completion of the final report took four months. RESULTS: Twenty innovations were included in the final shortlist (out of 158 suggested innovations). The top five innovations for evaluation were identified and findings highlighted key themes which influenced prioritisation. The top five priorities (listed here in alphabetical order) were: Care coordination for dementia in the community, family group conferencing, Greenwich prisons social care, local area coordination and MySense.Ai. Feedback from workshop participants (n = 15) highlighted tensions from using a rapid process (e.g. challenges of reaching consensus in one workshop). CONCLUSION: The method outlined in this manuscript can be used to rapidly prioritise innovations for evaluation in a feasible and robust way. We outline some implications and compromises of rapid prioritisation processes for future users of this approach to consider.

Developing strategies to improve fidelity of delivery of, and engagement with, a complex intervention to improve independence in dementia: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: It is important to evaluate fidelity of delivery and engagement during feasibility trials. However, there is little guidance on how to systematically develop strategies to improve implementation if problems arise. We aimed to: 1) Assess fidelity of delivery and engagement, 2) Identify factors influencing fidelity of delivery and engagement, and 3) Develop strategies to improve fidelity of delivery of, and engagement with, a complex intervention to improve independence in dementia, within a feasibility trial. METHODS: A mixed methods evaluation of an intervention that aimed to improve independence in dementia. To assess fidelity of delivery and engagement, observation and self-report methods were used: 60% of audio-recorded intervention sessions were transcribed and reliably rated for fidelity. Providers (n = 12) and people with dementia/supporters (n = 34) were asked to complete checklists after each session. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the data. To identify factors influencing fidelity and engagement, one-to-one semi-structured interviews were conducted with providers (n = 8), people with dementia (n = 7) and supporters (n = 7). Thematic analysis and content analysis were used to analyse data. To develop strategies, we followed four steps proposed by the authors of the Behaviour Change Wheel (1. Understanding the behaviour, 2. Identifying intervention functions, 3. Specifying intervention content, 4. Identifying mode of delivery). RESULTS: Researcher ratings indicated moderate fidelity and provider/participant ratings indicated high fidelity of delivery. Knowledge, providers' attributes, ease of adaptation of the intervention in relation to participants' needs and logistical considerations influenced fidelity. We developed four strategies to improve fidelity of delivery of PRIDE: 1) showing a video, 2) giving an instruction sheet, 3) giving time to practice and 4) providing continued support. Participants reported high levels of engagement. Participants' attributes, capability and opportunity influenced engagement. We developed four strategies to improve engagement with PRIDE: 1) a session summary document, 2) clear instructions, 3) time to practice activity and 4) providing regular compulsory telephone support. CONCLUSION: Fidelity of delivery and engagement are complex behaviours. This manuscript provides an example of how the Behaviour Change Wheel can be used during a feasibility trial to systematically develop strategies to improve implementation of complex interventions.

The nature of decision-making in people living with dementia: a systematic review.

Objective: The objectives of this systematic review were to: 1) understand how people living with dementia are involved in making decisions; 2) explore the different decisional styles and domains of decision-making that people living with dementia experience and 3) identify what influences the level of decisional involvement of people living with dementia.Methods: A systematic review of literature identified studies from Medline, PsycINFO, HAPI and CINAHL databases. Search terms related to decision-making and dementia. Qualitative and quantitative research designs were included. Appraisal of included studies was done using quality ratings. All studies focused on how decision-making took place. Extracted findings were synthesised narratively with concept mapping, conceptualisation and an exploration of connections between studies to develop an overall model of decision-making involvementResults: Fifteen studies fully met the eligibility criteria (thirteen qualitative and two quantitative). All studies had moderate (n = 10) to high (n = 5) quality ratings. Participants were predominantly people living with dementia (n = 13), Parkinson's disease and stroke. The model of decision-making encompasses four decisional styles (managed autonomy, mutual, reductive and delegated) determined by different degrees of involvement from the person living with dementia and their supporter. The decisional style implemented was influenced by the presence or absence of background (the Freedom of Choice framework) and contextual factors (risk, relationships and resources).Conclusion: Decision-making in dementia is complex and influenced by many factors beyond cognitive impairment alone. This review indicates that decision-making in dementia takes place through decisional styles, determined by unique levels of involvement from people living with dementia and their carers.

Measuring fidelity of delivery of the Community Occupational Therapy in Dementia-UK intervention.

BACKGROUND: Interpreting data about intervention effectiveness requires an understanding of which intervention components were delivered and whether they were delivered as planned (fidelity of delivery). These studies aimed to develop a reliable measure for assessing fidelity of delivery of the Community Occupational Therapy in Dementia-UK intervention (COTiD-UK) (Study 1) and measure fidelity of delivery of COTiD-UK across sessions, sites and occupational therapists (Study 2). METHODS: The studies used a longitudinal observational design nested within a multi-site randomised controlled trial. Where practicable, all intervention sessions were audio-recorded. Fidelity checklists and coding guidelines were developed, piloted and refined until good agreement was achieved between two coders. Ten percent of sessions were purposively sampled from 12 sites and 31 occupational therapists. Transcripts were coded using checklists developed in Study 1; 10% of sets of intervention session transcripts were double coded to ensure that agreement was maintained. Percentages of components that were delivered were calculated for each session, site and occupational therapist. RESULTS: A reliable measure of fidelity of delivery for COTiD-UK was developed after several rounds of piloting and amendments. COTiD-UK was delivered with moderate fidelity across all six sessions (range: 52.4-75.5%). The mean range of fidelity varied across sites (26.7-91.2%) and occupational therapists (26.7-94.1%). CONCLUSIONS: A reliable, systematic method for measuring fidelity of delivery of COTiD-UK was developed and applied, and can be adapted for use in similar interventions. As COTiD-UK was delivered with moderate fidelity, there is a reasonable degree of confidence that intervention effects were attributable to COTiD-UK.

Development of fidelity of delivery and enactment measures for interventions in communication disorders.

OBJECTIVES: This study was part of a process evaluation for a single-blind, randomized controlled pilot study comparing Better Conversations with Primary Progressive Aphasia (BCPPA), an approach to communication partner training, with no speech and language therapy treatment. It was necessary to explore fidelity of delivery (delivery of intervention components) and intervention enactment (participants' use of intervention skills in the form of conversation behaviours comprising facilitators, that enhance the conversational flow, and barriers, that impeded the flow of conversation). This study aimed to: (1) Outline an adapted methodological process that uses video observation, to measure both fidelity of delivery and enactment. (2) Measure the extent to which the BCPPA pilot study was delivered as planned, and enacted. DESIGN: Observational methods were used alongside statistical analysis to explore the fidelity of intervention and enactment using video recordings obtained from the BCPPA pilot study. METHODS: A 5-step methodology, was developed to measure fidelity of delivery and enactment for the BCPPA study using video-recorded data. To identify delivery of intervention components, a random sample of eight video recorded and transcribed BCPPA intervention sessions was coded. To examine the enactment of conversation behaviours, 108 transcribed 10 -min-video recorded conversations were coded from 18 participants across the control and intervention group. RESULTS: Checklists and guidelines for measurement of fidelity of treatment delivery and coding spreadsheets and guidelines for measurement of enactment are presented. Local collaborators demonstrated 87.2% fidelity to the BCPPA protocol. Participants in the BCPPA treatment group increased their use of facilitator behaviours enacted in conversation from a mean of 13.5 pre-intervention to 14.2 post-intervention, whilst control group facilitators decreased from a mean of 15.5 to 14.4, over the same timescale. CONCLUSIONS: This study proposes a novel and robust methods, using video recorded intervention sessions and conversation samples, to measure both fidelity of intervention delivery and enactment. The learnings from this intervention are transferable to other communication interventions.

A Cost Evaluation of COVID-19 Remote Home Monitoring Services in England.

BACKGROUND: Remote home monitoring services emerged as critical components of health care delivery from NHS England during the COVID-19 pandemic, aiming to provide timely interventions and reduce health care system burden. Two types of service were offered: referral by community health services to home-based care to ensure the right people were admitted to the hospital at the right time (called COVID Oximetry@home, CO@h); and referral by hospital to support patients' transition from hospital to home (called COVID-19 Virtual Ward, CVW). The information collected for the oxygen levels and other symptoms was provided via digital means (technology-enabled) or over the phone (analogue-only submission mode). This study aimed to evaluate the costs of implementing remote home monitoring for COVID-19 patients across 26 sites in England during wave 2 of the pandemic. Understanding the operational and financial implications of these services from the NHS perspective is essential for effective resource allocation and service planning. METHODS: We used a bottom-up costing approach at the intervention level to describe the costs of setting up and running the services. Twenty-six implementation sites reported the numbers of patients and staff involved in the service and other resources used. Descriptive statistics and multivariable regression analysis were used to assess cost variations and quantify the relationship between the number of users and costs while adjusting for other service characteristics. RESULTS: The mean cost per patient monitored was lower in the CO@h service compared with the CVW service (£527 vs £599). The mean cost per patient was lower for implementation sites using technology-enabled and analogue data submission modes compared with implementation sites using analogue-only modes for both CO@h (£515 vs £561) and CVW (£584 vs £612) services. The number of patients enrolled in the services and the service type significantly affected the mean cost per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis provides a framework for evaluating the costs of similar services in the future and shows that the implementation of these services benefit from the employment of tech-enabled data submission modes.

Delivery of a national prenatal exome sequencing service in England: a mixed methods study exploring healthcare professionals' views and experiences.

Introduction: In October 2020, rapid prenatal exome sequencing (pES) was introduced into routine National Health Service (NHS) care in England, requiring the coordination of care from specialist genetics, fetal medicine (FM) and laboratory services. This mixed methods study explored the experiences of professionals involved in delivering the pES service during the first 2 years of its delivery in the NHS. Methods: A survey (n = 159) and semi-structured interviews (n = 63) with healthcare professionals, including clinical geneticists, FM specialists, and clinical scientists (interviews only) were used to address: 1) Views on the pES service; 2) Capacity and resources involved in offering pES; 3) Awareness, knowledge, and educational needs; and 4) Ambitions and goals for the future. Results: Overall, professionals were positive about the pES service with 77% rating it as Good or Excellent. A number of benefits were reported, including the increased opportunity for receiving actionable results for parental decision-making, improving equity of access to genomic tests and fostering close relationships between FM and genetics departments. Nonetheless, there was evidence that the shift to offering pES in a clinical setting had brought some challenges, such as additional clinic time, administrative processes, perceived lack of autonomy in decision-making regarding pES eligibility and difficulty engaging with peripheral maternity units. Concerns were also raised about the lack of confidence and gaps in genomics knowledge amongst non-genetics professionals - especially midwives. However, the findings also highlighted value in both FM, obstetric and genetics professionals benefiting from further training with a focus on recognising and managing prenatally diagnosed genetic conditions. Conclusion: Healthcare professionals are enthusiastic about the benefits of pES, and through multi-collaborative working, have developed relationships that have contributed to effective communication across specialisms. Although limitations on resources and variation in knowledge about pES have impacted service delivery, professionals were hopeful that improvements to infrastructure and the upskilling of all professionals involved in the pathway would optimise the benefits of pES for both parents and professionals.

Staff experiences of training and delivery of remote home monitoring services for patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in England: A mixed-methods study.

OBJECTIVES: Remote home monitoring services for patients at risk of rapid deterioration introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic had important implications for the health workforce. This study explored the nature of 'work' that health care staff in England undertook to manage patients with COVID-19 remotely, how they were supported to deliver these new services, and the factors that influenced delivery of COVID-19 remote home monitoring services for staff. METHODS: We conducted a rapid mixed-methods evaluation of COVID-19 remote home monitoring services during November 2020 to July 2021 using a cross-sectional survey of a purposive sample of staff involved in delivering the service (clinical leads, frontline delivery staff and those involved in data collection and management) from 28 sites across England. We also conducted interviews with 58 staff in a subsample of 17 sites. Data collection and analysis were carried out in parallel. We used thematic analysis to analyse qualitative data while quantitative survey data were analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 292 staff responded to the surveys (39% response rate). We found that prior experience of remote monitoring had some, albeit limited benefit for delivering similar services for patients diagnosed with COVID-19. Staff received a range of locally specific training and clinical oversight along with bespoke materials and resources. Staff reported feeling uncertain about using their own judgement and being reliant on seeking clinical oversight. The experience of transitioning from face-to-face to remote service delivery led some frontline delivery staff to reconsider their professional role, as well as their beliefs around their own capabilities. There was a general perception of staff being able to adapt, acquire new skills and knowledge and they demonstrated a commitment to continuity of care for patients, although there were reports of struggling with the increased accountability and responsibility attached to their adapted roles at times. CONCLUSIONS: Remote home monitoring models can play an important role in managing a large number of patients for COVID-19 and possibly a range of other conditions. Successful delivery of such service models depends on staff competency and the nature of training received to facilitate effective care and patient engagement.

Patient and staff experiences of using technology-enabled and analogue models of remote home monitoring for COVID-19 in England: A mixed-method evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient and staff experiences of using technology-enabled ('tech-enabled') and analogue remote home monitoring models for COVID-19, implemented in England during the pandemic. METHODS: Twenty-eight sites were selected for diversity in a range of criteria (e.g. pre-hospital or early discharge service, mode of patient data submission). Between February and May 2021, we conducted quantitative surveys with patients, carers and staff delivering the service, and interviewed patients, carers, and staff from 17 of the 28 services. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and both univariate and multivariate analyses. Qualitative data were interpreted using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-one sites adopted mixed models whereby patients could submit their symptoms using either tech-enabled (app, weblink, or automated phone calls) or analogue (phone calls with a health professional) options; seven sites offered analogue-only data submission (phone calls or face-to-face visits with a health professional). Sixty-two patients and carers were interviewed, and 1069 survey responses were received (18 % response rate). Fifty-eight staff were interviewed, and 292 survey responses were received (39 % response rate). Patients who used tech-enabled modes tended to be younger (p = 0.005), have a higher level of education (p = 0.011), and more likely to identify as White British (p = 0.043). Most patients found relaying symptoms easy, regardless of modality, though many received assistance from family or friends. Staff considered the adoption of mixed delivery models beneficial, enabling them to manage large patient numbers and contact patients for further assessment as needed; however, they suggested improvements to the functionality of systems to better fit clinical and operational needs. Human contact was important in all remote home monitoring options. CONCLUSIONS: Organisations implementing tech-enabled remote home monitoring at scale should consider adopting mixed models which can accommodate patients with different needs; focus on the usability and interoperability of tech-enabled platforms; and encourage digital inclusivity for patients.

A rapid mixed-methods evaluation of remote home monitoring models during the COVID-19 pandemic in England.

Background: Remote home monitoring services were developed and implemented for patients with COVID-19 during the pandemic. Patients monitored blood oxygen saturation and other readings (e.g. temperature) at home and were escalated as necessary. Objective: To evaluate effectiveness, costs, implementation, and staff and patient experiences (including disparities and mode) of COVID-19 remote home monitoring services in England during the COVID-19 pandemic (waves 1 and 2). Methods: A rapid mixed-methods evaluation, conducted in two phases. Phase 1 (July-August 2020) comprised a rapid systematic review, implementation and economic analysis study (in eight sites). Phase 2 (January-June 2021) comprised a large-scale, multisite, mixed-methods study of effectiveness, costs, implementation and patient/staff experience, using national data sets, surveys (28 sites) and interviews (17 sites). Results: Phase 1 Findings from the review and empirical study indicated that these services have been implemented worldwide and vary substantially. Empirical findings highlighted that communication, appropriate information and multiple modes of monitoring facilitated implementation; barriers included unclear referral processes, workforce availability and lack of administrative support. Phase 2 We received surveys from 292 staff (39% response rate) and 1069 patients/carers (18% response rate). We conducted interviews with 58 staff, 62 patients/carers and 5 national leads. Despite national roll-out, enrolment to services was lower than expected (average enrolment across 37 clinical commissioning groups judged to have completed data was 8.7%). There was large variability in implementation of services, influenced by patient (e.g. local population needs), workforce (e.g. workload), organisational (e.g. collaboration) and resource (e.g. software) factors. We found that for every 10% increase in enrolment to the programme, mortality was reduced by 2% (95% confidence interval: 4% reduction to 1% increase), admissions increased by 3% (-1% to 7%), in-hospital mortality fell by 3% (-8% to 3%) and lengths of stay increased by 1.8% (-1.2% to 4.9%). None of these results are statistically significant. We found slightly longer hospital lengths of stay associated with virtual ward services (adjusted incidence rate ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.09), and no statistically significant impact on subsequent COVID-19 readmissions (adjusted odds ratio 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.02). Low patient enrolment rates and incomplete data may have affected chances of detecting possible impact. The mean running cost per patient varied for different types of service and mode; and was driven by the number and grade of staff. Staff, patients and carers generally reported positive experiences of services. Services were easy to deliver but staff needed additional training. Staff knowledge/confidence, NHS resources/workload, dynamics between multidisciplinary team members and patients' engagement with the service (e.g. using the oximeter to record and submit readings) influenced delivery. Patients and carers felt services and human contact received reassured them and were easy to engage with. Engagement was conditional on patient, support, resource and service factors. Many sites designed services to suit the needs of their local population. Despite adaptations, disparities were reported across some patient groups. For example, older adults and patients from ethnic minorities reported more difficulties engaging with the service. Tech-enabled models helped to manage large patient groups but did not completely replace phone calls. Limitations: Limitations included data completeness, inability to link data on service use to outcomes at a patient level, low survey response rates and under-representation of some patient groups. Future work: Further research should consider the long-term impact and cost-effectiveness of these services and the appropriateness of different models for different groups of patients. Conclusions: We were not able to find quantitative evidence that COVID-19 remote home monitoring services have been effective. However, low enrolment rates, incomplete data and varied implementation reduced our chances of detecting any impact that may have existed. While services were viewed positively by staff and patients, barriers to implementation, delivery and engagement should be considered. Study registration: This study is registered with the ISRCTN (14962466). Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (RSET: 16/138/17; BRACE: 16/138/31) and NHSEI and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 11, No. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Institute for Health and Care Research or the Department of Health and Social Care.

COVID-19 patients can experience very low oxygen levels, without feeling breathless. Patients may not realise there is a problem until they become extremely unwell, risking being admitted to hospital too late. To address this, COVID-19 remote home monitoring services were developed and later rolled out across England. Patients monitored oxygen levels at home using an 'oximeter' (a small device which clips on to your finger) and sent these readings to providers via phone or technology (e.g. an app). Patients could access further care if needed. We did not know whether these services worked, or what people felt about them. • How services were set up and used in England. • Whether services work (e.g. by reducing deaths and length of hospital stay). • How much they cost. • What patients, carers and staff think about these services (including differences between groups and telephone vs. technology). We looked at available existing evidence and collected data from eight services operating in the first wave of the pandemic. During the second wave of the pandemic, we used data available at a national level and conducted surveys (28 sites) and interviews (17 sites) with staff, patients and individuals involved in developing/leading services nationally. These services have been used worldwide, but they vary considerably. We found many things that help these services to be used (e.g. good communication) but also things that get in the way (e.g. unclear referrals). Our findings did not show that services reduce deaths or time in hospital. But these findings are limited by a lack of data. Staff and patients liked these services, but we found some barriers to delivering and using the service. Some groups found services harder to use (e.g. older patients, those with disabilities and ethnic minorities). Using technology helped with large patient groups, but it did not completely replace phone calls. Better information is needed to know whether these services work. Staff and patients liked these services. However, improvements may make them easier to deliver and use (e.g. further staff training and giving additional support to patients who need it).

Undertaking rapid evaluations during the COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons from evaluating COVID-19 remote home monitoring services in England.

Introduction: Rapid evaluations can offer evidence on innovations in health and social care that can be used to inform fast-moving policy and practise, and support their scale-up according to previous research. However, there are few comprehensive accounts of how to plan and conduct large-scale rapid evaluations, ensure scientific rigour, and achieve stakeholder engagement within compressed timeframes. Methods: Using a case study of a national mixed-methods rapid evaluation of COVID-19 remote home monitoring services in England, conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, this manuscript examines the process of conducting a large-scale rapid evaluation from design to dissemination and impact, and reflects on the key lessons for conducting future large-scale rapid evaluations. In this manuscript, we describe each stage of the rapid evaluation: convening the team (study team and external collaborators), design and planning (scoping, designing protocols, study set up), data collection and analysis, and dissemination. Results: We reflect on why certain decisions were made and highlight facilitators and challenges. The manuscript concludes with 12 key lessons for conducting large-scale mixed-methods rapid evaluations of healthcare services. We propose that rapid study teams need to: (1) find ways of quickly building trust with external stakeholders, including evidence-users; (2) consider the needs of the rapid evaluation and resources needed; (3) use scoping to ensure the study is highly focused; (4) carefully consider what cannot be completed within a designated timeframe; (5) use structured processes to ensure consistency and rigour; (6) be flexible and responsive to changing needs and circumstances; (7) consider the risks associated with new data collection approaches of quantitative data (and their usability); (8) consider whether it is possible to use aggregated quantitative data, and what that would mean when presenting results, (9) consider using structured processes & layered analysis approaches to rapidly synthesise qualitative findings, (10) consider the balance between speed and the size and skills of the team, (11) ensure all team members know roles and responsibilities and can communicate quickly and clearly; and (12) consider how best to share findings, in discussion with evidence-users, for rapid understanding and use. Conclusion: These 12 lessons can be used to inform the development and conduct of future rapid evaluations in a range of contexts and settings.

Experiences of coordinated care for people in the UK affected by rare diseases: cross-sectional survey of patients, carers, and healthcare professionals.

BACKGROUND: Poorly coordinated care can have major impacts on patients and families affected by rare conditions, with negative physical health, psychosocial and financial consequences. This study aimed to understand how care is coordinated for rare diseases in the United Kingdom. METHODS: We undertook a national survey in the UK involving 760 adults affected by rare diseases, 446 parents/carers of people affected by rare diseases, and 251 healthcare professionals who care for people affected by rare diseases. RESULTS: Findings suggested that a wide range of patients, parents and carers do not have coordinated care. For example, few participants reported having a care coordinator (12% patients, 14% parents/carers), attending a specialist centre (32% patients, 33% parents/carers) or having a care plan (10% patients, 44% parents/carers). A very small number of patients (2%) and parents/carers (5%) had access to all three-a care coordinator, specialist centre and care plan. Fifty four percent of patients and 33% of parents/carers reported access to none of these. On the other hand, a higher proportion of healthcare professionals reported that families with rare conditions had access to care coordinators (35%), specialist centres (60%) and care plans (40%). CONCLUSIONS: Care for families with rare conditions is generally not well coordinated in the UK, with findings indicating limited access to care coordinators, specialist centres and care plans. Better understanding of these issues can inform how care coordination might be improved and embrace the needs and preferences of patients and families affected by rare conditions.

The impact of post-hospital remote monitoring of COVID-19 patients using pulse oximetry: A national observational study using hospital activity data.

Background: There was a national roll out of 'COVID Virtual Wards' (CVW) during England's second COVID-19 wave (Autumn 2020 - Spring 2021). These services used remote pulse oximetry monitoring for COVID-19 patients following discharge from hospital. A key aim was to enable rapid detection of patient deterioration. It was anticipated that the services would support early discharge, reducing pressure on beds. This study is an evaluation of the impact of the CVW services on hospital activity. Methods: Using retrospective patient-level hospital admissions data, we built multivariate models to analyze the relationship between the implementation of CVW services and hospital activity outcomes: length of COVID-19 related stays and subsequent COVID-19 readmissions within 28 days. We used data from more than 98% of recorded COVID-19 hospital stays in England, where the patient was discharged alive between mid-August 2020 and late February 2021. Findings: We found a longer length of stay for COVID-19 patients discharged from hospitals where a CVW was available, when compared to patients discharged from hospitals where there was no CVW (adjusted IRR 1·05, 95% CI 1·01 to 1·09). We found no evidence of a relationship between the availability of CVW and subsequent rates of readmission for COVID-19 (adjusted OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.91 to 1·03). Interpretation: We found no evidence of early discharges or changes in readmissions associated with the roll out of COVID Virtual Wards across England. Our analysis made pragmatic use of national-scale hospital data, but it is possible that a lack of specific data (for example, on which patients were enrolled and on potentially important confounders) may have meant that true impacts, especially at a local level, were not ultimately discernible. It is important that future research is able to make use of better quality - preferably linked - data, from multiple sites. Funding: This is independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research, Health Services & Delivery Research program (RSET Project no. 16/138/17; BRACE Project no. 16/138/31) and NHSE&I. NJF is an NIHR Senior Investigator.

Developing a taxonomy of care coordination for people living with rare conditions: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Improving care coordination is particularly important for individuals with rare conditions (who may experience multiple inputs into their care, across different providers and settings). To develop and evaluate strategies to potentially improve care coordination, it is necessary to develop a method for organising different ways of coordinating care for rare conditions. Developing a taxonomy would help to describe different ways of coordinating care and in turn facilitate development and evaluation of pre-existing and new models of care coordination for rare conditions. To the authors' knowledge, no studies have previously developed taxonomies of care coordination for rare conditions. This research aimed to develop and refine a care coordination taxonomy for people with rare conditions. METHODS: This study had a qualitative design and was conducted in the United Kingdom. To develop a taxonomy, six stages of taxonomy development were followed. We conducted interviews (n = 30 health care professionals/charity representatives/commissioners) and focus groups (n = 4 focus groups, 22 patients/carers with rare/ultra-rare/undiagnosed conditions). Interviews and focus groups were audio-recorded with consent, and professionally transcribed. Findings were analysed using thematic analysis. Themes were used to develop a taxonomy, and to identify which types of coordination may work best in which situations. To refine the taxonomy, we conducted two workshops (n = 12 patients and carers group; n = 15 professional stakeholder group). RESULTS: Our taxonomy has six domains, each with different options. The six domains are: (1) Ways of organising care (local, hybrid, national), (2) Ways of organising those involved in care (collaboration between many or all individuals, collaboration between some individuals, a lack of collaborative approach), (3) Responsibility for coordination (administrative support, formal roles and responsibilities, supportive roles and no responsibility), (4) How often appointments and coordination take place (regular, on demand, hybrid), (5) Access to records (full or filtered access), and (6) Mode of care coordination (face-to-face, digital, telephone). CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that there are different ways of coordinating care across the six domains outlined in our taxonomy. This may help to facilitate the development and evaluation of existing and new models of care coordination for people living with rare conditions.

Development of models of care coordination for rare conditions: a qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Improving care coordination for people with rare conditions may help to reduce burden on patients and carers and improve the care that patients receive. We recently developed a taxonomy of different ways of coordinating care for rare conditions. It is not yet known which models of care coordination are appropriate in different situations. This study aimed to: (1) explore what types of care coordination may be appropriate in different situations, and (2) use these findings to develop hypothetical models of care coordination for rare conditions. METHODS: To explore appropriateness of different types of care coordination, we conducted interviews (n = 30), four focus groups (n = 22) and two workshops (n = 27) with patients, carers, healthcare professionals, commissioners, and charity representatives. Participants were asked about preferences, benefits and challenges, and the factors influencing coordination. Thematic analysis was used to develop hypothetical models of care coordination. Models were refined following feedback from workshop participants. RESULTS: Stakeholders prefer models of care that: are nationally centralised or a hybrid of national and local care, involve professionals collaborating to deliver care, have clear roles and responsibilities outlined (including administrative, coordinator, clinical and charity roles), provide access to records and offer flexible appointments (in terms of timing and mode). Many factors influenced coordination, including those relating to the patient (e.g., condition complexity, patient's location and ability to coordinate their own care), the healthcare professional (e.g., knowledge and time), the healthcare environment (e.g., resources) and societal factors (e.g., availability of funding). We developed and refined ten illustrative hypothetical models of care coordination for rare conditions. CONCLUSION: Findings underline that different models of care coordination may be appropriate in different situations. It is possible to develop models of care coordination which are tailored to the individual in context. Findings may be used to facilitate planning around which models of care coordination may be appropriate in different services or circumstances. Findings may also be used by key stakeholders (e.g. patient organisations, clinicians and service planners) as a decision-making tool.

The impact of remote home monitoring of people with COVID-19 using pulse oximetry: A national population and observational study.

BACKGROUND: Remote home monitoring of people testing positive for COVID-19 using pulse oximetry was implemented across England during the Winter of 2020/21 to identify falling blood oxygen saturation levels at an early stage. This was hypothesised to enable earlier hospital admission, reduce the need for intensive care and improve survival. This study is an evaluation of the clinical effectiveness of the pre-hospital monitoring programme, COVID oximetry @home (CO@h). METHODS: The setting was all Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) areas in England where there were complete data on the number of people enrolled onto the programme between 2nd November 2020 and 21st February 2021. We analysed relationships at a geographical area level between the extent to which people aged 65 or over were enrolled onto the programme and outcomes over the period between November 2020 to February 2021. FINDINGS: For every 10% increase in coverage of the programme, mortality was reduced by 2% (95% confidence interval:4% reduction to 1% increase), admissions increased by 3% (-1% to 7%), in-hospital mortality fell by 3% (-8% to 3%) and lengths of stay increased by 1·8% (-1·2% to 4·9%). None of these results are statistically significant, although the confidence interval indicates that any adverse effect on mortality would be small, but a mortality reduction of up to 4% may have resulted from the programme. INTERPRETATION: There are several possible explanations for our findings. One is that CO@h did not have the hypothesised impact. Another is that the low rates of enrolment and incomplete data in many areas reduced the chances of detecting any impact that may have existed. Also, CO@h has been implemented in many different ways across the country and these may have had varying levels of effect. FUNDING: This is independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research, Health Services & Delivery Research programme (RSET Project no. 16/138/17; BRACE Project no. 16/138/31) and NHSEI. NJF is an NIHR Senior Investigator.

Optimising Exome Prenatal Sequencing Services (EXPRESS): a study protocol to evaluate rapid prenatal exome sequencing in the NHS Genomic Medicine Service.

Background: Prenatal exome sequencing (ES) for the diagnosis of fetal anomalies was implemented nationally in England in October 2020 by the NHS Genomic Medicine Service (GMS). is the GMS is based around seven regional Genomic Laboratory Hubs (GLHs). Prenatal ES has the potential to significantly improve NHS prenatal diagnostic services by increasing genetic diagnoses and informing prenatal decision-making. Prenatal ES has not previously been offered routinely in a national healthcare system and there are gaps in knowledge and guidance. Methods: Our mixed-methods evaluation commenced in October 2020, aligning with the start date of the NHS prenatal ES service . Study design draws on a framework developed in previous studies of major system innovation. There are five interrelated workstreams. Workstream-1 will use interviews and surveys with professionals, non-participant observations and documentary analysis to produce in-depth case studies across all GLHs. Data collection at multiple time points will track changes over time. In Workstream-2 qualitative interviews with parents offered prenatal ES will explore experiences and establish information and support needs. Workstream-3 will analyse data from all prenatal ES tests for nine-months to establish service outcomes (e.g. diagnostic yield, referral rates, referral sources). Comparisons between GLHs will identify factors (individual or service-related) associated with any variation in outcomes. Workstream-4 will identify and analyse practical ethical problems. Requirements for an effective ethics framework for an optimal and equitable service will be determined. Workstream-5 will assess costs and cost-effectiveness of prenatal ES versus standard tests and evaluate costs of implementing an optimal prenatal ES care pathway. Integration of findings will determine key features of an optimal care pathway from a service delivery, parent and professional perspective. Discussion: The proposed formative and summative evaluation will inform the evolving prenatal ES service to ensure equity of access, high standards of care and benefits for parents across England.

BACKGROUND: Prenatal exome sequencing is a new test that is offered through the NHS Genomic Medicine Service. Prenatal exome sequencing is offered to pregnant women when ultrasound scans suggest that their baby may have a genetic condition that cannot be diagnosed using standard tests. If a genetic condition is diagnosed this can give parents important information about the outlook for their baby. It can also help with their decisions about whether to continue or end the pregnancy, pregnancy management, post-birth care and future pregnancies. STUDY METHODS: The aim of this study is to evaluate the prenatal exome sequencing service. To do this we will; 1. Study how prenatal exome sequencing is delivered across England using surveys and interviews with professionals.2. Interview parents to ask what they think of prenatal exome sequencing and how support and information could be improved3. Look at how many parents have prenatal exome sequencing and the test results. We will look carefully at who has access to the test and whether any particular groups are less likely to be offered testing.4. Conduct workshops with health professionals and parents to identify any practical or ethical problems that arise when prenatal exome sequencing is offered.5. Look at the cost of prenatal exome sequencing and compare it to the cost of other tests that are offered to diagnose genetic conditions in pregnancy.6. Gather our findings together to make recommendations for best practice. Patient and Public Involvement: A patient and public Involvement, engagement and participation (PPIEP) advisory group will work closely with the research team to design the study and develop study materials. They will also help us understand our findings to make sure the information and recommendations that come out of our research will be helpful to parents and the NHS.