Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 125
Filter
1.
BMJ ; 384: e079341, 2024 03 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38508676
2.
Asian J Urol ; 10(2): 177-181, 2023 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36942114

ABSTRACT

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy outcomes of percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for localised renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in a tertiary hospital patient who remained unfit for surgical intervention. Methods: We retrospectively analysed survival outcomes for patients with biopsy proven RCC treated by RFA at Royal Perth Hospital between September 2009 and May 2018. Complication data were gathered for all patients that underwent renal RFA along with 2- and 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) rate and compared the outcomes with data from previous studies. Results: A total of 69 patients (73 procedures) were eligible for the study, and those patients had biopsy-proven RCC with a minimum of 2-year follow-up. The complication rate was 8.2% (6/73) and local recurrence rate 9.6% (7/73). Two-year RFS is 95.7% and 5-year RFS is 78.8% on a median 3.82-year follow-up (interquartile range 1.90-5.75 years). Conclusion: RFA performed at our centre was found to be safe and effective with low complication rates and durable RFS in line with expectations from existing research. Our study demonstrated that RFA is an alternative modality of treatment for small renal tumours in patients unfit for surgical approach.

4.
BMJ ; 378: o2371, 2022 09 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36180080
5.
Br J Gen Pract ; 72(718): 204-205, 2022 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35483948
6.
Health Soc Care Community ; 30(2): e388-e396, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33152144

ABSTRACT

In an attempt to support care integration that promotes joined up service provision and patient-centred care across care boundaries, local health and social care organisations have embarked on several initiatives and approaches. A key component of service integration is the co-location of different professional groups. In this study, we consider the extent to which co-location is an enabler for service integration by examining multi-professional community care teams. The study presents findings from a qualitative evaluation of integrated care initiatives in a borough of East London, England, undertaken between 2017 and 2018. The evaluation employed a participatory approach, the Researcher-in-Residence model. Participant observation (n = 80 hr) and both semi-structured individual (n = 16) and group interviews (six groups, n = 17 participants) were carried out. Thematic analysis of the data was undertaken. The findings show that co-location can be an effective enabler for service integration providing a basis for joint working, fostering improved communication and information sharing if conditions such as shared information systems and professional cultures (shared beliefs and values) are met. Organisations must consider the potential barriers to service integration such as differing professional identity, limited understanding of roles and responsibilities and a lack of continuity in personnel. Co-location remains an important facet in the development of multi-professional teams and local service integration arrangements, but as yet, has not been widely acknowledged as a priority in care practice. Organisations that are committed to greying care boundaries and providing joined up patient care must ensure that sufficient focus is provided at the service delivery level and not assume that decades of silo working in health and social care and strong professional cultures will be resolved by co-location.


Subject(s)
Delivery of Health Care, Integrated , Patient-Centered Care , Communication , England , Humans , London , Patient Care Team
10.
BMJ ; 374: n2236, 2021 Sep 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34521620
11.
BMJ ; 374: n1842, 2021 07 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34301634
13.
Int J Integr Care ; 20(4): 2, 2020 Oct 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33177965

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: This paper examines one of the NHS England Pioneers programmes of Integrated Care, which was implemented in three localities in East London, covering the area served by one of the largest hospital groups in the UK and bringing together commissioners, providers and local authorities. The partners agreed to build a model of integrated care that focused on the whole person. This qualitative and participatory evaluation looked at how an ambitious vision translated into the delivery of integrated care on the ground. The study explored the micro-mechanisms of integrated care relationships based on the experience of health and social care professionals working in acute and community care settings. METHODS: We employed a participatory approach, the Researcher in Residence model, whereby the researcher was embedded in the organisations she evaluated and worked alongside managers and clinicians to build collaboration across the full range of stakeholders, develop shared learning, and find common ground through competing interests, while trying to address power imbalances. A number of complementary qualitative methods of data generation were used, including documentary analysis, participant observations, semi-structured interviews, and coproduction workshops with frontline health and social care professionals to interpret the data and develop recommendations. RESULTS: Our fieldwork exposed persistent organisational fragmentation, despite the dominant rhetoric of integration and efforts to build a shared vision at senior governance levels. The evaluation identified several important themes, including: a growing barrier between acute and community services; a persisting difficulty experienced by health and social care staff in working together because of professional and cultural differences, as well as conflicting organisational priorities and guidelines; and a lack of capacity and support to deliver a genuine multidisciplinary approach in practice, despite the ethos of multiagency being embraced widely. DISCUSSION: By focusing on professionals' working routines, we detailed how and why action taken by organisational leaders failed to have tangible impact. The inability to align organisational priorities and guidelines on the ground, as well as a failure to acknowledge the impact of structural incentives for organisations to compete at the expense of cooperation, in a context of limited financial and human resources, acted as barriers to more coordinated working. Within an environment of continuous reconfigurations, staff were often confused about the functions of new services and did not feel they had influence on change processes. Investing in a genuine bottom-up approach could ensure that the range of activities needed to generate system-wide cultural transformation reflect the capacity of the organisations and systems and address genuine local needs. LIMITATIONS: The authors acknowledge several limitations of this study, including the focus on one geographical area, East London, and the timing of the evaluation, with several new interventions and programmes introduced more or less simultaneously. Some of the intermediate care services under evaluation were still at pilot stage and some teams were undergoing new reconfigurations, reflecting the fast-pace of change of the past decade. This created confusion at times, for instance when discussing specific roles and activities with participants. We tried to address some of these challenges by organising several workshops with different teams to co-interpret and discuss the findings.

15.
Soc Sci Med ; 262: 113254, 2020 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32768774

ABSTRACT

Integrated care has been proposed as an organising principle to address the challenges of the rising demand for care services and limited resources. There is limited understanding of the role of learning in integrated care systems. Organisational Learning (OL) theory in the guise of 'Learning Practice' can offer a lens to study service integration and reflect on some of the challenges faced by multi-professional teams in developing a learning culture. The study presents findings from two qualitative evaluations of integrated care initiatives in three East London boroughs, England, undertaken between 2017 and 2018. The evaluations employed a participatory approach, the researcher-in-residence model, to coproduce findings with frontline staff working in multi-professional teams in community care. Thematic analysis was undertaken using an adapted version of the 'Learning Practice' framework. The majority of learning in the teams was single loop i.e. learning was mainly reactive to issues that arise. Developing a learning culture in the three boroughs was hindered by the differences in the professional and organisational cultures of health and social care and challenges in developing effective structures for learning. Individual organisational priorities and pressures inhibited both the embedding of learning and effective integration of care services at the frontline. Currently, learning is not inherent in integrated care planning. The adoption of the principles of OL optimising learning opportunities, support of innovation, managed risk taking and capitalising on the will of staff to work in multidisciplinary teams might positively contribute to the development of service integration.


Subject(s)
Delivery of Health Care, Integrated , Organizational Culture , England , Humans , London , Organizations
16.
J Health Organ Manag ; 34(5): 603-619, 2020 May 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32681632

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Organisational Development (OD), with its focus on partnership working and distributed leadership, is increasingly advocated as an effective approach to driving change. Our evaluation of the impact of OD on delivery of integrated care in three London boroughs sheds light on how OD is being understood and implemented within health services, and what impact it is having on delivery of care. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: The findings presented here are based on a qualitative and participatory evaluation. The authors looked at how health and social care professionals communicated and coordinated delivery of care and evaluated the impact of current OD activities on the ground to evidence whether and to which degree they are enabling frontline staff to change their working routines towards greater coordination. FINDINGS: Our findings highlight the limited reach and scope of a top-down approach to OD based on ad hoc coaching and staff engagement events, often delivered by external consultancies, and mostly focused at the senior management level. This approach fell short of enabling the creation of sustainable, integrated and collaborative organisations. Instead, some of the professionals that participated in our study tried to develop spaces that facilitated ongoing dialogue and mutual support among professionals on the ground. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Initiatives of bottom-up OD such as those described in this paper have greater potential to change working routines as they enable staff to move towards more collaborative and coordinated work. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: These findings contribute to the literature on OD in public services and highlight the benefits of a context-sensitive, pragmatic, and long-term approach to OD to help create sustainable collaborative organisations.


Subject(s)
Delivery of Health Care, Integrated/organization & administration , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Health Personnel/psychology , Organizational Innovation , Social Workers/psychology , Humans , Interviews as Topic , London , Qualitative Research
18.
Br J Gen Pract ; 70(697): e540-e547, 2020 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32661009

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in a rapid change in workload across healthcare systems. Factors related to this adaptation in UK primary care have not yet been examined. AIM: To assess the responsiveness and prioritisation of primary care consultation type for older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional database study examining consultations between 17 February and 10 May 2020 for patients aged ≥65 years, drawn from primary care practices within the Oxford Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) sentinel network, UK. METHOD: The authors reported the proportion of consultation type across five categories: clinical administration, electronic/video, face-to-face, telephone, and home visits. Temporal trends in telephone and face-to-face consultations were analysed by polypharmacy, frailty status, and socioeconomic group using incidence rate ratios (IRR). RESULTS: Across 3 851 304 consultations, the population median age was 75 years (interquartile range [IQR] 70-82); and 46% (n = 82 926) of the cohort (N = 180 420) were male. The rate of telephone and electronic/video consultations more than doubled across the study period (106.0% and 102.8%, respectively). Face-to-face consultations fell by 64.6% and home visits by 62.6%. This predominantly occurred across week 11 (week commencing 9 March 2020), coinciding with national policy change. Polypharmacy and frailty were associated with a relative increase in consultations. The greatest relative increase was among people taking ≥10 medications compared with those taking none (face-to-face IRR 9.90, 95% CI = 9.55 to 10.26; telephone IRR 17.64, 95% CI = 16.89 to 18.41). CONCLUSION: Primary care has undergone an unprecedented in-pandemic reorganisation while retaining focus on patients with increased complexity.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , House Calls/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Primary Health Care/organization & administration , Aged , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , General Practitioners/organization & administration , Humans , Male , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , United Kingdom/epidemiology
20.
JMIR Public Health Surveill ; 6(3): e19773, 2020 07 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32484782

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Routinely recorded primary care data have been used for many years by sentinel networks for surveillance. More recently, real world data have been used for a wider range of research projects to support rapid, inexpensive clinical trials. Because the partial national lockdown in the United Kingdom due to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in decreasing community disease incidence, much larger numbers of general practices are needed to deliver effective COVID-19 surveillance and contribute to in-pandemic clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this protocol is to describe the rapid design and development of the Oxford Royal College of General Practitioners Clinical Informatics Digital Hub (ORCHID) and its first two platforms. The Surveillance Platform will provide extended primary care surveillance, while the Trials Platform is a streamlined clinical trials platform that will be integrated into routine primary care practice. METHODS: We will apply the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) metadata principles to a new, integrated digital health hub that will extract routinely collected general practice electronic health data for use in clinical trials and provide enhanced communicable disease surveillance. The hub will be findable through membership in Health Data Research UK and European metadata repositories. Accessibility through an online application system will provide access to study-ready data sets or developed custom data sets. Interoperability will be facilitated by fixed linkage to other key sources such as Hospital Episodes Statistics and the Office of National Statistics using pseudonymized data. All semantic descriptors (ie, ontologies) and code used for analysis will be made available to accelerate analyses. We will also make data available using common data models, starting with the US Food and Drug Administration Sentinel and Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership approaches, to facilitate international studies. The Surveillance Platform will provide access to data for health protection and promotion work as authorized through agreements between Oxford, the Royal College of General Practitioners, and Public Health England. All studies using the Trials Platform will go through appropriate ethical and other regulatory approval processes. RESULTS: The hub will be a bottom-up, professionally led network that will provide benefits for member practices, our health service, and the population served. Data will only be used for SQUIRE (surveillance, quality improvement, research, and education) purposes. We have already received positive responses from practices, and the number of practices in the network has doubled to over 1150 since February 2020. COVID-19 surveillance has resulted in tripling of the number of virology sites to 293 (target 300), which has aided the collection of the largest ever weekly total of surveillance swabs in the United Kingdom as well as over 3000 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serology samples. Practices are recruiting to the PRINCIPLE (Platform Randomised trial of INterventions against COVID-19 In older PeopLE) trial, and these participants will be followed up through ORCHID. These initial outputs demonstrate the feasibility of ORCHID to provide an extended national digital health hub. CONCLUSIONS: ORCHID will provide equitable and innovative use of big data through a professionally led national primary care network and the application of FAIR principles. The secure data hub will host routinely collected general practice data linked to other key health care repositories for clinical trials and support enhanced in situ surveillance without always requiring large volume data extracts. ORCHID will support rapid data extraction, analysis, and dissemination with the aim of improving future research and development in general practice to positively impact patient care. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/19773.


Subject(s)
Clinical Trials as Topic , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , General Practice/organization & administration , Medical Records Systems, Computerized , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Public Health Surveillance , COVID-19 , Humans , Pandemics , Primary Health Care/organization & administration , Societies, Medical , United Kingdom/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...