Navigating challenges and workarounds: A qualitative study of healthcare and support workers' perceptions on providing care to people seeking sanctuary.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare and support workers play a pivotal role in delivering quality services and support to people seeking sanctuary who have experienced poor physical and mental health linked to previous trauma, relocation and loss of freedoms. However, they often encounter various challenges in their daily work, ranging from communication barriers to resource constraints. This qualitative study seeks to delve into the perspectives of healthcare and support workers' experience of workarounds, employed to overcome barriers to providing care. AIM: This study aims to describe healthcare providers', practitioners' and health and third sector support workers' views on barriers and workarounds to providing care for people seeking sanctuary, to inform policy and practice. DESIGN: A qualitative study was carried out using semi-structured telephone interviews. SETTING: This study focused on primary, secondary, community and specialist National Health Service (NHS) support services for people seeking sanctuary in Wales, United Kingdom (2018). METHOD: We interviewed 32 healthcare providers, practitioners and support workers employed by primary care and third sector organisations. Our approach involved obtaining verbal informed consent before digitally recording and transcribing all interviews. To analyse the data, we used the Four Levels of Change for Improving Quality model as a guiding framework for interpretation. RESULTS: Our study findings reveal that certain respondents expressed challenges in meeting the needs of people seeking sanctuary; notably, their experience of delivering care differed by care settings. Specifically, those involved in providing specialist NHS care believed that there was room for improvement. Mainstream primary, secondary and community health practitioners faced limitations due to resource constraints and lacked tailored information to address the unique circumstances and needs of sanctuary seekers. To address these gaps, workarounds emerged at both individual and local levels (team/departmental and organisational level). These included establishing informal communication channels between providers, fostering cross service collaboration to fill gaps and adapting existing services to enhance accessibility. CONCLUSION: Understanding healthcare providers', practitioners' and support workers' perspectives offers invaluable insights into ways to enhance healthcare delivery to sanctuary seekers. Acknowledging challenges and harnessing innovative workarounds can foster a more effective and compassionate service for this vulnerable population. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The HEAR study actively involved public contributors in the design, delivery and dissemination of the research. Two public contributors (S. M. and G. R.) who had personal experience of seeking asylum served as study co-applicants. They played pivotal roles in shaping the research by participating in its development and securing funding. Alongside other co-applicants, S. M. and G. R. formed the Research Management Group, overseeing study delivery. Their contributions extended to strategic decision-making and specific feedback at critical junctures, including participant recruitment, data collection, analysis and reporting. Additionally, S. M. and G. R. were instrumental in recruiting and supporting a team of peer researchers, enhancing respondent participation among people seeking sanctuary. To facilitate effective public involvement, we provided named contacts for support (A. K. and R. F.), research training, honoraria, reimbursement of expenses and accessible information in line with best practice.

Is a randomised controlled trial of take home naloxone distributed in emergency settings likely to be feasible and acceptable? Findings from a UK qualitative study exploring perspectives of people who use opioids and emergency services staff.

OBJECTIVE: Distribution of take-home naloxone (THN) by emergency services may increase access to THN and reduce deaths and morbidity from opioid overdose. As part of a feasibility study for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of distribution of THN kits and education within ambulance services and Emergency Departments (EDs), we used qualitative methods to explore key stakeholders' perceptions of feasibility and acceptability of delivering the trial. METHODS: We undertook semi-structured interviews and focus groups with 26 people who use opioids and with 20 paramedics and ED staff from two intervention sites between 2019 and 2021. Interviews and focus groups were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using Framework Analysis. RESULTS: People using opioids reported high awareness of overdose management, including personal experience of THN use. Staff perceived emergency service provision of THN as a low-cost, low-risk intervention with potential to reduce mortality, morbidity and health service use. Staff understood the trial aims and considered it compatible with their work. All participants supported widening access to THN but reported limited trial recruitment opportunities partly due to difficulties in consenting patients during overdose. Procedural problems, restrictive recruitment protocols, limited staff buy-in and patients already owning THN limited trial recruitment. Determining trial effectiveness was challenging due to high levels of alternative community provision of THN. CONCLUSIONS: Distribution of THN in emergency settings was considered feasible and acceptable for stakeholders but an RCT to establish the effectiveness of THN delivery is unlikely to generate further useful evidence due to difficulties in recruiting patients and assessing benefits.

Evaluation of different models of general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments: a mixed-methods realist evaluation.

Background: Emergency healthcare services are under intense pressure to meet increasing patient demands. Many patients presenting to emergency departments could be managed by general practitioners in general practitioner-emergency department service models. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness, safety, patient experience and system implications of the different general practitioner-emergency department models. Design: Mixed-methods realist evaluation. Methods: Phase 1 (2017-8), to understand current practice: rapid realist literature review, national survey and follow-up key informant interviews, national stakeholder event and safety data analysis. Phase 2 (2018-21), to collect and analyse qualitative (observations, interviews) and quantitative data (time series analysis); cost-consequences analysis of routine data; and case site data for 'marker condition' analysis from a purposive sample of 13 case sites in England and Wales. Phase 3 (2021-2), to conduct mixed-methods analysis for programme theory and toolkit development. Results: General practitioners commonly work in emergency departments, but delivery models vary widely in terms of the scope of the general practitioner role and the scale of the general practitioner service. We developed a taxonomy to describe general practitioner-emergency department service models (Integrated with the emergency department service, Parallel within the emergency department, Outside the emergency department on the hospital site) and present a programme theory as principal output of the study to describe how these service models were observed to operate. Routine data were of variable quality, limiting our analysis. Time series analysis demonstrated trends across intervention sites for: increased time spent in the emergency department; increased emergency department attendances and reattendances; and mixed results for hospital admissions. Evidence on patient experience was limited but broadly supportive; we identified department-level processes to optimise the safety of general practitioner-emergency department models. Limitations: The quality, heterogeneity and extent of routine emergency department data collection during the study period limited the conclusions. Recruitment was limited by criteria for case sites (time series requirements) and individual patients (with 'marker conditions'). Pandemic and other pressures limited data collection for marker condition analysis. Data collected and analysed were pre pandemic; new approaches such as 'telephone first' and their relevance to our findings remains unexplored. Conclusion: Findings suggest that general practitioner-emergency department service models do not meet the aim of reducing the overall emergency department waiting times and improving patient flow with limited evidence of cost savings. Qualitative data indicated that general practitioners were often valued as members of the wider emergency department team. We have developed a toolkit, based on our findings, to provide guidance for implementing and delivering general practitioner-emergency department services. Future work: The emergency care data set has since been introduced across England to help standardise data collection to facilitate further research. We would advocate the systematic capture of patient experience measures and patient-reported outcome measures as part of routine care. More could be done to support the development of the general practitioner in emergency department role, including a core set of competencies and governance structure, to reflect the different general practitioner-emergency department models and to evaluate the effectiveness and cost effectiveness to guide future policy. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017069741. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 15/145/04) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 10. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Hospital emergency departments are under huge pressure. Patients are waiting many hours to be seen, some with problems that general practitioners could deal with. To reduce waiting times and improve patient care, arrangements have been put in place for general practitioners to work in or alongside emergency departments (general practitioner­emergency department models). We studied the different ways of working to find out what works well, how and for whom. We brought together a lot of information. We reviewed existing evidence, sent out surveys to 184 emergency departments, spent time in the emergency departments observing how they operated and interviewing 106 staff in 13 hospitals and 24 patients who visited those emergency departments. We also looked at statistical information recorded by hospitals. Two public contributors were involved from the beginning, and we held two stakeholder events to ensure the relevance of our research to professionals and patients. Getting reliable figures to compare the various general practitioner­emergency department set-ups (inside, parallel to or outside the emergency department) was difficult. Our findings suggest that over time more people are coming to emergency departments and overall waiting times did not generally improve due to general practitioner­emergency department models. Evidence that general practitioners might admit fewer patients to hospital was mixed, with limited findings of cost savings. Patients were generally supportive of the care they received, although we could not speak to as many patients as we planned. The skills and experience of general practitioners were often valued as members of the wider emergency department team. We identified how the care provided was kept safe with: strong leaders, good communication between different types of staff, highly trained and experienced nurses responsible for streaming and specific training for general practitioners on how they were expected to work. We have produced a guide to help professionals develop and improve general practitioner­emergency department services and we have written easy-to-read summaries of all the articles we published.

Programme theories to describe how different general practitioner service models work in different contexts in or alongside emergency departments (GP-ED): realist evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Addressing increasing patient demand and improving ED patient flow is a key ambition for NHS England. Delivering general practitioner (GP) services in or alongside EDs (GP-ED) was advocated in 2017 for this reason, supported by £100 million (US$130 million) of capital funding. Current evidence shows no overall improvement in addressing demand and reducing waiting times, but considerable variation in how different service models operate, subject to local context. METHODS: We conducted mixed-methods analysis using inductive and deductive approaches for qualitative (observations, interviews) and quantitative data (time series analyses of attendances, reattendances, hospital admissions, length of stay) based on previous research using a purposive sample of 13 GP-ED service models (3 inside-integrated, 4 inside-parallel service, 3 outside-onsite and 3 with no GPs) in England and Wales. We used realist methodology to understand the relationship between contexts, mechanisms and outcomes to develop programme theories about how and why different GP-ED service models work. RESULTS: GP-ED service models are complex, with variation in scope and scale of the service, influenced by individual, departmental and external factors. Quantitative data were of variable quality: overall, no reduction in attendances and waiting times, a mixed picture for hospital admissions and length of hospital stay. Our programme theories describe how the GP-ED service models operate: inside the ED, integrated with patient flow and general ED demand, with a wider GP role than usual primary care; outside the ED, addressing primary care demand with an experienced streaming nurse facilitating the 'right patients' are streamed to the GP; or within the ED as a parallel service with most variability in the level of integration and GP role. CONCLUSION: GP-ED services are complex . Our programme theories inform recommendations on how services could be modified in particular contexts to address local demand, or whether alternative healthcare services should be considered.

The cost of implementing the COVID-19 shielding policy in Wales.

BACKGROUND: The EVITE Immunity study investigated the effects of shielding Clinically Extremely Vulnerable (CEV) people during the COVID-19 pandemic on health outcomes and healthcare costs in Wales, United Kingdom, to help prepare for future pandemics. Shielding was intended to protect those at highest risk of serious harm from COVID-19. We report the cost of implementing shielding in Wales. METHODS: The number of people shielding was extracted from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank. Resources supporting shielding between March and June 2020 were mapped using published reports, web pages, freedom of information requests to Welsh Government and personal communications (e.g. with the office of the Chief Medical Officer for Wales). RESULTS: At the beginning of shielding, 117,415 people were on the shielding list. The total additional cost to support those advised to stay home during the initial 14 weeks of the pandemic was £13,307,654 (£113 per person shielded). This included the new resources required to compile the shielding list, inform CEV people of the shielding intervention and provide medicine and food deliveries. The list was adjusted weekly over the 3-month period (130,000 people identified by June 2020). Therefore the cost per person shielded lies between £102 and £113 per person. CONCLUSION: This is the first evaluation of the cost of the measures put in place to support those identified to shield in Wales. However, no data on opportunity cost was available. The true costs of shielding including its budget impact and opportunity costs need to be investigated to decide whether shielding is a worthwhile policy for future health emergencies.

Rationale for the shielding policy for clinically vulnerable people in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Shielding aimed to protect those predicted to be at highest risk from COVID-19 and was uniquely implemented in the UK during the first year of the pandemic from March 2020. As the first stage in the EVITE Immunity evaluation (Effects of shielding for vulnerable people during COVID-19 pandemic on health outcomes, costs and immunity, including those with cancer:quasi-experimental evaluation), we generated a logic model to describe the programme theory underlying the shielding intervention. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: We reviewed published documentation on shielding to develop an initial draft of the logic model. We then discussed this draft during interviews with 13 key stakeholders involved in putting shielding into effect in Wales and England. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically to inform a final draft of the logic model. RESULTS: The shielding intervention was a complex one, introduced at pace by multiple agencies working together. We identified three core components: agreement on clinical criteria; development of the list of people appropriate for shielding; and communication of shielding advice. In addition, there was a support programme, available as required to shielding people, including food parcels, financial support and social support. The predicted mechanism of change was that people would isolate themselves and so avoid infection, with the primary intended outcome being reduction in mortality in the shielding group. Unintended impacts included negative impact on mental and physical health and well-being. Details of the intervention varied slightly across the home nations of the UK and were subject to minor revisions during the time the intervention was in place. CONCLUSIONS: Shielding was a largely untested strategy, aiming to mitigate risk by placing a responsibility on individuals to protect themselves. The model of its rationale, components and outcomes (intended and unintended) will inform evaluation of the impact of shielding and help us to understand its effect and limitations.

Experiences and views of people who frequently call emergency ambulance services: A qualitative study of UK service users.

INTRODUCTION: People who call emergency ambulances frequently are often vulnerable because of health and social circumstances, have unresolved problems or cannot access appropriate care. They have higher mortality rates. Case management by interdisciplinary teams can help reduce demand for emergency services and is available in some UK regions. We report results of interviews with people who use emergency ambulance services frequently to understand their experiences of calling and receiving treatment. METHODS: We used a two-stage recruitment process. A UK ambulance service identified six people who were known to them as frequently calling emergency services. Through third-sector organisations, we also recruited nine individuals with healthcare experiences reflecting the characteristics of people who call frequently. We gained informed consent to record and transcribe all telephone interviews. We used thematic analysis to explore the results. RESULTS: People said they make frequent calls to emergency ambulance services as a last resort when they perceive their care needs are urgent and other routes to help have failed. Those with the most complex health needs generally felt their immediate requirements were not resolved and underlying mental and physical problems led them to call again. A third of respondents were also attended to by police and were arrested for behaviour associated with their health needs. Those callers receiving case management did not know they were selected for this. Some respondents were concerned that case management could label frequent callers as troublemakers. CONCLUSION: People who make frequent calls to emergency ambulance services feel their health and care needs are urgent and ongoing. They cannot see alternative ways to receive help and resolve problems. Communication between health professionals and service users appears inadequate. More research is needed to understand service users' motivations and requirements to inform design and delivery of accessible and effective services. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: People with relevant experience were involved in developing, undertaking and disseminating this research. Two public contributors helped design and deliver the study, including developing and analysing service user interviews and drafting this paper. Eight public members of a Lived Experience Advisory Panel contributed at key stages of study design, interpretation and dissemination. Two more public contributors were members of an independent Study Steering Committee.

Building an understanding of Ethnic minority people's Service Use Relating to Emergency care for injuries: the BE SURE study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Injuries are a major public health problem which can lead to disability or death. However, little is known about the incidence, presentation, management and outcomes of emergency care for patients with injuries among people from ethnic minorities in the UK. The aim of this study is to investigate what may differ for people from ethnic minorities compared with white British people when presenting with injury to ambulance and Emergency Departments (EDs). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This mixed methods study covers eight services, four ambulance services (three in England and one in Scotland) and four hospital EDs, located within each ambulance service. The study has five Work Packages (WP): (WP1) scoping review comparing mortality by ethnicity of people presenting with injury to emergency services; (WP2) retrospective analysis of linked NHS routine data from patients who present to ambulances or EDs with injury over 5 years (2016-2021); (WP3) postal questionnaire survey of 2000 patients (1000 patients from ethnic minorities and 1000 white British patients) who present with injury to ambulances or EDs including self-reported outcomes (measured by Quality of Care Monitor and Health Related Quality of Life measured by SF-12); (WP4) qualitative interviews with patients from ethnic minorities (n=40) and focus groups-four with asylum seekers and refugees and four with care providers and (WP5) a synthesis of quantitative and qualitative findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study received a favourable opinion by the Wales Research Ethics Committee (305391). The Health Research Authority has approved the study and, on advice from the Confidentiality Advisory Group, has supported the use of confidential patient information without consent for anonymised data. Results will be shared with ambulance and ED services, government bodies and third-sector organisations through direct communications summarising scientific conference proceedings and publications.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of paramedic administered fascia iliaca compartment block for emergency hip fracture (RAPID 2)-protocol for an individually randomised parallel-group trial.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 75,000 people fracture a hip each year in the UK. This painful injury can be devastating-with a high associated mortality rate-and survivors likely to be more dependent and less mobile. Pain relief at the scene of injury is known to be inadequate. Intravenous morphine is usually given by paramedics, but opioids are less effective for dynamic pain and can cause serious side effects, including nausea, constipation, delirium and respiratory depression. These may delay surgery, require further treatment and worsen patient outcomes. We completed a feasibility study of paramedic-provided fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB), testing the intervention, trial methods and data collection. The study (RAPID) demonstrated that a full trial was feasible. In this subsequent study, we aim to test safety, clinical and cost-effectiveness of paramedic-provided FICB as pain relief to patients with suspected hip fracture in the prehospital environment. METHODS: We will conduct a pragmatic multi-centre individually randomised parallel-group trial, with a 1:1 allocation between usual care (control) and FICB (intervention). Hospital clinicians in five sites (paired ambulance services and receiving hospitals) in England and Wales will train 220 paramedics to administer FICB. The primary outcome is change in pain score from pre-randomisation to arrival at the emergency department. One thousand four hundred patients are required to find a clinically important difference between trial arms in the primary outcome (standardised statistical effect ~ 0.2; 90% power, 5% significance). We will use NHS Digital (England) and the SAIL (Secure Anonymised Information Linkage) databank (Wales) to follow up patient outcomes using routine anonymised linked data in an efficient study design, and questionnaires to capture patient-reported outcomes at 1 and 4 months. Secondary outcomes include mortality, length of hospital stay, job cycle time, prehospital medications including morphine, presence of hip fracture, satisfaction, mobility, and NHS costs. We will assess safety by monitoring serious adverse events (SAEs). DISCUSSION: The trial will help to determine whether paramedic administered FICB is a safe, clinically and cost-effective treatment for suspected hip fracture in the pre-hospital setting. Impact will be shown if and when clinical guidelines either recommend or reject the use of FICB in routine practice in this context. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN15831813 . Registered on 22 September 2021.

Implementing public involvement throughout the research process-Experience and learning from the GPs in EDs study.

BACKGROUND: Public involvement in health services research is encouraged. Descriptions of public involvement across the whole research cycle of a major study are uncommon and its effects on research conduct are poorly understood. AIM: This study aimed to describe how we implemented public involvement, reflect on process and effects in a large-scale multi-site research study and present learning for future involvement practice. METHOD: We recorded public involvement roles and activities throughout the study and compared these to our original public involvement plan included in our project proposal. We held a group interview with study co-applicants to explore their experiences, transcribed the recorded discussion and conducted thematic analysis. We synthesized the findings to develop recommendations for future practice. RESULTS: Public contributors' activities went beyond strategic study planning and management to include active involvement in data collection, analysis and dissemination. They attended management, scrutiny, planning and task meetings. They also facilitated public involvement through annual planning and review sessions, conducted a Public Involvement audit and coordinated public and patient input to stakeholder discussions at key study stages. Group interview respondents said that involvement exceeded their expectations. They identified effects such as changes to patient recruitment, terminology clarification and extra dissemination activities. They identified factors enabling effective involvement including team and leader commitment, named support contact, building relationships and demonstrating equality and public contributors being confident to challenge and flexible to meet researchers' timescales and work patterns. There were challenges matching resources to roles and questions about the risk of over-professionalizing public contributors. CONCLUSION: We extended our planned approach to public involvement and identified benefits to the research process that were both specific and general. We identified good practice to support effective public involvement in health services research that study teams should consider in planning and undertaking research. PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This paper was co-conceived, co-planned and co-authored by public contributors to contribute research evidence, based on their experiences of active involvement in the design, implementation and dissemination of a major health services research study.

STRategies to manage Emergency ambulance Telephone Callers with sustained High needs: an Evaluation using linked Data (STRETCHED) - a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: UK ambulance services have identified a concern with high users of the 999 service and have set up 'frequent callers' services, ranging from within-service management to cross-sectoral multidisciplinary case management approaches. There is little evidence about how to address the needs of this patient group. AIM: To evaluate effectiveness, safety and efficiency of case management approaches to the care of people who frequently call the emergency ambulance service, and gain an understanding of barriers and facilitators to implementation. OBJECTIVES: (1) Develop an understanding of predicted mechanisms of change to underpin evaluation. (2) Describe epidemiology of sustained high users of 999 services. (3) Evaluate case management approaches to the care of people who call the 999 ambulance service frequently in terms of: (i) Further emergency contacts (999, emergency department, emergency admissions to hospital) (ii) Effects on other services (iii) Adverse events (deaths, injuries, serious medical emergencies and police arrests) (iv) Costs of intervention and care (v) Patient experience of care. (4) Identify challenges and opportunities associated with using case management models, including features associated with success, and develop theories about how case management works in this population. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a multisite mixed-methods evaluation of case management for people who use ambulance services frequently by using anonymised linked routine data outcomes in a 'natural experiment' cohort design, in four regional ambulance services. We will conduct interviews and focus groups with service users, commissioners and emergency and non-acute care providers. The planned start and end dates of the study are 1 April 2019 and 1 September 2022, respectively ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study received approval from the UK Health Research Authority (Confidentiality Advisory Group reference number: 19/CAG/0195; research ethics committee reference number: 19/WA/0216).We will collate feedback from our Lived Experience Advisory Panel, the Frequent Caller National Network and Research Management Group for targeted dissemination activities.

The effectiveness of primary care streaming in emergency departments on decision-making and patient flow and safety - A realist evaluation.

Primary care streaming was implemented in UK Emergency Departments (EDs) to manage an increasing demand for urgent care. We aimed to explore its effectiveness in EDs with different primary care models and identify contexts and mechanisms that influenced outcomes: streaming patients to the most appropriate clinician or service, ED flow and patient safety. METHOD: We observed streaming and interviewed ED and primary care staff during case study visits to 10 EDs in England. We used realist methodology, synthesising a middle-range theory with our qualitative data to refine and create a set of theories that explain relationships between contexts, mechanisms and outcomes. RESULTS: Mechanisms contributing to the effectiveness of primary care streaming were: quality of decision-making, patient flow, redeploying staff, managing patients across streams, the implementation of governance protocols, guidance, training, service evaluation and quality improvement efforts. Experienced nurses and good teamworking and strategic and operational management were key contextual factors. CONCLUSION: We recommend service improvement strategies, operational management, monitoring, evaluation and training to ensure that ED nurses stream patients presenting at an ED seeking urgent care to the most appropriate clinicians for their needs in a safe and efficient manner.

Patients' experiences of attending emergency departments where primary care services are located: qualitative findings from patient and clinician interviews from a realist evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Patient experience is an important outcome and indicator of healthcare quality, and patient reported experiences are key to improving quality of care. While patient experience in emergency departments (EDs) has been reported in research, there is limited evidence about patients' specific experiences with primary care services located in or alongside EDs. We aim to identify theories about patient experience and acceptability of being streamed to a primary care clinician in an ED. METHODS: Using theories from a rapid realist review as a basis, we interviewed 24 patients and 106 staff members to generate updated theories about patient experience and acceptability of streaming to primary care services in EDs. Feedback from 56 stakeholders, including clinicians, policymakers and patient and public members, as well as observations at 13 EDs, also contributed to the development of these theories, which we present as a programme theory. RESULTS: We found that patients had no expectations or preferences for which type of clinician they were seen by, and generally found being streamed to a primary care clinician in the ED acceptable. Clinicians and patients reported that patients generally found primary care streaming acceptable if they felt their complaint was dealt with suitably, in a timely manner, and when clinicians clearly communicated the need for investigations, and how these contributed to decision-making and treatment plans. CONCLUSIONS: From our findings, we have developed a programme theory to demonstrate that service providers can expect that patients will be generally satisfied with their experience of being streamed to, and seen by, primary care clinicians working in these services. Service providers should consider the potential advantages and disadvantages of implementing primary care services at their ED. If primary care services are implemented, clear communication is needed between staff and patients, and patient feedback should be sought.

Implementing emergency admission risk prediction in general practice: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Using computer software in general practice to predict patient risk of emergency hospital admission has been widely advocated, despite limited evidence about effects. In a trial evaluating the introduction of a Predictive Risk Stratification Model (PRISM), statistically significant increases in emergency hospital admissions and use of other NHS services were reported without evidence of benefits to patients or the NHS. AIM: To explore GPs' and practice managers' experiences of incorporating PRISM into routine practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: Semi-structured interviews were carried out with GPs and practice managers in 18 practices in rural, urban, and suburban areas of south Wales. METHOD: Interviews (30-90 min) were conducted at 3-6 months after gaining PRISM access, and ∼18 months later. Data were analysed thematically using Normalisation Process Theory. RESULTS: Responders (n = 22) reported that the decision to use PRISM was based mainly on fulfilling Quality and Outcomes Framework incentives. Most applied it to <0.5% practice patients over a few weeks. Using PRISM entailed undertaking technical tasks, sharing information in practice meetings, and making small-scale changes to patient care. Use was inhibited by the model not being integrated with practice systems. Most participants doubted any large-scale impact, but did cite examples of the impact on individual patient care and reported increased awareness of patients at high risk of emergency admission to hospital. CONCLUSION: Qualitative results suggest mixed views of predictive risk stratification in general practice and raised awareness of highest-risk patients potentially affecting rates of unplanned hospital attendance and admissions. To inform future policy, decision makers need more information about implementation and effects of emergency admission risk stratification tools in primary and community settings.

Evaluation of the shielding initiative in Wales (EVITE Immunity): protocol for a quasiexperimental study.

INTRODUCTION: Shielding aimed to protect those predicted to be at highest risk from COVID-19 and was uniquely implemented in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic. Clinically extremely vulnerable people identified through algorithms and screening of routine National Health Service (NHS) data were individually and strongly advised to stay at home and strictly self-isolate even from others in their household. This study will generate a logic model of the intervention and evaluate the effects and costs of shielding to inform policy development and delivery during future pandemics. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a quasiexperimental study undertaken in Wales where records for people who were identified for shielding were already anonymously linked into integrated data systems for public health decision-making. We will: interview policy-makers to understand rationale for shielding advice to inform analysis and interpretation of results; use anonymised individual-level data to select people identified for shielding advice in March 2020 and a matched cohort, from routine electronic health data sources, to compare outcomes; survey a stratified random sample of each group about activities and quality of life at 12 months; use routine and newly collected blood data to assess immunity; interview people who were identified for shielding and their carers and NHS staff who delivered healthcare during shielding, to explore compliance and experiences; collect healthcare resource use data to calculate implementation costs and cost-consequences. Our team includes people who were shielding, who used their experience to help design and deliver this study. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received approval from the Newcastle North Tyneside 2 Research Ethics Committee (IRAS 295050). We will disseminate results directly to UK government policy-makers, publish in peer-reviewed journals, present at scientific and policy conferences and share accessible summaries of results online and through public and patient networks.

Asylum seekers' and refugees' experiences of accessing health care: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Asylum seekers and refugees (ASRs) often experience poor health in host countries. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) requires hosts to ensure these sanctuary seekers have access to basic health care. AIM: To identify barriers and facilitators that affect access to health care by ASRs in Wales. DESIGN & SETTING: Participatory research approach using qualitative focus groups across Wales, which hosts 10 000 refugees. METHOD: Eight focus groups were undertaken with ASRs, support workers, and volunteers (n = 57). RESULTS: Specialist NHS-funded services and grant-aided non-governmental organisations (NGOs) facilitated access to health care, including primary care. Most ASRs understood the role of general practice in providing and coordinating care, but were unaware of out-of-hours services. Reported barriers included: language difficulties, health literacy, unrecognised needs, and the cost of travel to appointments. Participants recognised the importance of mental health, but were disappointed by the state of mental health care. Some feared seeking support for mental health from their GP, and few were aware they had the right to move practice if they were unhappy. Written information about health care was not as accessible to refugees as to asylum seekers (ASs). While some participants read such material before consulting, others struggled to access information when in need. Few participants were aware of health prevention services. Even when they knew about services, such as smoking cessation, these services' difficulty in accommodating ASRs was a barrier. CONCLUSION: The main barriers identified were: availability of interpreters; knowledge about entitlements; and access to specialist services.

Call volume, triage outcomes, and protocols during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom: Results of a national survey.

OBJECTIVES: During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom (UK), to describe volume and pattern of calls to emergency ambulance services, proportion of calls where an ambulance was dispatched, proportion conveyed to hospital, and features of triage used. METHODS: Semistructured electronic survey of all UK ambulance services (n = 13) and a request for routine service data on weekly call volumes for 22 weeks (February 1-July 3, 2020). Questionnaires and data request were emailed to chief executives and research leads followed by email and telephone reminders. The routine data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and questionnaire data using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Completed questionnaires were received from 12 services. Call volume varied widely between services, with a UK peak at week 7 at 13.1% above baseline (service range -0.5% to +31.4%). All services ended the study period with a lower call volume than at baseline (service range -3.7% to -25.5%). Suspected COVID-19 calls across the UK totaled 604,146 (13.5% of all calls), with wide variation between services (service range 3.7% to 25.7%), and in service peaks of 11.4% to 44.5%. Ambulances were dispatched to 478,638 (79.2%) of these calls (service range 59.0% to 100.0%), with 262,547 (43.5%) resulting in conveyance to hospital (service range 32.0% to 53.9%). Triage models varied between services and over time. Two primary call triage systems were in use across the UK. There were a large number of products and arrangements used for secondary triage, with services using paramedics, nurses, and doctors to support decision making in the call center and on scene. Frequent changes to triage processes took place. CONCLUSIONS: Call volumes were highly variable. Case mix and workload changed significantly as COVID-19 calls displaced other calls. Triage models and prehospital outcomes varied between services. We urgently need to understand safety and effectiveness of triage models to inform care during further waves and pandemics.

Identifying safe care processes when GPs work in or alongside emergency departments: a realist evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Increasing pressure on emergency services has led to the development of different models of care delivery including GPs working in or alongside emergency departments (EDs), but with a lack of evidence for patient safety outcomes. AIM: This study aimed to explore how care processes work and how patient safety incidents associated with GPs working in ED settings may be mitigated. DESIGN AND SETTING: Realist methodology with a purposive sample of 13 EDs in England and Wales with different GP service models. The study sought to understand the relationship between contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes to develop theories about how and why patient safety incidents may occur, and how safe care was perceived to be delivered. METHOD: Qualitative data were collected (observations, semi-structured audio-recorded staff interviews, and local patient safety incident reports). Data were coded using 'if, then, because' statements to refine initial theories developed from an earlier rapid realist literature review and analysis of a sample of national patient safety incident reports. RESULTS: The authors developed a programme theory to describe how safe patient care was perceived to be delivered in these service models, including: an experienced streaming nurse using local guidance and early warning scores; support for GPs' clinical decision making, with clear governance processes relevant to the intended role (traditional GP approach or emergency medicine approach); and strong clinical leadership to promote teamwork and improve communication between services. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study can be used as a focus for more in-depth human factors investigations to optimise work conditions in this complex care delivery setting.

A classification of primary care streaming pathways in UK emergency departments: Findings from a multi-methods study comprising cross-sectional survey; site visits with observations, semi-structured and informal interviews.

BACKGROUND: Variation in initial assessment methods at emergency departments in with primary care service models and a conflated terminology causes difficulties in assessing relative performance, improving quality or gathering evidence about safety and clinical effectiveness. We aim to describe and classify streaming pathways in emergency departments in different models of emergency department primary care services in England and Wales. METHODS: We used a multi-stage method, including an online survey completed by 77 emergency departments across England & Wales, interviews with 21 clinical leads, and in-depth case studies of 13 emergency departments. All qualitative data were triangulated and analysed using a framework approach. RESULTS: Common emergency department pathways to primary care services were: front door streaming; streaming inside the emergency department; or primary care staff selecting patients. Pathways were also in place to redirect patients with non-urgent primary care problems to community primary care services. Streaming and redirection pathways were often adapted, with variation in protocols based on local circumstances. CONCLUSION: Clinical leads should consider which pathway(s) best suit their local context. Consistency of terminology used to describe pathways between emergency departments and primary care services is necessary for performance measurement, quality improvement and rigorous future multi-site evaluative and descriptive research.

Emergency department clinical leads' experiences of implementing primary care services where GPs work in or alongside emergency departments in the UK: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: To manage increasing demand for emergency and unscheduled care NHS England policy has promoted services in which patients presenting to Emergency Departments (EDs) with non-urgent problems are directed to general practitioners (GPs) and other primary care clinicians working within or alongside emergency departments. However, the ways that hospitals have implemented primary care services in EDs are varied. The aim of this study was to describe ED clinical leads' experiences of implementing and delivering 'primary care services' and 'emergency medicine services' where GPs were integrated into the ED team. METHODS: We conducted interviews with ED clinical leads in England (n = 19) and Wales (n = 2). We used framework analysis to analyse interview transcripts and explore differences across 'primary care services', 'emergency medicine services' and emergency departments without primary care services. RESULTS: In EDs with separate primary care services, success was reported when having a distinct workforce of primary care clinicians, who improved waiting times and flow by seeing primary care-type patients in a timely way, using fewer investigations, and enabling ED doctors to focus on more acutely unwell patients. Some challenges were: trying to align their service with the policy guidance, inconsistent demand for primary care, accessible community primary care services, difficulties in recruiting GPs, lack of funding, difficulties in agreeing governance protocols and establishing effective streaming pathways. Where GPs were integrated into an ED workforce success was reported as managing the demand for both emergency and primary care and reducing admissions. CONCLUSIONS: Introducing a policy advocating a preferred model of service to address primary care demand was not useful for all emergency departments. To support successful and sustainable primary care services in or alongside EDs, policy makers and commissioners should consider varied ways that GPs can be employed to manage variation in local demand and also local contextual factors such as the ability to recruit and retain GPs, sustainable funding, clear governance frameworks, training, support and guidance for all staff. Whether or not streaming to a separate primary care service is useful also depended on the level of primary care demand.