RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Mechanical thrombectomy for stroke is highly effective but time-critical. Delays are common because many patients require transfer between local hospitals and regional centres. A two-stage prehospital redirection pathway consisting of a simple ambulance screen followed by regional centre assessment to select patients for direct admission could optimise access. However, implementation might be challenged by the limited number of thrombectomy providers, a lack of prehospital diagnostic tests for selecting patients and whether finite resources can accommodate longer ambulance journeys plus greater central admissions. We undertook a three-phase, multiregional, qualitative study to obtain health professional views on the acceptability and feasibility of a new pathway. METHODS: Online focus groups/semistructured interviews were undertaken designed to capture important contextual influences. We purposively sampled NHS staff in four regions of England. Anonymised interview transcripts underwent deductive thematic analysis guided by the NASSS (Non-adoption, Abandonment and Challenges to Scale-up, Spread and Sustainability, Implementation) Implementation Science framework. RESULTS: Twenty-eight staff participated in 4 focus groups, 2 group interviews and 18 individual interviews across 4 Ambulance Trusts, 5 Hospital Trusts and 3 Integrated Stroke Delivery Networks (ISDNs). Five deductive themes were identified: (1) (suspected) stroke as a condition, (2) the pathway change, (3) the value participants placed on the proposed pathway, (4) the possible impact on NHS organisations/adopter systems and (5) the wider healthcare context. Participants perceived suspected stroke as a complex scenario. Most viewed the proposed new thrombectomy pathway as beneficial but potentially challenging to implement. Organisational concerns included staff shortages, increased workflow and bed capacity. Participants also reported wider socioeconomic issues impacting on their services contributing to concerns around the future implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Positive views from health professionals were expressed about the concept of a proposed pathway while raising key content and implementation challenges and useful 'real-world' issues for consideration.
Asunto(s)
Servicios Médicos de Urgencia , Grupos Focales , Investigación Cualitativa , Accidente Cerebrovascular , Trombectomía , Humanos , Trombectomía/métodos , Inglaterra , Servicios Médicos de Urgencia/métodos , Accidente Cerebrovascular/terapia , Accidente Cerebrovascular/cirugía , Actitud del Personal de Salud , Entrevistas como Asunto , Masculino , Personal de Salud , FemeninoRESUMEN
There is an increase in calls across diverse issues for a "public health approach" however, it is not clear whether there is any shared understanding in approach in its conceptualisation or implementation. Our aims were to (1) identify and categorise the issues which discuss a public health approach within published literature since 2010, (2) chart the descriptions and applications of public health approaches across and within four purposively sampled categories of issues, and (3) capture any evaluations conducted. A scoping review of published literature was undertaken; Seven leading databases were searched: AMED, APA PsycInfo, ASSIA, CINAHL complete, Cochrane Library (Review), Embase, and MEDLINE for articles published between 2010 and 2022 which have applied, described or called for a "public health approach" to address any issue. 3,573 studies were identified through our initial searches, of these 1,635 articles were recognised for possible inclusion from analysis of titles and abstract. The final number of included studies was 1,314. We identified 28 categories, 26 of which were societal issues, where a public health approach is being advocated. We purposively selected four of these categories; adverse childhood experiences; end of life care; gambling addiction and violence reduction/ knife crime for further analysis of the approach including how it was conceptualised and operationalised; less than 13% of the studies described the implementation of a public health approach and there was considerable heterogeneity across and within categories as to how this was done. Since 2010 there have been increasing calls for a public health approach to be taken to address health and societal challenges. However, the operationalisation of a public health approach varied extensively and there were few evaluations of the approach. This has implications for policy makers and those involved in commissioning related approaches in the future as the evidence-base is limited.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Care home residents often experience polypharmacy (defined as taking five or more regular medicines). Therefore, we need to ensure that residents only take the medications that are appropriate or provide value (also known as medicines optimisation). To achieve this, deprescribing, or the reduction or stopping of prescription medicines that may no longer be providing benefit, can help manage polypharmacy and improve outcomes. Various tools, guides, and approaches have been developed to help support health professionals to deprescribe in regular practice. Little evaluation of these tools has been conducted and no work has been done in the care home setting. OBJECTIVE: This qualitative study aimed to assess distinct types of deprescribing tools for acceptability, feasibility, and suitability for the care home setting. METHODS: Cognitive (think-aloud) interviews with care home staff in England were conducted (from December 2021 to June 2022) to assess five different deprescribing tools. The tools included a general deprescribing guidance, a generic (non-drug specific) deprescribing framework, a drug-specific deprescribing guideline/guide, a tool for identifying potentially inappropriate medications, and an electronic clinical decision support tool. Participants were recruited via their participation in another deprescribing study. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research informed the data collection and analysis. RESULTS: Eight care home staff from 7 different care homes were interviewed. The five deprescribing tools were reviewed and assessed as not acceptable, feasible, or suitable for the care home setting. All would require significant modifications for use in the care home setting (e.g., language, design, and its function or use with different stakeholders). CONCLUSIONS: As none of the tools were deemed acceptable, feasible, and suitable, future work is warranted to develop and tailor deprescribing tools for the care home setting, considering its specific context and users. Deprescribing implemented safely and successfully in care homes can benefit residents and the wider health economy.
Asunto(s)
Deprescripciones , Humanos , Investigación Cualitativa , Polifarmacia , Lista de Medicamentos Potencialmente Inapropiados , Recolección de DatosRESUMEN
Background: Liver cirrhosis is the largest risk factor for developing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and surveillance is therefore recommended among this population. Current guidance recommends surveillance with ultrasound, with or without alpha-fetoprotein (AFP). This review is part of a larger project looking at benefits, harms and costs of surveillance for HCC in people with cirrhosis. It aims to synthesise the evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of imaging or biomarker tests, alone or in combination, to identify HCC in adults with liver cirrhosis in a surveillance programme. Methods: We will identify studies through a 2021 Cochrane review with similar eligibility criteria, and a database search of MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We will include diagnostic test accuracy studies with adult cirrhosis patients of any aetiology. Studies must assess at least one of the following index tests: ultrasound (US), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computerised tomography (CT), alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), des-gamma-carboxyprothrombin (DCP), lens culinaris agglutinin-reactive fraction of AFP (AFP-L3), a genomic biomarker, or a diagnostic prediction model incorporating at least one of the above-mentioned tests. We will assess studies for risk of bias using QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C. We will combine data using bivariate random effects meta-analyses. For tests evaluated across varying diagnostic thresholds, we will produce pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity across the full range of numerical thresholds, where possible. Where sufficient studies compare two or more index tests, we will perform additional analyses to compare the accuracy of different tests. Where feasible, we will stratify all meta-analyses by tumour size and patient characteristics, including cirrhosis aetiology and liver disease severity. Discussion: This review will synthesise evidence across the full range of possible surveillance tests, using advanced statistical methods to summarise accuracy across all thresholds and to compare the accuracy of different tests. PROSPERO registration: CRD42022357163.