Understanding the processes underpinning IMPlementing IMProved Asthma self-management as RouTine (IMP2ART) in primary care: study protocol for a process evaluation within a cluster randomised controlled implementation trial.

BACKGROUND: Providing supported self-management for people with asthma can reduce the burden on patients, health services and wider society. Implementation, however, remains poor in routine clinical practice. IMPlementing IMProved Asthma self-management as RouTine (IMP2ART) is a UK-wide cluster randomised implementation trial that aims to test the impact of a whole-systems implementation strategy, embedding supported asthma self-management in primary care compared with usual care. To maximise opportunities for sustainable implementation beyond the trial, it is necessary to understand how and why the IMP2ART trial achieved its clinical and implementation outcomes. METHODS: A mixed-methods process evaluation nested within the IMP2ART trial will be undertaken to understand how supported self-management was implemented (or not) by primary care practices, to aid interpretation of trial findings and to inform scaling up and sustainability. Data and analysis strategies have been informed by mid-range and programme-level theory. Quantitative data will be collected across all practices to describe practice context, IMP2ART delivery (including fidelity and adaption) and practice response. Case studies undertaken in three to six sites, supplemented by additional interviews with practice staff and stakeholders, will be undertaken to gain an in-depth understanding of the interaction of practice context, delivery, and response. Synthesis, informed by theory, will combine analyses of both qualitative and quantitative data. Finally, implications for the scale up of asthma self-management implementation strategies to other practices in the UK will be explored through workshops with stakeholders. DISCUSSION: This mixed-methods, theoretically informed, process evaluation seeks to provide insights into the delivery and response to a whole-systems approach to the implementation of supported self-management in asthma care in primary care. It is underway at a time of significant change in primary care in the UK. The methods have, therefore, been developed to be adaptable to this changing context and to capture the impact of these changes on the delivery and response to research and implementation processes.

Educators' perspectives of adopting virtual patient online learning tools to teach clinical reasoning in medical schools: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Learning tools using virtual patients can be used to teach clinical reasoning (CR) skills and overcome limitations of using face-to-face methods. However, the adoption of new tools is often challenging. The aim of this study was to explore UK medical educators' perspectives of what influences the adoption of virtual patient learning tools to teach CR. METHODS: A qualitative research study using semi-structured telephone interviews with medical educators in the UK with control over teaching materials of CR was conducted. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), commonly used in healthcare services implementation research was adapted to inform the analysis. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. RESULTS: Thirteen medical educators participated in the study. Three themes were identified from the data that influenced adoption: the wider context (outer setting); perceptions about the innovation; and the medical school (inner context). Participants' recognition of situations as opportunities or barriers related to their prior experiences of implementing online learning tools. For example, participants with experience of teaching using online tools viewed limited face-to-face placements as opportunities to introduce innovations using virtual patients. Beliefs that virtual patients may not mirror real-life consultations and perceptions of a lack of evidence for them could be barriers to adoption. Adoption was also influenced by the implementation climate of the setting, including positioning of CR in curricula; relationships between faculty, particularly where faculty were dispersed. CONCLUSIONS: By adapting an implementation framework for health services, we were able to identify features of educators, teaching processes and medical schools that may determine the adoption of teaching innovations using virtual patients. These include access to face-to-face teaching opportunities, positioning of clinical reasoning in the curriculum, relationship between educators and institutions and decision-making processes. Framing virtual patient learning tools as additional rather than as a replacement for face-to-face teaching could reduce resistance. Our adapted framework from healthcare implementation science may be useful in future studies of implementation in medical education.

Increasing medical students' engagement in public health: case studies illustrating the potential role of online learning.

BACKGROUND: The value of e-learning in medical education is widely recognized but there is little evidence of its value in teaching medical students about public health. Such evidence is needed because medical students' engagement with public health has been low. We present three recent case studies from UK medical schools to illustrate diverse ways in which online approaches can increase medical students' engagement with learning public health. METHODS: A comparative case study approach was used applying quantitative and qualitative data to examine engagement in terms of uptake/use amongst eligible students, acceptability and perceived effectiveness using an analytic framework based on Seven Principles of Effective Teaching. RESULTS: Across the three case studies, most (67-85%) eligible students accessed online materials, and rated them more favourably than live lectures. Students particularly valued opportunities to use e-learning flexibly in terms of time and place. Online technologies offered new ways to consolidate learning of key public health concepts. Although students found contributing to online discussions challenging, it provided opportunities for students to explore concepts in depth and enabled students that were uncomfortable speaking in face-to-face discussions to participate. CONCLUSIONS: E-learning can be applied in diverse ways that increase medical student engagement with public health teaching.

Comparing primary and secondary health-care use between diagnostic routes before a colorectal cancer diagnosis: cohort study using linked data.

BACKGROUND: Survival in cancer patients diagnosed following emergency presentations is poorer than those diagnosed through other routes. To identify points for intervention to improve survival, a better understanding of patients' primary and secondary health-care use before diagnosis is needed. Our aim was to compare colorectal cancer patients' health-care use by diagnostic route. METHODS: Cohort study of colorectal cancers using linked primary and secondary care and cancer registry data (2009-2011) from four London boroughs. The prevalence of all and relevant GP consultations and rates of primary and secondary care use up to 21 months before diagnosis were compared across diagnostic routes (emergency, GP-referred and consultant/other). RESULTS: The data set comprised 943 colorectal cancers with 24% diagnosed through emergency routes. Most (84%) emergency patients saw their GP 6 months before diagnosis but their symptom profile was distinct; fewer had symptoms meeting urgent referral criteria than GP-referred patients. Compared with GP-referred, emergency patients used primary care less (IRR: 0.85 (95% CI 0.78-0.93)) and urgent care more frequently (IRR: 1.56 (95% CI 1.12; 2.17)). CONCLUSIONS: Distinct patterns of health-care use in patients diagnosed through emergency routes were identified in this cohort. Such analyses using linked data can inform strategies for improving early diagnosis of colorectal cancer.