The effectiveness of a primary care-based collaborative care model to improve quality of life in people with severe mental illness: PARTNERS2 cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Individuals living with severe mental illness can have significant emotional, physical and social challenges. Collaborative care combines clinical and organisational components. AIMS: We tested whether a primary care-based collaborative care model (PARTNERS) would improve quality of life for people with diagnoses of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or other psychoses, compared with usual care. METHOD: We conducted a general practice-based, cluster randomised controlled superiority trial. Practices were recruited from four English regions and allocated (1:1) to intervention or control. Individuals receiving limited input in secondary care or who were under primary care only were eligible. The 12-month PARTNERS intervention incorporated person-centred coaching support and liaison work. The primary outcome was quality of life as measured by the Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life (MANSA). RESULTS: We allocated 39 general practices, with 198 participants, to the PARTNERS intervention (20 practices, 116 participants) or control (19 practices, 82 participants). Primary outcome data were available for 99 (85.3%) intervention and 71 (86.6%) control participants. Mean change in overall MANSA score did not differ between the groups (intervention: 0.25, s.d. 0.73; control: 0.21, s.d. 0.86; estimated fully adjusted between-group difference 0.03, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.31; P = 0.819). Acute mental health episodes (safety outcome) included three crises in the intervention group and four in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of a difference in quality of life, as measured with the MANSA, between those receiving the PARTNERS intervention and usual care. Shifting care to primary care was not associated with increased adverse outcomes.

Health screening clinic to reduce absenteeism and presenteeism among NHS Staff: eTHOS a pilot RCT.

Background: Staff sickness absenteeism and presenteeism (attending work while unwell) incur high costs to the NHS, are associated with adverse patient outcomes and have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The main causes are mental and musculoskeletal ill health with cardiovascular risk factors common. Objectives: To undertake a feasibility study to inform the design of a definitive randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a health screening clinic in reducing absenteeism and presenteeism amongst the National Health Service staff. Design: Individually randomised controlled pilot trial of the staff health screening clinic compared with usual care, including qualitative process evaluation. Setting: Four United Kingdom National Health Service hospitals from two urban and one rural Trust. Participants: Hospital employees who had not previously attended a pilot health screening clinic at Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham. Interventions: Nurse-led staff health screening clinic with assessment for musculoskeletal health (STarT musculoskeletal; STarT Back), mental health (patient health questionnaire-9; generalised anxiety disorder questionnaire-7) and cardiovascular health (NHS health check if aged ≥ 40, lifestyle check if < 40 years). Screen positives were given advice and/or referral to services according to UK guidelines. Main outcome measures: The three coprimary outcomes were recruitment, referrals and attendance at referred services. These formed stop/go criteria when considered together. If any of these values fell into the 'amber' zone, then the trial would require modifications to proceed to full trial. If all were 'red', then the trial would be considered unfeasible. Secondary outcomes collected to inform the design of the definitive randomised controlled trial included: generalisability, screening results, individual referrals required/attended, health behaviours, acceptability/feasibility of processes, indication of contamination and costs. Outcomes related to the definitive trial included self-reported and employee records of absenteeism with reasons. Process evaluation included interviews with participants, intervention delivery staff and service providers. Descriptive statistics were presented and framework analysis conducted for qualitative data. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, outcomes were captured up to 6 months only. Results: Three hundred and fourteen participants were consented (236 randomised), the majority within 4 months. The recruitment rate of 314/3788 (8.3%) invited was lower than anticipated (meeting red for this criteria), but screening identified that 57/118 (48.3%) randomised were eligible for referral to either general practitioner (81%), mental health (18%) and/or physiotherapy services (30%) (green). Early trial closure precluded determination of attendance at referrals, but 31.6% of those eligible reported intending to attend (amber). Fifty-one of the 80 (63.75%) planned qualitative interviews were conducted. Quantitative and qualitative data from the process evaluation indicated that the electronic database-driven screening intervention and data collection were efficient, promoting good fidelity, although needing more personalisation at times. Recruitment and delivery of the full trial would benefit from a longer development period to better understand local context, develop effective strategies for engaging with underserved groups, provide longer training and better integration with referral services. Delivery of the pilot was limited by the impact of COVID-19 with staff redeployment, COVID-research prioritisation and reduced availability of community and in-house referral services. While recruitment was rapid, it did not fully represent ethnic minority groups and truncated follow-up due to funding limitations prevented full assessment of attendance at recommended services and secondary outcomes. Conclusions: There is both a clinical need (evidenced by 48% screened eligible for a referral) and perceived benefit (data from the qualitative interviews) for this National Health Service staff health screening clinic. The three stop/go criteria were red, green and amber; therefore, the Trial Oversight Committee recommended that a full-scale trial should proceed, but with modifications to adapt to local context and adopt processes to engage better with underserved communities. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN10237475. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 17/42/42) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 23. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Sickness absenteeism and presenteeism (attendance at work while ill, with poor work performance) are major problems in the NHS and associated with worse patient health care. The most common causes of NHS staff sickness absenteeism and presenteeism are muscular complaints and mental ill health. Poor lifestyle and illnesses associated with heart disease are also important factors. Staff health checks might improve the health of NHS staff, but no studies have included screening tests to address the most common causes of poor staff health. This pilot study tested whether it would be possible to deliver a randomised controlled trial of an NHS staff health screening clinic, where some people get the screening check and others do not (chosen at random, like flipping a coin). We used an electronic database to capture all data. Participants completed initial questionnaires either at home or at work, then attended a face-to-face screening clinic using recognised screening questionnaires and tests to detect problems with muscular, mental or heart health. We considered how NHS staff and healthcare organisations would want the screening clinic and trial to run, how a diverse range of NHS staff could best be approached, how many staff might need to be invited and what their healthcare needs would be. The study ran in four UK NHS hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic. Two hundred and thirty-six NHS staff participated, but early trial closure due to the pandemic meant that some results were unavailable. For the primary feasibility outcomes, although recruitment rates of around 8% were lower than anticipated, half of staff screened needed referral for further health care and one-third reported intending to attend. Staff felt that the clinic addressed an important health need. The Trial Oversight Committee recommended proceeding to a full-scale trial but with modifications to address findings from the process evaluation, including ways to encourage a wider group of NHS staff to take part.

LAparoscopic Versus Abdominal hysterectomy (LAVA): protocol of a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: There is uncertainty about the advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with abdominal hysterectomy, particularly the relative rate of complications of the two procedures. While uptake of laparoscopic hysterectomy has been slow, the situation is changing with greater familiarity, better training, better equipment and increased proficiency in the technique. Thus, a large, robust, multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) is needed to compare contemporary laparoscopic hysterectomy with abdominal hysterectomy to determine the safest and most cost-effective technique. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A parallel, open, non-inferiority, multicentre, randomised controlled, expertise-based surgery trial with integrated health economic evaluation and an internal pilot with an embedded qualitative process evaluation. A within trial-based economic evaluation will explore the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with open abdominal hysterectomy. We will aim to recruit 3250 women requiring a hysterectomy for a benign gynaecological condition and who were suitable for either laparoscopic or open techniques. The primary outcome is major complications up to six completed weeks postsurgery and the key secondary outcome is time from surgery to resumption of usual activities using the personalised Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function questionnaire. The principal outcome for the economic evaluation is to be cost per QALY at 12 months' postsurgery. A secondary analysis is to be undertaken to generate costs per major surgical complication avoided and costs per return to normal activities. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the West Midlands-Edgbaston Research Ethics Committee, 18 February 2021 (Ethics ref: 21/WM/0019). REC approval for the protocol version 2.0 dated 2 February 2021 was issued on 18 February 2021.We will present the findings in national and international conferences. We will also aim to publish the findings in high impact peer-reviewed journals. We will disseminate the completed paper to the Department of Health, the Scientific Advisory Committees of the RCOG, the Royal College of Nurses (RCN) and the BSGE. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN14566195.

Enhancing the health of NHS staff: eTHOS - protocol for a randomised controlled pilot trial of an employee health screening clinic for NHS staff to reduce absenteeism and presenteeism, compared with usual care.

BACKGROUND: Staff absenteeism and presenteeism incur high costs to the NHS and are associated with adverse health outcomes. The main causes are musculoskeletal complaints and mental ill-health, which are potentially modifiable, and cardiovascular risk factors are also common. We will test the feasibility of an RCT to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an employee health screening clinic on reducing sickness absenteeism and presenteeism. METHODS: This is an individually randomised controlled pilot trial aiming to recruit 480 participants. All previously unscreened employees from four hospitals within three UK NHS hospital Trusts will be eligible. Those randomised to the intervention arm will be invited to attend an employee health screening clinic consisting of a screening assessment for musculoskeletal (STarT MSK and STarT Back), mental (PHQ-9 and GAD-7) and cardiovascular (NHS Health Check if aged ≥ 40, lifestyle check if < 40 years) health. Screen positives will be given advice and/or referral to recommended services. Those randomised to the control arm will receive usual care. Participants will complete a questionnaire at baseline and 26 weeks; anonymised absenteeism and staff demographics will also be collected from personnel records. The co-primary outcomes are as follows: recruitment, referrals and uptake of recommended services in the intervention arm. Secondary outcomes include the following: results of screening assessments, uptake of individual referrals, reported changes in health behaviours, acceptability and feasibility of intervention, indication of contamination and costs. Outcomes related to the definitive trial include self-reported and employee records of absenteeism with reasons. Process evaluation to inform a future trial includes interviews with participants, intervention delivery staff and service providers receiving referrals. Analyses will include presentation of descriptive statistics, framework analysis for qualitative data and costs and consequences presented for health economics. DISCUSSION: The study will provide data to inform the design of a definitive RCT which aims to find an effective and cost-effective method of reducing absenteeism and presenteeism amongst NHS staff. The feasibility study will test trial procedures, and process outcomes, including the success of strategies for including underserved groups, and provide information and data to help inform the design and sample size for a definitive trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN reference number 10237475 .