Implementing mental health support teams in schools and colleges: the perspectives of programme implementers and service providers.

Background: Between 2018 and 2025, a national implementation programme is funding more than 500 new mental health support teams (MHSTs) in England, to work in education settings to deliver evidence-based interventions to children with mild to moderate mental health problems and support emotional wellbeing for all pupils. A new role, education mental health practitioner (EMHP), has been created for the programme.Aims: A national evaluation explored the development, implementation and early progress of 58 MHSTs in the programme's first 25 'Trailblazer' sites. This paper reports the views and experiences of people involved in MHST design, implementation and service delivery at a local, regional and national level.Methods: Data are reported from in-depth interviews with staff in five Trailblazer sites (n = 71), and the programme's regional (n = 52) and national leads (n = 21).Results: Interviewees universally welcomed the creation of MHSTs, but there was a lack of clarity about their purpose, concerns that the standardised CBT interventions being offered were not working well for some children, and challenges retaining EMHPs.Conclusions: This study raises questions about MHSTs' service scope, what role they should play in addressing remaining gaps in mental health provision, and how EMHPs can develop the skills to work effectively with diverse groups.

Early evaluation of the Children and Young People's Mental Health Trailblazer programme: a rapid mixed-methods study.

Background: The Children and Young People's Mental Health Trailblazer programme is funding the creation of new mental health support teams to work in schools and further education colleges. Mental health support teams directly support children and young people with 'mild to moderate' mental health problems and work with school and college staff to promote well-being for all. A new workforce of education mental health practitioners is being trained for the teams. Objective(s): The National Institute for Health and Care Research Birmingham, RAND and Cambridge Evaluation Rapid Evaluation Centre and Policy Innovation and Evaluation Research Unit undertook an early evaluation of the Trailblazer programme to examine the development, implementation and early progress of mental health support teams in the programme's first 25 'Trailblazer' sites. Design: A mixed-methods evaluation, comprising three work packages: 1. Establishing the baseline and understanding the development and early impacts of the Trailblazer sites, including two rounds of surveys with key informants and participating education settings in all 25 sites. 2. More detailed research in five purposively selected Trailblazer sites, including interviews with a range of stakeholders and focus groups with children and young people. 3. Scoping and developing options for a longer-term assessment of the programme's outcomes and impacts. Fieldwork was undertaken between November 2020 and February 2022. The University of Birmingham Institute for Mental Health Youth Advisory Group was involved throughout the study, including co-producing the focus groups with children and young people. Results: Substantial progress had been made implementing the programme, in challenging circumstances, and there was optimism about what it had the potential to achieve. The education mental health practitioner role had proven popular, but sites reported challenges in retaining education mental health practitioners, and turnover left mental health support teams short-staffed and needing to re-recruit. Education settings welcomed additional mental health support and reported positive early outcomes, including staff feeling more confident and having faster access to advice about mental health issues. At the same time, there were concerns about children who had mental health problems that were more serious than 'mild to moderate' but not serious enough to be accepted for specialist help, and that the interventions offered were not working well for some young people. Mental health support teams were generally spending more time supporting children with mental health problems than working with education settings to develop 'whole school' approaches to mental health and well-being, and service models in some sites appeared to be more clinically oriented, with a strong focus on mental health support teams' therapeutic functions. Limitations: Despite efforts to maximise participation, survey response rates were relatively low and some groups were less well represented than others. We were not able to gather sufficiently detailed data to develop a typology of Trailblazer sites, as was planned. Conclusions: Key lessons for future programme implementation include: - Whether mental health support teams should expand support to children and young people with more complex and serious mental health problems. - How to keep the twin aims of prevention and early intervention in balance. - How to retain education mental health practitioners once trained. Future work: The findings have important implications for the design of a longer-term impact evaluation of the programme, which is due to commence in summer 2023. Study registration: Ethical approval from the University of Birmingham (ERN_19-1400 - RG_19-190) and London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (Ref: 18040) and Health Research Authority approval (IRAS 270760). Funding: The Birmingham, RAND and Cambridge Evaluation Rapid Evaluation Centre is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme (HSDR 16/138/31). The Policy Innovation and Evaluation Research Unit is funded by the NIHR Policy Research Programme (PR-PRU-1217-20602).

COVID-19 Genomics UK (COG-UK) Consortium: Final Report.

The ability to sequence and understand different variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and their impact is crucial to inform policy and public health decisions. Soon after the UK went into its first lockdown in March 2020, the CCOVID-19 Genomics UK (COG-UK) Consortium was launched. COG-UK is a collaboration of experts in pathogen genomics including academic institutions, public health agencies, the Wellcome Sanger Institute, NHS Trusts and Lighthouse Labs. RAND Europe evaluated how COG-UK delivered against its objectives, for example how it contributed to advancing scientific knowledge about SARS-CoV-2, informing public health decisions, and providing information that can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of vaccines and treatments. The evaluation also examined the diverse factors that influenced COG-UK progress and impact, including enablers and challenges, and considered implications for the future.

Guiding organisational decision-making about COVID-19 asymptomatic testing in workplaces: mixed-method study to inform an ethical framework.

BACKGROUND: Workplace programmes to test staff for asymptomatic COVID-19 infection have become common, but raise a number of ethical challenges. In this article, we report the findings of a consultation that informed the development of an ethical framework for organisational decision-making about such programmes. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-method consultation - a survey and semi-structured interviews during November-December 2020 in a UK case study organisation that had introduced asymptomatic testing for all staff working on-site in its buildings. Analysis of closed-ended survey data was conducted descriptively. An analysis approach based on the Framework Method was used for the open-ended survey responses and interview data. The analyses were then integrated to facilitate systematic analysis across themes. Inferences were based on the integrated findings and combined with other inputs (literature review, ethical analysis, legal and public health guidance, expert discussions) to develop an ethical framework. RESULTS: The consultation involved 61 staff members from the case study organisation (50 survey respondents and 11 interview participants). There was strong support for the asymptomatic testing programme: 90% of the survey respondents viewed it as helpful or very helpful. Open-ended survey responses and interviews gave insight into participants' concerns, including those relating to goal drift, risk of false negatives, and potential negative impacts for household members and people whose roles lacked contractual and financial stability. Integration of the consultation findings and the other inputs identified the importance of a whole-system approach with appropriate support for the key control measure of isolation following positive tests. The need to build trust in the testing programme, for example through effective communication from leaders, was also emphasised. CONCLUSIONS: The consultation, together with other inputs, informed an ethical framework intended to support employers. The framework may support organisational decision-making in areas ranging from design and operation of the programme through to choices about participation. The framework is likely to benefit from further consultation and refinement in new settings.

Digital Facilitation to Support Patient Access to Web-Based Primary Care Services: Scoping Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: The use of web-based services within primary care (PC) in the National Health Service in England is increasing, with medically underserved populations being less likely to engage with web-based services than other patient groups. Digital facilitation-referring to a range of processes, procedures, and personnel that seek to support patients in the uptake and use of web-based services-may be a way of addressing these challenges. However, the models and impact of digital facilitation currently in use are unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify, characterize, and differentiate between different approaches to digital facilitation in PC; establish what is known about the effectiveness of different approaches; and understand the enablers of digital facilitation. METHODS: Adopting scoping review methodology, we searched academic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) and gray literature published between 2015 and 2020. We conducted snowball searches of reference lists of included articles and articles identified during screening as relevant to digital facilitation, but which did not meet the inclusion criteria because of article type restrictions. Titles and abstracts were independently screened by 2 reviewers. Data from eligible studies were analyzed using a narrative synthesis approach. RESULTS: A total of 85 publications were included. Most (71/85, 84%) were concerned with digital facilitation approaches targeted at patients (promotion of services, training patients to improve their technical skills, or other guidance and support). Further identified approaches targeted PC staff to help patients (eg, improving staff knowledge of web-based services and enhancing their technical or communication skills). Qualitative evidence suggests that some digital facilitation may be effective in promoting the uptake and use of web-based services by patients (eg, recommendation of web-based services by practice staff and coaching). We found little evidence that providing patients with initial assistance in registering for or accessing web-based services leads to increased long-term use. Few studies have addressed the effects of digital facilitation on health care inequalities. Those that addressed this suggested that providing technical training for patients could be effective, at least in part, in reducing inequalities, although not entirely. Factors affecting the success of digital facilitation include perceptions of the usefulness of the web-based service, trust in the service, patients' trust in providers, the capacity of PC staff, guidelines or regulations supporting facilitation efforts, and staff buy-in and motivation. CONCLUSIONS: Digital facilitation has the potential to increase the uptake and use of web-based services by PC patients. Understanding the approaches that are most effective and cost-effective, for whom, and under what circumstances requires further research, including rigorous evaluations of longer-term impacts. As efforts continue to increase the use of web-based services in PC in England and elsewhere, we offer an early typology to inform conceptual development and evaluations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020189019; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=189019.

Quality framework for remote antenatal care: qualitative study with women, healthcare professionals and system-level stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: High-quality antenatal care is important for ensuring optimal birth outcomes and reducing risks of maternal and fetal mortality and morbidity. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the usual provision of antenatal care, with much care shifting to remote forms of provision. We aimed to characterise what quality would look like for remote antenatal care from the perspectives of those who use, provide and organise it. METHODS: This UK-wide study involved interviews and an online survey inviting free-text responses with: those who were or had been pregnant since March 2020; maternity professionals and managers of maternity services and system-level stakeholders. Recruitment used network-based approaches, professional and community networks and purposively selected hospitals. Analysis of interview transcripts was based on the constant comparative method. Free-text survey responses were analysed using a coding framework developed by researchers. FINDINGS: Participants included 106 pregnant women and 105 healthcare professionals and managers/stakeholders. Analysis enabled generation of a framework of the domains of quality that appear to be most relevant to stakeholders in remote antenatal care: efficiency and timeliness; effectiveness; safety; accessibility; equity and inclusion; person-centredness and choice and continuity. Participants reported that remote care was not straightforwardly positive or negative across these domains. Care that was more transactional in nature was identified as more suitable for remote modalities, but remote care was also seen as having potential to undermine important aspects of trusting relationships and continuity, to amplify or create new forms of structural inequality and to create possible risks to safety. CONCLUSIONS: This study offers a provisional framework that can help in structuring thinking, policy and practice. By outlining the range of domains relevant to remote antenatal care, this framework is likely to be of value in guiding policy, practice and research.

Mixed-methods exploration of views on choice in a university asymptomatic COVID-19 testing programme.

Asymptomatic COVID-19 testing programmes are being introduced in higher education institutions, but stakeholder views regarding the acceptability of mandating or incentivizing participation remain little understood. A mixed-method study (semi-structured interviews and a survey including open and closed questions) was undertaken in a case study university with a student testing programme. Survey data were analysed descriptively; analysis for interviews was based on the framework method. Two hundred and thirty-nine people participated in the study: 213 in the survey (189 students, 24 staff), and 26 in interviews (19 students, 7 staff). There was majority (62%) but not universal support for voluntary participation, with a range of concerns expressed about the potentially negative effects of mandating testing. Those who supported mandatory testing tended to do so on the grounds that it would protect others. There was also majority (64%) opposition to penalties for refusing to test. Views on restricting access to face-to-face teaching for non-participants were polarized. Three-quarters (75%) supported incentives, though there were some concerns about effectiveness and unintended consequences. Participants emphasized the importance of communication about the potential benefits of testing. Preserving the voluntariness of participation in student asymptomatic testing programmes is likely to be the most ethically sound policy unless circumstances change.

Identifying how GPs spend their time and the obstacles they face: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Although problems that impair task completion - known as operational failures - are an important focus of concern in primary care, they have remained little studied. AIM: To quantify the time GPs spend on different activities during clinical sessions; to identify the number of operational failures they encounter; and to characterise the nature of operational failures and their impact for GPs. DESIGN AND SETTING: Mixed-method triangulation study with 61 GPs in 28 NHS general practices in England from December 2018 to December 2019. METHOD: Time-motion methods, ethnographic observations, and interviews were used. RESULTS: Time-motion data on 7679 GP tasks during 238 hours of practice in 61 clinical sessions suggested that operational failures were responsible for around 5.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.5% to 5.4%) of all tasks undertaken by GPs and accounted for 3.9% (95% CI = 3.2% to 4.5%) of clinical time. However, qualitative data showed that time-motion methods, which depend on pre-programmed categories, substantially underestimated operational failures. Qualitative data also enabled further characterisation of operational failures, extending beyond those measured directly in the time-motion data (for example, interruptions, deficits in equipment/supplies, and technology) to include problems linked to GPs' coordination role and weaknesses in work systems and processes. The impacts of operational failures were highly consequential for GPs' experiences of work. CONCLUSION: GPs experience frequent operational failures, disrupting patient care, impairing experiences of work, and imposing burden in an already pressurised system. This better understanding of the nature and impact of operational failures allows for identification of targets for improvement and indicates the need for coordinated action to support GPs.

Demonstrating trustworthiness when collecting and sharing genomic data: public views across 22 countries.

BACKGROUND: Public trust is central to the collection of genomic and health data and the sustainability of genomic research. To merit trust, those involved in collecting and sharing data need to demonstrate they are trustworthy. However, it is unclear what measures are most likely to demonstrate this. METHODS: We analyse the 'Your DNA, Your Say' online survey of public perspectives on genomic data sharing including responses from 36,268 individuals across 22 low-, middle- and high-income countries, gathered in 15 languages. We examine how participants perceived the relative value of measures to demonstrate the trustworthiness of those using donated DNA and/or medical information. We examine between-country variation and present a consolidated ranking of measures. RESULTS: Providing transparent information about who will benefit from data access was the most important measure to increase trust, endorsed by more than 50% of participants across 20 of 22 countries. It was followed by the option to withdraw data and transparency about who is using data and why. Variation was found for the importance of measures, notably information about sanctions for misuse of data-endorsed by 5% in India but almost 60% in Japan. A clustering analysis suggests alignment between some countries in the assessment of specific measures, such as the UK and Canada, Spain and Mexico and Portugal and Brazil. China and Russia are less closely aligned with other countries in terms of the value of the measures presented. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the importance of transparency about data use and about the goals and potential benefits associated with data sharing, including to whom such benefits accrue. They show that members of the public value knowing what benefits accrue from the use of data. The study highlights the importance of locally sensitive measures to increase trust as genomic data sharing continues globally.

Seven features of safety in maternity units: a framework based on multisite ethnography and stakeholder consultation.

BACKGROUND: Reducing avoidable harm in maternity services is a priority globally. As well as learning from mistakes, it is important to produce rigorous descriptions of 'what good looks like'. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to characterise features of safety in maternity units and to generate a plain language framework that could be used to guide learning and improvement. METHODS: We conducted a multisite ethnography involving 401 hours of non-participant observations 33 semistructured interviews with staff across six maternity units, and a stakeholder consultation involving 65 semistructured telephone interviews and one focus group. RESULTS: We identified seven features of safety in maternity units and summarised them into a framework, named For Us (For Unit Safety). The features include: (1) commitment to safety and improvement at all levels, with everyone involved; (2) technical competence, supported by formal training and informal learning; (3) teamwork, cooperation and positive working relationships; (4) constant reinforcing of safe, ethical and respectful behaviours; (5) multiple problem-sensing systems, used as basis of action; (6) systems and processes designed for safety, and regularly reviewed and optimised; (7) effective coordination and ability to mobilise quickly. These features appear to have a synergistic character, such that each feature is necessary but not sufficient on its own: the features operate in concert through multiple forms of feedback and amplification. CONCLUSIONS: This large qualitative study has enabled the generation of a new plain language framework-For Us-that identifies the behaviours and practices that appear to be features of safe care in hospital-based maternity units.

Global Public Perceptions of Genomic Data Sharing: What Shapes the Willingness to Donate DNA and Health Data?

Analyzing genomic data across populations is central to understanding the role of genetic factors in health and disease. Successful data sharing relies on public support, which requires attention to whether people around the world are willing to donate their data that are then subsequently shared with others for research. However, studies of such public perceptions are geographically limited and do not enable comparison. This paper presents results from a very large public survey on attitudes toward genomic data sharing. Data from 36,268 individuals across 22 countries (gathered in 15 languages) are presented. In general, publics across the world do not appear to be aware of, nor familiar with, the concepts of DNA, genetics, and genomics. Willingness to donate one's DNA and health data for research is relatively low, and trust in the process of data's being shared with multiple users (e.g., doctors, researchers, governments) is also low. Participants were most willing to donate DNA or health information for research when the recipient was specified as a medical doctor and least willing to donate when the recipient was a for-profit researcher. Those who were familiar with genetics and who were trusting of the users asking for data were more likely to be willing to donate. However, less than half of participants trusted more than one potential user of data, although this varied across countries. Genetic information was not uniformly seen as different from other forms of health information, but there was an association between seeing genetic information as special in some way compared to other health data and increased willingness to donate. The global perspective provided by our "Your DNA, Your Say" study is valuable for informing the development of international policy and practice for sharing genomic data. It highlights that the research community not only needs to be worthy of trust by the public, but also urgent steps need to be taken to authentically communicate why genomic research is necessary and how data donation, and subsequent sharing, is integral to this.

NP and PA Privileging in Acute Care Settings: Do Scope of Practice Laws Matter?

As hospitals' interest in nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) grows, their leadership is eager to know how their medical staffing privileging policies for these professionals compare to peer hospitals. This study assesses the extent of variation of these policies in four clinical areas and examines whether the differences are associated with state scope of practice laws for NPs and PAs. We also examine the relationship of NP and PA privileging policies to each other. Our analysis finds no evidence that hospital privileging is associated with state scope of practice, and indeed within-state variation is more significant than cross-state variation. We also find a strong correlation between NP and PA privileging in all four clinical areas. These results suggest the need for additional research to understand the institutional-level variables and human dynamics at the level of medical staffing committees that may explain the dramatic variation in privileging policies and, ultimately, the effects of different privileging levels on costs and quality.

Knowing Your Worth: Salary Expectations and Gender of Matriculating Physician Assistant Students.

PURPOSE: The male-female wage gap is present and persistent in the health care sector, even among physician assistants (PAs). Explanations for the persistent gender earnings gap include differential salary expectations of men and women based, in part, on women's lower pay entitlement. The purpose of this study was to examine differences in salary expectations between male and female matriculating PA students nationwide, adjusting for other factors expected to affect salaries and pay expectations of both male and female matriculants. METHODS: Using data from the Physician Assistant Education Association Matriculating Student Survey of 2013, 2014, and 2015, we investigated the relationship between first-year PA students' gender and their salary expectations after graduation using a multinomial logistic regression analysis. We controlled for possible confounders by including independent variables measuring student demographics, background characteristics, qualifications, future career plans, and financial considerations. RESULTS: We found that female PA students were less likely than male PA students to expect a salary of $80,000-$89,999 (Odds Ratio [OR] = 0.73), $90,000-$99,999 (OR = 0.58), or $100,000 or greater (OR = 0.42) in comparison to an expected salary of less than $70,000, when controlling for our independent variables. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis shows that on entry into PA training programs, female PA students' earnings expectations are less than those of male PA students. Our results are consistent with research, suggesting that women typically expect lower pay and systematically undervalue their contributions and skills in comparison to men. Physician assistant programs should consider strategies to promote realistic salary expectations among PA students as one way to promote earnings equity.

Job openings for PAs by specialty.

OBJECTIVE: Physician assistants (PAs) have adapted to roles in virtually every practice specialty. One factor that has affected PAs' specialty choices has been the availability of jobs. We describe 2014 job postings for PAs at the national level by practice specialty. METHODS: National data on 2014 job postings for PAs were obtained from a leading labor analytics firm. Each job posting (N = 34,137) was coded with regard to practice specialty and analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: The largest proportions of job postings were in the surgical (28%) and medical subspecialty (23%) categories, followed by primary care (19%), other (18%), and emergency/urgent care (12%). CONCLUSIONS: Job opportunities for PAs are plentiful and are focused in subspecialty practice. Future research should examine trends in job postings for PAs. Trend analyses will be useful for multiple purposes, including informing PAs who are seeking employment and tracking demand for the profession as a whole.

Patient preference in primary care provider type.

BACKGROUND: Given the growing roles of nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs), patients are increasingly able to choose their primary care provider type. Studies examining patient preferences among provider types are limited and ours is the first to examine reasons for patients' provider type preferences. METHODS: Using data from the 2014 Association of American Medical Colleges' (AAMC) Consumer Survey of Health Care Access, we used qualitative analysis to identify themes in open text responses of reasons for respondents' provider type preference (N = 4220). After coding responses for themes, we used chi-square tests to assess whether there were statistically significant differences in respondents' reasons for their provider preference, and whether reasons vary by the gender, race, or age of the respondent. RESULTS: Those preferring physicians were more likely to cite physician qualifications (75%) and trust (7%) than those preferring NP/PAs (qualifications = 36%; trust = 4%). Those preferring NP/PAs were more likely to cite bedside manner (20%) and convenience (9%) than those preferring physicians (bedside manner = 5%; convenience = 4%). Both groups of respondents were equally likely to mention previous experience with their provider type as a reason for their preference (prefer physician = 19%; prefer NP/PA = 21%). CONCLUSIONS: Provider qualifications and previous health care experiences are cited as key reasons for preferring all provider types. Additionally, physicians are more often preferred for their qualifications and technical skills, whereas NP/PAs are more often preferred for their interpersonal skills. IMPLICATIONS: Our results could help providers, health system administrators, workforce planners, and policy makers better understand patient perspectives and design care that enhances patient satisfaction.

Primary care multidisciplinary teams in practice: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Current recommendations for strengthening the US healthcare system consider restructuring primary care into multidisciplinary teams as vital to improving quality and efficiency. Yet, approaches to the selection of team designs remain unclear. This project describes current primary care team designs, primary care professionals' perceptions of ideal team designs, and perceived facilitating factors and barriers to implementing ideal team-based care. METHODS: Qualitative study of 44 health care professionals at 6 primary care practices in North Carolina using focus group discussions and surveys. Data was analyzed using framework content analysis. RESULTS: Practices used a variety of multidisciplinary team designs with the specific design being influenced by the social and policy context in which practices were embedded. Practices overwhelmingly located barriers to adopting ideal multidisciplinary teams as being outside of their individual practices and outside of their control. Participants viewed internal organizational contexts as the major facilitators of multidisciplinary primary care teams. The majority of practices described their ideal team design as including a social worker to meet the needs of socially complex patients. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care multidisciplinary team designs vary across practices, shaped in part by contextual factors perceived as barriers outside of the practices' control. Facilitating factors within practices provide a culture of support to team members, but they are insufficient to overcome the perceived barriers. The common desire to add social workers to care teams reflects practices' struggles to meet the complex demands of patients and external agencies. Government or organizational policies should avoid one-size-fits-all approaches to multidisciplinary care teams, and instead allow primary care practices to adapt to their specific contextual circumstances.

Scarcity of Primary Care Positions May Divert Physician Assistants Into Specialty Practice.

BACKGROUND: Physician assistants (PAs) are often suggested as a partial solution to predicted primary care workforce shortages, but a declining proportion of PAs are entering primary care practice. Policy efforts have focused on increasing primary care PA supply, but low labor market demand might be constricting the primary care PA pipeline. METHOD: In this descriptive, cross-sectional study, we compare primary care and specialty job postings to each other and to occupied PA positions. Job posting data for 2014 are from a leading labor analytics firm. RESULTS: Only 18% of job postings were in primary care, compared with 27% of occupied PA positions. The proportion of postings that were for primary care varied widely by state (9% to 40%) and were highest in the West. DISCUSSION: Job availability is a potential barrier to PAs practicing in primary care, especially in some locations. Other job factors are examined and policy solutions are suggested.