What might make nurses stay? A protocol for discrete choice experiments to understand NHS nurses' preferences at early-career and late-career stages.

INTRODUCTION: Like many countries, England has a national shortage of registered nurses. Employers strive to retain existing staff, to ease supply pressures. Disproportionate numbers of nurses leave the National Health Services (NHS) both early in their careers, and later, as they near retirement age. Research is needed to understand the job preferences of early-career and late-career nurses working in the NHS, so tailored policies can be developed to better retain these two groups. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will collect job preference data for early-career and late-career NHS nurses, respectively using two separate discrete choice experiments (DCEs). Findings from the literature, focus groups, academic experts and stakeholder discussions will be used to identify and select the DCE attributes (ie, job features) and levels. We will generate an orthogonal, fractional factorial design using the experimental software Ngene. The DCEs will be administered through online surveys distributed by the regulator Nursing and Midwifery Council. For each group, we expect to achieve a final sample of 2500 registered NHS nurses working in England. For early-career nurses, eligible participants will be registered nurses who graduated in the preceding 5 years (ie, 2019-2023). Eligible participants for the late-career survey will be registered nurses aged 55 years and above. We will use conditional and mixed logit models to analyse the data. Specifically, study 1 will estimate the job preferences of early-career nurses and the possible trade-offs. Study 2 will estimate the retirement preferences of late-career NHS nurses and the potential trade-offs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The research protocol was reviewed and approved by the host research organisation Ethics Committees Research Governance (University of Southampton, number 80610) (https://www.southampton.ac.uk/about/governance/regulations-policies/policies/ethics). The results will be disseminated via conference presentations, publications in peer-reviewed journals and annual reports to key stakeholders, the Department of Health and Social Care, and NHS England/Improvement retention leaders. REGISTRATION DETAILS: Registration on OSF http://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/RDN9G.

Rapid evaluation of the Special Measures for Quality and challenged provider regimes: a mixed-methods study.

Background: Health-care organisations in England that are rated as inadequate for leadership and one other domain enter the Special Measures for Quality regime to receive support and oversight. A 'watch list' of challenged providers that are at risk of entering Special Measures for Quality also receive support. Knowledge is limited about whether or not the support interventions drive improvements in quality, the costs of the support interventions and whether or not the support interventions strike the right balance between support and scrutiny. Objective: To analyse the responses of trusts to the implementation of (1) interventions for Special Measures for Quality trusts and (2) interventions for challenged provider trusts to determine their impact on these organisations' capacity to achieve and sustain quality improvements. Design: This was rapid research comprising five interrelated workstreams: (1) a literature review using systematic methods; (2) an analysis of policy documents and interviews at the national level; (3) eight multisite, mixed-methods trust case studies; (4) an analysis of national performance and workforce indicators; and (5) an economic analysis. Results: The Special Measures for Quality/challenged provider regimes were intended to be 'support' programmes. Special Measures for Quality/challenged provider regimes had an emotional impact on staff. Perceptions of NHS Improvement interventions were mixed overall. Senior leadership teams were a key driver of change, with strong clinical input being vital. Local systems have a role in improvement. Trusts focus efforts to improve across multiple domains. Internal and external factors contribute to positive performance trajectories. Nationally, only 15.8% of Special Measures for Quality trusts exited the regime in 24 months. Entry into Special Measures for Quality/challenged provider regimes resulted in changes in quality indicators (such the number of patients waiting in emergency departments for more than 4 hours, mortality and the number of delayed transfers of care) that were more positive than national trends. The trends in staff sickness and absence improved after trusts left Special Measures for Quality/challenged provider regimes. There was some evidence that staff survey results improved. No association was found between Special Measures for Quality/challenged provider regimes and referral to treatment times or cancer treatment waiting times. NHS Improvement spending in case study trusts was mostly directed at interventions addressing 'training on cultural change' (33.6%), 'workforce quality and safety' (21.7%) and 'governance and assurance' (18.4%). The impact of Special Measures for Quality on financial stability was equivocal; most trusts exiting Special Measures for Quality experienced the same financial stability before and after exiting. Limitations: The rapid research design and 1-year time frame precludes longitudinal observations of trusts and local systems. The small number of indicators limited the quantitative analysis of impact. Measurement of workforce effects was limited by data availability. Conclusions: Empirical evidence of positive impacts of Special Measures for Quality/challenged provider regimes were identified; however, perceptions were mixed. Key lessons were that (1) time is needed to implement and embed changes; (2) ways to mitigate emotional costs and stigma are needed; (3) support strategies should be more trust specific; (4) poor organisational performance needs to be addressed within local systems; (5) senior leadership teams with stability, strong clinical input and previous Special Measures for Quality experience helped to enact change; (6) organisation-wide quality improvement strategies and capabilities are needed; (7) staff engagement and an open-listening culture promote continuous learning and a quality improvement 'mindset', which is critical for sustainable improvement; and (8) consideration of the level of sustainable funds required to improve patients' outcomes is needed. Future work: Future work could include evaluating recent changes to the regimes, the role of local systems and longitudinal approaches. Study registration: The review protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019131024). Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 11, No. 19. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

When health-care trusts in England have serious failings in the quality of care that they provide, they can be placed in 'Special Measures for Quality' and receive additional support from the NHS. There is also a list of 'challenged providers' at risk of entering Special Measures for Quality that receive support. In January 2019, of the 234 trusts in England, one-quarter had at some point been a challenged provider and/or entered Special Measures for Quality. We studied how trusts responded to entering the Special Measures for Quality or challenged provider regimes. We wanted to understand if the support that the trusts receive can help the trust to improve the quality of care provided to patients. We did this by reviewing the relevant literature; speaking to a range of staff in eight trusts and nearby health organisations; analysing costs; and observing meetings in four of these trusts. We also compared national performance information between Special Measures for Quality/challenged provider trusts and non-Special Measures for Quality/challenged provider trusts. We found that when a trust enters the Special Measures for Quality regime there is often an emotional impact on staff, who may experience low morale. Some staff thought that their trust received the right type of support, but others saw Special Measures for Quality as heavy-handed scrutiny or punishment. With hindsight, Special Measures for Quality was sometimes viewed more positively, as a pathway to make changes that were needed. Looking at all trusts in England, we found that when trusts entered Special Measures for Quality or became challenged providers they started to get better at seeing emergency department patients within 4 hours and reduced avoidable deaths. We also found that some parts of the staff survey results improved. We found that staff need time and space to make changes. Looking after staff and having a leadership and culture that supports continuous learning are important for making improvements. Regional health-care systems and local organisations have an important role to play in supporting trusts to make improvements.

Youth violence intervention programme for vulnerable young people attending emergency departments in London: a rapid evaluation.

Background: Youth violence intervention programmes involving the embedding of youth workers in NHS emergency departments to help young people (broadly aged between 11 and 24 years) improve the quality of their lives following their attendance at an emergency department as a result of violent assault or associated trauma are increasing across the NHS. This study evaluates one such initiative run by the charity Redthread in partnership with a NHS trust. Objectives: To evaluate the implementation and impact of a new youth violence intervention programme at University College London Hospital NHS Trust and delivered by the charity Redthread: (1) literature review of studies of hospital-based violent crime interventions; (2) evaluation of local implementation and of University College London Hospital staff and relevant local stakeholders concerning the intervention and its impact; (3) assessment of the feasibility of using routine secondary care data to evaluate the impact of the Redthread intervention; and (4) cost-effectiveness analysis of the Redthread intervention from the perspective of the NHS. Methods: The evaluation was designed as a mixed-methods multiphased study, including an in-depth process evaluation case study and quantitative and economic analyses. The project was undertaken in different stages over two years, starting with desk-based research and an exploratory phase suitable for remote working while COVID-19 was affecting NHS services. A total of 22 semistructured interviews were conducted with staff at Redthread and University College London Hospital and others (e.g. a senior stakeholder involved in NHS youth violence prevention policy). We analysed Redthread documents, engaged with experts and conducted observations of staff meetings to gather more in-depth insights about the effectiveness of the intervention, the processes of implementation, staff perceptions and cost. We also undertook quantitative analyses to ascertain suitable measures of impact to inform stakeholders and future evaluations. Results: Redthread's service was viewed as a necessary intervention, which complemented clinical and other statutory services. It was well embedded in the paediatric emergency department and adolescent services but less so in the adult emergency department. The diverse reasons for individual referrals, the various routes by which young people were identified, and the mix of specific support interventions provided, together emphasised the complexity of this intervention, with consequent challenges in implementation and evaluation. Given the relative unit costs of Redthread and University College London Hospital's inpatient services, it is estimated that the service would break even if around one-third of Redthread interventions resulted in at least one avoided emergency inpatient admission. This evaluation was unable to determine a feasible approach to measuring the quantitative impact of Redthread's youth violence intervention programme but has reflected on data describing the service, including costs, and make recommendations to support future evaluation. Limitations: The COVID-19 pandemic severely hampered the implementation of the Redthread service and the ability to evaluate it. The strongest options for analysis of effects and costs were not possible due to constraints of the consent process, problems in linking Redthread and University College London Hospital patient data and the relatively small numbers of young people having been engaged for longer-term support over the evaluation period. Conclusions: We have been able to contribute to the qualitative evidence on the implementation of the youth violence intervention programme at University College London Hospital, showing, for example, that NHS staff viewed the service as an important and needed intervention. In the light of problems with routine patient data systems and linkages, we have also been able to reflect on data describing the service, including costs, and made recommendations to support future evaluation. Future work: No future work is planned. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme (RSET: 16/138/17).

Youth violence intervention programmes in the NHS embed specialist youth workers into a hospital's paediatric emergency departments. These staff can engage young people and encourage positive change in their lives. Youth violence intervention programmes are part of a broader national strategy to prevent violence among young people. To improve our knowledge of the impact on young people and the cost-effectiveness of youth violence intervention programmes, we carried out an evaluation of a youth violence intervention programme introduced in 2020 at University College London Hospital and run by the charity Redthread. We reviewed the international evidence on youth violence intervention programmes, and other studies of Redthread services but found few studies measuring impact within the NHS. We reviewed documents and conducted 22 interviews with University College London Hospital and Redthread staff among others. We found that the service is viewed positively by NHS staff. We also found that youth workers can help a young person to better engage in their medical care and treatment. Youth violence intervention programmes also provide a link with non­health-care services within the community. Overall, they help NHS staff to better support vulnerable young people following discharge from hospital. We also established the cost of delivering Redthread services per user was £1865. This compares with a cost per inpatient of £5789 for a group of patients similar to those helped by Redthread. The average cost of a Redthread-type patient attending the emergency department was £203. We looked at whether it was possible to measure whether Redthread reduced young people's re-admissions to the hospital's emergency departments. However, we concluded that fully answering this question was not possible over the timescale of the project. This was because of the impact of COVID-19 on Redthread and other paediatric services, the low numbers of young people engaged in a longer-term programme with Redthread (59) and difficulties with linking information from the hospital and Redthread. We have therefore made various recommendations in this report to improve the way that data are collected and linked to aid future evaluations.

Are the needs of people with multiple long-term conditions being met? Evidence from the 2018 General Practice Patient Survey.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate individual, practice and area level variation in patient-reported unmet need among those with long-term conditions, in the context of general practice (GP) appointments and support from community-based services in England. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using data from 199 150 survey responses. SETTING: Primary care and community-based services. PARTICIPANTS: Respondents to the 2018 English General Practice Patient Survey with at least one long-term condition. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were the levels of unmet need in GP and local services among patients with multiple long-term conditions. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of variation explained by practice and area-level factors. RESULTS: There was no relationship between needs being fully met in patients' last practice appointment and number of long-term conditions once sociodemographic characteristics and health status were taken into account (5+conditions-OR=1.04, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.09), but there was a relationship for having enough support from local services to manage conditions (5+conditions-OR=0.84, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.88). Patients with multimorbidity that were younger, non-white or frail were less likely to have their needs fully met, both in GP and from local services. Differences between practices and local authorities explained minimal variation in unmet need. CONCLUSIONS: Levels of unmet need are high, particularly for support from community services to manage multiple conditions. Patients who could be targeted for support include people who feel socially isolated, and those who have difficulties with their day-to-day living. Younger patients and certain ethnic groups with multimorbidity are also more likely to have unmet needs. Increased personalisation and coordination of care among these groups may help in addressing their needs.