An exploration of the experiences and self-generated strategies used when navigating everyday life with Long Covid.

BACKGROUND: Around one in ten people who contract Covid-19 report ongoing symptoms or 'Long Covid'. Without any known interventions to cure the condition, forms of self-management are routinely prescribed by healthcare professionals and described by people with the condition. However, there is limited research exploring what strategies are used to navigate everyday life with Long Covid, and experiences that initiate development of these strategies. Our study aimed to explore the range and influence of self-generated strategies used by people with Long Covid to navigate everyday life within the context of their own condition. METHODS: Forming part of the Long Covid Personalised Self-managemenT support co-design and EvaluatioN (LISTEN) project, we conducted a qualitative study using narrative interviews with adults who were not hospitalised with Covid-19. Participants aged over 18 years, who self-identified with Long Covid, were recruited from England and Wales. Data were analysed with patient contributors using a reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Eighteen participants (mean age = 44 years, SD = 13 years) took part in interviews held between December 2021 and February 2022. Themes were constructed which depicted 1) the landscape behind the Long Covid experience and 2) the everyday experience of participants' Long Covid. The everyday experience comprised a combination of physical, emotional, and social factors, forming three sub-themes: centrality of physical symptoms, navigating 'experts' and the 'true colour' of personal communities, and a rollercoaster of psychological ambiguity). The third theme, personal strategies to manage everyday life was constructed from participants' unique presentations and self-generated solutions to manage everyday life. This comprised five sub-themes: seeking reassurance and knowledge, developing greater self-awareness through monitoring, trial and error of 'safe' ideas, building in pleasure and comfort, and prioritising 'me'. CONCLUSIONS: Among this sample of adults with Long Covid, their experiences highlighted the unpredictable nature of the condition but also the use of creative and wide ranging self-generated strategies. The results offer people with Long Covid, and healthcare professionals supporting them, an overview of the collective evidence relating to individuals' self-management which can enable ways to live 'better' and regain some sense of identity whilst facing the impact of a debilitating, episodic condition. TRIAL REGISTRATION: LISTEN ISRCTN36407216.

Programme theories to describe how different general practitioner service models work in different contexts in or alongside emergency departments (GP-ED): realist evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Addressing increasing patient demand and improving ED patient flow is a key ambition for NHS England. Delivering general practitioner (GP) services in or alongside EDs (GP-ED) was advocated in 2017 for this reason, supported by £100 million (US$130 million) of capital funding. Current evidence shows no overall improvement in addressing demand and reducing waiting times, but considerable variation in how different service models operate, subject to local context. METHODS: We conducted mixed-methods analysis using inductive and deductive approaches for qualitative (observations, interviews) and quantitative data (time series analyses of attendances, reattendances, hospital admissions, length of stay) based on previous research using a purposive sample of 13 GP-ED service models (3 inside-integrated, 4 inside-parallel service, 3 outside-onsite and 3 with no GPs) in England and Wales. We used realist methodology to understand the relationship between contexts, mechanisms and outcomes to develop programme theories about how and why different GP-ED service models work. RESULTS: GP-ED service models are complex, with variation in scope and scale of the service, influenced by individual, departmental and external factors. Quantitative data were of variable quality: overall, no reduction in attendances and waiting times, a mixed picture for hospital admissions and length of hospital stay. Our programme theories describe how the GP-ED service models operate: inside the ED, integrated with patient flow and general ED demand, with a wider GP role than usual primary care; outside the ED, addressing primary care demand with an experienced streaming nurse facilitating the 'right patients' are streamed to the GP; or within the ED as a parallel service with most variability in the level of integration and GP role. CONCLUSION: GP-ED services are complex . Our programme theories inform recommendations on how services could be modified in particular contexts to address local demand, or whether alternative healthcare services should be considered.

Emergency medical service interventions and experiences during pandemics: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The global impact of COVID-19 has been profound, with efforts to manage and contain the virus placing increased pressure on healthcare systems and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) in particular. There has been no previous review of studies investigating EMS interventions or experiences during pandemics. The aim of this scoping review was to identify and present published quantitative and qualitative evidence of EMS pandemic interventions, and how this translates into practice. METHODS: Six electronic databases were searched from inception to July 2022, supplemented with internet searches and forward and backward citation tracking from included studies and review articles. A narrative synthesis of all eligible quantitative studies was performed and structured around the aims, key findings, as well as intervention type and content, where appropriate. Data from the qualitative studies were also synthesised narratively and presented thematically, according to their main aims and key findings. RESULTS: The search strategy identified a total of 22,599 citations and after removing duplicates and excluding citations based on title and abstract, and full text screening, 90 studies were included. The quantitative narrative synthesis included seven overarching themes, describing EMS pandemic preparedness plans and interventions implemented in response to pandemics. The qualitative data synthesis included five themes, detailing the EMS workers' experiences of providing care during pandemics, their needs and their suggestions for best practices moving forward. CONCLUSIONS: Despite concerns for their own and their families' safety and the many challenges they are faced with, especially their knowledge, training, lack of appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and constant protocol changes, EMS personnel were willing and prepared to report for duty during pandemics. Participants also made recommendations for future outbreak response, which should be taken into consideration in order for EMS to cope with the current pandemic and to better prepare to respond to any future ones. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The review protocol was registered with the Open Science Framework (osf.io/2pcy7).

Nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy in primary care for adults with insomnia disorder: a mixed-methods process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Sleep restriction therapy (SRT) is a behavioural therapy for insomnia. AIM: To conduct a process evaluation of a randomised controlled trial comparing SRT delivered by primary care nurses plus a sleep hygiene booklet with the sleep hygiene booklet only for adults with insomnia disorder. DESIGN AND SETTING: A mixed-methods process evaluation in a general practice setting. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were conducted in a purposive sample of patients receiving SRT, the practice nurses who delivered the therapy, and also GPs or practice managers at the participating practices. Qualitative data were explored using framework analysis, and integrated with nurse comments and quantitative data, including baseline Insomnia Severity Index score and serial sleep efficiency outcomes to investigate the relationships between these. RESULTS: In total, 16 patients, 13 nurses, six practice managers, and one GP were interviewed. Patients had no previous experience of behavioural therapy, needed flexible appointment times, and preferred face-to-face consultations; nurses felt prepared to deliver SRT, accommodating patient concerns, tailoring therapy, and negotiating sleep timings despite treatment complexity and delays between training and intervention delivery. How the intervention produced change was explored, including patient and nurse interactions and patient responses to SRT. Difficulties maintaining SRT, negative attitudes towards treatment, and low self-efficacy were highlighted. Contextual factors, including freeing GP time, time constraints, and conflicting priorities for nurses, with suggestions for alternative delivery options, were raised. Participants who found SRT a positive process showed improvements in sleep efficiency, whereas those who struggled did not. CONCLUSION: SRT was successfully delivered by practice nurses and was generally well received by patients, despite some difficulties delivering and applying the intervention in practice.

Community First Responders' role in the current and future rural health and care workforce: a mixed-methods study.

Background: Community First Responders are trained volunteers dispatched by ambulance services to potentially life-threatening emergencies such as cardiac arrest in the first vital minutes to provide care until highly skilled ambulance staff arrive. Community First Responder schemes were first introduced to support ambulance services in rural communities, where access to prehospital emergency care is more likely to be delayed. Evidence is lacking on their contribution to rural healthcare provision, how care is provided and how this might be improved. Objectives: We aimed to describe Community First Responder activities, organisation, costs of provision and outcomes of care together with perceptions and views of patients, public, Community First Responders, ambulance service staff and commissioners of their current and future role including innovations in the rural health and care workforce. Design: We used a mixed-methods design, using a lens of pragmatism and the 'actor', 'behaviour change' and 'causal pathway' framework to integrate quantitative routine and qualitative (policy, guideline and protocol documents with stakeholder interview) data from 6 of 10 English ambulance services. We identified potential innovations in Community First Responder provision and prioritised these using a modified nominal group technique. Patients and public were involved throughout the study. Results: In 4.5 million incidents from six English regional ambulance services during 2019, pre COVID-19 pandemic, Community First Responders attended first a higher proportion of calls in rural areas (almost 4% of calls) than in urban areas (around 1.5%). They were significantly more likely to be called out to rural (vs. urban) areas and to attend older (vs. younger), white (vs. minority ethnic) people in more affluent (vs. deprived) areas with cardiorespiratory and neurological (vs. other emergency) conditions for higher-priority emergency or urgent (category 1 and 2 compared with category 3, 4 or 5) calls but did also attend lower-category calls for conditions such as falls. We examined 10 documents from seven ambulance services. Ambulance policies and protocols integrated Community First Responders into ambulance service structures to achieve the safe and effective operation of volunteers. Costs, mainly for training, equipment and support, varied widely but were not always clearly delineated. Community First Responders enabled a faster prehospital response time. There was no clear benefit in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes. A specific Community First Responder falls response reduced ambulance attendances and was potentially cost saving. We conducted semistructured interviews with 47 different stakeholders engaged in Community First Responder functions. This showed the trajectory of becoming a Community First Responder, the Community First Responder role, governance and practice, and the positive views of Community First Responders from stakeholders despite public lack of understanding of their role. Community First Responders' scope of practice varied between ambulance services and had developed into new areas. Innovations prioritised at the consensus workshop were changes in processes and structures and an expanded scope of practice supported by training, which included counselling, peer support, better communication with the control room, navigation and communication technology, and specific mandatory and standardised training for Community First Responders. Limitations: Missing data and small numbers of interviews in some stakeholder groups (patients, commissioners) are sources of bias. Future research: Future research should include a robust evaluation of innovations involving Community First Responders. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04279262. 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: NIHR127920) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 18. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Community First Responders are volunteers who attend emergencies, particularly in rural areas, and provide help until the ambulance arrives. We aimed to describe Community First Responder activities, costs and effects and get the views of the public, Community First Responders, ambulance staff and commissioners on the current and future role of Community First Responders. Our study design combined different approaches. We examined routine ambulance patient information, reviewed ambulance policies and guidelines, and gathered information from interviews to make sense of our findings. Through interviews we learned about ways that the work of Community First Responders had been enhanced or could be improved. In a 1-day workshop, a group of lay and professional experts ranked in order of importance ideas about future developments involving Community First Responders. Community First Responders arrived before ambulance staff for a higher proportion of calls in rural than in urban areas. They attended people with various conditions, including breathing problems, chest pain, stroke, drowsiness, diabetes and falls, and usually the highest-priority emergencies but also lower-priority calls. Policies aimed to ensure that Community First Responders provided safe, effective care. Costs, mainly used for management, training and equipment, were sometimes incomplete or inaccurate and varied widely between services. Community First Responders attending meant faster responses and positive experiences for those patients and relatives interviewed. A Community First Responder scheme responding to people who had fallen at home led to fewer ambulances attending and possible financial savings. Survival among people attended because their heart had stopped was no better when Community First Responders arrived early. Interviews revealed why and how Community First Responders volunteered and were trained, what they did and how they felt. Interviewees were largely positive about Community First Responders. Improvements suggested included support from colleagues or counsellors, better communication with ambulance services, technology for communication and locating patients, and better training. Community First Responders have benefits in terms of response times and patient care. Future improvements should be evaluated.

Evaluation of different models of general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments: a mixed-methods realist evaluation.

Background: Emergency healthcare services are under intense pressure to meet increasing patient demands. Many patients presenting to emergency departments could be managed by general practitioners in general practitioner-emergency department service models. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness, safety, patient experience and system implications of the different general practitioner-emergency department models. Design: Mixed-methods realist evaluation. Methods: Phase 1 (2017-8), to understand current practice: rapid realist literature review, national survey and follow-up key informant interviews, national stakeholder event and safety data analysis. Phase 2 (2018-21), to collect and analyse qualitative (observations, interviews) and quantitative data (time series analysis); cost-consequences analysis of routine data; and case site data for 'marker condition' analysis from a purposive sample of 13 case sites in England and Wales. Phase 3 (2021-2), to conduct mixed-methods analysis for programme theory and toolkit development. Results: General practitioners commonly work in emergency departments, but delivery models vary widely in terms of the scope of the general practitioner role and the scale of the general practitioner service. We developed a taxonomy to describe general practitioner-emergency department service models (Integrated with the emergency department service, Parallel within the emergency department, Outside the emergency department on the hospital site) and present a programme theory as principal output of the study to describe how these service models were observed to operate. Routine data were of variable quality, limiting our analysis. Time series analysis demonstrated trends across intervention sites for: increased time spent in the emergency department; increased emergency department attendances and reattendances; and mixed results for hospital admissions. Evidence on patient experience was limited but broadly supportive; we identified department-level processes to optimise the safety of general practitioner-emergency department models. Limitations: The quality, heterogeneity and extent of routine emergency department data collection during the study period limited the conclusions. Recruitment was limited by criteria for case sites (time series requirements) and individual patients (with 'marker conditions'). Pandemic and other pressures limited data collection for marker condition analysis. Data collected and analysed were pre pandemic; new approaches such as 'telephone first' and their relevance to our findings remains unexplored. Conclusion: Findings suggest that general practitioner-emergency department service models do not meet the aim of reducing the overall emergency department waiting times and improving patient flow with limited evidence of cost savings. Qualitative data indicated that general practitioners were often valued as members of the wider emergency department team. We have developed a toolkit, based on our findings, to provide guidance for implementing and delivering general practitioner-emergency department services. Future work: The emergency care data set has since been introduced across England to help standardise data collection to facilitate further research. We would advocate the systematic capture of patient experience measures and patient-reported outcome measures as part of routine care. More could be done to support the development of the general practitioner in emergency department role, including a core set of competencies and governance structure, to reflect the different general practitioner-emergency department models and to evaluate the effectiveness and cost effectiveness to guide future policy. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017069741. 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: 15/145/04) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 10. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Hospital emergency departments are under huge pressure. Patients are waiting many hours to be seen, some with problems that general practitioners could deal with. To reduce waiting times and improve patient care, arrangements have been put in place for general practitioners to work in or alongside emergency departments (general practitioner­emergency department models). We studied the different ways of working to find out what works well, how and for whom. We brought together a lot of information. We reviewed existing evidence, sent out surveys to 184 emergency departments, spent time in the emergency departments observing how they operated and interviewing 106 staff in 13 hospitals and 24 patients who visited those emergency departments. We also looked at statistical information recorded by hospitals. Two public contributors were involved from the beginning, and we held two stakeholder events to ensure the relevance of our research to professionals and patients. Getting reliable figures to compare the various general practitioner­emergency department set-ups (inside, parallel to or outside the emergency department) was difficult. Our findings suggest that over time more people are coming to emergency departments and overall waiting times did not generally improve due to general practitioner­emergency department models. Evidence that general practitioners might admit fewer patients to hospital was mixed, with limited findings of cost savings. Patients were generally supportive of the care they received, although we could not speak to as many patients as we planned. The skills and experience of general practitioners were often valued as members of the wider emergency department team. We identified how the care provided was kept safe with: strong leaders, good communication between different types of staff, highly trained and experienced nurses responsible for streaming and specific training for general practitioners on how they were expected to work. We have produced a guide to help professionals develop and improve general practitioner­emergency department services and we have written easy-to-read summaries of all the articles we published.

Co-Design of a Reusable Learning Object (RLO) to Address Caregiver Responsive Infant Feeding Behaviours (CRIB) to Prevent Childhood Obesity: A Mixed-Method Protocol.

Responsive infant feeding is a key strategy for childhood obesity prevention. Responsive feeding involves caregivers responding to infant hunger and satiety cues in a timely and developmentally appropriate manner. There is a dearth of evidence-based information and guidance for caregivers on how to responsively feed their infants. The aim of this research is to co-design a Reusable Learning Object (RLO) and guidance infographic to improve caregiver awareness, understanding and use of responsive infant feeding behaviours. The Capability, Opportunity, Motivation and Behaviour (COM-B) model of behaviour change and the Aim, Storyboarding, Populate specification, Implement media, Review and release prototype, and Evaluate (ASPIRE) approach for digital intervention co-design will be utilised. Four co-design workshops with caregivers of infants and healthcare professionals (HCPs) will determine priority RLO content. Content analysis will enable RLO development and process reporting. Formative and summative surveys will be conducted to evaluate the usability of the RLO, its impact on caregivers and its potential implementation into NHS care pathways. The output will be a RLO on responsive feeding for caregivers and an infographic for HCPs/support workers which will contribute to a future obesity prevention intervention. The findings will be disseminated to stakeholders and submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.