BACKGROUND: The prescription of injectable anticipatory medications ahead of possible need for last-days-of-life symptom relief is established community practice internationally. Healthcare teams and policy makers view anticipatory medication as having a key role in optimising effective and timely symptom control. However, how these medications are subsequently administered (used) is unclear and warrants detailed investigation to inform interdisciplinary practice and guidance. OBJECTIVE: To identify the frequency, timing and recorded circumstances of the administration of injectable end-of-life anticipatory medications prescribed for patients living at home and in residential care. DESIGN: A retrospective mixed-methods observational study using general practitioner (family doctor) and community nursing held clinical records. SETTING(S): Community-based care in two English counties. PARTICIPANTS: 167 deceased adult patients (aged 18+) registered with eleven general practitioner practices and two associated community nursing services. These were patients prescribed anticipatory medications, identified from the 30 most recent deaths per practice. Patients died between 1 March 2017 and 25 September 2019, from any cause except trauma, sudden death or suicide. METHODS: Patient characteristics, anticipatory medication discussions, recorded administration contexts and decision-making, medication details, recorded symptom control and comfort at death were collected from clinical records. Data analysis combined quantitative and qualitative analyses in a mixed methods approach. RESULTS: Anticipatory medications were administered to 59.9â¯% (100/167) patients, commenced between 0 and 586â¯days before death (median 3â¯days). Their usage was similar for patients who died from cancer and non-cancer conditions. Anticipatory medications were almost universally started and titrated by visiting nurses. Eleven patients had medications started between 59â¯days and 586â¯days before death for recorded reversible non-end-of-life care conditions. Only 5â¯% (5/100) of patient records contained detailed accounts of patient participation in decisions to start medications: four were recorded as being reluctant to commence medications but agreed to trial injections to relieve symptoms. Crucially, there was recurrent under-recording of the effectiveness of injectable medications and patient comfort. CONCLUSIONS: Prescribed medications were commonly administered by visiting community nurses to help manage last-days-of-life symptoms. However, patient records infrequently referred to the effectiveness of administered medication and perceived patient comfort. Most recorded references to patient and family preferences for involvement in anticipatory medication decision-making and their experiences of care were brief and perfunctory. More detailed information should be routinely recorded in clinical records to enable assessment of the appropriate and effective use of anticipatory medicines and how inter-professional collaboration and services could be developed to provide adequate twenty-four-hour cover. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Effectiveness of injectable end-of-life symptom control medications and patient comfort often under-recorded @Ben_Bowers__ @PELi_Cam @TheQNI.
Injections , Terminal Care , Humans , Retrospective Studies , Aged , Male , Female , Aged, 80 and over , Middle Aged , Adult
OBJECTIVE: Attribution of neuropsychiatric symptoms in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) relies heavily on clinician assessment. Limited clinic time, variable knowledge, and symptom under-reporting contributes to discordance between clinician assessments and patient symptoms. We obtained attributional data directly from patients and clinicians in order to estimate and compare potential levels of direct attribution to SLE of multiple neuropsychiatric symptoms using different patient-derived measures. METHODS: Quantitative and qualitative data analysed included: prevalence and frequency of neuropsychiatric symptoms, response to corticosteroids, and concurrence of neuropsychiatric symptoms with non-neuropsychiatric SLE disease activity. SLE patients were also compared with controls and inflammatory arthritis (IA) patients to explore attributability of neuropsychiatric symptoms to the direct disease effects on the brain/nervous system. RESULTS: We recruited 2,817 participants, including 400 clinicians. SLE patients (n = 609) reported significantly higher prevalences of neuropsychiatric symptoms than controls (n = 463) and IA patients (n = 489). SLE and IA patients' quantitative data demonstrated multiple neuropsychiatric symptoms relapsing/remitting with other disease symptoms such as joint pain. Over 45% of SLE patients reported resolution/improvement of fatigue, positive sensory symptoms, severe headache, and cognitive dysfunction with corticosteroids. Evidence of direct attributability in SLE was highest for hallucinations and severe headache. SLE patients had greater reported improvement from corticosteroids (p= 0.008), and greater relapsing-remitting with disease activity (p< 0.001) in the comparisons with IA patients for severe headache. Clinician and patients reported insufficient time to discuss patient-reported attributional evidence. Symptoms viewed as indirectly related/non-attributable were often less prioritised for discussion and treatment. CONCLUSION: We found evidence indicating varying levels of direct attributability of both common and previously unexplored neuropsychiatric symptoms in SLE patients, with hallucinations and severe headache assessed as the most directly attributable. There may also be-currently under-estimated-direct effects on the nervous system in IA and other systemic rheumatological diseases.
AIMS: There are few data on the feasibility of population screening for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) using hand-held electrocardiogram (ECG) devices outside a specialist setting or in people over the age of 75. We investigated the feasibility of screening when conducted without face-to-face contact ('remote') or via in-person appointments in primary care and explored impact of age on screening outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: People aged ≥65 years from 13 general practices in England participated in screening during 2019-20. This involved attending a practice nurse appointment (10 practices) or receiving an ECG device by post (three practices). Participants were asked to use a hand-held ECG for 1-4 weeks. Screening outcomes included uptake, quality of ECGs, AF detection rates, and uptake of anticoagulation if AF was detected. Screening was carried out by 2141 (87.5%) of people invited to practice nurse-led screening and by 288 (90.0%) invited to remote screening. At least 56 interpretable ECGs were provided by 98.0% of participants who participated for 3 weeks, with no significant differences by setting or age, except people aged 85 or over (91.1%). Overall, 2.6% (64/2429) screened participants had AF, with detection rising with age (9.2% in people aged 85 or over). A total of 53/64 (82.8%) people with AF commenced anticoagulation. Uptake of anticoagulation did not vary by age. CONCLUSION: Population screening for paroxysmal AF is feasible in general practice and without face-to-face contact for all ages over 64 years, including people aged 85 and over.
Atrial Fibrillation , Humans , Feasibility Studies , Mass Screening/methods , Electrocardiography/methods , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether general practitioner (GP) workforce contributes to the link between practice funding and patient experience. Specifically, to determine whether increased practice funding is associated with better patient experience, and to what degree an increase in workforce accounts for this relationship. SETTING: Primary care practice level analysis of workforce, funding and patient experience of all NHS practices in England. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The link between NHS-provided funding to general practice (payments per patient) and patient experience, as per the General Practice Patient Survey, was evaluated. Subsequently, mediation analysis, adjusted for covariates, was used to scrutinise the extent to which GP workforce accounts for this relationship (measured as the number of GPs per 10 000 patients). PARTICIPANTS: We included all general practices in England for which there was relevant data for each primary variable. Atypical practices were excluded, such as those with a patient list size of 0 or where the workforce variable was recorded as being more than 3 SD from the mean. After exclusion, 6139 practices were included in the final analysis. RESULTS: We found that workforce (GPs per 10 000 population) significantly (p<0.001) acts as a mediator in the effect of practice funding on overall patient experience even after adjusting for rurality, sex and age, and deprivation. On average, the mediated effect constitutes 30% of the total effect of practice funding on patient experience. CONCLUSIONS: The increase in the number of doctors in primary care in England appears to be a mechanism through which augmented practice funding could positively impact patient experience. Policy initiatives targeting improved patient experience should prioritise considerations related to workforce and practice funding.
General Practice , Mediation Analysis , Humans , England/epidemiology , Workforce , Primary Health Care , Patient Outcome Assessment
OBJECTIVES: As general practice increasingly moves towards large group practices, there is debate about the relative benefits, safety and sustainability of different care delivery models. This study investigates the performance of single-handed practices compared to practices with multiple doctors in England, UK. METHODS: Practices in England with more than 1000 patients were included. Workforce data and a quality control process classified practices as single-handed or multiple-handed. Outcomes were (i) GP patient survey scores measuring access, continuity, confidence in health professional and overall satisfaction; (ii) reported diabetes and hypertension outcomes; and (iii) emergency department presentation rates and cancer detection (percentage of cancers diagnosed by a 2-week wait). Generalised linear models, controlling for patient and practice characteristics, compared outcomes in single and multiple-handed practices and assessed the effect of GP age in single-handed practices. RESULTS: Single-handed practices were more commonly found in areas of high deprivation (41% compared to 20% of multiple-handed practices). Single-handed practices had higher patient-reported access, continuity and overall satisfaction but slightly lower diabetes management and cancer detection rates. Emergency department presentations were higher when controlling for patient characteristics in single-handed practices but not when also controlling for practice rurality and size. Increased deprivation was associated with lower performance in seven out of eight outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We found single-handed practices to be associated with high patient satisfaction while performing slightly less well on selected clinical outcomes. Further research is required to better understand the association between practice size, including increasing multidisciplinary working, on patient experience and outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: Neuropsychiatric lupus (NPSLE) is challenging to diagnose. Many neuropsychiatric symptoms, such as headache and hallucinations, cannot be verified by tests or clinician assessment. We investigated prioritisations of methods for diagnosing NPSLE and attributional views. METHODS: Thematic and comparative analyses were used to investigate how clinicians prioritise sources of evidence from a 13-item list, and explore discordances in clinician and patient perspectives on attribution. RESULTS: We identified high levels of variability and uncertainty in clinicians' assessments of neuropsychiatric symptoms in SLE patients. In attributional decisions, clinicians (surveys n = 400, interviews n = 50) ranked clinicians' assessments above diagnostic tests (many of which they reported were often unenlightening in NPSLE). Clinicians ranked patient opinion of disease activity last, and 46% of patients reported never/rarely having been asked if their SLE was flaring, despite experienced patients often having "attributional insight". SLE Patients (surveys n = 676, interviews n = 27) estimated higher attributability of neuropsychiatric symptoms to the direct effects of SLE on the nervous system than clinicians (p < 0.001 for all symptoms excluding mania), and 24% reported that their self-assessment of disease activity was never/rarely concordant with their clinicians. Reports of misattributions were common, particularly of non-verifiable diffuse symptoms. Terminology differed between clinicians and influenced attribution estimates. CONCLUSION: NPSLE diagnostic tests and clinician assessments have numerous limitations, particularly in detecting diffuse neuropsychiatric symptoms that can be directly attributable and benefit from immunosuppression. Our findings suggest that incorporating patient attributional insights-although also subject to limitations-may improve attribution decision-making. Consensus regarding terminology and interpretations of "direct attributability" is required.
BACKGROUND: The prescribing of injectable end-of-life anticipatory medications ahead of possible need is recommended best practice. The financial costs of these medications have been little studied. AIM: To identify the costs of anticipatory medications prescribed, used and not used for patients approaching the end-of-life at home and in residential care. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study using general practitioner and community nursing clinical records. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Data were collected from eleven general practitioner practices using the records of the 30 most recent deaths per practice. Patients were aged 18+ and died between 2017 and 2019 from any cause except trauma, sudden death or suicide. RESULTS: Anticipatory medications were prescribed to 167/329 patients, of which 164 were included in the analysis. Costs (GBP) were analysed both at patient-level and drug-level. Median anticipatory prescription cost was £43.17 (IQR: £38.98-£60.47, range £8.76-£229.82). Median administered (used) drug cost was £2.16 (IQR: £0.00-£12.09, range £0.00-£83.14). Median unused (wasted) drug cost was £41.47 (IQR: £29.15-£54.33, range £0.00-£195.36). Prescription, administered and unused costs were significantly higher for the 59 patients prescribed an anticipatory syringe driver. There were wide variations in the unused costs of individual drugs; Haloperidol and Cyclizine contributed 49% of total unused costs. CONCLUSION: The costs of prescribed and unused anticipatory medications were higher than previously reported but remain modest. Usage of prescriptions was lower than previously documented. There may be scope to reduce the quantity of vials that are routinely prescribed without adversely affecting care; further research is needed to investigate this possibility.
Drug Prescriptions , General Practitioners , Humans , Retrospective Studies , Death
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).
COVID-19 , Aged , Humans , Academies and Institutes , Braces , COVID-19/epidemiology , England/epidemiology , Pandemics , Systematic Reviews as Topic
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.
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.
COVID-19 , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , Cross-Sectional Studies , Delivery of Health Care , 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.
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.
COVID-19 , Patient Care , Patient Participation , Telemedicine , Humans , Caregivers , Cross-Sectional Studies , Pandemics
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.
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.
OBJECTIVES: To understand how people with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) disavow their support needs and the impact on care. METHODS: Two stage mixed-method design. Stage 1 involved sub-analyses of data from a mixed-method population-based longitudinal study exploring the needs of patients with advanced COPD. Using adapted criteria from mental health research, we identified 21 patients who disavowed their needs from the 235 patient cohort. Qualitative interview transcripts and self-report measures were analysed to compare these patients with the remaining cohort. In stage 2 focus groups (n = 2) with primary healthcare practitioners (n = 9) explored the implications of Stage 1 findings. RESULTS: Patients who disavowed their support needs described non-compliance with symptom management and avoidance of future care planning (qualitative data). Analysis of self-report measures of mental and physical health found this group reported fewer needs than the remaining sample yet wanted more GP contact. The link between risk factors and healthcare professional involvement present in the rest of the sample was missing for these patients. Focus group data suggested practitioners found these patients challenging. DISCUSSION: This study identified patients with COPD who disavow their support needs, but who also desire more GP contact. GPs report finding these patients challenging to engage.
Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive , Focus Groups , Humans , Longitudinal Studies , Palliative Care , Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive/therapy , Self Report
BACKGROUND: Epidemiological evidence for specific long-term conditions is required to inform best practices regarding the substantial health inequalities experienced by sexual minority individuals compared with heterosexual peers. AIM: To describe inequalities in long-term conditions among sexual minority (lesbian, gay, and bisexual [LGB]) adults. DESIGN & SETTING: Cross-sectional analysis of 1 341 339 nationally representative survey responses from the English GP Patient Survey (GPPS). METHOD: Stratifying by sex, the weighted prevalence and covariate-adjusted association of 15 long-term conditions were calculated, comparing sexual minority and heterosexual adults, considering variation by sexual orientation and variation in sexual orientation inequalities by deprivation, ethnic group, region, and age. RESULTS: After adjusting for deprivation, ethnic group, region, and age, 13 long-term conditions (all except cancer and hypertension) were more prevalent among sexual minority women than their heterosexual peers, with the largest inequalities for mental health problems (odds ratio [OR] 2.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.7 to 3.0), neurological conditions (OR 1.7, 95% CI = 1.5 to 1.8), dementia (OR 1.6, 95% CI = 1.3 to 1.9), and back problems (OR 1.4, 95% CI = 1.3 to 1.5). It was found that nine long-term conditions were also more prevalent among sexual minority men including mental health problems (OR 2.3, 95% CI = 2.2 to 2.4), 'all other conditions' (OR 1.8, 95% CI = 1.7 to 1.8), neurological conditions (OR 1.5, 95% CI = 1.4 to 1.6), and kidney or liver disease (OR 1.4, 95% CI = 1.3 to 1.5); inequalities were often largest for bisexual adults. Inequalities did not vary significantly by deprivation, ethnic group, or region except for mental health problems. Inequalities in multimorbidity were highest at younger ages; for example, LGB women aged 18-24 years had multimorbidity at the same level (approximately 20%) as heterosexual women aged 45-54 years. CONCLUSION: Sexual minority adults, especially bisexual adults, are at elevated risk for many long-term conditions and multimorbidity; this risk spans socioeconomic status and ethnic group, representing a significant healthcare challenge.
BACKGROUND: Medical graduates from the universities of Oxford and Cambridge have a lower intention to become GPs compared with other UK medical graduates. It is not clear to what extent this difference is present on admission to medical school. AIM: To compare the career intention and influencing factors of students on admission to different UK medical schools. DESIGN & SETTING: First year of a 6-year prospective cohort study of medical students admitted in autumn 2020 to the three East of England medical schools: University of East Anglia (UEA), University of Cambridge (UOC), and Anglia Ruskin University (ARU). METHOD: An online survey instrument was administered at the beginning of the first year. This measured self-reported career interests and various influencing factors, including perceptions of general practice. RESULTS: UOC students declared a lower intention to become a doctor, a higher likelihood of choosing careers in pathology and public health, and a much lower likelihood of becoming a GP than students of UEA or ARU (all at P<0.001). In all three schools, the phrases least associated with general practice were 'opportunities for creativity/innovation' and 'research/academic opportunities', whereas the phrases most associated with general practice were 'favourable working hours' and 'flexibility'. However, research/academic opportunities were far more important, and favourable working hours far less important, to UOC students (P<0.001 for both) than to students of UEA or ARU. CONCLUSION: UOC students' lower intention to become a GP appears to be present on entry to medical school. This may be explained in part by these students placing a higher importance on research/academic opportunities, combined with the widely held perception that GP careers lack these opportunities.
BACKGROUND: In England, demand for primary care services is increasing and GP shortages are widespread. Recently introduced primary care networks (PCNs) aim to expand the use of additional practice-based roles such as physician associates (PAs), pharmacists, paramedics, and others through financial incentives for recruitment of these roles. Inequalities in general practice, including additional roles, have not been examined in recent years, which is a meaningful gap in the literature. Previous research has found that workforce inequalities are associated with health outcome inequalities. AIM: To examine recent trends in general practice workforce inequalities. DESIGN & SETTING: A longitudinal study using quarterly General Practice Workforce datasets from 2015-2020 in England. METHOD: The slope indices of inequality (SIIs) for GPs, nurses, total direct patient care (DPC) staff, PAs, pharmacists, and paramedics per 10 000 patients were calculated quarterly, and plotted over time, with and without adjustment for patient need. RESULTS: Fewer GPs, total DPC staff, and paramedics per 10 000 patients were employed in more deprived areas. Conversely, more PAs and pharmacists per 10 000 patients were employed in more deprived areas. With the exception of total DPC staff, these observed inequalities widened over time. The unadjusted analysis showed more nurses per 10 000 patients employed in more deprived areas. These values were not significant after adjustment but approached a more equal or pro-poor distribution over time. CONCLUSION: Significant workforce inequalities exist and are even increasing for several key general practice roles, with workforce shortages disproportionately affecting more deprived areas. Policy solutions are urgently needed to ensure an equitably distributed workforce and reduce health inequities.
Aim: Despite poorer health and healthcare outcomes experienced by lesbian, gay and bisexual adults, data for research to characterize and address these disparities remain limited. Patients & methods: We describe sexual history information from 502,543 UK Biobank participants recruited between 2006 and 2010, as sexual identity was not collected from the cohort at baseline, and compare this with sexual history and sexual identity responses to the third National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (NATSAL-3), collected between 2010 and 2012. Results: After exclusions, 700 (0.3%) women and 2112 (1.2%) men in UK Biobank reported a history of exclusively same-sex sex and 5162 (2.3%) women and 4275 (2.3%) men reported a history of sex with both women and men; estimates were consistent with, although slightly lower those from NATSAL-3. Conclusion: UK Biobank is an important resource for sexual minority health research.
Lay abstract Although lesbian, gay and bisexual adults experience poorer health and healthcare outcomes, data for researchers to use to understand and address these disparities remain limited. UK Biobank is a research study which recruited, and is now following up, over half a million adults aged between 40 and 70. When participants were recruited they were not asked about sexual identity but they were asked about their history of sex with both women and men. In this research, we compared the responses to this question in UK Biobank to responses from another survey, the third National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles, and found the estimates were broadly comparable. We also provide some advice to researchers on how to use UK Biobank in future research to explore disparities in health outcomes experienced by lesbian, gay and bisexual adults.
Biological Specimen Banks , Minority Health , Adult , Bisexuality , Female , Humans , Male , Sexual Behavior , United Kingdom
OBJECTIVE: Younger people, minority ethnic groups, sexual minorities and people of lower socioeconomic status report poorer experiences of primary care. In light of NHS ambitions to reduce unwarranted variations in care, we aimed to investigate whether inequalities in patient experience of primary care changed between 2011 and 2017, using data from the General Practice Patient Survey in England. METHODS: We considered inequalities in relation to age, sex, deprivation, ethnicity, sexual orientation and geographical region across five dimensions of patient experience: overall experience, doctor communication, nurse communication, access and continuity of care. We used linear regression to explore whether the magnitude of inequalities changed between 2011 and 2017, using mixed models to assess changes within practices and models without accounting for practice to assess national trends. RESULTS: We included 5,241,408 responses over 11 survey waves from 2011-2017. There was evidence that inequalities changed over time (p < 0.05 for 27/30 models), but the direction and magnitude of changes varied. Changes in gaps in experience ranged from a 1.6 percentage point increase for experience of access among sexual minorities, to a 5.6 percentage point decrease for continuity, where experience worsened for older ages. Inequalities in access in relation to socio-economic status remained reasonably stable for individuals attending the same GP practice; nationally inequalities in access increased 2.1 percentage points (p < 0.0001) between respondents living in more/less deprived areas, suggesting access is declining fastest in practices in more deprived areas. CONCLUSIONS: There have been few substantial changes in inequalities in patient experience of primary care between 2011 and 2017.
General Practice , Aged , England , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Minority Groups , Primary Health Care , Surveys and Questionnaires
