Solving poverty or tackling healthcare inequalities? Qualitative study exploring local interpretations of national policy on health inequalities under new NHS reforms in England.

OBJECTIVES: Major reforms to the organisation of the National Health Service (NHS) in England established 42 integrated care systems (ICSs) to plan and coordinate local services. The changes are based on the idea that cross-sector collaboration is needed to improve health and reduce health inequalities-and similar policy changes are happening elsewhere in the UK and internationally. We explored local interpretations of national policy objectives on reducing health inequalities among senior leaders working in three ICSs. DESIGN: We carried out qualitative research based on semistructured interviews with NHS, public health, social care and other leaders in three ICSs in England. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We selected three ICSs with varied characteristics all experiencing high levels of socioeconomic deprivation. We conducted 32 in-depth interviews with senior leaders of NHS, local government and other organisations involved in the ICS's work on health inequalities. Our interviewees comprised 17 leaders from NHS organisations and 15 leaders from other sectors. RESULTS: Local interpretations of national policy objectives on health inequalities varied, and local leaders had contrasting-sometimes conflicting-perceptions of the boundaries of ICS action on reducing health inequalities. Translating national objectives into local priorities was often a challenge, and clarity from national policy-makers was frequently perceived as limited or lacking. Across the three ICSs, local leaders worried that objectives on tackling health inequalities were being crowded out by other short-term policy priorities, such as reducing pressures on NHS hospitals. The behaviour of national policy-makers appeared to undermine their stated priorities to reduce health inequalities. CONCLUSIONS: Varied and vague interpretations of NHS policy on health inequalities are not new, but lack of clarity among local health leaders brings major risks-including interventions being poorly targeted or inadvertently widening inequalities. Greater conceptual clarity is likely needed to guide ICS action in future.

A systematic review of national interventions and policies to optimize antibiotic use in healthcare settings in England.

OBJECTIVES: To identify and assess the effectiveness of national antibiotic optimization interventions in primary and secondary care in England (2013-2022). METHODS: A systematic scoping review was conducted. Literature databases (Embase and Medline) were used to identify interventions and evaluations. Reports included the UK AMR Strategy (2013-2018), National Action Plan (2019-2024) and English Surveillance Programme for Antimicrobial Utilisation and Resistance (ESPAUR) reports (2014-2022). The design, focus and quality of evaluations and the interventions' effectiveness were extracted. FINDINGS: Four hundred and seventy-seven peer-reviewed studies and 13 reports were screened. One hundred and three studies were included for review, identifying 109 interventions in eight categories: policy and commissioning (n = 9); classifications (n = 1); guidance and toolkits (n = 22); monitoring and feedback (n = 17); professional engagement and training (n = 19); prescriber tools (n = 12); public awareness (n = 17); workforce and governance (n = 12).Most interventions lack high-quality effectiveness evidence. Evaluations mainly focused on clinical, microbiological or antibiotic use outcomes, or intervention implementation, often assessing how interventions were perceived to affect behaviour. Only 16 interventions had studies that quantified effects on prescribing, of which six reported reductions. The largest reduction was reported with structural-level interventions and attributed to a policy and commissioning intervention (primary care financial incentives). Behavioural interventions (guidance and toolkits) reported the greatest impact in hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Many interventions have targeted antibiotic use, each pulling different levers across the health system simultaneously. On the basis of these studies, structural-level interventions may have the greatest impact. Collectively, the combination of interventions may explain England's decline in prescribing but direct evidence of causality is unavailable.

Governing Integrated Health and Social Care: An Analysis of Experiences in Three European Countries.

Purpose: Achieving greater health and social care integration is a policy priority in many countries, but challenges remain. We focused on governance and accountability for integrated care and explored arrangements that shape more integrated delivery models or systems in Italy, the Netherlands and Scotland. We also examined how the COVID-19 pandemic affected existing governance arrangements. Design/methodology/approach: A case study approach involving document review and semi-structured interviews with 35 stakeholders in 10 study sites between February 2021 and April 2022. We used the Transparency, Accountability, Participation, Integrity and Capability (TAPIC) framework to guide our analytical enquiry. Findings: Study sites ranged from bottom-up voluntary agreements in the Netherlands to top-down mandated integration in Scotland. Interviews identified seven themes that were seen to have helped or hindered integration efforts locally. Participants described a disconnect between what national or regional governments aspire to achieve and their own efforts to implement this vision. This resulted in blurred, and sometimes contradictory, lines of accountability between the centre and local sites. Flexibility and time to allow for national policies to be adapted to local contexts, and engaged local leaders, were seen to be key to delivering the integration agenda. Health care, and in particular acute hospital care, was reported to dominate social care in terms of policies, resource allocation and national monitoring systems, thereby undermining better collaboration locally. The pandemic highlighted and exacerbated existing strengths and weaknesses but was not seen as a major disruptor to the overall vision for the health and social care system. Research limitations: We included a relatively small number of interviews per study site, limiting our ability to explore complexities within sites. Originality: This study highlights that governance is relatively neglected as a focus of attention in this context but addressing governance challenges is key for successful collaboration.

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.

Do you see the problem? Visualising a generalised 'complex local system' of antibiotic prescribing across the United Kingdom using qualitative interview data.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is often referred to as a complex problem embedded in a complex system. Despite this insight, interventions in AMR, and in particular in antibiotic prescribing, tend to be narrowly focused on the behaviour of individual prescribers using the tools of performance monitoring and management rather than attempting to bring about more systemic change. In this paper, we aim to elucidate the nature of the local antibiotic prescribing 'system' based on 71 semi-structured interviews undertaken in six local areas across the United Kingdom (UK). We applied complex systems theory and systems mapping methods to our qualitative data to deepen our understanding of the interactions among antibiotic prescribing interventions and the wider health system. We found that a complex and interacting set of proximal and distal factors can have unpredictable effects in different local systems in the UK. Ultimately, enacting performance management-based interventions in the absence of in-depth contextual understandings about other pressures prescribers face is a recipe for temporary solutions, waning intervention effectiveness, and unintended consequences. We hope our insights will enable policy makers and academics to devise and evaluate interventions in future in a manner that better reflects and responds to the dynamics of complex local prescribing systems.

Public trust in the Government to control the spread of COVID-19 in England after the first wave-a longitudinal analysis.

BACKGROUND: To control the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), governments are increasingly relying on the public to voluntarily manage risk. Effectiveness is likely to rely in part on how much the public trusts the Government's response. We examined the English public's trust in the Conservative Government to control the spread of COVID-19 after the initial 'crisis' period. METHODS: We analyzed eight rounds of a longitudinal survey of 1899 smartphone users aged 18-79 in England between October 2020 and December 2021. We fitted a random-effects logit model to identify personal characteristics and opinions associated with trust in the Conservative Government to control the spread of COVID-19. RESULTS: Trust was lowest in January 2021 (28%) and highest in March 2021 (44%). Being older, having lower educational attainment and aligning with the Conservative Party were predictors of higher levels of trust. Conversely, being less deprived, reporting that Government communications were not clear and considering that the measures taken by the Government went too far or not far enough were predictors of being less likely to report a great deal or a fair amount of trust in the Government to control the pandemic. CONCLUSION: Trust in the Government's response was found to be low throughout the study. Our findings suggest that there may be scope to avoid losing trust by aligning Government actions more closely with scientific advice and public opinion, and through clearer public health messaging. However, it remains unclear whether and how higher trust in the Government's response would increase compliance with Government advice.

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).

Analysis of content and online public responses to media articles that raise awareness of the opt-out system of consent to organ donation in England.

Background: Preceded by a national media campaign, in May 2020, England switched to a soft opt-out system of organ donation which rests on the assumption that individuals meeting specific criteria have consented to organ donation unless they have expressed otherwise. We aimed to learn more about how the changes were communicated, how people responded and any discrepancies between key messages and how they were interpreted by the public. Methods: Summative content analysis of 286 stories and related reader-generated comments in leading UK online news sources (April 2019 to May 2021). Further detailed thematic analysis of 21 articles with reader-generated content, complemented by thematic content analysis coding of all 286 stories. Results: Most media coverage on both organ donation and the law change was positive, with little variation over time or between publications. The importance of organ donation, benefits of the law change, and emotive stories (often involving children) of those who had donated an organ described as "superheroes" or those who had received organs as benefiting from a "miracle" were frequently cited. In contrast, reader-generated comments were markedly more negative, for example, focusing on loss of individual freedom and lack of trust in the organ donation system. Commentators wished to be able to choose who their organs were donated to, were dismissive and blaming towards minority ethnic groups, including undermining legitimate worries about the compatibility of organ donation with religious beliefs and end of life cultural norms, understanding and acceptance of brain-stem death and systemic racism. Misinformation including use of inflammatory language was common. Conclusion: The portrayal of donors and recipients as extraordinary is unlikely to help to normalise organ donation. Undermining legitimate concerns, in particular those from ethnic minorities, can alienate and encourage harmful misinformation in underrepresented groups. The discrepancies between the tone of the articles and the readers comments suggests a lack of trust across the public, health, policy and media outlets. Easily accessible, ongoing and tailored sources are needed to mitigate misinformation and disinformation and ensure key messages are better understood and accepted in order to realise the ambitions of soft opt-out organ donation policies.

The sociocultural framing of public attitudes to sharing the costs of social care for older people in England.

Twelve synchronous online focus groups were conducted, each involving four to six members of the general public who had expressed in-principle support for sharing the costs of social care for older people between service users and government. These explored participants' reasons for preferring a shared approach and their views on how costs should be shared, with particular attention given to the sociocultural frames employed. Four main sociocultural frames were identified, reflecting dominant discourses concerning (i) the financial burden of meeting social care need ('scarcity' frame) (ii) the core purpose of social care ('medicalised conception of care' frame) (iii) the role and perceived limitations of the private market ('consumer' frame), and (iv) fundamental concerns about safety, security and belonging ('loss and abandonment' frame). Of these four frames, the 'scarcity' frame was dominant, with views about how costs should be shared overwhelmingly formulated upon assumptions of insufficient resources. This was reflected in concerns about affordability and the consequent need for the financial burden to be shared between individuals and government, and resulted in a residual vision for care and anxieties about care quality, cliff-edge costs and abandonment. The concept of shared funding was also employed rhetorically to suggest an equitable approach to managing financial burden, reflected in phrases such as 'splitting the difference'. Whilst out-of-pocket payments were sometimes seen as useful or necessary in the context of scarce public resources, the idea of shared funding was sometimes interpreted more flexibly to include individual contributions made in a range of ways, including tax, social insurance payments and wider social and economic contributions to society. Despite the dominance of the 'scarcity' frame, participants favoured greater government contribution than currently. These four frames and their associated discourses provide insight into how the public 'hear' and make sense of the debate about social care funding and, specifically, how apparent support for shared public-private funding is structured. Government and those hoping to influence the future of social care funding need to promote a vision of funding reform and win support for it by actively engaging with the sociocultural frames that the public recognise and engage with, with all of their apparent inconsistencies and contradictions.

Evidence-based guiding principles to build public trust in personal data use in health systems.

Objective: Public trust in health systems is pivotal for their effective and efficient functioning. In particular, public trust is essential for personal data use, as demonstrated in debates in many countries, for example, about whether data from COVID-19 contact tracing apps should be pooled or remain on individuals' smartphones. Low levels of public trust pose a risk not only to health system legitimacy but can also harm population health. Methods: Synthesising our previous qualitative and theoretical research in the English National Health Service which enabled us to conceptualise the nature of public trust in health systems, we present guiding principles designed to rebuild public trust, if lost, and to maintain high levels of public trust in personal data use within the health system, if not. Results: To build public trust, health system actors need to not rush trust building; engage with the public; keep the public safe; offer autonomy to the public; plan for diverse trust relationships; recognise that trust is shaped by both emotion and rational thought; represent the public interest; and work towards realising a net benefit for the health system and the public. Conclusions: Beyond policymakers and government officials, the guiding principles address a wide range of actors within health systems so that they can work collectively to build public trust. The guiding principles can be used to inform policymaking in health and health care and to analyse the performance of different governments to see if those governments that operate in greater conformity with the guiding principles perform better.

Observations of community-based multidisciplinary team meetings in health and social care for older people with long term conditions in England.

BACKGROUND: Community-based multi-disciplinary teams (MDTs) are the most common means to encourage health and social care service integration in England yet are rarely studied or directly observed. This paper reports on two rounds of non-participant observations of community-based multi-disciplinary team (MDT) meetings in two localities, as part of an evaluation of the Integrated Care and Support Pioneers Programme. We sought to understand how MDT meetings coordinate care and identify their 'added value' over bilateral discussions. METHODS: Two rounds of structured non-participant observations of 11 MDTs (28 meetings) in an inner city and mixed urban-rural area in England (June 2019-February 2020), using a group analysis approach. RESULTS: Despite diverse settings, attendance and caseloads, MDTs adopted similar processes of case management: presentation; information seeking/sharing; narrative construction; solution seeking; decision-making and task allocation. Patient-centredness was evident but scope to strengthen 'patient-voice' exists. MDTs were hampered by information governance rules and lack of interoperability between patient databases. Meetings were characterised by mutual respect and collegiality with little challenge. Decision-making appeared non-hierarchical, often involving dyads or triads of professionals. 'Added value' lay in: rapid patient information sharing; better understanding of contributing agencies' services; planning strategies for patients that providers had struggled to find the right way to engage satisfactorily; and managing risk and providing mutual support in stressful cases. CONCLUSIONS: More attention needs to be given to removing barriers to information sharing, creating scope for constructive challenge between staff and deciding when to remove cases from the caseload.

Sankey diagrams can clarify 'evidence attrition': A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of rapid diagnostic tests for antimicrobial resistance.

OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate, using the example of a new systematic review of rapid diagnostic tests, how Sankey diagrams, alongside the PRISMA guidelines, can (i) facilitate reporting of the quality of the evidence base and (ii) help assess evidence syntheses when studies use heterogeneous outcomes. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental and observational studies which included at least one prescribing or clinical outcome of RDTs in hospital in-patients. Sub-group analysis was used to assess heterogeneity in summary effect estimates. A Sankey diagram was then used to show the pattern and quality of evidence on RDT outcomes. RESULTS: 57 studies from 14 countries were included. The introduction of RDTs did not significantly reduce in-hospital mortality (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.60 - 1.15) or length of stay (weighted mean difference = -0.36, 95% CI -1.67 to 0.96). There was high heterogeneity in outcomes. CONCLUSION: There is no clear evidence that the routine use of RDTs for bacterial identification and antibiotic susceptibility testing improves clinical outcomes in hospital in-patients. Sankey diagrams may be a useful further way succinctly to present the pattern and quality of evidence in systematic reviews, especially when it is heterogeneous and not easily amenable to meta-analysis.

A machine-learning approach to estimating public intentions to become a living kidney donor in England: Evidence from repeated cross-sectional survey data.

Background: Living kidney organ donors offer a cost-effective alternative to deceased organ donation. They enable patients with life-threatening conditions to receive grafts that would otherwise not be available, thereby creating space for other patients waiting for organs and contributing to reducing overall waiting times for organs. There is an emerging consensus that an increase in living donation could contribute even more than deceased donation to reducing inequalities in organ donation between different population sub-groups in England. Increasing living donation is thus a priority for National Health Service Blood and Transplant (NHSBT) in the United Kingdom. Methods: Using the random forest model, a machine learning (ML) approach, this study analyzed eight waves of repeated cross-sectional survey data collected from 2017 to 2021 (n = 14,278) as part of the organ donation attitudinal tracker survey commissioned by NHSBT in England to identify and help predict key factors that inform public intentions to become living donors. Results: Overall, around 58.8% of the population would consider donating their kidney to a family member (50.5%), a friend (28%) or an unknown person (13.2%). The ML algorithm identified important factors that influence intentions to become a living kidney donor. They include, in reducing order of importance, support for organ donation, awareness of organ donation publicity campaigns, gender, age, occupation, religion, number of children in the household, and ethnic origin. Support for organ donation, awareness of public campaigns, and being younger were all positively associated with predicted propensity for living donation. The variable importance scores show that ethnic origin and religion were less important than the other variables in predicting living donor intention. Conclusion: Factors influencing intentions to become a living donor are complex and highly individual in nature. Machine learning methods that allow for complex interactions between characteristics can be helpful in explaining these decisions. This work has identified important factors and subgroups that have higher propensity for living donation. Interventions should target both potential live donors and recipients. Research is needed to explore the extent to which these preferences are malleable to better understand what works and in which contexts to increase live organ donation.

Integrated Care in England - what can we Learn from a Decade of National Pilot Programmes?

INTRODUCTION: For more than a decade the English NHS has pursued integrated care through three national pilot programmes. The independent evaluators of these programmes here identify several common themes that inform the development of integrated care. DESCRIPTION: The three pilot programmes shared the aim of better coordination between hospital and community-based health services and between health and social care. Each programme recruited local pilot sites that designed specific interventions to support inter-professional and inter-organisational collaboration.The pilots were highly heterogenous and results varied both within and between the three programmes. While staff were generally positive about their achievements, pilots had mixed success especially in reducing unplanned hospital admissions. Common facilitators to achieving pilots' objectives included effective senior leadership and shared values, simple interventions and additional funding. Barriers included short timescales, poor professional engagement, information and data sharing problems, and conflicts with changing national policy. DISCUSSION: There was little stable or shared understanding of what 'integrated care' meant resulting in different practices and priorities. An increasing focus on reducing unplanned hospital use among national sponsors created a mismatch in expectations between local and national actors. CONCLUSION: Pilots in all three national programmes made some headway against their objectives but were limited in their impact on unplanned hospital admissions.

Public attitudes to, and behaviours taken during, hot weather by vulnerable groups: results from a national survey in England.

BACKGROUND: Hot weather leads to increased illness and deaths. The Heatwave Plan for England (HWP) aims to protect the population by raising awareness of the dangers of hot weather, especially for those most vulnerable. Individuals at increased risk to the effects of heat include older adults, particularly 75+, and those with specific chronic conditions, such as diabetes, respiratory and heart conditions. The HWP recommends specific protective actions which relate to five heat-health alert levels (levels 0-4). This study examines the attitudes to hot weather of adults in England, and the protective measures taken during a heatwave. METHODS: As part of a wider evaluation of the implementation and effects of the HWP, a survey (n = 3153) and focus groups, a form of group interview facilitated by a researcher, were carried out after the June 2017 level 3 heat-health alert. Survey respondents were categorised into three groups based on their age and health status: 'vulnerable' (aged 75+), 'potentially vulnerable' (aged 18-74 in poor health) and 'not vulnerable' (rest of the adult population) to hot weather. Multivariable logistic regression models identified factors associated with these groups taking protective measures. In-person group discussion, focused on heat-health, were carried out with 25 people, mostly aged 75 + . RESULTS: Most vulnerable and potentially vulnerable adults do not consider themselves at risk of hot weather and are unaware of the effectiveness of important protective behaviours. Only one-quarter of (potentially) vulnerable adults reported changing their behaviour as a result of hearing hot weather-related health advice during the level 3 alert period. Focus group findings showed many vulnerable adults were more concerned about the effects of the sun's ultra-violet radiation on the skin than on the effects of hot temperatures on health. CONCLUSIONS: Current public health messages appear to be insufficient, given the low level of (potentially) vulnerable adults changing their behaviour during hot weather. In the context of increasingly warmer summers in England due to climate change, public health messaging needs to convince (potentially) vulnerable adults of all the risks of hot weather (not just effects of sunlight on the skin) and of the importance of heat protective measures.

Comparison of the impact of two national health and social care integration programmes on emergency hospital admissions.

BACKGROUND: Policy-makers expect that integration of health and social care will improve user and carer experience and reduce avoidable hospital use. [We] evaluate the impact on emergency hospital admissions of two large nationally-initiated service integration programmes in England: the Pioneer (November 2013 to March 2018) and Vanguard (January 2015 to March 2018) programmes. The latter had far greater financial and expert support from central agencies. METHODS: Of the 206 Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in England, 51(25%) were involved in the Pioneer programme only, 22(11%) were involved in the Vanguard programme only and 13(6%) were involved in both programmes. We used quasi-experimental methods to compare monthly counts of emergency admissions between four groups of CCGs, before and after the introduction of the two programmes. RESULTS: CCGs involved in the programmes had higher monthly hospital emergency admission rates than non-participants prior to their introduction [7.9 (95% CI:7.8-8.1) versus 7.5 (CI: 7.4-7.6) per 1000 population]. From 2013 to 2018, there was a 12% (95% CI:9.5-13.6%) increase in emergency admissions in CCGs not involved in either programme while emergency admissions in CCGs in the Pioneer and Vanguard programmes increased by 6.4% (95% CI: 3.8-9.0%) and 8.8% (95% CI:4.5-13.1%), respectively. CCGs involved in both initiatives experienced a smaller increase of 3.5% (95% CI:-0.3-7.2%). The slowdown largely occurred in the final year of both programmes. CONCLUSIONS: Health and social care integration programmes can mitigate but not prevent rises in emergency admissions over the longer-term. Greater financial and expert support from national agencies and involvement in multiple integration initiatives can have cumulative effects.

Quality improvement in general practice: what do GPs and practice managers think? Results from a nationally representative survey of UK GPs and practice managers.

BACKGROUND: This paper presents the results of the first UK-wide survey of National Health Service (NHS) general practitioners (GPs) and practice managers (PMs) designed to explore the service improvement activities being undertaken in practices, and the factors that facilitated or obstructed that work. The research was prompted by growing policy and professional interest in the quality of general practice and its improvement. The analysis compares GP and PM involvement in, and experience of, quality improvement activities. METHODS: This was a mixed-method study comprising 26 semistructured interviews, a focus group and two surveys. The qualitative data supported the design of the surveys, which were sent to all 46 238 GPs on the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) database and the PM at every practice across the UK (n=9153) in July 2017. RESULTS: Responses from 2377 GPs and 1424 PMs were received and were broadly representative of each group. Ninety-nine per cent reported having planned or undertaken improvement activities in the previous 12 months. The most frequent related to prescribing and access. Key facilitators of improvement included 'good clinical leadership'. The two main barriers were 'too many demands from external stakeholders' and a lack of protected time. Audit and significant event audit were the most common improvement tools used, but respondents were interested in training on other quality improvement tools. CONCLUSION: GPs and PMs are interested in improving service quality. As such, the new quality improvement domain in the Quality and Outcomes Framework used in the payment of practices is likely to be relatively easily accepted by GPs in England. However, if improving quality is to become routine work for practices, it will be important for the NHS in the four UK countries to work with practices to mitigate some of the barriers that they face, in particular the lack of protected time.