Improving personalised care, through the development of a service evaluation tool to assess, understand and monitor delivery.

Systematically implementing personalised care has far reaching benefits to individuals, communities and health and social care systems. If done well, personalised care can result in better health outcomes and experiences, more efficient use of health services and reduced health inequalities. Despite these known benefits, implementation of personalised care has been slow. Evaluation is an important step towards achieving the ambition of universally delivered personalised care. There are currently few comprehensive assessments or tools that are designed to understand the implementation of personalised care at a service or system level, or the cultural, practical and behavioural factors influencing this. The aim of this paper is to describe the development and testing of a system-wide evaluation tool. The tool offers a process through which healthcare systems can better understand the current delivery of personalised care and the factors influencing this. With a focus on implementation, the development of the tool was informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, and its content is structured using behaviour change theory (COM-B Theory of Behaviour Change Model). The tool consists of four mirrored surveys, which were developed using an iterative exploratory design. This included a series of testing cycles, in which its structure and content were continually refined. To date, it has been used by 24 clinical services, involving 397 service users, 313 front-line practitioners, 73 service managers and 40 commissioners. These services have used the evaluation process to initiate quality improvement, targeted at one of the more aspects of personalised care. The use of the COM-B model increases the likelihood of those improvements being sustained, through identification of the core factors that enable or limit personalised care behaviours among healthcare staff. We have shown this process to be applicable in a wide range of settings, thus it potentially has broad applicability as a tool for cultural change and quality improvement. The next stage of this work will focus on implementation and evaluation, to fully understand if and how the tool can be used to drive improvements in personalised care delivery.

Do UK Allied Health Professionals (AHPs) have sufficient guidelines and training to provide telehealth patient consultations?

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic caused a rapid shift to remote consultations. United Kingdom (UK) NHS Allied Health Professional (AHP) services may have been unprepared for telehealth implementation. This study explored these services' organisational readiness regarding telehealth guidelines implementation and staff training. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey exploring available telehealth guidelines and staff training was distributed among UK AHPs and AHP service managers between May and June 2021. RESULTS: 658 participants answered the survey (119 managers and 539 clinicians). Most services, in which telehealth was in place, had implemented telehealth guidelines (clinicians, 64%; managers, 82%), with most guidelines produced by the NHS staff who use them for their consultations. Most clinicians reported that guidelines had ambiguous areas (e.g., regarding protection from litigation and dealing with emergencies), whereas most managers reported the opposite opinion. Guidelines most frequently reported on appropriate telehealth technology and environment for staff and patients, while recommended consultation length and how to conduct telehealth with certain population groups were least reported. Clinicians lacked training in most telehealth aspects, while managers reported that staff training focused on telehealth software and hardware. For both clinicians and managers, training is needed on how to deal with emergencies during telehealth. CONCLUSIONS: UK NHS AHP services are not fully equipped with clear and comprehensive guidelines and the skills to deliver telehealth. Vulnerable people are excluded from current guidelines, which may widen health inequalities and hinder the success of the NHS digital transformation. The absence of national guidelines highlights the need for uniform AHP telehealth guidelines.

The potential impact of allied health professional telehealth consultations on health inequities and the burden of treatment.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a rapid shift to remote consultations. The study aimed to explore the prevalence of telehealth consultations amongst allied health professional (AHP) services in the UK National Health Service (NHS), and the potential impact on health inequities and burden of treatment for patients. METHODS: Cross-sectional online survey. Participants were practising UK registered AHP and/or AHP service manager in an NHS/social care/local authority service. Data was collected between May - June 2021. RESULTS: 658 participants took part in this study, including 119 AHP service managers, managing a total of 168 AHP services, and 539 clinicians. 87.4% of clinicians and 89.4% of services represented were using telehealth consultations as a method of delivering healthcare, the majority reported their services were planning to continue using telehealth post COVID-19 restrictions. Participants reported a lack of technological skills for patients as the most prevalent barrier affecting the patient's ability to conduct a telehealth consultation, followed by a lack of technology for patients. These were also reported as the biggest disadvantages of telehealth for patients. The majority of clinicians reported a reduction in the cost of parking/transport to attend hospital appointments as a patient benefit of telehealth consultations. Reported benefits for clinicians included saving travel time/costs and allowing flexible working, while benefits to the AHP service included patient flexibility in how their appointments are conducted and reducing the potential exposure of staff to communicable diseases. CONCLUSIONS: The current large-scale implementation of telehealth in NHS AHP services may increase disparities in health care access for vulnerable populations with limited digital literacy or access. Consequently, there is a danger that telehealth will be considered inappropriate and thus, underutilised, negating the potential benefits of sustainability, patient empowerment and the reduction in the burden of treatment.

Exploration of implementation, financial and technical considerations within allied health professional (AHP) telehealth consultation guidance: a scoping review including UK AHP professional bodies' guidance.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a shift to remote consultations, but telehealth consultation guidelines are lacking or inconsistent. Therefore, a scoping review was performed to chart the information in the articles exploring telehealth for the UK allied health professionals (AHPs) and compare them with the UK AHP professional bodies' guidelines. DESIGN: Scoping review following Aksey and O' Malley methodological framework. DATA SOURCES: CINHAL and MEDLINE were searched from inception to March 2021 using terms related to 'telehealth', 'guidelines' and 'AHPs'. Additionally, the UK AHP professional bodies were contacted requesting their guidelines. STUDY SELECTION: Articles exploring telehealth for patient consultations, written in English and published in peer-reviewed journal or guidelines available from UK AHP professional bodies/their websites were considered eligible for review. DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer extracted data concerning three overarching domains: implementation, financial and technological considerations. RESULTS: 2632 articles were identified through database searches with 21 articles eligible for review. Eight guidelines were obtained from the UK AHP professional bodies with a total of 29 included articles/guidelines. Most articles were published in the last two years; there was variety in telehealth terminology, and most were developed for occupational therapists, physiotherapists and speech and language therapists. Information was lacking about the assessment of telehealth use and effectiveness, barriers and limitations, the logistical management, the family's and caregiver's roles and the costs. There was lack of clarity on the AHPs' registration requirements, costs and coverage, and legal aspects. CONCLUSION: This study identified gaps in current guidelines, which showed similarities as well as discrepancies with the guidance for non-AHP healthcare professionals and revealed that the existing guidelines do not adequately support AHPs delivering telehealth consultations. Future research and collaborative work across AHP groups and the world's leading health institutions are suggested to establish common guidelines that will improve AHP telehealth services.

Focused cardiac ultrasound is feasible in the general practice setting and alters diagnosis and management of cardiac disease.

BACKGROUND: Ultrasound-assisted examination of the cardiovascular system with focused cardiac ultrasound by the treating physician is non-invasive and changes diagnosis and management of patient's with suspected cardiac disease. This has not been reported in a general practice setting. AIM: To determine whether focused cardiac ultrasound performed on patients aged over 50 years changes the diagnosis and management of cardiac disease by a general practitioner. DESIGN AND SETTING: A prospective observational study of 80 patients aged over 50years and who had not received echocardiography or chest CT within 12months presenting to a general practice. METHOD: Clinical assessment and management of significant cardiac disorders in patients presenting to general practitioners were recorded before and after focused cardiac ultrasound. Echocardiography was performed by a medical student with sufficient training, which was verified by an expert. Differences in diagnosis and management between conventional and ultrasound-assisted assessment were recorded. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Echocardiography and interpretation were acceptable in all patients. Significant cardiac disease was detected in 16 (20%) patients, including aortic stenosis in 9 (11%) and cardiac failure in 7 (9%), which were missed by clinical examination in 10 (62.5%) of these patients. Changes in management occurred in 12 patients (15% overall and 75% of those found to have significant cardiac disease) including referral for diagnostic echocardiography in 8 (10%), commencement of heart failure treatment in 3 (4%) and referral to a cardiologist in 1 patient (1%).Routine focused cardiac ultrasound is feasible and frequently alters the diagnosis and management of cardiac disease in patients aged over 50years presenting to a general practice.