Clinical service delivery implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on people with Inflammatory bowel disease: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, clinical services were severely disrupted, restricted, or withdrawn across the country. People living with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) - an auto-immune disorder for which medical treatment often results in immunosuppression, thus requiring regular monitoring-may have struggled to access clinical support. As part of a larger qualitative study, we investigated experiences of access to clinical services during the pandemic, and patient concerns about and preferences for services in the future. METHODS: This exploratory qualitative study used semi-structured interviews to explore participants' experiences of clinical services across the UK during the pandemic. All data were collected remotely (March - May 2021) using online video-calling platforms or by telephone. Audio files were transcribed professionally and anonymised for analysis. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Of the eight themes found across all data, four related specifically to accessing GP, local (district) hospital, and specialist (tertiary) referral services for IBD: 1) The Risk of Attending Hospital; 2) Missing Routine Monitoring or Treatment; 3) Accessing Care as Needed, and 4) Remote Access and The Future. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support other studies reporting changes in use of health services, and concerns about future remote access methods. Maintenance of IBD services in some form is essential throughout crisis periods; newly diagnosed patients need additional support; future dependence on IBD services could be reduced through use of treatment / self-management plans. As the NHS digitalises it's future services, the mode of appointment-remote (telephone, video call), or in-person - needs to be flexible and suit the patient.

Using e-health tools and PROMs to support self-management in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

BACKGROUND: The use of digital health or e-health is growing. The potential positive impact on IBD care from supported self-management using these tools emerged from a literature review carried out in preparation for a service improvement project. A patient-reported outcomes measure (PROM) with validation across IBD sub-types was already available for use. This internationally recognised tool has potential for use with existing or new e-health systems. AIMS: In order to test the concept of using PROMs to support practice and follow up a small-scale pilot study was designed. The aim of the study was to understand if empowering patients to undertake supported self-management could lead in turn to improved flow through outpatient services. METHODS: An audit was carried out of PROMs looking at quality of life (QoL) as well as disease activity using an electronic platform in real time at the point of patient contact. The disease activity indices used were the Harvey Bradshaw Index and the Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index, due to the author's familiarity with these tools. RESULTS: Of the 15 participants, 10 reported themselves as 'well' or 'well with questions' all participants reported an acceptance of supported remote self-management using e-health. CONCLUSION: This evaluation led to PROMs being captured on a tablet in the outpatient setting in the pre-pandemic period. Allowing patients to use the PROM as a tool in the outpatient setting has led to longitudinal data being added to the e-health system for each individual. Well patients could be managed remotely, freeing capacity in outpatient clinics.

DECIDE: Delphi Expert Consensus Statement on Inflammatory Bowel Disease Dysplasia Shared Management Decision-Making.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Inflammatory bowel disease colitis-associated dysplasia is managed with either enhanced surveillance and endoscopic resection or prophylactic surgery. The rate of progression to cancer after a dysplasia diagnosis remains uncertain in many cases and patients have high thresholds for accepting proctocolectomy. Individualised discussion of management options is encouraged to take place between patients and their multidisciplinary teams for best outcomes. We aimed to develop a toolkit to support a structured, multidisciplinary and shared decision-making approach to discussions about dysplasia management options between clinicians and their patients. METHODS: Evidence from systematic literature reviews, mixed-methods studies conducted with key stakeholders, and decision-making expert recommendations were consolidated to draft consensus statements by the DECIDE steering group. These were then subjected to an international, multidisciplinary modified electronic Delphi process until an a priori threshold of 80% agreement was achieved to establish consensus for each statement. RESULTS: In all, 31 members [15 gastroenterologists, 14 colorectal surgeons and two nurse specialists] from nine countries formed the Delphi panel. We present the 18 consensus statements generated after two iterative rounds of anonymous voting. CONCLUSIONS: By consolidating evidence for best practice using literature review and key stakeholder and decision-making expert consultation, we have developed international consensus recommendations to support health care professionals counselling patients on the management of high cancer risk colitis-associated dysplasia. The final toolkit includes clinician and patient decision aids to facilitate shared decision-making.

Managing capability in specialist nursing practice.

Raising concerns over another nurse's clinical practice and capability presents significant challenges, particularly in specialist clinical nursing roles. However, the support provided to nurses who raise such concerns is not always optimal. While compassionate leadership in healthcare has been stated as a priority to develop safer workplaces for staff, it must be balanced against the need to manage staff undergoing capability management processes. This article discusses how enhanced training and support for both line managers and staff can improve the capability management processes.

The public's attitude towards doctors' use of Twitter and perceived professionalism: an exploratory study.

INTRODUCTION: Medical professionals use social media to interact with other healthcare professionals, discuss medical issues and promote healthcare information. These platforms have tremendous power to promote healthcare messages but also have potential to damage the profession if used inappropriately. It is currently unknown how others perceive medical doctors' Twitter activity and, therefore, we conducted an online survey exploring these views. METHODS: We used a Google Forms questionnaire consisting of 21 questions, which we distributed on Twitter, exploring doctors', patients', the public's and other healthcare professionals' views of doctors' Twitter activities. We investigated factors that were associated with mistrust by univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Seven-hundred and twenty-six respondents completed the survey. By univariate analysis, a higher proportion of non-doctors reported witnessing unprofessional behaviour and potential breaches of patient confidentiality compared with doctors (p<0.01). In addition, a significantly higher proportion of non-doctors felt that doctors' Twitter accounts should be monitored by both their employer and regulator when compared with doctors. By multivariate analysis, the main predictor of mistrust in the profession were those that had previously witnessed unprofessional behaviour (odds ratio 2.70; 95% confidence interval 2.08-3.33; p<0.01). CONCLUSION: There are discrepancies in how doctors and non-doctors view Twitter activity and significant mistrust in the profession was brought about by doctors' Twitter activity. To help limit this, adherence to current guidelines set out by the General Medical Council and British Medical Association is vital and doctors should be cautious about how their Twitter activity is professionally perceived by others before posting.