Improving tracheostomy care in the United Kingdom: results of a guided quality improvement programme in 20 diverse hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Inconsistent and poorly coordinated systems of tracheostomy care commonly result in frustrations, delays, and harm. Quality improvement strategies described by exemplar hospitals of the Global Tracheostomy Collaborative have potential to mitigate such problems. This 3 yr guided implementation programme investigated interventions designed to improve the quality and safety of tracheostomy care. METHODS: The programme management team guided the implementation of 18 interventions over three phases (baseline/implementation/evaluation). Mixed-methods interviews, focus groups, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale questionnaires defined outcome measures, with patient-level databases tracking and benchmarking process metrics. Appreciative inquiry, interviews, and Normalisation Measure Development questionnaires explored change barriers and enablers. RESULTS: All sites implemented at least 16/18 interventions, with the magnitude of some improvements linked to staff engagement (1536 questionnaires from 1019 staff), and 2405 admissions (1868 ICU/high-dependency unit; 7.3% children) were prospectively captured. Median stay was 50 hospital days, 23 ICU days, and 28 tracheostomy days. Incident severity score reduced significantly (n=606; P<0.01). There were significant reductions in ICU (-;0.25 days month-1), ventilator (-;0.11 days month-1), tracheostomy (-;0.35 days month-1), and hospital (-;0.78 days month-1) days (all P<0.01). Time to first vocalisation and first oral intake both decreased by 7 days (n=733; P<0.01). Anxiety decreased by 44% (from 35.9% to 20.0%), and depression decreased by 55% (from 38.7% to 18.3%) (n=385; both P<0.01). Independent economic analysis demonstrated £33 251 savings per patient, with projected annual UK National Health Service savings of £275 million. CONCLUSIONS: This guided improvement programme for tracheostomy patients significantly improved the quality and safety of care, contributing rich qualitative improvement data. Patient-centred outcomes were improved along with significant efficiency and cost savings across diverse UK hospitals. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: IRAS-ID-206955; REC-Ref-16/LO/1196; NIHR Portfolio CPMS ID 31544.

Adrenal lesions found incidentally: how to improve clinical and cost-effectiveness.

INTRODUCTION: Adrenal incidentalomas are lesions that are incidentally identified while scanning for other conditions. While most are benign and hormonally non-functional, around 20% are malignant and/or hormonally active, requiring prompt intervention. Malignant lesions can be aggressive and life-threatening, while hormonally active tumours cause various endocrine disorders, with significant morbidity and mortality. Despite this, management of patients with adrenal incidentalomas is variable, with no robust evidence base. This project aimed to establish more effective and timely management of these patients. METHODS: We developed a web-based, electronic Adrenal Incidentaloma Management System (eAIMS), which incorporated the evidence-based and National Health Service-aligned 2016 European guidelines. The system captures key clinical, biochemical and radiological information necessary for adrenal incidentaloma patient management and generates a pre-populated outcome letter, saving clinical and administrative time while ensuring timely management plans with enhanced safety. Furthermore, we developed a prioritisation strategy, with members of the multidisciplinary team, which prioritised high-risk individuals for detailed discussion and management. Patient focus groups informed process-mapping and multidisciplinary team process re-design and patient information leaflet development. The project was partnered by University Hospital of South Manchester to maximise generalisability. RESULTS: Implementation of eAIMS, along with improvements in the prioritisation strategy, resulted in a 49% reduction in staff hands-on time, as well as a 78% reduction in the time from adrenal incidentaloma identification to multidisciplinary team decision. A health economic analysis identified a 28% reduction in costs. CONCLUSIONS: The system's in-built data validation and the automatic generation of the multidisciplinary team outcome letter improved patient safety through a reduction in transcription errors. We are currently developing the next stage of the programme to proactively identify all new adrenal incidentaloma cases.

The replacement of assertive outreach services by reinforcing local community teams: a four-year observational study.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of specialist Assertive Outreach (AO) teams has produced only modest differential findings from English studies compared to standard care. Providers have gradually closed AO services over the last 8 years. We previously studied outcomes at 12 months following the dismantling of two AO teams in London. We now report on the longer term outcomes for these patients. AIMS: To evaluate the longer term outcomes, activity and costs for patients receiving a less intensive service. METHODS: Observational service level evaluation of 112 patients comparing baseline of AO care with each year of routine care subsequent to the team closure. RESULTS: Patients transferred to standard teams reinforced with the Flexible Assertive Community Treatment (FACT) approach had significantly fewer admissions and bed days at each of the four subsequent years compared to baseline, offset by a significant rise in missed face-to-face appointments. There was no significant change in the use of crisis services. Predictably patients had significantly fewer contacts under standard care. CONCLUSIONS: AO patients are remarkably resilient to substantial reductions in the intensity of care. Reinforcing multi-disciplinary community mental health teams (CMHTs) with FACT appears to provide an integrated service that is clinically effective and an affordable alternative to orthodox AO teams.

The replacement of assertive outreach services by reinforcing local community teams: a replication study reporting comparative outcomes and patient reported experience.

BACKGROUND: This is the third in a series of papers on patient outcomes and other consequences of the withdrawal of specialist assertive outreach (AO) teams. We previously reported positive outcomes for patients receiving a less intensive service at up to four years, but had not systematically interviewed patients. AIMS: To test the generalizability of earlier findings through replication in another service. To complement the analysis of service utilisation with patient reported experience between the two treatment models. METHODS: Service level evaluation 12 months pre and post service change for 55 eligible AO patients. Thirty three consenting patients answered validated questionnaires. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant changes in hospital bed use comparing the year before and the year after the change (850-712 bed days, median 34-20). No significant change in crisis activity occurred despite a highly significant reduction in face to face contacts from a mean of 90-40. There were no significant changes in patient reported experience. CONCLUSIONS: Results are consistent with earlier studies. Reinforcing community mental health teams can provide an integrated service model that is clinically effective and equally acceptable to patients, making this a viable and affordable alternative to orthodox AO teams.

A dismantling study of assertive outreach services: comparing activity and outcomes following replacement with the FACT model.

PURPOSE: Financial constraints and some disappointing research evaluations have seen English assertive outreach (AO) teams subject to remodelling, decommissioning and integration into standard care. We tested a specific alternative model of integrating the AO function from two AO teams into six standard community mental health teams (CMHT). The Flexible Assertive Community Treatment model (FACT) was adopted from the Netherlands (Van Veldhuizen, Commun Mental Health J 43(4):421-433, 2007; Bond and Drake, Commun Mental Health J 43(4):435-438, 2007). We aimed to demonstrate non-inferiority in clinical effectiveness and thereby show cost efficiencies associated with FACT. METHODS: Outcomes were compared in a mirror-image study of the 12 months periods pre- and post-service change with eligible individuals from the AO teams' caseloads (n = 112) acting as their own controls. We also conducted a cost-consequence analysis of the changes. Outcome data regarding admissions, use of crisis and home treatment, frequency of contact and DNA rate were extracted from the electronic patient record. RESULTS: The results show AO patients (n = 112) transferred to standard CMHTs with FACT had significantly fewer admissions and a halving of bed use (21 fewer admission and 2,394 fewer occupied bed days) whilst being in receipt of a less intensive service (2,979 fewer contacts). This was offset by significantly poorer engagement but not by increased use of crisis and home treatment services. CONCLUSIONS: Enhancing multi-disciplinary CMHTs with FACT provides a clinically effective alternative to AO teams. FACT offers a cost-effective model compared to AO.

Acceptability of offering financial incentives to achieve medication adherence in patients with severe mental illness: a focus group study.

BACKGROUND: Offering financial incentives to achieve medication adherence in patients with severe mental illness is controversial. AIMS: To explore the views of different stakeholders on the ethical acceptability of the practice. METHOD: Focus group study consisting of 25 groups with different stakeholders. RESULTS: Eleven themes dominated the discussions and fell into four categories: (1) 'wider concerns', including the value of medication, source of funding, how patients would use the money, and a presumed government agenda behind the idea; (2) 'problems requiring clear policies', comprising of practicalities and assurance that incentives are only one part of a tool kit; (3) 'challenges for research and experience', including effectiveness, the possibility of perverse incentives, and impact on the therapeutic relationship; (4) 'inherent dilemmas' around fairness and potential coercion. CONCLUSIONS: The use of financial incentives is likely to raise similar concerns in most stakeholders, only some of which can be addressed by empirical research and clear policies.

Financial incentives to improve adherence to anti-psychotic maintenance medication in non-adherent patients - a cluster randomised controlled trial (FIAT).

BACKGROUND: Various interventions have been tested to achieve adherence to anti-psychotic maintenance medication in non-adherent patients with psychotic disorders, and there is no consistent evidence for the effectiveness of any established intervention. The effectiveness of financial incentives in improving adherence to a range of treatments has been demonstrated; no randomised controlled trial however has tested the use of financial incentives to achieve medication adherence for patients with psychotic disorders living in the community. METHODS/DESIGN: In a cluster randomised controlled trial, 34 mental health teams caring for difficult to engage patients in the community will be randomly allocated to either the intervention group, where patients will be offered a financial incentive for each anti-psychotic depot medication they receive over a 12 month period, or the control group, where all patients will receive treatment as usual. We will recruit 136 patients with psychotic disorders who use these services and who have problems adhering to antipsychotic depot medication, although all conventional methods to achieve adherence have been tried. The primary outcome will be adherence levels, and secondary outcomes are global clinical improvement, number of voluntary and involuntary hospital admissions, number of attempted and completed suicides, incidents of physical violence, number of police arrests, number of days spent in work/training/education, subjective quality of life and satisfaction with medication. We will also establish the cost effectiveness of offering financial incentives. DISCUSSION: The study aims to provide new evidence on the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of offering financial incentives to patients with psychotic disorders to adhere to antipsychotic maintenance medication. If financial incentives improve adherence and lead to better health and social outcomes, they may be recommended as one option to improve the treatment of non-adherent patients with psychotic disorders. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current controlled trials ISRCTN77769281.