Count Me In: an inclusive approach towards patient recruitment for clinical research studies in the NHS.

BACKGROUND: Participation in clinical research is associated with better patient outcomes and higher staff retention and satisfaction rates. Nevertheless, patient recruitment to mental health studies is challenging due to a reliance on clinician or patient referrals (standard approach). To empower patients and make healthcare research more equitable, we explored a novel researcher-led approach, called 'Count Me In' (CMI). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a 12-month implementation of CMI in a routine clinical setting. METHODS: CMI was launched in August 2021 in a mental health National Health Service (NHS) Trust in England. Patients (aged 18+) learnt about CMI at their initial clinical appointment. Unless they opted out, they became contactable for research (via research informatics searches). FINDINGS: After 12 months, 368 patients opted out and 22 741 became contactable through CMI, including 2716 through the standard approach and 20 025 through electronic searches (637% increase). Of those identified via electronic searches, 738 were contacted about specific studies and 270 consented to participate. Five themes were identified based on patient and staff experiences of CMI: 'level of awareness and accessibility of CMI', 'perceptions of research and perceived engagement with CMI', 'inclusive research practice', 'engagement and incentives for research participation', and 'relationships between clinical and research settings'. CONCLUSIONS: CMI (vs standard) led to a larger and diverse patient cohort and was favoured by patients and staff. Yet a shift in the NHS research culture is needed to ensure that this diversity translates to actual research participation. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Through collaboration with other NHS Trusts and services, key funders (National Institute for Health and Care Research) and new national initiatives (Office for Life Sciences Mental Health Mission), CMI has the potential to address recruitment challenges through rapid patient recruitment into time-sensitive country-wide studies.

Impact of COVID-19 on telepsychiatry at the service and individual patient level across two UK NHS mental health Trusts.

BACKGROUND: The effects of COVID-19 on the shift to remote consultations remain to be properly investigated. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the extent, nature and clinical impact of the use of telepsychiatry during the COVID-19 pandemic and compare it with the data in the same period of the 2 years before the outbreak. METHODS: We used deidentified electronic health records routinely collected from two UK mental health Foundation Trusts (Oxford Health (OHFT) and Southern Health (SHFT)) between January and September in 2018, 2019 and 2020. We considered three outcomes: (1) service activity, (2) in-person versus remote modalities of consultation and (3) clinical outcomes using Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS) data. HoNOS data were collected from two cohorts of patients (cohort 1: patients with ≥1 HoNOS assessment each year in 2018, 2019 and 2020; cohort 2: patients with ≥1 HoNOS assessment each year in 2019 and 2020), and analysed in clusters using superclasses (namely, psychotic, non-psychotic and organic), which are used to assess overall healthcare complexity in the National Health Service. All statistical analyses were done in Python. FINDINGS: Mental health service activity in 2020 increased in all scheduled community appointments (by 15.4% and 5.6% in OHFT and SHFT, respectively). Remote consultations registered a 3.5-fold to 6-fold increase from February to June 2020 (from 4685 to a peak of 26 245 appointments in OHFT and from 7117 to 24 987 appointments in SHFT), with post-lockdown monthly averages of 23 030 and 22 977 remote appointments/month in OHFT and SHFT, respectively. Video consultations comprised up to one-third of total telepsychiatric services per month from April to September 2020. For patients with dementia, non-attendance rates at in-person appointments were higher than remote appointments (17.2% vs 3.9%). The overall HoNOS cluster value increased only in the organic superclass (clusters 18-21, n=174; p<0.001) from 2019 to 2020, suggesting a specific impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on this population of patients. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The rapid shift to remote service delivery has not reached some groups of patients who may require more tailored management with telepsychiatry.

Informing National Health Service patients about participation in clinical research: A comparison of opt-in and opt-out approaches across the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVE: Recruitment to clinical research in the National Health Service remains challenging. One barrier is accessing patients to discuss research participation. Two general approaches are used in the United Kingdom to facilitate this: an 'opt-in' approach (when clinicians communicate research opportunities to patients) and an 'opt-out' approach (all patients have the right to be informed of relevant research opportunities). No evidence-based data are available, however, to inform the decision about which approach is preferable. This study aimed to collect information from 'opt-in' and 'opt-out' Trusts and identify which of the two approaches is optimal for ensuring National Health Service patients are given opportunities to discuss research participation. METHOD: This sequential mixed methods study comprised three phases: (1) an Appreciative Inquiry across UK Trusts, (2) online surveys and (3) focus groups with National Health Service staff and patients at a representative mental health Trust. RESULTS: The study was conducted between June and October 2019. Out of seven National Health Service Mental Health Trusts contacted (three 'opt-out' and four 'opt-in'), only four took part in phase 1 of the study and three of them were 'opt-out' Trusts. Benefits of an 'opt-out' approach included greater inclusivity of patients and the removal of research gatekeepers, while the involvement of research-active clinicians and established patient-clinician relationships were cited as important to 'opt-in' success. Phases 2 and 3 were conducted at a different Trust (Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust) which was using an 'opt-in' approach. Of 333 staff and member survey responders, 267 (80.2%) favoured moving to an 'opt-out' approach (phase 2). Nineteen staff and 16 patients and carers participated in focus groups (phase 3). Concern was raised by staff regarding the lack of time for clinical research, with clinical work taking precedence over research; patients were concerned about a lack of research activity; all considered research to be beneficial and were supportive of a move to 'opt-out'. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that 'opt-out' is more beneficial than 'opt-in', with the potential to vastly increase patient access to research opportunities and to enable greater equality of information provision for currently marginalised groups. This should ensure that healthcare research is more representative of the entire population, including those with a mental health diagnosis.

An integrated analysis of the efficacy of fluticasone furoate nasal spray versus placebo on the nasal symptoms of perennial allergic rhinitis.

Intranasal corticosteroids are widely prescribed for the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR). The aim of this analysis was to determine whether the beneficial effects of once-daily (q.d.) fluticasone furoate nasal spray (FFNS) effectively improved individual nasal symptoms of PAR. An integrated analysis was performed on data from three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trials designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of FFNS at 110 micrograms, q.d. in subjects with PAR. The analysis included 460 subjects who received FFNS and 459 who received placebo for 4 weeks. All subjects evaluated the severity of individual nasal symptoms of nasal congestion, nasal itching, rhinorrhea, and sneezing on a four-point categorical scale. The main efficacy measures included change from baseline in daily reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS), reflective daily scores for each individual symptom, and predose instantaneous TNSS (iTNSS). Over 4 weeks of treatment, FFNS significantly improved rTNSS, iTNSS, and the reflective scores for each individual symptom compared with placebo. The least squares (LS) mean treatment difference over weeks 1-4 between FFNS and placebo for rTNSS was -0.93, ranging from -0.20 to -0.28 for the individual nasal symptoms (p < 0.001 for all versus placebo). For the iTNSS, the LS mean treatment difference between FFNS and placebo over weeks 1-4 was -0.95 (95% CI,-1.24, -0.66; p < 0.001). FFNS at 110 micrograms q.d. effectively relieved all nasal symptoms of PAR including nasal congestion over a 24-hour period.