Exploring advanced clinical practitioner perspectives on training, role identity and competence: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Advanced Clinical Practitioners (ACPs) are a new role that have been established to address gaps and support the existing medical workforce in an effort to help reduce increasing pressures on NHS services. ACPs have the potential to practice at a similar level to mid-grade medical staff, for example independently undertaking assessments, requesting and interpreting investigations, and diagnosing and discharging patients. These roles have been shown to improve both service outcomes and quality of patient care. However, there is currently no widespread formalised standard of training within the UK resulting in variations in the training experiences and clinical capabilities of ACPs. We sought to explore the training experiences of ACPs as well as their views on role identity and future development of the role. METHODS: Five online focus groups were conducted between March and May 2021 with trainee and qualified advanced clinical practitioners working in a range of healthcare settings, in the North of England. The focus groups aimed to explore the experiences of undertaking ACP training including supervision, gaining competence, role identity and career progression. Thematic analysis of the focus group transcripts was performed, informed by grounded theory principles. RESULTS: Fourteen advanced clinical practitioners participated. Analysis revealed that training was influenced by internal and external perceptions of the role, often acting as barriers, with structural aspects being significant contributory factors. Key themes identified (1) clinical training lacked structure and support, negatively impacting progress, (2) existing knowledge and experience acted as both an enabler and inhibitor, with implications for confidence, (3) the role and responsibilities are poorly understood by both advanced clinical practitioners and the wider medical profession and (4) advanced clinical practitioners recognised the value and importance of the role but felt changes were necessary, to provide security and sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate structure and support are crucial throughout the training process to enable staff to have a smooth transition to advanced level, ensuring they obtain the necessary confidence and competence. Structural changes and knowledge brokering are essential, particularly in relation to role clarity and its responsibilities, sufficient allocated time to learn and practice, role accreditation and continuous appropriate supervision.

Why is pain management so difficult in the Emergency Department? A systematic mixed studies review and thematic synthesis of staff perceptions of enablers and barriers to pain management within the Emergency Department.

INTRODUCTION: Pain is the most common presenting feature within the ED, yet undertreatment of pain in the ED is a well-documented problem worldwide. Despite the development of interventions to address this problem, there is still limited understanding of how pain management can be improved within the ED. This systematic mixed studies review aims to identify and critically synthesise research exploring staff views of barriers and enablers to pain management to understand why pain continues to be undertreated in the ED. METHODS: We systematically searched five databases for qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies reporting ED staff views of barriers and enablers to pain management in the ED. Studies were quality assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Data were extracted and qualitative themes were generated by deconstructing data then developing interpretative themes. Data were analysed using convergent qualitative synthesis design. RESULTS: We identified 15 297 articles for title/abstract review, reviewed 138 and included 24 in the results. Studies were not excluded due to low quality, although lower scoring studies contributed less data to the analysis. Quantitative surveys focused more on environmental factors (eg, high workload and bureaucratic restrictions), while qualitative studies revealed more insight about attitudes. We developed five interpretative themes from the thematic synthesis: (1) pain management is seen as important but not a clinical priority; (2) staff do not recognise the need to improve pain management; (3) the ED environment makes it difficult to improve pain management; (4) pain management is based on experience, not knowledge; and (5) staff lack trust in the patient's ability to judge pain or manage it appropriately. CONCLUSIONS: Overly focusing on environmental barriers as principal barriers to pain management may mask underlying beliefs that hinder improvements. Improving feedback on performance and addressing these beliefs may enable staff to understand how to prioritise pain management.

How could online NHS 111 reduce demand for the telephone NHS 111 service? Qualitative study of user and staff views.

BACKGROUND: Online NHS111 was introduced in 2018 in response to increasing and unsustainable demand for telephone NHS111. Despite high levels of use, there is little evidence of channel shift from the telephone to the online service. We explored user and staff perspectives of online NHS111 to understand how and why online NHS111 is used and whether there may be potential for shift from the telephone to online service. METHODS: As part of a wider mixed-methods study, we used qualitative semistructured interviews to explore perspectives of recent users of online 111 who had responded to a user survey (n=32) and NHS 111 staff (n=16) between November 2019 and June 2020. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. The data sets were analysed separately using framework analysis (user interviews) and thematic analysis (staff interviews). RESULTS: Telephone NHS111 health adviser skills in probing and obtaining 'soft information' were perceived as key to obtaining advice that was considered more appropriate and trusted than advice from online interactions, which relied on oversimplified or irrelevant questions.Online NHS111 was perceived to provide a useful and convenient adjunct to the telephone service and widened access to NHS111 services for some subgroups of users who would not otherwise access the telephone service (eg, communication barriers, social anxiety) or were concerned about 'bothering' a health professional. The nature of the online consultation meant that online NHS111 was perceived as more disposable and used more speculatively. CONCLUSION: Online 111 was perceived as a useful adjunct but not a replacement for telephone NHS 111 with potential for channel shift hindered by reduced confidence in the online service due to the lack of human interaction. Further development of OL111 algorithms will be required if it is to meet the needs of people with more complex health needs.

Research priorities for prehospital care of older patients with injuries: scoping review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: There is increasing recognition of the importance of prehospital trauma care for older patients, but little systematic research to guide practice. We aimed to review the published evidence on prehospital trauma care for older patients, determine the scope of existing research and identify research gaps in the literature. METHODS: We undertook a systematic scoping review guided by the Arksey and O'Malley framework and reported in line with the PRISMA-ScR checklist. A systematic search was conducted of Scopus, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PubMed and Cochrane library databases to identify articles published between 2001 and 2021. Study selection criteria were applied independently by two reviewers. Data were extracted, charted and summarised from eligible articles. A data-charting form was then developed to facilitate thematic analysis. Narrative synthesis then involved identifying major themes and subthemes from the data. RESULTS: We identified and reviewed 65 studies, and included 25. We identified five categories: 'field triage', 'ageing impacts', 'decision-making', 'paramedic' awareness' and 'paramedic's behaviour'. Undertriage and overtriage (sensitivity and specificity) were commonly cited as poorly investigated field-triage subthemes. Ageing-related physiologic changes, comorbidities and polypharmacy were the most widely researched. Inaccurate decision-making and poor early identification of major injuries were identified as potentially influencing patient outcomes. CONCLUSION: This is the first study reviewing the published evidence on prehospital trauma care for older patients and identifying research priorities for future research. Field-triage tools, paramedics' knowledge about injuries in the older population, and understanding of paramedics' negative behaviours towards older patients were identified as key research priorities.

What does the ideal urgent and emergency care system look like? A qualitative study of service user perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Policies aimed at diverting care from EDs to alternative services have not been successful in reducing ED attendances and have contributed to confusion for service users when making care-seeking decisions. It is important that service users are at the heart of decision making to ensure new services meet the needs of those who will be accessing them. In this study, service users were encouraged to think freely about the desirable qualities of an ideal urgent and emergency care (UEC) system. METHODS: From September to February 2019, an open inductive methodology was used to conduct focus groups with service users who had used UK UEC services within the previous year. Service users that had contact with NHS111, ambulance service, General Practice out-of-hours, minor injuries unit, walk-in centre or ED were purposively sampled and stratified into the following groups: (1) 18-45 years; (2)≥75 years; (3) adults with young children; (4) adults with long-term conditions. Focus groups were structured around experiences of accessing UEC services and perspectives of an 'ideal' UEC system. RESULTS: 30 service users took part in the study, across four focus groups. The ideal UEC system centred around three themes: a simplified UEC system (easier to understand and a single-point of access); more 'joined-up' UEC services and better communication between health staff and patients. CONCLUSION: Desirable qualities of an ideal UEC system from a service user perspective related to simplifying access for example, through a single point of access system where health professionals decide the appropriate service required and improving continuity of care through better integration of UEC services. Service users value reassurance and communication from health professionals about care pathways and care choices, and this helps service users feel more in control of their healthcare journey.

How can pain management in the emergency department be improved? Findings from multiple case study analysis of pain management in three UK emergency departments.

INTRODUCTION: Inadequate pain management in EDs is a worldwide problem, yet there has been little progress in understanding how pain management can be improved. There is only weak evidence and limited rationale to support interventions to improve pain management. We used naturalistic, qualitative methods to understand the factors that influence how pain is managed within the adult ED. METHODS: We used a multiple case study design incorporating 143-hour non-participant observation, documentary analysis and semistructured interviews with 37 staff and 19 patients at three EDs in the North of England between 2014 and 2016. We analysed data using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Our analysis demonstrated that pain management was not well aligned with the core priorities of the ED and was overlooked when other works took priority. We identified that (1) pain management was not perceived to be a key organisational priority for which staff were held accountable and staff had limited awareness of their performance, (2) pain management was not a core component of ED education and training, (3) ED processes and structures were not aligned with pain management and pain reassessment was overlooked unless staff escalated pain management outside of normal processes and (4) staff held embedded beliefs that conceptualised pain management as distinct from core priorities and limited their capacity to improve. However, EDs were able to improve pain management by aligning processes of pain management with other core works, particularly patient flow (eg, nurse-initiated analgesia at triage). IMPLICATIONS: EDs may be able to improve pain management by ensuring pain management processes align with key ED priorities. Undertaking multifaceted changes to structures and processes may enable staff to improve pain management and develop a culture in which pain management can be prioritised more easily. Future interventions need to be compatible with the wider work of the ED and enable patient flow in order to be adopted and maintained.

The Reality of Pain Scoring in the Emergency Department: Findings From a Multiple Case Study Design.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Documentation of pain severity with pain scores is recommended within emergency departments (EDs) to improve consistency of assessment and management of pain. Pain scores are used in treatment guidelines and triage algorithms to determine pain management and in audit and research to evaluate pain management practices. Despite significant debate of their benefits, there has been limited evaluation of their use in practice. We use naturalistic, qualitative methods to understand how pain scores are used in practice and the mechanisms by which pain scoring may influence pain management. METHODS: We undertook a multiple case study design, using qualitative research in 3 EDs in England (the cases). Case studies incorporated 143 hours of nonparticipant observation, documentary analysis, and semistructured interviews with 36 staff and 19 patients. Data were analyzed with thematic analysis. RESULTS: Analysis identified that ED staff used the pain score for 2 conflicting purposes: as an auditable tool for guiding patient management and as a tool for monitoring patient experience. This led to ED staff's facing conflict between reporting their own judgment of what the pain score ought to be and what the patient said it was. Staff justified recording their own judgment according to concerns of accountability and appropriateness of management decisions. Staff thought that pain scoring had value in raising awareness and prompting action. CONCLUSION: In practice, pain scoring may not accurately reflect patient experience. Using pain scoring to determine the appropriateness of triage and treatment decisions reduces its validity as a measure of patient experience. Pain scoring should not be central to audit and systems of accountability for pain management.

How consistent are pre-alert guidelines? A review of UK ambulance service guidelines.

Aims: Ambulance pre-alerts are used to inform receiving emergency departments (EDs) of the arrival of critically unwell or rapidly deteriorating patients who need time-critical assessment or treatment immediately upon arrival. Inappropriate use of pre-alerts can lead to EDs diverting resources from other critically ill patients. However, there is limited guidance about how pre-alerts should be undertaken, delivered or communicated. We aimed to map existing pre-alert guidance from UK NHS ambulance services to explore consistency and accessibility of existing guidance. Methods: We contacted all UK ambulance services to request documentation containing guidance about pre-alerts. We reviewed and mapped all guidance to understand which conditions were recommended for a pre-alert and alignment with Association of Ambulance Chief Executives (AACE) and Royal College of Emergency Medicine (RCEM) pre-alert guidance. We reviewed the language and accessibility of guidance using the AGREE II tool. Results: We received responses from 15/19 UK ambulance services and 10 stated that they had specific pre-alert guidance. We identified noticeable variations in conditions declared suitable for pre-alerts in each service, with a lack of consistency within each ambulance service's own guidance, and a lack of alignment with the AACE/RCEM pre-alert guidance. Services listed between four and 45 different conditions suitable for pre-alert. There were differences in physiological thresholds and terminology, even for conditions with established care pathways (e.g. hyperacute stroke, ST segment elevation myocardial infarction). Pre-alert criteria were typically listed in several short sections in lengthy handover procedure policy documents. Documents appraised were of poor quality with low scores below 35% for applicability and overall. Implications: There is a clear need for ambulance services to have both policies and tools that complement each other and incorporate the same list of pre-alertable conditions. Clinicians need a single, easily accessible document to refer to in a time-critical situation to reduce the risk of making an incorrect pre-alert decision.

Estimating the value of future research into thromboprophylaxis for women during pregnancy and after delivery: a value of information analysis.

BACKGROUND: Risk assessment models (RAMs) are used to select women at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) during pregnancy and the puerperium for thromboprophylaxis. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the value of potential future studies that would reduce the decision uncertainty associated with offering thromboprophylaxis according to available RAMs in the following groups: high-risk antepartum women (eg, prior VTE), unselected postpartum women, and postpartum women with risk factors (obesity or cesarean delivery). METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed to simulate clinical outcomes, lifetime costs, and quality-adjusted life-years for different thromboprophylaxis strategies, including thromboprophylaxis for all, thromboprophylaxis for none, and RAM-based thromboprophylaxis. The expected value of perfect information analysis was used to determine which factors are associated with high decision uncertainty. The value of future research studies was estimated using expected value of sample information analysis. Costs were assessed from a health and social services perspective. RESULTS: The expected value of perfect information analysis identified high decision uncertainty for high-risk antepartum women (£21.8 million) and obese postpartum women (£13.4 million), which was largely attributable to uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis in reducing VTE. A randomized controlled trial of thromboprophylaxis compared with none in obese postpartum women is likely to have substantial value (£2.8 million; 300 participants per arm). A trial in women with previous VTE would have higher value but would be less acceptable. CONCLUSION: Future research should focus on estimating the effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis in obese postpartum women with additional risk factors who have not had a previous VTE.

Thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy and the puerperium: a systematic review and economic evaluation to estimate the value of future research.

Background: Pharmacological prophylaxis to prevent venous thromboembolism is currently recommended for women assessed as being at high risk of venous thromboembolism during pregnancy or in the 6 weeks after delivery (the puerperium). The decision to provide thromboprophylaxis involves weighing the benefits, harms and costs, which vary according to the individual's venous thromboembolism risk. It is unclear whether the United Kingdom's current risk stratification approach could be improved by further research. Objectives: To quantify the current decision uncertainty associated with selecting women who are pregnant or in the puerperium for thromboprophylaxis and to estimate the value of one or more potential future studies that would reduce that uncertainty, while being feasible and acceptable to patients and clinicians. Methods: A decision-analytic model was developed which was informed by a systematic review of risk assessment models to predict venous thromboembolism in women who are pregnant or in the puerperium. Expected value of perfect information analysis was used to determine which factors are associated with high decision uncertainty and should be the target of future research. To find out whether future studies would be acceptable and feasible, we held workshops with women who have experienced a blood clot or have been offered blood-thinning drugs and surveyed healthcare professionals. Expected value of sample information analysis was used to estimate the value of potential future research studies. Results: The systematic review included 17 studies, comprising 19 unique externally validated risk assessment models and 1 internally validated model. Estimates of sensitivity and specificity were highly variable ranging from 0% to 100% and 5% to 100%, respectively. Most studies had unclear or high risk of bias and applicability concerns. The decision analysis found that there is substantial decision uncertainty regarding the use of risk assessment models to select high-risk women for antepartum prophylaxis and obese postpartum women for postpartum prophylaxis. The main source of decision uncertainty was uncertainty around the effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis for preventing venous thromboembolism in women who are pregnant or in the puerperium. We found that a randomised controlled trial of thromboprophylaxis in obese postpartum women is likely to have substantial value and is more likely to be acceptable and feasible than a trial recruiting women who have had a previous venous thromboembolism. In unselected postpartum women and women following caesarean section, the poor performance of risk assessment models meant that offering prophylaxis based on these models had less favourable cost effectiveness with lower decision uncertainty. Limitations: The performance of the risk assessment model for obese postpartum women has not been externally validated. Conclusions: Future research should focus on estimating the efficacy of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in pregnancy and the puerperium, and clinical trials would be more acceptable in women who have not had a previous venous thromboembolism. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020221094. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR131021) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 9. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Women who are pregnant or who have given birth in the previous 6 weeks are at increased risk of developing blood clots that can cause serious illness or death. Small doses of blood thinners given by injection are safe in pregnancy and can reduce the risk of blood clots, but they can slightly increase the risk of bleeding. Healthcare professionals use risk assessment tools to decide if a woman is at high risk of blood clots and should be offered blood thinners. We wanted to find out what research would be useful to help them make better decisions. We reviewed previous research to establish which risk assessment tools are best at predicting who will have a blood clot. We then created a mathematical model to predict what would happen when using different risk assessment tools to decide who should be offered blood thinners, both during pregnancy and after giving birth. We found that there was a lot of uncertainty about which women should be offered blood thinners. This was mainly because there have only been a few small studies comparing blood thinners to no treatment in pregnant women or women who have recently given birth. We estimated the value of future studies comparing blood thinners to no treatment, in groups of women with different risk factors, by predicting what information we would gain and how this would be used to improve decisions about using blood thinners. To find out whether these studies would be acceptable and feasible, we held workshops with women who have experienced a blood clot or have been offered blood thinners and surveyed healthcare professionals. We found that a study in obese women who have recently given birth would have substantial value and may be more acceptable than a study in pregnant women with a previous blood clot.

Stakeholder perspectives of piloting pre-hospital COVID-19 lateral flow testing and direct admissions pathway: exploring why well-received ideas have low uptake.

Introduction: In January 2021, Yorkshire Ambulance Service and Hull University Teaching Hospitals implemented a pilot COVID-19 lateral flow testing (LFT) and direct admissions pathway to assess the feasibility of using pre-hospital LFTs to bypass the emergency department. Due to lower than anticipated uptake of the pilot among paramedics, we undertook a process evaluation to assess reasons for low uptake and perceived potential benefits and risks associated with the pilot. Methods: We undertook semi-structured telephone interviews with 12 paramedics and hospital staff. We aimed to interview paramedics who had taken part in the pilot, those who had received the project information but not taken part and ward staff receiving patients from the pilot. We transcribed interviews verbatim and analysed data using thematic analysis. Results: Participation in the pilot appeared to be positively influenced by high personal capacity for undertaking research (being 'research-keen') and negatively influenced by 'COVID-19 exhaustion', electronic information overload and lack of time for training. Barriers to use of the pathway related to 'poor timing' of the pilot, restrictive patient eligibility and inclusion criteria. The rapid rollout meant that paramedics had limited knowledge or awareness of the pilot, and pilot participants reported poor understanding of the pilot criteria or the rationale for the criteria. Participants who were involved in the pilot were overwhelmingly positive about the intervention, which they perceived as having limited risks and high potential benefits to the health service, patients and themselves, and supported future roll-out. Conclusions: Ambulance clinician involvement in rapid research pilots may be improved by using multiple recruitment methods (electronic and other), providing protected time for training and increased direct support for paramedics with lower personal capacity for research. Improved communication (including face-to-face approaches) may help understanding of eligibility criteria and increase appropriate recruitment.

Noninvasive ventilation in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema.

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive ventilation (continuous positive airway pressure [CPAP] or noninvasive intermittent positive-pressure ventilation [NIPPV]) appears to be of benefit in the immediate treatment of patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema and may reduce mortality. We conducted a study to determine whether noninvasive ventilation reduces mortality and whether there are important differences in outcome associated with the method of treatment (CPAP or NIPPV). METHODS: In a multicenter, open, prospective, randomized, controlled trial, patients were assigned to standard oxygen therapy, CPAP (5 to 15 cm of water), or NIPPV (inspiratory pressure, 8 to 20 cm of water; expiratory pressure, 4 to 10 cm of water). The primary end point for the comparison between noninvasive ventilation and standard oxygen therapy was death within 7 days after the initiation of treatment, and the primary end point for the comparison between NIPPV and CPAP was death or intubation within 7 days. RESULTS: A total of 1069 patients (mean [+/-SD] age, 77.7+/-9.7 years; female sex, 56.9%) were assigned to standard oxygen therapy (367 patients), CPAP (346 patients), or NIPPV (356 patients). There was no significant difference in 7-day mortality between patients receiving standard oxygen therapy (9.8%) and those undergoing noninvasive ventilation (9.5%, P=0.87). There was no significant difference in the combined end point of death or intubation within 7 days between the two groups of patients undergoing noninvasive ventilation (11.7% for CPAP and 11.1% for NIPPV, P=0.81). As compared with standard oxygen therapy, noninvasive ventilation was associated with greater mean improvements at 1 hour after the beginning of treatment in patient-reported dyspnea (treatment difference, 0.7 on a visual-analogue scale ranging from 1 to 10; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2 to 1.3; P=0.008), heart rate (treatment difference, 4 beats per minute; 95% CI, 1 to 6; P=0.004), acidosis (treatment difference, pH 0.03; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.04; P<0.001), and hypercapnia (treatment difference, 0.7 kPa [5.2 mm Hg]; 95% CI, 0.4 to 0.9; P<0.001). There were no treatment-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema, noninvasive ventilation induces a more rapid improvement in respiratory distress and metabolic disturbance than does standard oxygen therapy but has no effect on short-term mortality. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN07448447.)

Health utility and survival after hospital admission with acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to measure health utility and survival in patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema (ACPO), identify predictors of outcome and determine the effect of initial treatment with non-invasive ventilation (NIV) upon outcomes. METHODS: A randomised controlled trial was conducted at 26 hospitals in the UK. 1069 adults with ACPO were randomised to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) or standard oxygen therapy. The main outcome measures were survival to 1-5 years, health utility measured using the EQ-5D survey at 1, 3 and 6 months, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: Median survival was 771 days (95% CI 669 to 875), with no difference between the three treatment groups (p = 0.827). Age (HR 1.042, 95% CI 1.031 to 1.052), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.62), cerebrovascular disease (HR 1.41, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.73) and diabetes mellitus (HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.63) independently predicted mortality. Mean EQ-5D scores were 0.578, 0.576 and 0.582 at 1, 3 and 6 months, respectively, with no significant difference between the treatment groups. Male gender (+0.045 QALYs, 95% CI 0.009 to 0.081) and cerebrovascular disease (-0.080 QALYs, 95% CI -0.131 to -0.029) independently predicted health utility. CONCLUSION: Patients with ACPO have high mortality and reduced health utility. Initial treatment with CPAP or NIPPV does not alter subsequent survival or health utility.

The impact of Advanced Access on antibiotic prescribing: a controlled before and after study.

Advanced Access practices provide quicker access to appointments and this may lead to patients being seen earlier in the course of acute self-limiting illnesses, and therefore increased antibiotic prescribing. We examined the impact of Advanced Access on antibiotic prescribing. We undertook a controlled before and after study in 24 Advanced Access and 24 control practices, examining monthly antibiotic prescribing data. We found no significant change in prescribing rates between Advanced Access and control practices. There was no evidence that Advanced Access alters antibiotic prescribing behaviour.

Is primary angioplasty an acceptable alternative to thrombolysis? Quantitative and qualitative study of patient and carer satisfaction.

OBJECTIVE: The National Infarct Angioplasty Project assessed the feasibility of establishing a comprehensive primary angioplasty service. We aimed to compare satisfaction at intervention hospitals offering angioplasty-based care and control hospitals offering thrombolysis-based care. DESIGN: Mixed methods, with postal survey of patients and their carers, supported by semi-structured interviews. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Survey of 682 patients and 486 carers, and interviews with 33 patients and carers, in eight English hospitals. INTERVENTIONS: Primary angioplasty or thrombolysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Satisfaction with treatment. RESULTS: Responses were received from 595/682 patients (87%) and 418/486 carers (86%). Satisfaction with overall care was high at both intervention and control sites (78% vs. 71% patients rated their care as 'excellent', P = 0.074). Patient satisfaction was higher at intervention sites for some aspects of care such as speed of treatment (80% vs. 67%'excellent', P = 0.001). Convenience of visiting was rated lower at intervention sites by carers (12% vs. 1%'poor', P = 0.001). During interviews, carers reported that they accepted the added inconvenience of visiting primary angioplasty sites in the context of this life-saving treatment. Patient satisfaction with discharge and aftercare was lower in both treatment groups than for other aspects of care. CONCLUSIONS: Reorganization of care to offer a primary angioplasty service was acceptable to patients and their carers. Satisfaction levels were high regardless of the type of care received, with the exception of discharge and aftercare.

Protocol for Take-home naloxone In Multicentre Emergency (TIME) settings: feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Opioids, such as heroin, kill more people worldwide by overdose than any other type of drug, and death rates associated with opioid poisoning in the UK are at record levels (World Drug Report 2018 [Internet]. [cited 2019 Nov 19]. Available from: http://www.unodc.org/wdr2018/; Deaths related to drug poisoning in England and Wales - Office for National Statistics [Internet]. [cited 2019 Nov 19]. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsrelatedtodrugpoisoninginenglandandwales/2018registrations). Naloxone is an opioid antagonist which can be distributed in 'kits' for administration by witnesses in an overdose emergency. This intervention is known as take-home naloxone (THN). We know that THN can save lives on an individual level, but there is currently limited evidence about the effectiveness of THN distribution on an aggregate level, in specialist drug service settings or in emergency service settings. Notably, we do not know whether THN kits reduce deaths from opioid overdose in at-risk populations, if there are unforeseen harms associated with THN distribution or if THN is cost-effective. In order to address this research gap, we aim to determine the feasibility of a fully powered cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) of THN distribution in emergency settings. METHODS: We will carry out a feasibility study for a RCT of THN distributed in emergency settings at four sites, clustered by Emergency Department (ED) and catchment area within its associated ambulance service. THN is a peer-administered intervention. At two intervention sites, emergency ambulance paramedics and ED clinical staff will distribute THN to adult patients who are at risk of opioid overdose. At two control sites, practice will carry on as usual. We will develop a method of identifying a population to include in an evaluation, comprising people at risk of fatal opioid overdose, who may potentially receive naloxone included in a THN kit.We will gather anonymised outcomes up to 1 year following a 12-month 'live' trial period for patients at risk of death from opioid poisoning. We expect approximately 100 patients at risk of opioid overdose to be in contact with each service during the 1-year recruitment period. Our outcomes will include deaths, emergency admissions, intensive care admissions, and ED attendances. We will collect numbers of eligible patients attended by participating in emergency ambulance paramedics and attending ED, THN kits issued, and NHS resource usage. We will determine whether to progress to a fully powered trial based on pre-specified progression criteria: sign-up of sites (n = 4), staff trained (≥ 50%), eligible participants identified (≥ 50%), THN provided to eligible participants (≥ 50%), people at risk of death from opioid overdose identified for inclusion in follow-up (≥ 75% of overdose deaths), outcomes retrieved for high-risk individuals (≥ 75%), and adverse event rate (< 10% difference between study arms). DISCUSSION: This feasibility study is the first randomised, methodologically robust investigation of THN distribution in emergency settings. The study addresses an evidence gap related to the effectiveness of THN distribution in emergency settings. As this study is being carried out in emergency settings, obtaining informed consent on behalf of participants is not feasible. We therefore employ novel methods for identifying participants and capturing follow-up data, with effectiveness dependent on the quality of the available routine data. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN13232859 (Registered 16/02/2018).

Impact of same-day appointments on patient satisfaction with general practice appointment systems.

Following recent concerns about patients' inability to book appointments in advance, this study examined the relationship between the proportion of GP appointments reserved for same-day booking, and patient satisfaction with appointment systems. In a survey of 12,825 patients in 47 practices, it was found that a 10% increase in the proportion of same-day appointments was associated with an 8% reduction in the proportion of patients satisfied. Practices should be wary of increasing the level of same-day appointments to meet access targets.

Does Advanced Access improve access to primary health care? Questionnaire survey of patients.

BACKGROUND: General practices in England have been encouraged to introduce Advanced Access, but there is no robust evidence that this is associated with improved access in ways that matter to patients. AIM: To compare priorities and experiences of patients consulting in practices which do or do not operate Advanced Access. DESIGN OF STUDY: Patient questionnaire survey. SETTING: Forty-seven practices in 12 primary care trust areas of England. METHOD: Questionnaire administered when patients consulted. RESULTS: Of 12,825 eligible patients, 10,821 (84%) responded. Most (70%) were consulting about a problem they had had for at least 'a few weeks'. Patients obtained their current appointment sooner in Advanced Access practices, but were less likely to have been able to book in advance. They could usually see a doctor more quickly than those in control practices, but were no more satisfied overall with the appointment system. The top priority for patients was to be seen on a day of choice rather than to be seen quickly, but different patient groups had different priorities. Patients in Advanced Access practices were no more or less likely to obtain an appointment that matched their priorities than those in control practices. Patients in both types of practice experienced problems making contact by telephone. CONCLUSION: Patients are seen more quickly in Advanced Access practices, but speed of access is less important to patients than choice of appointment; this may be because most consultations are about long-standing problems. Appointment systems need to be flexible to accommodate the different needs of different patient groups.