An adaptable implementation package targeting evidence-based indicators in primary care: A pragmatic cluster-randomised evaluation.

BACKGROUND: In primary care, multiple priorities and system pressures make closing the gap between evidence and practice challenging. Most implementation studies focus on single conditions, limiting generalisability. We compared an adaptable implementation package against an implementation control and assessed effects on adherence to four different evidence-based quality indicators. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We undertook two parallel, pragmatic cluster-randomised trials using balanced incomplete block designs in general practices in West Yorkshire, England. We used 'opt-out' recruitment, and we randomly assigned practices that did not opt out to an implementation package targeting either diabetes control or risky prescribing (Trial 1); or blood pressure (BP) control or anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation (AF) (Trial 2). Within trials, each arm acted as the implementation control comparison for the other targeted indicator. For example, practices assigned to the diabetes control package acted as the comparison for practices assigned to the risky prescribing package. The implementation package embedded behaviour change techniques within audit and feedback, educational outreach, and computerised support, with content tailored to each indicator. Respective patient-level primary endpoints at 11 months comprised the following: achievement of all recommended levels of haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), BP, and cholesterol; risky prescribing levels; achievement of recommended BP; and anticoagulation prescribing. Between February and March 2015, we recruited 144 general practices collectively serving over 1 million patients. We stratified computer-generated randomisation by area, list size, and pre-intervention outcome achievement. In April 2015, we randomised 80 practices to Trial 1 (40 per arm) and 64 to Trial 2 (32 per arm). Practices and trial personnel were not blind to allocation. Two practices were lost to follow-up but provided some outcome data. We analysed the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, adjusted for potential confounders at patient level (sex, age) and practice level (list size, locality, pre-intervention achievement against primary outcomes, total quality scores, and levels of patient co-morbidity), and analysed cost-effectiveness. The implementation package reduced risky prescribing (odds ratio [OR] 0.82; 97.5% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-0.99, p = 0.017) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £1,359 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), but there was insufficient evidence of effect on other primary endpoints (diabetes control OR 1.03, 97.5% CI 0.89-1.18, p = 0.693; BP control OR 1.05, 97.5% CI 0.96-1.16, p = 0.215; anticoagulation prescribing OR 0.90, 97.5% CI 0.75-1.09, p = 0.214). No statistically significant effects were observed in any secondary outcome except for reduced co-prescription of aspirin and clopidogrel without gastro-protection in patients aged 65 and over (adjusted OR 0.62; 97.5% CI 0.39-0.99; p = 0.021). Main study limitations concern our inability to make any inferences about the relative effects of individual intervention components, given the multifaceted nature of the implementation package, and that the composite endpoint for diabetes control may have been too challenging to achieve. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that a multifaceted implementation package was clinically and cost-effective for targeting prescribing behaviours within the control of clinicians but not for more complex behaviours that also required patient engagement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN91989345).

Understanding long-term opioid prescribing for non-cancer pain in primary care: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The place of opioids in the management of chronic, non-cancer pain is limited. Even so their use is escalating, leading to concerns that patients are prescribed strong opioids inappropriately and alternatives to medication are under-used. We aimed to understand the processes which bring about and perpetuate long-term prescribing of opioids for chronic, non-cancer pain. METHODS: We held semi-structured interviews with patients and focus groups with general practitioners (GPs). Participants included 23 patients currently prescribed long-term opioids and 15 GPs from Leeds and Bradford, United Kingdom (UK). We used a grounded approach to the analysis of transcripts. RESULTS: Patients are driven by the needs for pain relief, explanation, and improvement or maintenance of quality of life. GPs' responses are shaped by how UK general practice is organised, available therapeutic choices and their expertise in managing chronic pain, especially when facing diagnostic uncertainty or when their own approach is at odds with the patient's wishes. Four features of the resulting transaction between patients and doctors influence prescribing: lack of clarity of strategy, including the risk of any plans being subverted by urgent demands; lack of certainty about locus of control in decision-making, especially in relation to prescribing; continuity in the doctor-patient relationship; and mutuality and trust. CONCLUSIONS: Problematic prescribing occurs when patients experience repeated consultations that do not meet their needs and GPs feel unable to negotiate alternative approaches to treatment. Therapeutic short-termism is perpetuated by inconsistent clinical encounters and the absence of mutually-agreed formulations of underlying problems and plans of action. Apart from commissioning improved access to appropriate specialist services, general practices should also consider how they manage problematic opioid prescribing and be prepared to set boundaries with patients.

Does a local financial incentive scheme reduce inequalities in the delivery of clinical care in a socially deprived community? A longitudinal data analysis.

BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic deprivation is associated with inequalities in health care and outcomes. Despite concerns that the Quality and Outcomes Framework pay-for-performance scheme in the UK would exacerbate inequalities in primary care delivery, gaps closed over time. Local schemes were promoted as a means of improving clinical engagement by addressing local health priorities. We evaluated equity in achievement of target indicators and practice income for one local scheme. METHODS: We undertook a longitudinal survey over four years of routinely recorded clinical data for all 83 primary care practices. Sixteen indicators were developed that covered five local clinical and public health priorities: weight management; alcohol consumption; learning disabilities; osteoporosis; and chlamydia screening. Clinical indicators were logit transformed from a percentage achievement scale and modelled allowing for clustering of repeated measures within practices. This enabled our study of target achievements over time with respect to deprivation. Practice income was also explored. RESULTS: Higher practice deprivation was associated with poorer performance for five indicators: alcohol use registration (OR 0.97; 95 % confidence interval 0.96,0.99); recorded chlamydia test result (OR 0.97; 0.94,0.99); osteoporosis registration (OR 0.98; 0.97,0.99); registration of repeat prednisolone prescription (OR 0.98; 0.96,0.99); and prednisolone registration with record of dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scan/referral (OR 0.92; 0.86,0.97); practices in deprived areas performed better for one indicator (registration of osteoporotic fragility fracture (OR 1.26; 1.04,1.51). The deprivation-achievement gap widened for one indicator (registered females aged 65-74 with a fracture referred for a DEXA scan; OR 0.97; 0.95,0.99). Two other indicators indicated a similar trend over two years before being withdrawn (registration of fragility fracture and over-75 s with a fragility fracture assessed and treated for osteoporosis risk). For one indicator the deprivation-achievement gap reduced over time (repeat prednisolone prescription (OR 1.01; 1.01,1.01). Larger practices and those serving more affluent areas earned more income per patient than smaller practices and those serving more deprived areas (t = -3.99; p =0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Any gaps in achievement between practices were modest but mostly sustained or widened over the duration of the scheme. Given that financial rewards may not reflect the amount of work undertaken by practices serving more deprived patients, future pay-for-performance schemes also need to address fairness of rewards in relation to workload.

Does bleeding affect patient-reported outcome measures in patients with myelodysplasia or hematologic malignancies: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Relatively minor bleeding (e.g., bruising and/or petechiae) may cause patient distress. This systematic review's objective was to assess whether bleeding affects health-related quality of life (HRQoL) or illness perceptions or representations (IPs) in patients with hematologic malignancies or myelodysplasia (MDS). STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We searched, in full, 12 electronic databases (including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE) up to January 7, 2013, for eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective cohort studies, and cross-sectional studies. RESULTS: A total of 6247 studies were initially identified; 5945 studies were excluded on the basis of the abstract. A total of 302 full-text articles were evaluated independently by two reviewers; of these, six studies within seven citations were eligible for inclusion. Two studies are still in progress, four studies within five citations were included in this review (one RCT, one prospective observational study, one interview study, and one Web-based survey). None of the included studies were designed to assess the impact bleeding had on HRQoL or IPs. The Web-based survey and observational study used two new patient-reported outcome scales which specifically assessed patient distress or concern due to bleeding. The majority of patients within these two studies either did not experience bleeding or did not have severe thrombocytopenia. CONCLUSION: There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate whether bleeding is a significant clinical problem that affects patients' HRQoL or IPs in either patients with MDS or patients with hematologic malignancies. Rigorously designed studies to assess the scale of this problem in both of these groups of patients are required.

'Just another incentive scheme': a qualitative interview study of a local pay-for-performance scheme for primary care.

BACKGROUND: A range of policy initiatives have addressed inequalities in healthcare and health outcomes. Local pay-for-performance schemes for primary care have been advocated as means of enhancing clinical ownership of the quality agenda and better targeting local need compared with national schemes such as the UK Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF). We investigated whether professionals' experience of a local scheme in one English National Health Service (NHS) former primary care trust (PCT) differed from that of the national QOF in relation to the goal of reducing inequalities. METHODS: We conducted retrospective semi-structured interviews with primary care professionals implementing the scheme and those involved in its development. We purposively sampled practices with varying levels of population socio-economic deprivation and achievement. Interviews explored perceptions of the scheme and indicators, likely mechanisms of influence on practice, perceived benefits and harms, and how future schemes could be improved. We used a framework approach to analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-eight professionals from 16 general practices and six professionals involved in developing local indicators participated. Our findings cover four themes: ownership, credibility of the indicators, influences on behaviour, and exacerbated tensions. We found little evidence that the scheme engendered any distinctive sense of ownership or experiences different from the national scheme. Although the indicators and their evidence base were seldom actively questioned, doubts were expressed about their focus on health promotion given that eventual benefits relied upon patient action and availability of local resources. Whilst practices serving more affluent populations reported status and patient benefit as motivators for participating in the scheme, those serving more deprived populations highlighted financial reward. The scheme exacerbated tensions between patient and professional consultation agendas, general practitioners benefitting directly from incentives and nurses who did much of the work, and practices serving more and less affluent populations which faced different challenges in achieving targets. CONCLUSIONS: The contentious nature of pay-for-performance was not necessarily reduced by local adaptation. Those developing future schemes should consider differential rewards and supportive resources for practices serving more deprived populations, and employing a wider range of levers to promote professional understanding and ownership of indicators.

Patients understanding of depression associated with chronic physical illness: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Detection of depression can be difficult in primary care, particularly when associated with chronic illness. Patient beliefs may affect detection and subsequent engagement with management. We explored patient beliefs about the nature of depression associated with physical illness. METHODS: A qualitative interview study of patients registered with general practices in Leeds, UK. We invited patients with coronary heart disease or diabetes from primary care to participate in semi-structured interviews exploring their beliefs and experiences. We analysed transcripts using a thematic approach, extended to consider narratives as important contextual elements. RESULTS: We interviewed 26 patients, including 17 with personal experience of depression. We developed six themes: recognising a problem, complex causality, the role of the primary care, responsibility, resilience, and the role of their life story. Participants did not consistently talk about depression as an illness-like disorder. They described a change in their sense of self against the background of their life stories. Participants were unsure about seeking help from general practitioners (GPs) and felt a personal responsibility to overcome depression themselves. Chronic illness, as opposed to other life pressures, was seen as a justifiable cause of depression. CONCLUSIONS: People with chronic illness do not necessarily regard depression as an easily defined illness, especially outside of the context of their life stories. Efforts to engage patients with chronic illness in the detection and management of depression may need further tailoring to accommodate beliefs about how people view themselves, responsibility and negative views of treatment.

Documentary analysis of national and international guidance for community clinicians referring patients with suspected chronic limb-threatening ischaemia.

BACKGROUND: Delayed referral of patients with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia (CLTI) from the community to vascular services may increase risk of amputation due to delayed revascularisation. Lack of appropriate guidance for clinicians in the community may contribute to this problem. This documentary analysis investigated referral guidance available to primary care clinicians. METHODS: National and international documents providing guidance on CLTI management were identified by searching sources including Medline, Embase, Guidelines International Network and College/Society websites. Data were extracted on referral recommendations, target audience and author groups. Recommendations were coded according to the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy. Clinical practice guideline quality and ease of implementation were assessed independently by two reviewers using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II and Guideline Implementability Appraisal (GLIA) tools, respectively. RESULTS: 12 documents containing guidance on CLTI referrals were included. Five were clinical practice guidelines. Nine targeted clinicians in the community among their audience, yet only one included a primary care clinician in their author group. Recommendations on identification and referral of CLTI were often in non-specific language and frequently assumed specialist knowledge of vascular disease. Just 4 of the 93 behaviour change techniques were identified in the guidance documents. Three relevant domains of the AGREE II tool were scored for five clinical practice guidelines: stakeholder involvement (range 21.4%-52.4%, mean 42.9%), clarity of presentation (range 71.4%-92.9%, mean 82.9%) and applicability (25.0%-57.1%, mean 36.8%). The GLIA tool identified barriers to ease of implementation for all five clinical practice guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Most guidance for clinicians in the community on the management of CLTI has been written without their input and assumes knowledge of vascular disease, which may be lacking. Future guidance development should involve community clinicians, consider using additional behaviour change techniques, and improve the applicability and ease of implementation of recommendations.

Effectiveness of quality improvement collaboratives in UK surgical settings and barriers and facilitators influencing their implementation: a systematic review and evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: High-quality surgical care is vital to deliver the excellent outcomes patients deserve following surgical treatment. Quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) are based on a multicentre model for improving healthcare. They are increasingly used but their effectiveness in the context of surgical services is unclear. This review assessed effectiveness of QICs in National Health Service (NHS) surgical settings, and identified factors that influenced implementation. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE, as well as grey literature, was conducted in January 2022 to identify evaluations of QICs in NHS surgical settings. Data were extracted on the intervention, setting, study results and factors that were identified as facilitators or barriers. These were coded using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The quality of study reports was assessed using Quality Improvement Minimum Criteria Set. RESULTS: Fifteen reports on 10 QICs met inclusion criteria. The evaluations used study designs of different strength, with one using a stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial (RCT). Eight studies reported the QIC had been successful in achieving their principal aims, which covered a mix of patient outcomes and process indicators. The study based on the RCT found the QIC was not successful (no improvement in patient outcomes). Each article reported a range of facilitators and barriers to effectiveness of implementation of the QIC, which were spread across the CFIR domains (intervention, outer setting, inner setting, individuals and process). There were few barriers reported in the intervention domain that related to the QIC. There was no clear relationship between numbers of facilitators and barriers reported and effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Studies have reported QICs to be effective in increasingly complex contexts, but their results must be treated with caution. The evaluations often used weak study designs and the quality of reports was variable. Evaluation with strong study design should be integral to future QICs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022324970.

Do incentives, reminders or reduced burden improve healthcare professional response rates in postal questionnaires? two randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare professional response rates to postal questionnaires are declining and this may threaten the validity and generalisability of their findings. Methods to improve response rates do incur costs (resources) and increase the cost of research projects. The aim of these randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was to assess whether 1) incentives, 2) type of reminder and/or 3) reduced response burden improve response rates; and to assess the cost implications of such additional effective interventions. METHODS: Two RCTs were conducted. In RCT A general dental practitioners (dentists) in Scotland were randomised to receive either an incentive; an abridged questionnaire or a full length questionnaire. In RCT B non-responders to a postal questionnaire sent to general medical practitioners (GPs) in the UK were firstly randomised to receive a second full length questionnaire as a reminder or a postcard reminder. Continued non-responders from RCT B were then randomised within their first randomisation to receive a third full length or an abridged questionnaire reminder. The cost-effectiveness of interventions that effectively increased response rates was assessed as a secondary outcome. RESULTS: There was no evidence that an incentive (52% versus 43%, Risk Difference (RD) -8.8 (95%CI -22.5, 4.8); or abridged questionnaire (46% versus 43%, RD -2.9 (95%CI -16.5, 10.7); statistically significantly improved dentist response rates compared to a full length questionnaire in RCT A. In RCT B there was no evidence that a full questionnaire reminder statistically significantly improved response rates compared to a postcard reminder (10.4% versus 7.3%, RD 3 (95%CI -0.1, 6.8). At a second reminder stage, GPs sent the abridged questionnaire responded more often (14.8% versus 7.2%, RD -7.7 (95%CI -12.8, -2.6). GPs who received a postcard reminder followed by an abridged questionnaire were most likely to respond (19.8% versus 6.3%, RD 8.1%, and 9.1% for full/postcard/full, three full or full/full/abridged questionnaire respectively). An abridged questionnaire containing fewer questions following a postcard reminder was the only cost-effective strategy for increasing the response rate (£15.99 per response). CONCLUSIONS: When expecting or facing a low response rate to postal questionnaires, researchers should carefully identify the most efficient way to boost their response rate. In these studies, an abridged questionnaire containing fewer questions following a postcard reminder was the only cost-effective strategy. An increase in response rates may be explained by a combination of the number and type of contacts. Increasing the sampling frame may be more cost-effective than interventions to prompt non-responders. However, this may not strengthen the validity and generalisability of the survey findings and affect the representativeness of the sample.

How patients understand depression associated with chronic physical disease--a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians are encouraged to screen people with chronic physical illness for depression. Screening alone may not improve outcomes, especially if the process is incompatible with patient beliefs. The aim of this research is to understand people's beliefs about depression, particularly in the presence of chronic physical disease. METHODS: A mixed method systematic review involving a thematic analysis of qualitative studies and quantitative studies of beliefs held by people with current depressive symptoms. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PSYCHINFO, CINAHL, BIOSIS, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, UKCRN portfolio, National Research Register Archive, Clinicaltrials.gov and OpenSIGLE were searched from database inception to 31st December 2010. A narrative synthesis of qualitative and quantitative data, based initially upon illness representations and extended to include other themes not compatible with that framework. RESULTS: A range of clinically relevant beliefs was identified from 65 studies including the difficulty in labeling depression, complex causal factors instead of the biological model, the roles of different treatments and negative views about the consequences of depression. We found other important themes less related to ideas about illness: the existence of a self-sustaining 'depression spiral'; depression as an existential state; the ambiguous status of suicidal thinking; and the role of stigma and blame in depression. CONCLUSIONS: Approaches to detection of depression in physical illness need to be receptive to the range of beliefs held by patients. Patient beliefs have implications for engagement with depression screening.

Explaining variable effects of an adaptable implementation package to promote evidence-based practice in primary care: a longitudinal process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Implementing evidence-based recommendations is challenging in UK primary care, especially given system pressures and multiple guideline recommendations competing for attention. Implementation packages that can be adapted and hence applied to target multiple guideline recommendations could offer efficiencies for recommendations with common barriers to achievement. We developed and evaluated a package of evidence-based interventions (audit and feedback, educational outreach and reminders) incorporating behaviour change techniques to target common barriers, in two pragmatic trials for four "high impact" indicators: risky prescribing; diabetes control; blood pressure control; and anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation. We observed a significant, cost-effective reduction in risky prescribing but there was insufficient evidence of effect on the other outcomes. We explored the impact of the implementation package on both social processes (Normalisation Process Theory; NPT) and hypothesised determinants of behaviour (Theoretical Domains Framework; TDF). METHODS: We conducted a prospective multi-method process evaluation. Observational, administrative and interview data collection and analyses in eight primary care practices were guided by NPT and TDF. Survey data from trial and process evaluation practices explored fidelity. RESULTS: We observed three main patterns of variation in how practices responded to the implementation package. First, in integration and achievement, the package "worked" when it was considered distinctive and feasible. Timely feedback directed at specific behaviours enabled continuous goal setting, action and review, which reinforced motivation and collective action. Second, impacts on team-based determinants were limited, particularly when the complexity of clinical actions impeded progress. Third, there were delivery delays and unintended consequences. Delays in scheduling outreach further reduced ownership and time for improvement. Repeated stagnant or declining feedback that did not reflect effort undermined engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Variable integration within practice routines and organisation of care, variable impacts on behavioural determinants, and delays in delivery and unintended consequences help explain the partial success of an adaptable package in primary care.

Phase III Randomized Controlled Trial of eRAPID: eHealth Intervention During Chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: Electronic patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice (eRAPID) is an online eHealth system for patients to self-report symptoms during cancer treatment. It provides automated severity-dependent patient advice guiding self-management or medical contact and displays the reports in electronic patient records. This trial evaluated the impact of eRAPID on symptom control, healthcare use, patient self-efficacy, and quality of life (QOL) in a patient population treated predominantly with curative intent. METHODS: Patients with colorectal, breast, or gynecological cancers commencing chemotherapy were randomly assigned to usual care (UC) or the addition of eRAPID (weekly online symptom reporting for 18 weeks). Primary outcome was symptom control (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General, Physical Well-Being subscale [FACT-PWB]) assessed at 6, 12, and 18 weeks. Secondary outcomes were processes of care (admissions or chemotherapy delivery), patient self-efficacy, and global quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General, EQ5D-VAS, and EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score). Multivariable mixed-effects repeated-measures models were used for analyses. Trial registration: ISRCTN88520246. RESULTS: Participants were 508 consenting patients (73.6% of 690 eligible) and 55 health professionals. eRAPID compared to UC showed improved physical well-being at 6 (P = .028) and 12 (P = .039) weeks and no difference at 18 weeks (primary end point) (P = .69). Fewer eRAPID patients (47%) had clinically meaningful physical well-being deterioration than UC (56%) at 12 weeks. Subgroup analysis found benefit in the nonmetastatic group at 6 weeks (P = .0426), but not in metastatic disease. There were no differences for admissions or chemotherapy delivery. At 18 weeks, patients using eRAPID reported better self-efficacy (P = .007) and better health on EQ5D-VAS (P = .009). Average patient compliance with weekly symptom reporting was 64.7%. Patient adherence was associated with clinician's data use and improved FACT-PWB at 12 weeks. CONCLUSION: Real-time monitoring with electronic patient-reported outcomes improved physical well-being (6 and 12 weeks) and self-efficacy (18 weeks) in a patient population predominantly treated with curative intent, without increasing hospital workload.

Predicting Risk of Recurrent Acute Kidney Injury: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Although the epidemiology of acute kidney injury (AKI) has been well described, less is known about recurrent AKI (r-AKI). We undertook a systematic review to identify incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of r-AKI. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane, Web of Science were searched, from inception to December 2017, for quantitative studies on adults with AKI, where follow-up included -reporting of r-AKI. Two reviewers independently identified studies and assessed study quality. SUMMARY: From 2,824 citations, 10 cohort studies met inclusion criteria (total patients n = 538,667). There were 2 distinct set of studies; 4 studies assessed r-AKI within the same hospital admission (most were intensive care unit [ICU] patients) and 6 studies assessed postdischarge r-AKI. The median percentage of people developing r-AKI within the same hospital admission was 23.4% (IQR 20.3-27.2%) and postdischarge r-AKI was 31.3% (IQR 26.4-33.7%). A higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation score was associated with increased risk of r-AKI within the same hospital admission in ICU patients. Cardiovascular disease and AKI severity were associated with increased risk of postdischarge r-AKI. R-AKI (within same admission and postdischarge) was associated with worse survival. It was not possible to pool results due to methodological differences across studies, such as varying definitions for AKI and r-AKI, varying length of follow-up and effect measures. Key messages: More representative population-based studies with robust assessment of predictors and consensus definition of r-AKI are needed to identify risk factors and develop risk stratification tools to reduce recurrence and improve outcomes. Systematic Review Registration: CRD42017082668.

Application of prescribing recommendations in older people with reduced kidney function: a cross-sectional study in general practice.

BACKGROUND: Kidney function reduces with age, increasing the risk of harm from increased blood levels of many medicines. Although estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) is reported for prescribing decisions in those aged ≥65 years, creatinine clearance (Cockcroft-Gault) gives a more accurate estimate of kidney function. AIM: To explore the extent of prescribing outside recommendations for people aged ≥65 years with reduced kidney function in primary care and to assess the impact of using eGFR instead of creatinine clearance to calculate kidney function. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional survey of anonymised prescribing data in people aged ≥65 years from all 80 general practices (70 900 patients) in a north of England former primary care trust. METHOD: The prevalence of prescribing outside recommendations was analysed for eight exemplar drugs. Data were collected for age, sex, actual weight, serum creatinine, and eGFR. Kidney function as creatinine clearance (Cockcroft-Gault) was calculated using actual body weight and estimated ideal body weight. RESULTS: Kidney function was too low for recommended prescribing in 4-40% of people aged ≥65 years, and in 24-80% of people aged ≥85 years despite more than 90% of patients having recent recorded kidney function results. Using eGFR overestimated kidney function for 3-28% of those aged ≥65 years, and for 13-58% of those aged ≥85 years. Increased age predicted higher odds of having a kidney function estimate too low for recommended prescribing of the study drugs. CONCLUSION: Prescribing recommendations when kidney function is reduced are not applied for many people aged ≥65 years in primary care. Using eGFR considerably overestimates kidney function for prescribing and, therefore, creatinine clearance (Cockcroft-Gault) should be assessed when prescribing for these people. Interventions are needed to aid prescribers when kidney function is reduced.

How do hospitals respond to feedback about blood transfusion practice? A multiple case study investigation.

National clinical audits play key roles in improving care and driving system-wide change. However, effects of audit and feedback depend upon both reach (e.g. relevant staff receiving the feedback) and response (e.g. staff regulating their behaviour accordingly). This study aimed to investigate which hospital staff initially receive feedback and formulate a response, how feedback is disseminated within hospitals, and how responses are enacted (including barriers and enablers to enactment). Using a multiple case study approach, we purposively sampled four UK hospitals for variation in infrastructure and resources. We conducted semi-structured interviews with staff from transfusion-related roles and observed Hospital Transfusion Committee meetings. Interviews and analysis were based on the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change. We coded interview transcripts into theoretical domains, then inductively identified themes within each domain to identify barriers and enablers. We also analysed data to identify which staff currently receive feedback and how dissemination is managed within the hospital. Members of the hospital's transfusion team initially received feedback in all cases, and were primarily responsible for disseminating and responding, facilitated through the Hospital Transfusion Committee. At each hospital, key individuals involved in prescribing transfusions reported never having received feedback from a national audit. Whether audits were discussed and actions explicitly agreed in Committee meetings varied between hospitals. Key enablers of action across all cases included clear lines of responsibility and strategies to remind staff about recommendations. Barriers included difficulties disseminating to relevant staff and needing to amend feedback to make it appropriate for local use. Appropriate responses by hospital staff to feedback about blood transfusion practice depend upon supportive infrastructures and role clarity. Hospitals could benefit from support to disseminate feedback systematically, particularly to frontline staff involved in the behaviours being audited, and practical tools to support strategic decision-making (e.g. action-planning around local response to feedback).

To what extent can behaviour change techniques be identified within an adaptable implementation package for primary care? A prospective directed content analysis.

BACKGROUND: Interpreting evaluations of complex interventions can be difficult without sufficient description of key intervention content. We aimed to develop an implementation package for primary care which could be delivered using typically available resources and could be adapted to target determinants of behaviour for each of four quality indicators: diabetes control, blood pressure control, anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation and risky prescribing. We describe the development and prospective verification of behaviour change techniques (BCTs) embedded within the adaptable implementation packages. METHODS: We used an over-lapping multi-staged process. We identified evidence-based, candidate delivery mechanisms-mainly audit and feedback, educational outreach and computerised prompts and reminders. We drew upon interviews with primary care professionals using the Theoretical Domains Framework to explore likely determinants of adherence to quality indicators. We linked determinants to candidate BCTs. With input from stakeholder panels, we prioritised likely determinants and intervention content prior to piloting the implementation packages. Our content analysis assessed the extent to which embedded BCTs could be identified within the packages and compared them across the delivery mechanisms and four quality indicators. RESULTS: Each implementation package included at least 27 out of 30 potentially applicable BCTs representing 15 of 16 BCT categories. Whilst 23 BCTs were shared across all four implementation packages (e.g. BCTs relating to feedback and comparing behaviour), some BCTs were unique to certain delivery mechanisms (e.g. 'graded tasks' and 'problem solving' for educational outreach). BCTs addressing the determinants 'environmental context' and 'social and professional roles' (e.g. 'restructuring the social and 'physical environment' and 'adding objects to the environment') were indicator specific. We found it challenging to operationalise BCTs targeting 'environmental context', 'social influences' and 'social and professional roles' within our chosen delivery mechanisms. CONCLUSION: We have demonstrated a transparent process for selecting, operationalising and verifying the BCT content in implementation packages adapted to target four quality indicators in primary care. There was considerable overlap in BCTs identified across the four indicators suggesting core BCTs can be embedded and verified within delivery mechanisms commonly available to primary care. Whilst feedback reports can include a wide range of BCTs, computerised prompts can deliver BCTs at the time of decision making, and educational outreach can allow for flexibility and individual tailoring in delivery.

Identifying effective components for mobile health behaviour change interventions for smoking cessation and service uptake: protocol of a systematic review and planned meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Mobile health (mHealth) interventions for smoking cessation have been shown to be associated with an increase in effectiveness. However, interventions using mobile phones to change people's behaviour are often perceived as complex interventions, and the interactions between several components within them may affect the outcome. Therefore, it is important to understand how we can improve the design of mHealth interventions using mobile phones as a medium to deliver services. METHODS: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of mHealth interventions to support smoking cessation or uptake of smoking cessation services for smokers will be included in this systematic review. A search will be performed by searching MEDLINE, MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and CINAHL. A search for new publications will be conducted 3 months prior to submission for publication as mHealth is an emerging area of research. A random-effects meta-analysis model will be used to summarise the effectiveness of mHealth interventions. The risk ratio will be used for the primary outcome, self-reported or verified smoking abstinence, and any binary outcomes for uptake of smoking cessation services. The standardised mean difference using Hedges' g will be reported for continuous data. Heterogeneity will be assessed using I 2 statistics. Where feasible, meta-regression analysis using random-effects multilevel modelling will be conducted to examine the association of pre-specified characteristics (covariates) at the study level with the effectiveness of interventions. Publication bias will be explored using Egger's test for continuous outcomes and Harbord and Peters tests for dichotomous outcomes. The funnel plot will be used to evaluate the presence of publication bias. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool will be used to assess differences in risks of bias. DISCUSSION: The results of this systematic review will provide future research with a foundation for designing and evaluating complex interventions that use mobile phones as a platform to deliver behaviour change techniques. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016026918 .

Variations in achievement of evidence-based, high-impact quality indicators in general practice: An observational study.

BACKGROUND: There are widely recognised variations in the delivery and outcomes of healthcare but an incomplete understanding of their causes. There is a growing interest in using routinely collected 'big data' in the evaluation of healthcare. We developed a set of evidence-based 'high impact' quality indicators (QIs) for primary care and examined variations in achievement of these indicators using routinely collected data in the United Kingdom (UK). METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of routinely collected, electronic primary care data from a sample of general practices in West Yorkshire, UK (n = 89). The QIs covered aspects of care (including processes and intermediate clinical outcomes) in relation to diabetes, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, chronic kidney disease (CKD) and 'risky' prescribing combinations. Regression models explored the impact of practice and patient characteristics. Clustering within practice was accounted for by including a random intercept for practice. RESULTS: Median practice achievement of the QIs ranged from 43.2% (diabetes control) to 72.2% (blood pressure control in CKD). Considerable between-practice variation existed for all indicators: the difference between the highest and lowest performing practices was 26.3 percentage points for risky prescribing and 100 percentage points for anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation. Odds ratios associated with the random effects for practices emphasised this; there was a greater than ten-fold difference in the likelihood of achieving the hypertension indicator between the lowest and highest performing practices. Patient characteristics, in particular age, gender and comorbidity, were consistently but modestly associated with indicator achievement. Statistically significant practice characteristics were identified less frequently in adjusted models. CONCLUSIONS: Despite various policy and improvement initiatives, there are enduring inappropriate variations in the delivery of evidence-based care. Much of this variation is not explained by routinely collected patient or practice variables, and is likely to be attributable to differences in clinical and organisational behaviour.

Enhancing the reporting of implementation research.

In the 10 years since the inception of Implementation Science, we have witnessed a continued rise in the number of submissions received, reflecting the continued global interest in methods to enhance the uptake of research findings into healthcare practice and policy. We receive over 750 submissions annually, and there is now a large gap between what is submitted and what gets published. In this editorial, we restate the journal scope and current boundaries. We also identify some specific reporting issues that if addressed will help enhance the scientific reporting quality and transparency of the manuscripts we receive. We hope that this editorial acts as a further guide to researchers seeking to publish their work in Implementation Science.

The evaluation of enhanced feedback interventions to reduce unnecessary blood transfusions (AFFINITIE): protocol for two linked cluster randomised factorial controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Blood for transfusion is a frequently used clinical intervention, and is also a costly and limited resource with risks. Many transfusions are given to stable and non-bleeding patients despite no clear evidence of benefit from clinical studies. Audit and feedback (A&F) is widely used to improve the quality of healthcare, including appropriate use of blood. However, its effects are often inconsistent, indicating the need for coordinated research including more head-to-head trials comparing different ways of delivering feedback. A programmatic series of research projects, termed the 'Audit and Feedback INterventions to Increase evidence-based Transfusion practIcE' (AFFINITIE) programme, aims to test different ways of developing and delivering feedback within an existing national audit structure. METHODS: The evaluation will comprise two linked 2×2 factorial, cross-sectional cluster-randomised controlled trials. Each trial will estimate the effects of two feedback interventions, 'enhanced content' and 'enhanced follow-on support', designed in earlier stages of the AFFINITIE programme, compared to current practice. The interventions will be embedded within two rounds of the UK National Comparative Audit of Blood Transfusion (NCABT) focusing on patient blood management in surgery and use of blood transfusions in patients with haematological malignancies. The unit of randomisation will be National Health Service (NHS) trust or health board. Clusters providing care relevant to the audit topics will be randomised following each baseline audit (separately for each trial), with stratification for size (volume of blood transfusions) and region (Regional Transfusion Committee). The primary outcome for each topic will be the proportion of patients receiving a transfusion coded as unnecessary. For each audit topic a linked, mixed-method fidelity assessment and cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted in parallel to the trial. DISCUSSION: AFFINITIE involves a series of studies to explore how A&F may be refined to change practice including two cluster randomised trials linked to national audits of transfusion practice. The methodology represents a step-wise increment in study design to more fully evaluate the effects of two enhanced feedback interventions on patient- and trust-level clinical, cost, safety and process outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN15490813.