Documentary analysis of national and international guidance for community clinicians referring patients with suspected chronic limb-threatening ischaemia.

BACKGROUND: Delayed referral of patients with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia (CLTI) from the community to vascular services may increase risk of amputation due to delayed revascularisation. Lack of appropriate guidance for clinicians in the community may contribute to this problem. This documentary analysis investigated referral guidance available to primary care clinicians. METHODS: National and international documents providing guidance on CLTI management were identified by searching sources including Medline, Embase, Guidelines International Network and College/Society websites. Data were extracted on referral recommendations, target audience and author groups. Recommendations were coded according to the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy. Clinical practice guideline quality and ease of implementation were assessed independently by two reviewers using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II and Guideline Implementability Appraisal (GLIA) tools, respectively. RESULTS: 12 documents containing guidance on CLTI referrals were included. Five were clinical practice guidelines. Nine targeted clinicians in the community among their audience, yet only one included a primary care clinician in their author group. Recommendations on identification and referral of CLTI were often in non-specific language and frequently assumed specialist knowledge of vascular disease. Just 4 of the 93 behaviour change techniques were identified in the guidance documents. Three relevant domains of the AGREE II tool were scored for five clinical practice guidelines: stakeholder involvement (range 21.4%-52.4%, mean 42.9%), clarity of presentation (range 71.4%-92.9%, mean 82.9%) and applicability (25.0%-57.1%, mean 36.8%). The GLIA tool identified barriers to ease of implementation for all five clinical practice guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Most guidance for clinicians in the community on the management of CLTI has been written without their input and assumes knowledge of vascular disease, which may be lacking. Future guidance development should involve community clinicians, consider using additional behaviour change techniques, and improve the applicability and ease of implementation of recommendations.

Effectiveness of quality improvement collaboratives in UK surgical settings and barriers and facilitators influencing their implementation: a systematic review and evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: High-quality surgical care is vital to deliver the excellent outcomes patients deserve following surgical treatment. Quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) are based on a multicentre model for improving healthcare. They are increasingly used but their effectiveness in the context of surgical services is unclear. This review assessed effectiveness of QICs in National Health Service (NHS) surgical settings, and identified factors that influenced implementation. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE, as well as grey literature, was conducted in January 2022 to identify evaluations of QICs in NHS surgical settings. Data were extracted on the intervention, setting, study results and factors that were identified as facilitators or barriers. These were coded using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The quality of study reports was assessed using Quality Improvement Minimum Criteria Set. RESULTS: Fifteen reports on 10 QICs met inclusion criteria. The evaluations used study designs of different strength, with one using a stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial (RCT). Eight studies reported the QIC had been successful in achieving their principal aims, which covered a mix of patient outcomes and process indicators. The study based on the RCT found the QIC was not successful (no improvement in patient outcomes). Each article reported a range of facilitators and barriers to effectiveness of implementation of the QIC, which were spread across the CFIR domains (intervention, outer setting, inner setting, individuals and process). There were few barriers reported in the intervention domain that related to the QIC. There was no clear relationship between numbers of facilitators and barriers reported and effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Studies have reported QICs to be effective in increasingly complex contexts, but their results must be treated with caution. The evaluations often used weak study designs and the quality of reports was variable. Evaluation with strong study design should be integral to future QICs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022324970.

Explaining variable effects of an adaptable implementation package to promote evidence-based practice in primary care: a longitudinal process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Implementing evidence-based recommendations is challenging in UK primary care, especially given system pressures and multiple guideline recommendations competing for attention. Implementation packages that can be adapted and hence applied to target multiple guideline recommendations could offer efficiencies for recommendations with common barriers to achievement. We developed and evaluated a package of evidence-based interventions (audit and feedback, educational outreach and reminders) incorporating behaviour change techniques to target common barriers, in two pragmatic trials for four "high impact" indicators: risky prescribing; diabetes control; blood pressure control; and anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation. We observed a significant, cost-effective reduction in risky prescribing but there was insufficient evidence of effect on the other outcomes. We explored the impact of the implementation package on both social processes (Normalisation Process Theory; NPT) and hypothesised determinants of behaviour (Theoretical Domains Framework; TDF). METHODS: We conducted a prospective multi-method process evaluation. Observational, administrative and interview data collection and analyses in eight primary care practices were guided by NPT and TDF. Survey data from trial and process evaluation practices explored fidelity. RESULTS: We observed three main patterns of variation in how practices responded to the implementation package. First, in integration and achievement, the package "worked" when it was considered distinctive and feasible. Timely feedback directed at specific behaviours enabled continuous goal setting, action and review, which reinforced motivation and collective action. Second, impacts on team-based determinants were limited, particularly when the complexity of clinical actions impeded progress. Third, there were delivery delays and unintended consequences. Delays in scheduling outreach further reduced ownership and time for improvement. Repeated stagnant or declining feedback that did not reflect effort undermined engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Variable integration within practice routines and organisation of care, variable impacts on behavioural determinants, and delays in delivery and unintended consequences help explain the partial success of an adaptable package in primary care.

Phase III Randomized Controlled Trial of eRAPID: eHealth Intervention During Chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: Electronic patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice (eRAPID) is an online eHealth system for patients to self-report symptoms during cancer treatment. It provides automated severity-dependent patient advice guiding self-management or medical contact and displays the reports in electronic patient records. This trial evaluated the impact of eRAPID on symptom control, healthcare use, patient self-efficacy, and quality of life (QOL) in a patient population treated predominantly with curative intent. METHODS: Patients with colorectal, breast, or gynecological cancers commencing chemotherapy were randomly assigned to usual care (UC) or the addition of eRAPID (weekly online symptom reporting for 18 weeks). Primary outcome was symptom control (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General, Physical Well-Being subscale [FACT-PWB]) assessed at 6, 12, and 18 weeks. Secondary outcomes were processes of care (admissions or chemotherapy delivery), patient self-efficacy, and global quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General, EQ5D-VAS, and EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score). Multivariable mixed-effects repeated-measures models were used for analyses. Trial registration: ISRCTN88520246. RESULTS: Participants were 508 consenting patients (73.6% of 690 eligible) and 55 health professionals. eRAPID compared to UC showed improved physical well-being at 6 (P = .028) and 12 (P = .039) weeks and no difference at 18 weeks (primary end point) (P = .69). Fewer eRAPID patients (47%) had clinically meaningful physical well-being deterioration than UC (56%) at 12 weeks. Subgroup analysis found benefit in the nonmetastatic group at 6 weeks (P = .0426), but not in metastatic disease. There were no differences for admissions or chemotherapy delivery. At 18 weeks, patients using eRAPID reported better self-efficacy (P = .007) and better health on EQ5D-VAS (P = .009). Average patient compliance with weekly symptom reporting was 64.7%. Patient adherence was associated with clinician's data use and improved FACT-PWB at 12 weeks. CONCLUSION: Real-time monitoring with electronic patient-reported outcomes improved physical well-being (6 and 12 weeks) and self-efficacy (18 weeks) in a patient population predominantly treated with curative intent, without increasing hospital workload.

An adaptable implementation package targeting evidence-based indicators in primary care: A pragmatic cluster-randomised evaluation.

BACKGROUND: In primary care, multiple priorities and system pressures make closing the gap between evidence and practice challenging. Most implementation studies focus on single conditions, limiting generalisability. We compared an adaptable implementation package against an implementation control and assessed effects on adherence to four different evidence-based quality indicators. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We undertook two parallel, pragmatic cluster-randomised trials using balanced incomplete block designs in general practices in West Yorkshire, England. We used 'opt-out' recruitment, and we randomly assigned practices that did not opt out to an implementation package targeting either diabetes control or risky prescribing (Trial 1); or blood pressure (BP) control or anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation (AF) (Trial 2). Within trials, each arm acted as the implementation control comparison for the other targeted indicator. For example, practices assigned to the diabetes control package acted as the comparison for practices assigned to the risky prescribing package. The implementation package embedded behaviour change techniques within audit and feedback, educational outreach, and computerised support, with content tailored to each indicator. Respective patient-level primary endpoints at 11 months comprised the following: achievement of all recommended levels of haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), BP, and cholesterol; risky prescribing levels; achievement of recommended BP; and anticoagulation prescribing. Between February and March 2015, we recruited 144 general practices collectively serving over 1 million patients. We stratified computer-generated randomisation by area, list size, and pre-intervention outcome achievement. In April 2015, we randomised 80 practices to Trial 1 (40 per arm) and 64 to Trial 2 (32 per arm). Practices and trial personnel were not blind to allocation. Two practices were lost to follow-up but provided some outcome data. We analysed the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, adjusted for potential confounders at patient level (sex, age) and practice level (list size, locality, pre-intervention achievement against primary outcomes, total quality scores, and levels of patient co-morbidity), and analysed cost-effectiveness. The implementation package reduced risky prescribing (odds ratio [OR] 0.82; 97.5% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-0.99, p = 0.017) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £1,359 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), but there was insufficient evidence of effect on other primary endpoints (diabetes control OR 1.03, 97.5% CI 0.89-1.18, p = 0.693; BP control OR 1.05, 97.5% CI 0.96-1.16, p = 0.215; anticoagulation prescribing OR 0.90, 97.5% CI 0.75-1.09, p = 0.214). No statistically significant effects were observed in any secondary outcome except for reduced co-prescription of aspirin and clopidogrel without gastro-protection in patients aged 65 and over (adjusted OR 0.62; 97.5% CI 0.39-0.99; p = 0.021). Main study limitations concern our inability to make any inferences about the relative effects of individual intervention components, given the multifaceted nature of the implementation package, and that the composite endpoint for diabetes control may have been too challenging to achieve. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that a multifaceted implementation package was clinically and cost-effective for targeting prescribing behaviours within the control of clinicians but not for more complex behaviours that also required patient engagement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN91989345).

Predicting Risk of Recurrent Acute Kidney Injury: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Although the epidemiology of acute kidney injury (AKI) has been well described, less is known about recurrent AKI (r-AKI). We undertook a systematic review to identify incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of r-AKI. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane, Web of Science were searched, from inception to December 2017, for quantitative studies on adults with AKI, where follow-up included -reporting of r-AKI. Two reviewers independently identified studies and assessed study quality. SUMMARY: From 2,824 citations, 10 cohort studies met inclusion criteria (total patients n = 538,667). There were 2 distinct set of studies; 4 studies assessed r-AKI within the same hospital admission (most were intensive care unit [ICU] patients) and 6 studies assessed postdischarge r-AKI. The median percentage of people developing r-AKI within the same hospital admission was 23.4% (IQR 20.3-27.2%) and postdischarge r-AKI was 31.3% (IQR 26.4-33.7%). A higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation score was associated with increased risk of r-AKI within the same hospital admission in ICU patients. Cardiovascular disease and AKI severity were associated with increased risk of postdischarge r-AKI. R-AKI (within same admission and postdischarge) was associated with worse survival. It was not possible to pool results due to methodological differences across studies, such as varying definitions for AKI and r-AKI, varying length of follow-up and effect measures. Key messages: More representative population-based studies with robust assessment of predictors and consensus definition of r-AKI are needed to identify risk factors and develop risk stratification tools to reduce recurrence and improve outcomes. Systematic Review Registration: CRD42017082668.

How do hospitals respond to feedback about blood transfusion practice? A multiple case study investigation.

National clinical audits play key roles in improving care and driving system-wide change. However, effects of audit and feedback depend upon both reach (e.g. relevant staff receiving the feedback) and response (e.g. staff regulating their behaviour accordingly). This study aimed to investigate which hospital staff initially receive feedback and formulate a response, how feedback is disseminated within hospitals, and how responses are enacted (including barriers and enablers to enactment). Using a multiple case study approach, we purposively sampled four UK hospitals for variation in infrastructure and resources. We conducted semi-structured interviews with staff from transfusion-related roles and observed Hospital Transfusion Committee meetings. Interviews and analysis were based on the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change. We coded interview transcripts into theoretical domains, then inductively identified themes within each domain to identify barriers and enablers. We also analysed data to identify which staff currently receive feedback and how dissemination is managed within the hospital. Members of the hospital's transfusion team initially received feedback in all cases, and were primarily responsible for disseminating and responding, facilitated through the Hospital Transfusion Committee. At each hospital, key individuals involved in prescribing transfusions reported never having received feedback from a national audit. Whether audits were discussed and actions explicitly agreed in Committee meetings varied between hospitals. Key enablers of action across all cases included clear lines of responsibility and strategies to remind staff about recommendations. Barriers included difficulties disseminating to relevant staff and needing to amend feedback to make it appropriate for local use. Appropriate responses by hospital staff to feedback about blood transfusion practice depend upon supportive infrastructures and role clarity. Hospitals could benefit from support to disseminate feedback systematically, particularly to frontline staff involved in the behaviours being audited, and practical tools to support strategic decision-making (e.g. action-planning around local response to feedback).

Application of prescribing recommendations in older people with reduced kidney function: a cross-sectional study in general practice.

BACKGROUND: Kidney function reduces with age, increasing the risk of harm from increased blood levels of many medicines. Although estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) is reported for prescribing decisions in those aged ≥65 years, creatinine clearance (Cockcroft-Gault) gives a more accurate estimate of kidney function. AIM: To explore the extent of prescribing outside recommendations for people aged ≥65 years with reduced kidney function in primary care and to assess the impact of using eGFR instead of creatinine clearance to calculate kidney function. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional survey of anonymised prescribing data in people aged ≥65 years from all 80 general practices (70 900 patients) in a north of England former primary care trust. METHOD: The prevalence of prescribing outside recommendations was analysed for eight exemplar drugs. Data were collected for age, sex, actual weight, serum creatinine, and eGFR. Kidney function as creatinine clearance (Cockcroft-Gault) was calculated using actual body weight and estimated ideal body weight. RESULTS: Kidney function was too low for recommended prescribing in 4-40% of people aged ≥65 years, and in 24-80% of people aged ≥85 years despite more than 90% of patients having recent recorded kidney function results. Using eGFR overestimated kidney function for 3-28% of those aged ≥65 years, and for 13-58% of those aged ≥85 years. Increased age predicted higher odds of having a kidney function estimate too low for recommended prescribing of the study drugs. CONCLUSION: Prescribing recommendations when kidney function is reduced are not applied for many people aged ≥65 years in primary care. Using eGFR considerably overestimates kidney function for prescribing and, therefore, creatinine clearance (Cockcroft-Gault) should be assessed when prescribing for these people. Interventions are needed to aid prescribers when kidney function is reduced.

To what extent can behaviour change techniques be identified within an adaptable implementation package for primary care? A prospective directed content analysis.

BACKGROUND: Interpreting evaluations of complex interventions can be difficult without sufficient description of key intervention content. We aimed to develop an implementation package for primary care which could be delivered using typically available resources and could be adapted to target determinants of behaviour for each of four quality indicators: diabetes control, blood pressure control, anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation and risky prescribing. We describe the development and prospective verification of behaviour change techniques (BCTs) embedded within the adaptable implementation packages. METHODS: We used an over-lapping multi-staged process. We identified evidence-based, candidate delivery mechanisms-mainly audit and feedback, educational outreach and computerised prompts and reminders. We drew upon interviews with primary care professionals using the Theoretical Domains Framework to explore likely determinants of adherence to quality indicators. We linked determinants to candidate BCTs. With input from stakeholder panels, we prioritised likely determinants and intervention content prior to piloting the implementation packages. Our content analysis assessed the extent to which embedded BCTs could be identified within the packages and compared them across the delivery mechanisms and four quality indicators. RESULTS: Each implementation package included at least 27 out of 30 potentially applicable BCTs representing 15 of 16 BCT categories. Whilst 23 BCTs were shared across all four implementation packages (e.g. BCTs relating to feedback and comparing behaviour), some BCTs were unique to certain delivery mechanisms (e.g. 'graded tasks' and 'problem solving' for educational outreach). BCTs addressing the determinants 'environmental context' and 'social and professional roles' (e.g. 'restructuring the social and 'physical environment' and 'adding objects to the environment') were indicator specific. We found it challenging to operationalise BCTs targeting 'environmental context', 'social influences' and 'social and professional roles' within our chosen delivery mechanisms. CONCLUSION: We have demonstrated a transparent process for selecting, operationalising and verifying the BCT content in implementation packages adapted to target four quality indicators in primary care. There was considerable overlap in BCTs identified across the four indicators suggesting core BCTs can be embedded and verified within delivery mechanisms commonly available to primary care. Whilst feedback reports can include a wide range of BCTs, computerised prompts can deliver BCTs at the time of decision making, and educational outreach can allow for flexibility and individual tailoring in delivery.

Identifying effective components for mobile health behaviour change interventions for smoking cessation and service uptake: protocol of a systematic review and planned meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Mobile health (mHealth) interventions for smoking cessation have been shown to be associated with an increase in effectiveness. However, interventions using mobile phones to change people's behaviour are often perceived as complex interventions, and the interactions between several components within them may affect the outcome. Therefore, it is important to understand how we can improve the design of mHealth interventions using mobile phones as a medium to deliver services. METHODS: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of mHealth interventions to support smoking cessation or uptake of smoking cessation services for smokers will be included in this systematic review. A search will be performed by searching MEDLINE, MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and CINAHL. A search for new publications will be conducted 3 months prior to submission for publication as mHealth is an emerging area of research. A random-effects meta-analysis model will be used to summarise the effectiveness of mHealth interventions. The risk ratio will be used for the primary outcome, self-reported or verified smoking abstinence, and any binary outcomes for uptake of smoking cessation services. The standardised mean difference using Hedges' g will be reported for continuous data. Heterogeneity will be assessed using I 2 statistics. Where feasible, meta-regression analysis using random-effects multilevel modelling will be conducted to examine the association of pre-specified characteristics (covariates) at the study level with the effectiveness of interventions. Publication bias will be explored using Egger's test for continuous outcomes and Harbord and Peters tests for dichotomous outcomes. The funnel plot will be used to evaluate the presence of publication bias. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool will be used to assess differences in risks of bias. DISCUSSION: The results of this systematic review will provide future research with a foundation for designing and evaluating complex interventions that use mobile phones as a platform to deliver behaviour change techniques. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016026918 .

Variations in achievement of evidence-based, high-impact quality indicators in general practice: An observational study.

BACKGROUND: There are widely recognised variations in the delivery and outcomes of healthcare but an incomplete understanding of their causes. There is a growing interest in using routinely collected 'big data' in the evaluation of healthcare. We developed a set of evidence-based 'high impact' quality indicators (QIs) for primary care and examined variations in achievement of these indicators using routinely collected data in the United Kingdom (UK). METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of routinely collected, electronic primary care data from a sample of general practices in West Yorkshire, UK (n = 89). The QIs covered aspects of care (including processes and intermediate clinical outcomes) in relation to diabetes, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, chronic kidney disease (CKD) and 'risky' prescribing combinations. Regression models explored the impact of practice and patient characteristics. Clustering within practice was accounted for by including a random intercept for practice. RESULTS: Median practice achievement of the QIs ranged from 43.2% (diabetes control) to 72.2% (blood pressure control in CKD). Considerable between-practice variation existed for all indicators: the difference between the highest and lowest performing practices was 26.3 percentage points for risky prescribing and 100 percentage points for anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation. Odds ratios associated with the random effects for practices emphasised this; there was a greater than ten-fold difference in the likelihood of achieving the hypertension indicator between the lowest and highest performing practices. Patient characteristics, in particular age, gender and comorbidity, were consistently but modestly associated with indicator achievement. Statistically significant practice characteristics were identified less frequently in adjusted models. CONCLUSIONS: Despite various policy and improvement initiatives, there are enduring inappropriate variations in the delivery of evidence-based care. Much of this variation is not explained by routinely collected patient or practice variables, and is likely to be attributable to differences in clinical and organisational behaviour.

The evaluation of enhanced feedback interventions to reduce unnecessary blood transfusions (AFFINITIE): protocol for two linked cluster randomised factorial controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Blood for transfusion is a frequently used clinical intervention, and is also a costly and limited resource with risks. Many transfusions are given to stable and non-bleeding patients despite no clear evidence of benefit from clinical studies. Audit and feedback (A&F) is widely used to improve the quality of healthcare, including appropriate use of blood. However, its effects are often inconsistent, indicating the need for coordinated research including more head-to-head trials comparing different ways of delivering feedback. A programmatic series of research projects, termed the 'Audit and Feedback INterventions to Increase evidence-based Transfusion practIcE' (AFFINITIE) programme, aims to test different ways of developing and delivering feedback within an existing national audit structure. METHODS: The evaluation will comprise two linked 2×2 factorial, cross-sectional cluster-randomised controlled trials. Each trial will estimate the effects of two feedback interventions, 'enhanced content' and 'enhanced follow-on support', designed in earlier stages of the AFFINITIE programme, compared to current practice. The interventions will be embedded within two rounds of the UK National Comparative Audit of Blood Transfusion (NCABT) focusing on patient blood management in surgery and use of blood transfusions in patients with haematological malignancies. The unit of randomisation will be National Health Service (NHS) trust or health board. Clusters providing care relevant to the audit topics will be randomised following each baseline audit (separately for each trial), with stratification for size (volume of blood transfusions) and region (Regional Transfusion Committee). The primary outcome for each topic will be the proportion of patients receiving a transfusion coded as unnecessary. For each audit topic a linked, mixed-method fidelity assessment and cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted in parallel to the trial. DISCUSSION: AFFINITIE involves a series of studies to explore how A&F may be refined to change practice including two cluster randomised trials linked to national audits of transfusion practice. The methodology represents a step-wise increment in study design to more fully evaluate the effects of two enhanced feedback interventions on patient- and trust-level clinical, cost, safety and process outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN15490813.

Enhancing the reporting of implementation research.

In the 10 years since the inception of Implementation Science, we have witnessed a continued rise in the number of submissions received, reflecting the continued global interest in methods to enhance the uptake of research findings into healthcare practice and policy. We receive over 750 submissions annually, and there is now a large gap between what is submitted and what gets published. In this editorial, we restate the journal scope and current boundaries. We also identify some specific reporting issues that if addressed will help enhance the scientific reporting quality and transparency of the manuscripts we receive. We hope that this editorial acts as a further guide to researchers seeking to publish their work in Implementation Science.

A multidimensional approach to assessing intervention fidelity in a process evaluation of audit and feedback interventions to reduce unnecessary blood transfusions: a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: In England, NHS Blood and Transplant conducts national audits of transfusion and provides feedback to hospitals to promote evidence-based practice. Audits demonstrate 20% of transfusions fall outside guidelines. The AFFINITIE programme (Development & Evaluation of Audit and Feedback INterventions to Increase evidence-based Transfusion practIcE) involves two linked, 2×2 factorial, cluster-randomised trials, each evaluating two theoretically-enhanced audit and feedback interventions to reduce unnecessary blood transfusions in UK hospitals. The first intervention concerns the content/format of feedback reports. The second aims to support hospital transfusion staff to plan their response to feedback and includes a web-based toolkit and telephone support. Interpretation of trials is enhanced by comprehensively assessing intervention fidelity. However, reviews demonstrate fidelity evaluations are often limited, typically only assessing whether interventions were delivered as intended. This protocol presents methods for assessing fidelity across five dimensions proposed by the Behaviour Change Consortium fidelity framework, including intervention designer-, provider- and recipient-levels. METHODS: (1) Design: Intervention content will be specified in intervention manuals in terms of component behaviour change techniques (BCTs). Treatment differentiation will be examined by comparing BCTs across intervention/standard practice, noting the proportion of unique/convergent BCTs. (2) Training: draft feedback reports and audio-recorded role-play telephone support scenarios will be content analysed to assess intervention providers' competence to deliver manual-specified BCTs. (3) Delivery: intervention materials (feedback reports, toolkit) and audio-recorded telephone support session transcripts will be content analysed to assess actual delivery of manual-specified BCTs during the intervention period. (4) Receipt and (5) enactment: questionnaires, semi-structured interviews based on the Theoretical Domains Framework, and objective web-analytics data (report downloads, toolkit usage patterns) will be analysed to assess hospital transfusion staff exposure to, understanding and enactment of the interventions, and to identify contextual barriers/enablers to implementation. Associations between observed fidelity and trial outcomes (% unnecessary transfusions) will be examined using mediation analyses. DISCUSSION: If the interventions have acceptable fidelity, then results of the AFFINITIE trials can be attributed to effectiveness, or lack of effectiveness, of the interventions. Hence, this comprehensive assessment of fidelity will be used to interpret trial findings. These methods may inform fidelity assessments in future trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 15490813 . Registered 11/03/2015.

Using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to understand adherence to multiple evidence-based indicators in primary care: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: There are recognised gaps between evidence and practice in general practice, a setting posing particular implementation challenges. We earlier screened clinical guideline recommendations to derive a set of 'high-impact' indicators based upon criteria including potential for significant patient benefit, scope for improved practice and amenability to measurement using routinely collected data. Here, we explore health professionals' perceived determinants of adherence to these indicators, examining the degree to which determinants were indicator-specific or potentially generalisable across indicators. METHODS: We interviewed 60 general practitioners, practice nurses and practice managers in West Yorkshire, the UK, about adherence to four indicators: avoidance of risky prescribing; treatment targets in type 2 diabetes; blood pressure targets in treated hypertension; and anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation. Interview questions drew upon the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Data were analysed using framework analysis. RESULTS: Professional role and identity and environmental context and resources featured prominently across all indicators whilst the importance of other domains, for example, beliefs about consequences, social influences and knowledge varied across indicators. We identified five meta-themes representing more general organisational and contextual factors common to all indicators. CONCLUSIONS: The TDF helped elicit a wide range of reported determinants of adherence to 'high-impact' indicators in primary care. It was more difficult to pinpoint which determinants, if targeted by an implementation strategy, would maximise change. The meta-themes broadly underline the need to align the design of interventions targeting general practices with higher level supports and broader contextual considerations. However, our findings suggest that it is feasible to develop interventions to promote the uptake of different evidence-based indicators which share common features whilst also including content-specific adaptations.

Prescribed opioids in primary care: cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses of influence of patient and practice characteristics.

OBJECTIVES: To examine trends in opioid prescribing in primary care, identify patient and general practice characteristics associated with long-term and stronger opioid prescribing, and identify associations with changes in opioid prescribing. DESIGN: Trend, cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses of routinely recorded patient data. SETTING: 111 primary care practices in Leeds and Bradford, UK. PARTICIPANTS: We observed 471 828 patient-years in which all patients represented had at least 1 opioid prescription between April 2005 and March 2012. A cross-sectional analysis included 99 847 patients prescribed opioids between April 2011 and March 2012. A longitudinal analysis included 49 065 patient-years between April 2008 and March 2012. We excluded patients with cancer or treated for substance misuse. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Long-term opioid prescribing (4 or more prescriptions within 12 months), stronger opioid prescribing and stepping up to or down from stronger opioids. RESULTS: Opioid prescribing in the adult population almost doubled for weaker opioids over 2005-2012 and rose over sixfold for stronger opioids. There was marked variation among general practices in the odds of patients stepping up to stronger opioids compared with those not stepping up (range 0.31-3.36), unexplained by practice-level variables. Stepping up to stronger opioids was most strongly associated with being underweight (adjusted OR 3.26, 1.49 to 7.17), increasing polypharmacy (4.15, 3.26 to 5.29 for 10 or more repeat prescriptions), increasing numbers of primary care appointments (3.04, 2.48 to 3.73 for over 12 appointments in the year) and referrals to specialist pain services (5.17, 4.37 to 6.12). Compared with women under 50 years, men under 50 were less likely to step down once prescribed stronger opioids (0.53, 0.37 to 0.75). CONCLUSIONS: While clinicians should be alert to patients at risk of escalated opioid prescribing, much prescribing variation may be attributable to clinical behaviour. Effective strategies targeting clinicians and patients are needed to curb rising prescribing, especially of stronger opioids.

Action to Support Practices Implement Research Evidence (ASPIRE): protocol for a cluster-randomised evaluation of adaptable implementation packages targeting 'high impact' clinical practice recommendations in general practice.

BACKGROUND: There are recognised gaps between evidence and practice in general practice, a setting which provides particular challenges for implementation. We earlier screened clinical guideline recommendations to derive a set of 'high impact' indicators based upon criteria including potential for significant patient benefit, scope for improved practice and amenability to measurement using routinely collected data. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a multifaceted, adaptable intervention package to implement four targeted, high impact recommendations in general practice. METHODS/DESIGN: The research programme Action to Support Practice Implement Research Evidence (ASPIRE) includes a pair of pragmatic cluster-randomised trials which use a balanced incomplete block design. Clusters are general practices in West Yorkshire, United Kingdom (UK), recruited using an 'opt-out' recruitment process. The intervention package adapted to each recommendation includes combinations of audit and feedback, educational outreach visits and computerised prompts with embedded behaviour change techniques selected on the basis of identified needs and barriers to change. In trial 1, practices are randomised to adapted interventions targeting either diabetes control or risky prescribing and those in trial 2 to adapted interventions targeting either blood pressure control in patients at risk of cardiovascular events or anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation. The respective primary endpoints comprise achievement of all recommended target levels of haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), blood pressure and cholesterol in patients with type 2 diabetes, a composite indicator of risky prescribing, achievement of recommended blood pressure targets for specific patient groups and anticoagulation prescribing in patients with atrial fibrillation. We are also randomising practices to a fifth, non-intervention control group to further assess Hawthorne effects. Outcomes will be assessed using routinely collected data extracted 1 year after randomisation. Economic modelling will estimate intervention cost-effectiveness. A process evaluation involving eight non-trial practices will examine intervention delivery, mechanisms of action and unintended consequences. DISCUSSION: ASPIRE will provide 'real-world' evidence about the effects, cost-effectiveness and delivery of adapted intervention packages targeting high impact recommendations. By implementing our adaptable intervention package across four distinct clinical topics, and using 'opt-out' recruitment, our findings will provide evidence of wider generalisability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN91989345.

Barriers to effective management of type 2 diabetes in primary care: qualitative systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of evidence-based guidance, many patients with type 2 diabetes do not achieve treatment goals. AIM: To guide quality improvement strategies for type 2 diabetes by synthesising qualitative evidence on primary care physicians' and nurses' perceived influences on care. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of qualitative studies with findings organised using the Theoretical Domains Framework. METHOD: Databases searched were MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and ASSIA from 1980 until March 2014. Studies included were English-language qualitative studies in primary care of physicians' or nurses' perceived influences on treatment goals for type 2 diabetes. RESULTS: A total of 32 studies were included: 17 address general diabetes care, 11 glycaemic control, three blood pressure, and one cholesterol control. Clinicians struggle to meet evolving treatment targets within limited time and resources, and are frustrated with resulting compromises. They lack confidence in knowledge of guidelines and skills, notably initiating insulin and facilitating patient behaviour change. Changing professional boundaries have resulted in uncertainty about where clinical responsibility resides. Accounts are often couched in emotional terms, especially frustrations over patient compliance and anxieties about treatment intensification. CONCLUSION: Although resources are important, many barriers to improving care are amenable to behaviour change strategies. Improvement strategies need to account for differences between clinical targets and consider tailored rather than 'one size fits all' approaches. Training targeting knowledge is necessary but insufficient to bring about major change; approaches to improve diabetes care need to delineate roles and responsibilities, and address clinicians' skills and emotions around treatment intensification and facilitation of patient behaviour change.

Understanding long-term opioid prescribing for non-cancer pain in primary care: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The place of opioids in the management of chronic, non-cancer pain is limited. Even so their use is escalating, leading to concerns that patients are prescribed strong opioids inappropriately and alternatives to medication are under-used. We aimed to understand the processes which bring about and perpetuate long-term prescribing of opioids for chronic, non-cancer pain. METHODS: We held semi-structured interviews with patients and focus groups with general practitioners (GPs). Participants included 23 patients currently prescribed long-term opioids and 15 GPs from Leeds and Bradford, United Kingdom (UK). We used a grounded approach to the analysis of transcripts. RESULTS: Patients are driven by the needs for pain relief, explanation, and improvement or maintenance of quality of life. GPs' responses are shaped by how UK general practice is organised, available therapeutic choices and their expertise in managing chronic pain, especially when facing diagnostic uncertainty or when their own approach is at odds with the patient's wishes. Four features of the resulting transaction between patients and doctors influence prescribing: lack of clarity of strategy, including the risk of any plans being subverted by urgent demands; lack of certainty about locus of control in decision-making, especially in relation to prescribing; continuity in the doctor-patient relationship; and mutuality and trust. CONCLUSIONS: Problematic prescribing occurs when patients experience repeated consultations that do not meet their needs and GPs feel unable to negotiate alternative approaches to treatment. Therapeutic short-termism is perpetuated by inconsistent clinical encounters and the absence of mutually-agreed formulations of underlying problems and plans of action. Apart from commissioning improved access to appropriate specialist services, general practices should also consider how they manage problematic opioid prescribing and be prepared to set boundaries with patients.

Does a local financial incentive scheme reduce inequalities in the delivery of clinical care in a socially deprived community? A longitudinal data analysis.

BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic deprivation is associated with inequalities in health care and outcomes. Despite concerns that the Quality and Outcomes Framework pay-for-performance scheme in the UK would exacerbate inequalities in primary care delivery, gaps closed over time. Local schemes were promoted as a means of improving clinical engagement by addressing local health priorities. We evaluated equity in achievement of target indicators and practice income for one local scheme. METHODS: We undertook a longitudinal survey over four years of routinely recorded clinical data for all 83 primary care practices. Sixteen indicators were developed that covered five local clinical and public health priorities: weight management; alcohol consumption; learning disabilities; osteoporosis; and chlamydia screening. Clinical indicators were logit transformed from a percentage achievement scale and modelled allowing for clustering of repeated measures within practices. This enabled our study of target achievements over time with respect to deprivation. Practice income was also explored. RESULTS: Higher practice deprivation was associated with poorer performance for five indicators: alcohol use registration (OR 0.97; 95 % confidence interval 0.96,0.99); recorded chlamydia test result (OR 0.97; 0.94,0.99); osteoporosis registration (OR 0.98; 0.97,0.99); registration of repeat prednisolone prescription (OR 0.98; 0.96,0.99); and prednisolone registration with record of dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scan/referral (OR 0.92; 0.86,0.97); practices in deprived areas performed better for one indicator (registration of osteoporotic fragility fracture (OR 1.26; 1.04,1.51). The deprivation-achievement gap widened for one indicator (registered females aged 65-74 with a fracture referred for a DEXA scan; OR 0.97; 0.95,0.99). Two other indicators indicated a similar trend over two years before being withdrawn (registration of fragility fracture and over-75 s with a fragility fracture assessed and treated for osteoporosis risk). For one indicator the deprivation-achievement gap reduced over time (repeat prednisolone prescription (OR 1.01; 1.01,1.01). Larger practices and those serving more affluent areas earned more income per patient than smaller practices and those serving more deprived areas (t = -3.99; p =0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Any gaps in achievement between practices were modest but mostly sustained or widened over the duration of the scheme. Given that financial rewards may not reflect the amount of work undertaken by practices serving more deprived patients, future pay-for-performance schemes also need to address fairness of rewards in relation to workload.