The impact of management option on out-of-pocket costs and perceived financial burden among men with localised prostate cancer in Australia within 6 months of diagnosis.

Objective This study aimed to quantify the out-of-pocket (OOP) costs and perceived financial burden among Australian men with localised prostate cancer in the first 6 months after diagnosis, by primary management option. Methods This cost-analysis quantified OOP costs using administrative claims data and self-reported survey data. Financial burden was assessed using the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity-Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (COST-FACIT) tool. Participants were recruited into a randomised control trial from public or private treatment centres in Victoria and Queensland. Generalised linear models were used to predict OOP costs and COST-FACIT scores. Results Median total OOP costs within 6 months of diagnosis for 256 Australian patients with localised prostate cancer was A$1172 (A$343-2548). Up to 50% of the sample reported A$0 costs for most medical services. Compared with those managed with active surveillance, men having active treatment had 6.4 (95% CI: 3.2-12.7) times greater total OOP costs. Management option, higher Gleason score at diagnosis and having multiple comorbidities were significant predictors of higher OOP costs. Overall high scores on the COST-FACIT indicated low levels of financial burden for the entire sample. Conclusion Largely attributable to being managed with active surveillance, Australian men diagnosed with localised prostate cancer reported relatively low OOP costs and financial burden in the first 6 months post-diagnosis. Together with clinical outcomes, clinicians can use this up to date evidence on costs and perceived financial burdens to assist localised prostate cancer patients and their families make informed decisions about their preferred management option.

Co-designing an online treatment decision aid for men with low-risk prostate cancer: Navigate.

Objectives: To develop an online treatment decision aid (OTDA) to assist patients with low-risk prostate cancer (LRPC) and their partners in making treatment decisions. Patients and methods: Navigate, an OTDA for LRPC, was rigorously co-designed by patients with a confirmed diagnosis or at risk of LRPC and their partners, clinicians, researchers and website designers/developers. A theoretical model guided the development process. A mixed methods approach was used incorporating (1) evidence for essential design elements for OTDAs; (2) evidence for treatment options for LRPC; (3) an iterative co-design process involving stakeholder workshops and prototype review; and (4) expert rating using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS). Three co-design workshops with potential users (n = 12) and research and web-design team members (n = 10) were conducted. Results from each workshop informed OTDA modifications to the OTDA for testing in the subsequent workshop. Clinician (n = 6) and consumer (n = 9) feedback on usability and content on the penultimate version was collected. Results: The initial workshops identified key content and design features that were incorporated into the draft OTDA, re-workshopped and incorporated into the penultimate OTDA. Expert feedback on usability and content was also incorporated into the final OTDA. The final OTDA was deemed comprehensive, clear and appropriate and met all IPDAS criteria. Conclusion: Navigate is an interactive and acceptable OTDA for Australian men with LRPC designed by men for men using a co-design methodology. The effectiveness of Navigate in assisting patient decision-making is currently being assessed in a randomised controlled trial with patients with LRPC and their partners.

Why is safety in intrapartum electronic fetal monitoring so hard? A qualitative study combining human factors/ergonomics and social science analysis.

BACKGROUND: Problems in intrapartum electronic fetal monitoring with cardiotocography (CTG) remain a major area of preventable harm. Poor understanding of the range of influences on safety may have hindered improvement. Taking an interdisciplinary perspective, we sought to characterise the everyday practice of CTG monitoring and the work systems within which it takes place, with the goal of identifying potential sources of risk. METHODS: Human factors/ergonomics (HF/E) experts and social scientists conducted 325 hours of observations and 23 interviews in three maternity units in the UK, focusing on how CTG tasks were undertaken, the influences on this work and the cultural and organisational features of work settings. HF/E analysis was based on the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety 2.0 model. Social science analysis was based on the constant comparative method. RESULTS: CTG monitoring can be understood as a complex sociotechnical activity, with tasks, people, tools and technology, and organisational and external factors all combining to affect safety. Fetal heart rate patterns need to be recorded and interpreted correctly. Systems are also required for seeking the opinions of others, determining whether the situation warrants concern, escalating concerns and mobilising response. These processes may be inadequately designed or function suboptimally, and may be further complicated by staffing issues, equipment and ergonomics issues, and competing and frequently changing clinical guidelines. Practice may also be affected by variable standards and workflows, variations in clinical competence, teamwork and situation awareness, and the ability to communicate concerns freely. CONCLUSIONS: CTG monitoring is an inherently collective and sociotechnical practice. Improving it will require accounting for complex system interdependencies, rather than focusing solely on discrete factors such as individual technical proficiency in interpreting traces.

How to co-design a prototype of a clinical practice tool: a framework with practical guidance and a case study.

Clinical tools for use in practice-such as medicine reconciliation charts, diagnosis support tools and track-and-trigger charts-are endemic in healthcare, but relatively little attention is given to how to optimise their design. User-centred design approaches and co-design principles offer potential for improving usability and acceptability of clinical tools, but limited practical guidance is currently available. We propose a framework (FRamework for co-dESign of Clinical practice tOols or 'FRESCO') offering practical guidance based on user-centred methods and co-design principles, organised in five steps: (1) establish a multidisciplinary advisory group; (2) develop initial drafts of the prototype; (3) conduct think-aloud usability evaluations; (4) test in clinical simulations; (5) generate a final prototype informed by workshops. We applied the framework in a case study to support co-design of a prototype track-and-trigger chart for detecting and responding to possible fetal deterioration during labour. This started with establishing an advisory group of 22 members with varied expertise. Two initial draft prototypes were developed-one based on a version produced by national bodies, and the other with similar content but designed using human factors principles. Think-aloud usability evaluations of these prototypes were conducted with 15 professionals, and the findings used to inform co-design of an improved draft prototype. This was tested with 52 maternity professionals from five maternity units through clinical simulations. Analysis of these simulations and six workshops were used to co-design the final prototype to the point of readiness for large-scale testing. By codifying existing methods and principles into a single framework, FRESCO supported mobilisation of the expertise and ingenuity of diverse stakeholders to co-design a prototype track-and-trigger chart in an area of pressing service need. Subject to further evaluation, the framework has potential for application beyond the area of clinical practice in which it was applied.

Training for managing impacted fetal head at caesarean birth: multimethod evaluation of a pilot.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of national multiprofessional training for managing the obstetric emergency of impacted fetal head (IFH) at caesarean birth has potential to improve quality and safety in maternity care, but is currently lacking in the UK. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate a training package for managing IFH at caesarean birth with multiprofessional maternity teams. METHODS: The training included an evidence-based lecture supported by an animated video showing management of IFH, followed by hands-on workshops and real-time simulations with use of a birth simulation trainer, augmented reality and management algorithms. Guided by the Kirkpatrick framework, we conducted a multimethod evaluation of the training with multiprofessional maternity teams. Participants rated post-training statements about relevance and helpfulness of the training and pre-training and post-training confidence in their knowledge and skills relating to IFH (7-point Likert scales, strongly disagree to strongly agree). An ethnographer recorded sociotechnical observations during the training. Participants provided feedback in post-training focus groups. RESULTS: Participants (N=57) included 21 midwives, 25 obstetricians, 7 anaesthetists and 4 other professionals from five maternity units. Over 95% of participants agreed that the training was relevant and helpful for their clinical practice and improving outcomes following IFH. Confidence in technical and non-technical skills relating to managing IFH was variable before the training (5%-92% agreement with the pre-training statements), but improved in nearly all participants after the training (71%-100% agreement with the post-training statements). Participants and ethnographers reported that the training helped to: (i) better understand the complexity of IFH, (ii) recognise the need for multiprofessional training and management and (iii) optimise communication with those in labour and their birth partners. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluated training package can improve self-reported knowledge, skills and confidence of multiprofessional teams involved in management of IFH at caesarean birth. A larger-scale evaluation is required to validate these findings and establish how best to scale and implement the training.

Posttraumatic growth related to the COVID-19 pandemic among individuals with lived experience of psychiatric disorder.

Although the COVID-19 pandemic has been shown to be detrimental to mental health, it may hold a parallel potential for positive change. Little is known about posttraumatic growth (PTG) as a potential outcome for individuals with lived experience of psychiatric disorders following trauma exposure, especially in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants were 1,424 adults with lived experience of a psychiatric disorder who took part in a longitudinal study of mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic conducted by the National Centre for Mental Health. PTG was measured using the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory-Short Form (PTGI-SF). Factors hypothesized to be associated with PTG were investigated using linear regression. The mean participant PTGI score was 12.64 (SD = 11.01). On average, participants reported the highest scores on items related to appreciation of life and lowest on those related to spiritual change subscale. We found the strongest evidence of associations between higher levels of PTG and higher scores on assessment items related to perceived social support, B = 2.86; perceptions of the pandemic as traumatic, B = 4.89; and higher psychological well-being, B = 0.40. Taken together, we did not observe evidence of widespread PTG related to the COVID-19 pandemic among individuals with lived experiences of psychiatric disorders.

Trauma exposure and co-occurring ICD-11 post-traumatic stress disorder and complex post-traumatic stress disorder in adults with lived experience of psychiatric disorder.

OBJECTIVE: To establish factors associated with ICD-11 post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and complex PTSD (CPTSD) in a large sample of adults with lived experience of psychiatric disorder and examine the psychiatric burden associated with the two disorders. METHODS: One thousand three hundred and five adults were recruited from the National Centre for Mental Health (NCMH) cohort. ICD-11 PTSD/CPTSD were assessed with the International Trauma Questionnaire (ITQ). Binary logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with both PTSD and CPTSD. One-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted to examine the burden associated with the two disorders in terms of symptoms of anxiety, depression, and psychological wellbeing. For post-hoc pairwise comparisons, the Tukey HSD test was used, and the magnitude of between-group differences assessed using Cohen's d. RESULTS: Probable ICD-11 CPTSD was more common than PTSD within the sample (PTSD 2.68%; CPTSD 12.72%). We found evidence that PTSD was associated with interpersonal trauma and household income under £20,000 a year. CPTSD was also associated with interpersonal trauma, higher rates of personality disorder, and lower rates of bipolar disorder. Those with probable-CPTSD had higher levels of current anxiety and depressive symptoms and lower psychological wellbeing in comparison to those with probable-PTSD and those with neither disorder. CONCLUSIONS: CPTSD was more prevalent than PTSD in our sample of people with lived experience of psychiatric disorder. Our findings indicate a need for routine screening for trauma histories and PTSD/CPTSD in clinical settings and a greater focus on the need for interventions to treat CPTSD.

COVID-19-related posttraumatic stress disorder in adults with lived experience of psychiatric disorder.

BACKGROUND: Prevalence estimates of COVID-19-related posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have ranged from 1% to over 60% in the general population. Individuals with lived experience of a psychiatric disorder may be particularly vulnerable to COVID-19-related PTSD but this has received inadequate attention. METHODS: Participants were 1571 adults with lived experience of psychiatric disorder who took part in a longitudinal study of mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. PTSD was assessed by the International Trauma Questionnaire (ITQ) anchored to the participant's most troubling COVID-19-related experiencevent. Factors hypothesised to be associated with traumatic stress symptoms were investigated by linear regression. RESULTS: 40.10% of participants perceived some aspect of the pandemic as traumatic. 5.28% reported an ICD-11 PTSD qualifying COVID-19 related traumatic exposure and 0.83% met criteria for probable ICD-11 COVID-19-related PTSD. Traumatic stress symptoms were associated with younger age, lower income, lower social support, and financial worries, and lived experience of PTSD/complex PTSD. Depression and anxiety measured in June 2020 predicted traumatic stress symptoms at follow-up approximately 20 weeks later in November 2020. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find evidence of widespread COVID-19-related PTSD among individuals with lived experience of a psychiatric disorder. There is a need for future research to derive valid prevalence estimates of COVID-19-related PTSD.

The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health in individuals with pre-existing mental illness.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that the COVID-19 pandemic has negatively affected mental health, but most studies have been conducted in the general population. AIMS: To identify factors associated with mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic in individuals with pre-existing mental illness. METHOD: Participants (N = 2869, 78% women, ages 18-94 years) from a UK cohort (the National Centre for Mental Health) with a history of mental illness completed a cross-sectional online survey in June to August 2020. Mental health assessments were the GAD-7 (anxiety), PHQ-9 (depression) and WHO-5 (well-being) questionnaires, and a self-report question on whether their mental health had changed during the pandemic. Regressions examined associations between mental health outcomes and hypothesised risk factors. Secondary analyses examined associations between specific mental health diagnoses and mental health. RESULTS: A total of 60% of participants reported that mental health had worsened during the pandemic. Younger age, difficulty accessing mental health services, low income, income affected by COVID-19, worry about COVID-19, reduced sleep and increased alcohol/drug use were associated with increased depression and anxiety symptoms and reduced well-being. Feeling socially supported by friends/family/services was associated with better mental health and well-being. Participants with a history of anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder or eating disorder were more likely to report that mental health had worsened during the pandemic than individuals without a history of these diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: We identified factors associated with worse mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic in individuals with pre-existing mental illness, in addition to specific groups potentially at elevated risk of poor mental health during the pandemic.

Qualitative study of candidacy and access to secondary mental health services during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Candidacy, a construct describing how people's eligibility for care is negotiated between themselves and services, has received limited attention in the context of mental health care. In addition, candidacy research has only rarely studied the views of carers and health professionals. In this article, we use concepts relating to candidacy to enable a theoretically informed examination of experiences of access to secondary mental health services during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England. We report a qualitative study of the views and experiences of service users, carers, and healthcare professionals. Analysis of 65 in-depth interviews was based on the constant comparative method. We found that wide-ranging service changes designed to address the imperatives of the pandemic were highly consequential for people's candidacy. Macro-level changes, including increased emphasis on crisis and risk management and adapted risk assessment systems, produced effects that went far beyond restrictions in the availability of services: they profoundly re-structured service users' identification of their own candidacy, including perceptions of what counted as a problem worthy of attention and whether they as individuals needed, deserved, and were entitled to care. Services became less permeable, such that finding a point of entry to those services that remained open required more work of service users and carers. Healthcare professionals were routinely confronted by complex decisions and ethical dilemmas about provision of care, and their implicit judgements about access may have important implications for equity. Many of the challenges of access exposed by the pandemic related to pre-existing resource deficits and institutional weaknesses in care for people living with mental health difficulties. Overall, these findings affirm the value of the construct of candidacy for explaining access to mental healthcare, but also enable deepened understanding of the specific features of candidacy, offering enduring learning and implications for policy and practice.

A qualitative study of experiences of NHS mental healthcare workers during the Covid-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The Covid-19 pandemic has imposed extraordinary strains on healthcare workers. But, in contrast with acute settings, relatively little attention has been given to those who work in mental health settings. We aimed to characterise the experiences of those working in English NHS secondary mental health services during the first wave of the pandemic. METHODS: The design was a qualitative interview-based study. We conducted semi-structured, remote (telephone or online) interviews with 35 members of staff from NHS secondary (inpatient and community) mental health services in England. Analysis was based on the constant comparative method. RESULTS: Participants reported wide-ranging changes in the organisation of secondary mental health care and the nature of work in response to the pandemic, including pausing of all services deemed to be "non-essential", deployment of staff across services to new and unfamiliar roles, and moves to remote working. The quality of participants' working life was impaired by increasing levels of daily challenge associated with trying to provide care in trying and constrained circumstances, the problems of forging new ways of working remotely, and constraints on ability to access informal support. Participants were confronted with difficult dilemmas relating to clinical decision-making, prioritisation of care, and compromises in ability to perform the therapeutic function of their roles. Other dilemmas centred on trying to balance the risks of controlling infection with the need for human contact. Many reported features of moral injury linked to their perceived failures in providing the quality or level of care that they felt service users needed. They sometimes sought to compensate for deficits in care through increased advocacy, taking on additional tasks, or making exceptions, but this led to further personal strain. Many experienced feelings of grief, helplessness, isolation, distress, and burnout. These problems were compounded by sometimes poor communication about service changes and by staff feeling that they could not take time off because of the potential impact on others. Some reported feeling poorly supported by organisations. CONCLUSIONS: Mental health workers faced multiple adversities during the pandemic that were highly consequential for their wellbeing. These findings can help in identifying targets for support.

How to specify healthcare process improvements collaboratively using rapid, remote consensus-building: a framework and a case study of its application.

BACKGROUND: Practical methods for facilitating process improvement are needed to support high quality, safe care. How best to specify (identify and define) process improvements - the changes that need to be made in a healthcare process - remains a key question. Methods for doing so collaboratively, rapidly and remotely offer much potential, but are under-developed. We propose an approach for engaging diverse stakeholders remotely in a consensus-building exercise to help specify improvements in a healthcare process, and we illustrate the approach in a case study. METHODS: Organised in a five-step framework, our proposed approach is informed by a participatory ethos, crowdsourcing and consensus-building methods: (1) define scope and objective of the process improvement; (2) produce a draft or prototype of the proposed process improvement specification; (3) identify participant recruitment strategy; (4) design and conduct a remote consensus-building exercise; (5) produce a final specification of the process improvement in light of learning from the exercise. We tested the approach in a case study that sought to specify process improvements for the management of obstetric emergencies during the COVID-19 pandemic. We used a brief video showing a process for managing a post-partum haemorrhage in women with COVID-19 to elicit recommendations on how the process could be improved. Two Delphi rounds were then conducted to reach consensus. RESULTS: We gathered views from 105 participants, with a background in maternity care (n = 36), infection prevention and control (n = 17), or human factors (n = 52). The participants initially generated 818 recommendations for how to improve the process illustrated in the video, which we synthesised into a set of 22 recommendations. The consensus-building exercise yielded a final set of 16 recommendations. These were used to inform the specification of process improvements for managing the obstetric emergency and develop supporting resources, including an updated video. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed methodological approach enabled the expertise and ingenuity of diverse stakeholders to be captured and mobilised to specify process improvements in an area of pressing service need. This approach has the potential to address current challenges in process improvement, but will require further evaluation.

Remote care for mental health: qualitative study with service users, carers and staff during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the experiences of service users, carers and staff seeking or providing secondary mental health services during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study, codesigned with mental health service users and carers. METHODS: We conducted semistructured, telephone or online interviews with a purposively constructed sample; a lived experience researcher conducted and analysed interviews with service users. Analysis was based on the constant comparison method. SETTING: National Health Service (NHS) secondary mental health services in England between June and August 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Of 65 participants, 20 had either accessed or needed to access English secondary mental healthcare during the pandemic; 10 were carers of people with mental health difficulties; 35 were members of staff working in NHS secondary mental health services during the pandemic. RESULTS: Experiences of remote care were mixed. Some service users valued the convenience of remote methods in the context of maintaining contact with familiar clinicians. Most participants commented that a lack of non-verbal cues and the loss of a therapeutic 'safe space' challenged therapeutic relationship building, assessments and identification of deteriorating mental well-being. Some carers felt excluded from remote meetings and concerned that assessments were incomplete without their input. Like service users, remote methods posed challenges for clinicians who reported uncertainty about technical options and a lack of training. All groups expressed concern about intersectionality exacerbating inequalities and the exclusion of some service user groups if alternatives to remote care are lost. CONCLUSIONS: Though remote mental healthcare is likely to become increasingly widespread in secondary mental health services, our findings highlight the continued importance of a tailored, personal approach to decision making in this area. Further research should focus on which types of consultations best suit face-to-face interaction, and for whom and why, and which can be provided remotely and by which medium.

Navigate: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of an online treatment decision aid for men with low-risk prostate cancer and their partners.

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) is the disease management option of choice for low-risk prostate cancer. Despite this, men with low-risk prostate cancer (LRPC) find management decisions distressing and confusing. We developed Navigate, an online decision aid to help men and their partners make management decisions consistent with their values. The aims are to evaluate the impact of Navigate on uptake of AS; decision-making preparedness; decisional conflict, regret and satisfaction; quality of illness communication; and prostate cancer-specific quality of life and anxiety. In addition, the healthcare cost impact, cost-effectiveness and patterns of use of Navigate will be assessed. This paper describes the study protocol. METHODS: Three hundred four men and their partners are randomly assigned one-to-one to Navigate or to the control arm. Randomisation is electronically generated and stratified by site. Navigate is an online decision aid that presents up-to-date, unbiased information on LRPC tailored to Australian men and their partners including each management option and potential side-effects, and an interactive values clarification exercise. Participants in the control arm will be directed to the website of Australia's peak national body for prostate cancer. Eligible patients will be men within 3 months of being diagnosed with LRPC, aged 18 years or older, and who are yet to make a treatment decision, who are deemed eligible for AS by their treating clinician and who have Internet access and sufficient English to participate. The primary outcome is self-reported uptake of AS as the first-line management option. Secondary outcomes include self-reported preparedness for decision-making; decisional conflict, regret and satisfaction; quality of illness communication; and prostate cancer-specific quality of life. Uptake of AS 1 month after consent will be determined through patient self-report. Men and their partners will complete study outcome measures before randomisation and 1, 3 and 6 months after study consent. DISCUSSION: The Navigate online decision aid has the potential to increase the choice of AS in LRPC, avoiding or delaying unnecessary radical treatments and associated side effects. In addition, Navigate is likely to reduce patients' and partners' confusion and distress in management decision-making and increase their quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12616001665426 . Registered on 2 December 2016. All items from the WHO Trial Registration Data set can be found in this manuscript.

UK medicines regulation: responding to current challenges.

The medicines regulatory environment is evolving rapidly in response to the changing environment. Advances in science and technology have led to a vast field of increasingly complicated pharmaceutical and medical device products; increasing globalization of the pharmaceutical industry, advances in digital technology and the internet, changing patient populations, and shifts in society also affect the regulatory environment. In the UK, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) regulates medicines, medical devices and blood products to protect and improve public health, and supports innovation through scientific research and development. It works closely with other bodies in a single medicines network across Europe and takes forward UK health priorities. This paper discusses the range of initiatives in the UK and across Europe to support innovation in medicines regulation. The MHRA leads a number of initiatives, such as the Innovation Office, which helps innovators to navigate the regulatory processes to progress their products or technologies; and simplification of the Clinical Trials Regulations and the Early Access to Medicines Scheme, to bring innovative medicines to patients faster. The Accelerated Access Review will identify reforms to accelerate access for National Health Service patients to innovative medicines and medical technologies. PRIME and Adaptive Pathways initiatives are joint endeavours within the European regulatory community. The MHRA runs spontaneous reporting schemes and works with INTERPOL to tackle counterfeiting and substandard products sold via the internet. The role of the regulator is changing rapidly, with new risk-proportionate, flexible approaches being introduced. International collaboration is a key element of the work of regulators, and is set to expand.

Altered potassium channel distribution and composition in myelinated axons suppresses hyperexcitability following injury.

Neuropathic pain following peripheral nerve injury is associated with hyperexcitability in damaged myelinated sensory axons, which begins to normalise over time. We investigated the composition and distribution of shaker-type-potassium channels (Kv1 channels) within the nodal complex of myelinated axons following injury. At the neuroma that forms after damage, expression of Kv1.1 and 1.2 (normally localised to the juxtaparanode) was markedly decreased. In contrast Kv1.4 and 1.6, which were hardly detectable in the naïve state, showed increased expression within juxtaparanodes and paranodes following injury, both in rats and humans. Within the dorsal root (a site remote from injury) we noted a redistribution of Kv1-channels towards the paranode. Blockade of Kv1 channels with α-DTX after injury reinstated hyperexcitability of A-fibre axons and enhanced mechanosensitivity. Changes in the molecular composition and distribution of axonal Kv1 channels, therefore represents a protective mechanism to suppress the hyperexcitability of myelinated sensory axons that follows nerve injury.