Implementing Germ Defence digital behaviour change intervention via all primary care practices in England to reduce respiratory infections during the COVID-19 pandemic: an efficient cluster randomised controlled trial using the OpenSAFELY platform.

BACKGROUND: Germ Defence ( www.germdefence.org ) is an evidence-based interactive website that promotes behaviour change for infection control within households. To maximise the potential of Germ Defence to effectively reduce the spread of COVID-19, the intervention needed to be implemented at scale rapidly. METHODS: With NHS England approval, we conducted an efficient two-arm (1:1 ratio) cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) to examine the effectiveness of randomising implementation of Germ Defence via general practitioner (GP) practices across England, UK, compared with usual care to disseminate Germ Defence to patients. GP practices randomised to the intervention arm (n = 3292) were emailed and asked to disseminate Germ Defence to all adult patients via mobile phone text, email or social media. Usual care arm GP practices (n = 3287) maintained standard management for the 4-month trial period and then asked to share Germ Defence with their adult patients. The primary outcome was the rate of GP presentations for respiratory tract infections (RTI) per patient. Secondary outcomes comprised rates of acute RTIs, confirmed COVID-19 diagnoses and suspected COVID-19 diagnoses, COVID-19 symptoms, gastrointestinal infection diagnoses, antibiotic usage and hospital admissions. The impact of the intervention on outcome rates was assessed using negative binomial regression modelling within the OpenSAFELY platform. The uptake of the intervention by GP practice and by patients was measured via website analytics. RESULTS: Germ Defence was used 310,731 times. The average website satisfaction score was 7.52 (0-10 not at all to very satisfied, N = 9933). There was no evidence of a difference in the rate of RTIs between intervention and control practices (rate ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.96, 1.06, p = 0.70). This was similar to all other eight health outcomes. Patient engagement within intervention arm practices ranged from 0 to 48% of a practice list. CONCLUSIONS: While the RCT did not demonstrate a difference in health outcomes, we demonstrated that rapid large-scale implementation of a digital behavioural intervention is possible and can be evaluated with a novel efficient prospective RCT methodology analysing routinely collected patient data entirely within a trusted research environment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered in the ISRCTN registry (14602359) on 12 August 2020.

Primary Care implementation of Germ Defence, a digital behaviour change intervention to improve household infection control during the COVID-19 pandemic: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness of randomising dissemination of the Germ Defence behaviour change website via GP practices across England UK. TRIAL DESIGN: A two-arm (1:1 ratio) cluster randomised controlled trial implementing Germ Defence via GP practices compared with usual care. PARTICIPANTS: Setting: All Primary care GP practices in England. PARTICIPANTS: All patients aged 16 years and over who were granted access by participating GP practices. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Intervention: We will ask staff at GP practices randomised to the intervention arm to share the weblink to Germ Defence with all adult patients registered at their practice during the 4-month trial implementation period and care will otherwise follow current standard management. Germ Defence is an interactive website ( http://GermDefence.org/ ) employing behaviour change techniques and practical advice on how to reduce the spread of infection in the home. The coronavirus version of Germ Defence helps people understand what measures to take and when to take them to avoid infection. This includes hand washing, avoiding sharing rooms and surfaces, dealing with deliveries and ventilating rooms. Using behaviour change techniques, it helps users think through and adopt better home hygiene habits and find ways to solve any barriers, providing personalised goal setting and tailored advice that fits users' personal circumstances and problem solving to overcome barriers. Comparator: Patients at GP practices randomised to the usual care arm will receive current standard management for the 4-month trial period after which we will ask staff to share the link to Germ Defence with all adult patients registered at their practice. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary outcome is the effects of implementing Germ Defence on prevalence of all respiratory tract infection diagnoses during the 4-month trial implementation period. The secondary outcomes are: 1) incidence of COVID-19 diagnoses 2) incidence of COVID-19 symptom presentation 3) incidence of gastrointestinal infections 4) number of primary care consultations 5) antibiotic usage 6) hospital admissions 7) uptake of GP practices disseminating Germ Defence to their patients 8) usage of the Germ Defence website by individuals who were granted access by their GP practice RANDOMISATION: GP practices will be randomised on a 1:1 basis by the independent Bristol Randomised Trials Collaboration (BRTC). Clinical Commission Groups (CCGs) in England will be divided into blocks according to region, and equal numbers in each block will be randomly allocated to intervention or usual care. The randomisation schedule will be generated in Stata statistical software by a statistician not otherwise involved in the enrolment of general practices into the study. BLINDING (MASKING): The principal investigators, the statistician and study collaborators will remain blinded from the identity of randomised practices until the end of the study. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): To detect planned effect size (based on PRIMIT trial, Little et al, 2015): 11.1 million respondents from 6822 active GP practices. Assuming 25% of these GP practices will engage, we will contact all GP practices in England spread across 135 Clinical Commissioning Groups. TRIAL STATUS: Protocol version 2.0, dated 13 January 2021. Implementation is ongoing. The implementation period started on 10 November 2020 and will end on 10 March 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered in the ISRCTN registry ( isrctn.com/ ISRCTN14602359 ) on 12 August 2020. FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

Using and implementing care bundles for patients with acute admission for COPD: qualitative study of healthcare professionals' experience in four hospitals in England.

BACKGROUND: Care bundles are sets of evidence-based interventions to improve quality of hospital care at admission and discharge. Within a wider multi-method evaluation of care bundles for adults with an emergency admission for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, a qualitative study was conducted. The aim was to evaluate how bundles were used, and healthcare professionals' experiences of the impact of bundles on the process of care delivery. METHODS: Within the wider evaluation, four acute hospitals that were using COPD care bundles were purposefully sampled for geographical variation. Qualitative data were gathered through non-participant observation of patient care and interviews with healthcare professionals, patients and carers. This paper reports a thematic analysis of data from observation and interviews with professionals. RESULTS: Healthcare professionals generally experienced care bundles as positive for standardising working practices and patient care, valuing how bundles could support a clear care pathway for patients, enable transitions between settings and identify postdischarge support required by patients. Successful use of bundles was perceived as more likely with the presence of either (or both) a clinical champion for bundles and system-based initiatives such as financial incentives, within a local culture of quality improvement. Challenges in accurately diagnosing COPD hampered bundle use, including delivery of bundles to those subsequently considered ineligible, or missed opportunities to deliver admission bundles to those with COPD. CONCLUSION: Care bundles shape admission and discharge care processes for patients with COPD, from the perspective of staff involved in their delivery. However, different organisational, staff and clinical factors aid or hinder bundle use in an acute hospital context, suggesting potentially resolvable reasons for variable implementation of bundles. Finally, bundles may enhance staff experience of care delivery, even if the impact on patient outcomes remains uncertain.

Observational Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Using Routine Data: Admission and Discharge Care Bundles for Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a prevalent respiratory disease, and accounts for a substantial proportion of unplanned hospital admissions. Care bundles for COPD are a set of standardised, evidence-based interventions that may improve outcomes in hospitalised COPD patients. We estimated the cost effectiveness of care bundles for acute exacerbations of COPD using routinely collected observational data. METHODS: Data were collected from implementation (n = 7) and comparator (n = 7) acute hospitals located in England and Wales. We conducted a difference-in-difference cost-effectiveness analysis using a secondary care (i.e. hospital) perspective to examine the effect on National Health Service (NHS) costs and 90-day mortality of implementing care bundles compared with usual care for patients admitted to hospital with an acute exacerbation of COPD. Adjusted models included as covariates patient age, sex, deprivation, ethnicity and seasonal effects and mixed effects for site. RESULTS: Outcomes and baseline characteristics of up to 12,532 patients were analysed using both complete case and multiply imputed models. Implementation of bundles varied. COPD care bundles were associated with slightly lower secondary care costs, but there was no evidence that they improved outcomes once adjustments were made for site and baseline covariates. Care bundles were unlikely to be cost effective for the NHS with an estimated net monetary benefit per 90-day death avoided from an adjusted multiply imputed model of -£1231 (95% confidence interval - £2428 to - £35) at a high cost-effectiveness threshold of £50,000 per 90-day death avoided. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Care bundles for COPD did not appear to be cost effective, although this finding may have been influenced by unmeasured variations in bundle implementation and other potential confounding factors.

The impact of a named GP scheme on continuity of care and emergency hospital admission: a cohort study among older patients in England, 2012-2016.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the introduction of a named general practitioner (GP, family physician) improved patients' healthcare for patients aged 75 and over in England. SETTING: Random sample of 27 500 patients aged 65 to 84 in 2012 within 139 English practices from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked with Hospital Episode Statistics. DESIGN: Prospective cohort approach, measuring patients' GP consultations and emergency hospital admissions 2 years before/after the intervention. Patients were grouped in (i) aged over 74 and (ii) younger than 75 in both periods in order to compare who were or were not subject to the intervention. Adjusted associations between the named GP scheme, continuity of care and emergency hospital admission were examined using multilevel modelling. INTERVENTION: National Health Service policy to introduce a named accountable GP for patients aged over 74 in April 2014. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (A) Continuity of care index-score, (B) risk of emergency hospital admissions, (C) number of emergency hospital admissions. RESULTS: The intervention was associated with a decrease in continuity index-scores of -0.024 (95% CI -0.030 to -0.018, p<0.001); there were no differences in the decrease between the two age groups (-0.005, 95% CI -0.014 to 0.005). In the pre-intervention and post-intervention periods, respectively, 15.4% and 19.4% patients had an emergency admission. The probability of an emergency hospital admission increased after the intervention (OR 1.156, 95% CI 1.064 to 1.257, p=0.001); this increase was bigger for patients over 74 (relative OR 1.191, 95% CI 1.066 to 1.330, p=0.002). The average number of emergency hospital admissions increased after the intervention (rate ratio (RR) 1.178, 95% CI 1.103 to 1.259, p<0.001); this increase was greater for patients over 74 (relative RR 1.143, 95% CI 1.052 to 1.242, p=0.001). CONCLUSION: The introduction of the named GP scheme was not associated with improvements in either continuity of care or rates of unplanned hospitalisation.

Evaluation of 'care bundles' for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): a multisite study in the UK.

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) accounts for 10% of emergency hospital admissions in the UK annually. Nearly 33% of patients are readmitted within 28 days of discharge. We evaluated the effectiveness of implementing standardised packages of care called 'care bundles' on COPD readmission, emergency department (ED) attendance, mortality, costs and process of care. Methods: This is a mixed-methods, controlled before-and-after study with nested case studies. 31 acute hospitals in England and Wales which introduced COPD care bundles (implementation sites) or provided usual care (comparator sites) were recruited and provided monthly aggregate data. 14 sites provided additional individual patient data. Participants were adults admitted with an acute exacerbation of COPD. Results: There was no evidence that care bundles reduced 28-day COPD readmission rates: OR=1.02 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.26). However, the rate of ED attendance was reduced in implementation sites over and above that in comparator sites (implementation: IRR=0.63 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.71); comparator: IRR=1.12 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.24); group-time interaction p<0.001). At implementation sites, delivery of all bundle elements was higher but was only achieved in 2.2% (admissions bundle) and 7.6% (discharge bundle) of cases. There was no evidence of cost-effectiveness. Staff viewed bundles positively, believing they help standardise practice and facilitate communication between clinicians. However, they lacked skills in change management, leading to inconsistent implementation. Discussion: COPD care bundles were not effectively implemented in this study. They were associated with a reduced number of subsequent ED attendances, but not with change in readmissions, mortality or reduced costs. This is unsurprising given the low level of bundle uptake in implementation sites, and it remains to be determined if COPD care bundles affect patient care and outcomes when they are effectively implemented. Trial registration number: ISRCTN13022442.

A systematic review to identify and assess the effectiveness of alternatives for people over the age of 65 who are at risk of potentially avoidable hospital admission.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: There are some older patients who are 'at the decision margin' of admission. This systematic review sought to explore this issue with the following objective: what admission alternatives are there for older patients and are they safe, effective and cost-effective? A secondary objective was to identify the characteristics of those older patients for whom the decision to admit to hospital may be unclear. DESIGN: Systematic review of controlled studies (April 2005-December 2016) with searches in Medline, Embase, Cinahl and CENTRAL databases. The protocol is registered at PROSPERO (CRD42015020371). Studies were assessed using Cochrane risk of bias criteria, and relevant reviews were assessed with the AMSTAR tool. The results are presented narratively and discussed. SETTING: Primary and secondary healthcare interface. PARTICIPANTS: People aged over 65 years at risk of an unplanned admission. INTERVENTIONS: Any community-based intervention offered as an alternative to admission to an acute hospital. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES MEASURES: Reduction in secondary care use, patient-related outcomes, safety and costs. RESULTS: Nineteen studies and seven systematic reviews were identified. These recruited patients with both specific conditions and mixed chronic and acute conditions. The interventions involved paramedic/emergency care practitioners (n=3), emergency department-based interventions (n=3), community hospitals (n=2) and hospital-at-home services (n=11). Data suggest that alternatives to admission appear safe with potential to reduce secondary care use and length of time receiving care. There is a lack of patient-related outcomes and cost data. The important features of older patients for whom the decision to admit is uncertain are: age over 75 years, comorbidities/multi-morbidities, dementia, home situation, social support and individual coping abilities. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review describes and assesses evidence on alternatives to acute care for older patients and shows that many of the options available are safe and appear to reduce resource use. However, cost analyses and patient preference data are lacking.

Participants' experiences of facilitated physical activity for the management of depression in primary care.

A qualitative study was conducted within a randomised trial of facilitated physical activity for depression based on Self-Determination Theory and motivational interviewing. Interviews were held with 19 participants at 4 months, and 12 participants were re-interviewed 8 months later. The interviews were analysed in accordance with Grounded Theory using framework. Themes consisted of the following: relationship with the physical activity facilitators, mode of facilitation, impact of contact with physical activity facilitator/assimilation and future plans, change in activity, and effectiveness of physical activity facilitator techniques. Engagement in physical activity was enhanced within an autonomy-supportive environment.

Facilitated physical activity as a treatment for depressed adults: randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of facilitated physical activity as an adjunctive treatment for adults with depression presenting in primary care. DESIGN: Pragmatic, multicentre, two arm parallel randomised controlled trial. SETTING: General practices in Bristol and Exeter. PARTICIPANTS: 361 adults aged 18-69 who had recently consulted their general practitioner with symptoms of depression. All those randomised had a diagnosis of an episode of depression as assessed by the clinical interview schedule-revised and a Beck depression inventory score of 14 or more. INTERVENTIONS: In addition to usual care, intervention participants were offered up to three face to face sessions and 10 telephone calls with a trained physical activity facilitator over eight months. The intervention was based on theory and aimed to provide individually tailored support and encouragement to engage in physical activity. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was self reported symptoms of depression, assessed with the Beck depression inventory at four months post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes included use of antidepressants and physical activity at the four, eight, and 12 month follow-up points, and symptoms of depression at eight and 12 month follow-up. RESULTS: There was no evidence that participants offered the physical activity intervention reported improvement in mood by the four month follow-up point compared with those in the usual care group; adjusted between group difference in mean Beck depression inventory score -0.54 (95% confidence interval -3.06 to 1.99; P=0.68). Similarly, there was no evidence that the intervention group reported a change in mood by the eight and 12 month follow-up points. Nor was there evidence that the intervention reduced antidepressant use compared with usual care (adjusted odds ratio 0.63, 95% confidence interval 0.19 to 2.06; P=0.44) over the duration of the trial. However, participants allocated to the intervention group reported more physical activity during the follow-up period than those allocated to the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio 2.27, 95% confidence interval 1.32 to 3.89; P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of a facilitated physical activity intervention to usual care did not improve depression outcome or reduce use of antidepressants compared with usual care alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16900744.

Physical activity as a treatment for depression: the TREAD randomised trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Depression is one of the most common reasons for consulting a General Practitioner (GP) within the UK. Whilst antidepressants have been shown to be clinically effective, many patients and healthcare professionals would like to access other forms of treatment as an alternative or adjunct to drug therapy for depression. A recent systematic review presented some evidence that physical activity could offer one such option, although further investigation is needed to test its effectiveness within the context of the National Health Service.The aim of this paper is to describe the protocol for a randomised, controlled trial (RCT) designed to evaluate an intervention developed to increase physical activity as a treatment for depression within primary care. METHODS/DESIGN: The TREAD study is a pragmatic, multi-centre, two-arm RCT which targets patients presenting with a new episode of depression. Patients were approached if they were aged 18-69, had recently consulted their GP for depression and, where appropriate, had been taking antidepressants for less than one month. Only those patients with a confirmed diagnosis of a depressive episode as assessed by the Clinical Interview Schedule-Revised (CIS-R), a Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) score of at least 14 and informed written consent were included in the study. Eligible patients were individually randomised to one of two treatment groups; usual GP care or usual GP care plus facilitated physical activity. The primary outcome of the trial is clinical symptoms of depression assessed using the BDI four months after randomisation. A number of secondary outcomes are also measured at the 4-, 8- and 12-month follow-up points including quality of life, attitude to and involvement in physical activity and antidepressant use/adherence. Outcomes will be analysed on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis and will use linear and logistic regression models to compare treatments. DISCUSSION: The results of the trial will provide information about the effectiveness of physical activity as a treatment for depression. Given the current prevalence of depression and its associated economic burden, it is hoped that TREAD will provide a timely contribution to the evidence on treatment options for patients, clinicians and policy-makers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 16900744.

Can a health forecasting service offer COPD patients a novel way to manage their condition?

OBJECTIVES: The UK Meteorological Office (Met Office) has developed a health forecasting service for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients, combining a rule-based model predicting risk based on environmental conditions with an anticipatory care intervention providing information on self-management and warnings via an interactive telephone call. Our aim was to explore the acceptability and utility of such a service to patients with COPD and its perceived impact on their behaviour and disease management. METHODS: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey of service users drawn from 189 general practices in England, Scotland and Wales at the end of the winter of 2007/8. RESULTS: Completed questionnaires were received from 3288 COPD patients, representing a response rate of 40%. Eighty-five percent of those returning a questionnaire reported at least one exacerbation during the study period and 8% had been admitted to hospital on one occasion or more. The majority of respondents deemed the information pack (comprising a booklet and thermometers) useful while the automated calls were generally said to be convenient, easy to understand and reassuring. Those less satisfied with the service felt they were already sufficiently aware of the prevailing weather conditions or felt more detailed information was needed. Most benefit was reported by those patients who were willing to be pro-active in the management of their condition, with the service encouraging 36% of respondents to seek a repeat prescription, 28% to re-read their information pack and 12% to consult their GP for worsening of symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Patients found the automated interactive calling, combined with a health risk forecast, both viable and useful, welcoming the information and tools it offered. In many cases, it added to patients' understanding of their illness and promoted better self-management. Future research should focus on the potential impact of the service in terms of health outcomes and cost-effectiveness.

Comparing care at walk-in centres and at accident and emergency departments: an exploration of patient choice, preference and satisfaction.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the impact of establishing walk-in centres alongside emergency departments on patient choice, preference and satisfaction. METHODS: A controlled, mixed-method study comparing 8 emergency departments with co-located walk-in centres with the same number of "traditional" emergency departments. This paper focuses on the results of a cross-sectional questionnaire survey of users. RESULTS: Survey data demonstrated that patients were frequently unable to distinguish between being treated at a walk-in centre or at an accident and emergency (A&E) department and, even where this was the case, opportunities to exercise choice about their preferred care provider were often limited. Few made an active choice to attend a co-located walk-in centre. Patients attending walk-in centres were just as likely to be satisfied overall with the care they received as their counterparts who were treated in the co-located A&E facility, although walk-in centre users reported greater satisfaction with some specific aspects of their care and consultation. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas one of the key policy goals underpinning the co-location of walk-in centres next to an A&E department was to provide patients with more options for accessing healthcare and greater choice, leading in turn to increased satisfaction, this evaluation was able to provide little evidence to support this. The high percentage of patients expressing a preference for care in an established emergency department compared with that in a new walk-in centre facility raises questions for future policy development. Further consideration should therefore be given to the role that A&E-focused walk-in centres play in the Department of Health's current policy agenda, as far as patient choice is concerned.

The impact of co-located NHS walk-in centres on emergency departments.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the impact of establishing walk-in centres alongside emergency departments (EDs) on attendance rates, visit duration, process, costs and outcome of care. METHODS: Eight hospitals with co-located EDs and walk-in centres were compared with eight matched EDs without walk-in centres. Site visits were conducted. Routine data about attendance numbers and use of resources were analysed. A random sample of records of patients attending before and after the opening of walk-in centres was also assessed. Patients who had not been admitted to hospital were sent a postal questionnaire. RESULTS: At most sites, the walk-in centres did not have a distinct identity and there were few differences in the way services were provided compared with control sites. Overall, there was no evidence of an increase in attendance at sites with walk-in centres, but considerable variability across sites was found. The proportion of patients managed within the 4 h National Health Service target improved at sites both with and without walk-in centres. There was no evidence of any difference in reconsultation rates, costs of care or patient outcomes at sites with or without walk-in centres. CONCLUSIONS: Most hospitals in this study implemented the walk-in centre concept to a very limited extent. Consequently, there was no evidence of any effect on attendance rates, process, costs or outcome of care.

Drinking and motivations to drink among adolescent children of parents with alcohol problems.

AIMS: To study the influences of parental alcohol problems on adolescents' alcohol consumption and motivations to drink alcohol. METHODS: A community sample of 1744 adolescents from schools in South Wales completed the 6-item Children of Alcoholics Screening Test, Drinking Motives Questionnaire, and survey measures of alcohol consumption. RESULTS: Children of parents with alcohol problems constituted almost one-fifth of the sample group and were found to drink more frequently, more heavily, and more often alone than children of parents without alcohol problems. Parental alcohol problems were also related to internal motives to drink (e.g. coping) in their adolescent children. Across the entire sample, internal motives to drink interacted with parental alcohol problems in predicting alcohol consumption and drinking frequency. CONCLUSION: Parental alcohol problems appeared to co-exist with an asocial pattern of alcohol consumption in adolescents that involves drinking alone and drinking to feel intoxicated or to forget about problems. In addition to the external, social motives to drink, which are shared by most adolescents, nearly one in five of the adolescents studied reported salient internal motives to drink that tended to coexist with alcohol problems in their parents.

Impact of NHS walk-in centres on the workload of other local healthcare providers: time series analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of NHS walk-in centres on the workload of local accident and emergency departments, general practices, and out of hours services. DESIGN: Time series analysis in walk-in centre sites with no-treatment control series in matched sites. SETTING: Walk-in centres and matched control towns without walk-in centres in England. PARTICIPANTS: 20 accident and emergency departments, 40 general practices, and 14 out of hours services within 3 km of a walk-in centre or the centre of a control town. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean number (accident and emergency departments) or rate (general practices and out of hours services) of consultations per month in the 12 month periods before and after an index date. RESULTS: A reduction in consultations at emergency departments (-175 (95% confidence interval -387 to 36) consultations per department per month) and general practices (-19.8 (-53.3 to 13.8) consultations per 1000 patients per month) close to walk-in centres became apparent, although these reductions were not statistically significant. Walk-in centres did not have any impact on consultations on out of hours services. CONCLUSION: It will be necessary to assess the impact of walk-in centres in a larger number of sites and over a prolonged period, to determine whether they reduce the demand on other local NHS providers.

Questionnaire survey of users of NHS walk-in centres: observational study.

BACKGROUND: NHS walk-in centres have recently been established throughout England to improve access to primary health care. AIM: To determine the characteristics and experiences of people consulting NHS walk-in centres compared with general practice. DESIGN OF STUDY: Observational study using questionnaires. SETTING: Thirty-eight walk-in centres and 34 neighbouring general practices. METHOD: People attending randomly selected survey sessions at walk-in centres or neighbouring general practices on a 'same-day' basis were given a self-administered questionnaire. This collected data about socio-demographic characteristics, reasons for consulting, attitudes to continuity, satisfaction, enablement, referrals, and intentions. RESULTS: Walk-in centre visitors were more likely to be owner-occupiers (55% versus 49%; P<0.001), to have further education (25% versus 19%; P = 0.006), and to be white (88% versus 84%; P< 0.001) than general practice visitors. Main reasons for attending a walk-in centre were speed of access and convenience. Walk-in centre visitors were more likely to attend on the first day of illness (28% versus 10%; P<0.001), less likely to expect a prescription (38% versus 70%, P<0.001), and placed less importance on continuity of care (adjusted odds ratio = 0.58; 95% CI = 0.50 to 0.68) than general practice visitors. People were more satisfied with walk-in centres (adjusted mean difference = 6.6%; 95% CI = 5.0% to 8.2%). Enablement scores were slightly higher in general practice (adjusted mean difference = 0.40; 95 % CI = 0.11 to 0. 6). Following the consultation 13% of walk-in centre visitors were referred to general practice, but 32% intended to make an appointment. CONCLUSION: NHS walk-in centres improve access to care, but not necessarily for those people with greatest health needs. People predominantly attend with problems of recent onset as an alternative to existing health providers, and are very satisfied with the care received. These benefits need to be considered in relation to the cost, and in comparison with other ways of improving access to health care.