The quality of care delivered to residents in long-term care in Australia: an indicator-based review of resident records (CareTrack Aged study).

BACKGROUND: This study estimated the prevalence of evidence-based care received by a population-based sample of Australian residents in long-term care (LTC) aged ≥ 65 years in 2021, measured by adherence to clinical practice guideline (CPG) recommendations. METHODS: Sixteen conditions/processes of care amendable to estimating evidence-based care at a population level were identified from prevalence data and CPGs. Candidate recommendations (n = 5609) were extracted from 139 CPGs which were converted to indicators. National experts in each condition rated the indicators via the RAND-UCLA Delphi process. For the 16 conditions, 236 evidence-based care indicators were ratified. A multi-stage sampling of LTC facilities and residents was undertaken. Trained aged-care nurses then undertook manual structured record reviews of care delivered between 1 March and 31 May 2021 (our record review period) to assess adherence with the indicators. RESULTS: Care received by 294 residents with 27,585 care encounters in 25 LTC facilities was evaluated. Residents received care for one to thirteen separate clinical conditions/processes of care (median = 10, mean = 9.7). Adherence to evidence-based care indicators was estimated at 53.2% (95% CI: 48.6, 57.7) ranging from a high of 81.3% (95% CI: 75.6, 86.3) for Bladder and Bowel to a low of 12.2% (95% CI: 1.6, 36.8) for Depression. Six conditions (skin integrity, end-of-life care, infection, sleep, medication, and depression) had less than 50% adherence with indicators. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study of adherence to evidence-based care for people in LTC using multiple conditions and a standardised method. Vulnerable older people are not receiving evidence-based care for many physical problems, nor care to support their mental health nor for end-of-life care. The six conditions in which adherence with indicators was less than 50% could be the focus of improvement efforts.

The validity of instruments to measure knowledge in population-based cancer screening targeting individuals at average risk - A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Relevant knowledge is essential for informed choices about (non)participation in population-based cancer screening. Many instruments have been proposed to assess residents' knowledge about cancer screening programmes but their measurement properties are unknown. This systematic review aims to identify and critically evaluate the measurement properties of instruments to measure knowledge about cancer screening in individuals eligible for population-based screening. METHODS: A literature search was undertaken in PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science in August 2023. The review included any study reporting one or more measurement properties of the questionnaire or sub-scale used measuring knowledge of cancer screening including breast, colorectal and/or cervical cancer screening. Studies including males aged 45 or older and females aged 20 or older were included. Two independent reviewers screened the articles and assessed the included articles using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN). RESULTS: We included 24 instruments, which varied in number and characteristics of items. All instruments were assessed as having an inadequate instrument development. The results of structural validity, internal consistency, criterion validity and reliability were assessed as indeterminate, while construct validity and responsiveness were assessed as sufficient. CONCLUSION: This systematic review identified no instruments to measure knowledge about cancer screening where the measurement properties were sufficiently evaluated. There is a lack of focus on content validity and structural validity, and further validation of the instruments is needed. The results indicate a lack of shared understanding or agreement of what constitutes relevant knowledge about cancer screening.

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.

Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on incidence of long-term conditions in Welsh residents: a population linkage study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic had direct and indirect effects on health. Indirect effects on long term medical conditions (LTCs) are unclear. We examined trends in recorded incidences of LTCs and quantified differences between expected rates and observed rates from 2020 onwards. METHODS: This is a population data linkage study using primary and secondary care data within the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank. We included data of Welsh residents diagnosed with any of 17 identified LTCs for the first time between Jan 1, 2000, and Dec 31, 2021. LTC's include mental health conditions, respiratory diseases, and heart conditions among others, generally chosen in line with the Quality and Outcomes Framework. The primary outcome was incidence rates (monthly number of new cases per 100 000 population). For each LTC, we did interrupted time series analysis of incidence rates from 2015 to 2021. Expected rates from between Jan 1, 2020, to Dec 31, 2021, were predicted using overall trends and seasonal patterns from the preceding 5 years and compared with observed rates. FINDINGS: We included 5 476 012 diagnoses from 2 257 992 individuals diagnosed with at least one LTC between Jan 1, 2000, to Dec 31, 2021. Across multiple long-term conditions, there was an abrupt reduction in observed incidence of new diagnoses from March to April 2020, followed by a general increase in incidence towards prepandemic rates. The conditions with the largest percentage difference between the observed and expected incidence rates in 2020 and 2021 were chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (38·4% lower than expected), depression (28·3% lower), hypertension (25·5% lower), and anxiety disorders (24·9% lower). The condition with the largest absolute difference between observed and expected incidence rates was anxiety disorders, with 830 per 100 000 less in 2020 and 2021 compared with observed rates. INTERPRETATION: The reduction in incidence rates of LTCs suggests an underreporting of LTCs, especially during 2020 and early 2021. The emergence of these yet undiagnosed cases could result in a surge of new patients in the near future. FUNDING: This work was supported by the Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre, funded by Health and Care Research Wales.

Analysis of applying a patient safety taxonomy to patient and clinician-reported incident reports during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in major disruption to healthcare delivery worldwide causing medical services to adapt their standard practices. Learning how these adaptations result in unintended patient harm is essential to mitigate against future incidents. Incident reporting and learning system data can be used to identify areas to improve patient safety. A classification system is required to make sense of such data to identify learning and priorities for further in-depth investigation. The Patient Safety (PISA) classification system was created for this purpose, but it is not known if classification systems are sufficient to capture novel safety concepts arising from crises like the pandemic. We aimed to review the application of the PISA classification system during the COVID-19 pandemic to appraise whether modifications were required to maintain its meaningful use for the pandemic context. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods study integrating two phases in an exploratory, sequential design. This included a comparative secondary analysis of patient safety incident reports from two studies conducted during the first wave of the pandemic, where we coded patient-reported incidents from the UK and clinician-reported incidents from France. The findings were presented to a focus group of experts in classification systems and patient safety, and a thematic analysis was conducted on the resultant transcript. RESULTS: We identified five key themes derived from the data analysis and expert group discussion. These included capitalising on the unique perspective of safety concerns from different groups, that existing frameworks do identify priority areas to investigate further, the objectives of a study shape the data interpretation, the pandemic spotlighted long-standing patient concerns, and the time period in which data are collected offers valuable context to aid explanation. The group consensus was that no COVID-19-specific codes were warranted, and the PISA classification system was fit for purpose. CONCLUSIONS: We have scrutinised the meaningful use of the PISA classification system's application during a period of systemic healthcare constraint, the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite these constraints, we found the framework can be successfully applied to incident reports to enable deductive analysis, identify areas for further enquiry and thus support organisational learning. No new or amended codes were warranted. Organisations and investigators can use our findings when reviewing their own classification systems.

Communication to promote and support physical distancing for COVID-19 prevention and control.

BACKGROUND: This review is an update of a rapid review undertaken in 2020 to identify relevant, feasible and effective communication approaches to promote acceptance, uptake and adherence to physical distancing measures for COVID-19 prevention and control. The rapid review was published when little was known about transmission, treatment or future vaccination, and when physical distancing measures (isolation, quarantine, contact tracing, crowd avoidance, work and school measures) were the cornerstone of public health responses globally. This updated review includes more recent evidence to extend what we know about effective pandemic public health communication. This includes considerations of changes needed over time to maintain responsiveness to pandemic transmission waves, the (in)equities and variable needs of groups within communities due to the pandemic, and highlights again the critical role of effective communication as integral to the public health response. OBJECTIVES: To update the evidence on the question 'What are relevant, feasible and effective communication approaches to promote acceptance, uptake and adherence to physical distancing measures for COVID-19 prevention and control?', our primary focus was communication approaches to promote and support acceptance, uptake and adherence to physical distancing. SECONDARY OBJECTIVE: to explore and identify key elements of effective communication for physical distancing measures for different (diverse) populations and groups. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library databases from inception, with searches for this update including the period 1 January 2020 to 18 August 2021. Systematic review and study repositories and grey literature sources were searched in August 2021 and guidelines identified for the eCOVID19 Recommendations Map were screened (November 2021). SELECTION CRITERIA: Guidelines or reviews focusing on communication (information, education, reminders, facilitating decision-making, skills acquisition, supporting behaviour change, support, involvement in decision-making) related to physical distancing measures for prevention and/or control of COVID-19 or selected other diseases (sudden acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), influenza, Ebola virus disease (EVD) or tuberculosis (TB)) were included. New evidence was added to guidelines, reviews and primary studies included in the 2020 review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Methods were based on the original rapid review, using methods developed by McMaster University and informed by Cochrane rapid review guidance. Screening, data extraction, quality assessment and synthesis were conducted by one author and checked by a second author. Synthesis of results was conducted using modified framework analysis, with themes from the original review used as an initial framework. MAIN RESULTS: This review update includes 68 studies, with 17 guidelines and 20 reviews added to the original 31 studies. Synthesis identified six major themes, which can be used to inform policy and decision-making related to planning and implementing communication about a public health emergency and measures to protect the community. Theme 1: Strengthening public trust and countering misinformation: essential foundations for effective public health communication Recognising the key role of public trust is essential. Working to build and maintain trust over time underpins the success of public health communications and, therefore, the effectiveness of public health prevention measures. Theme 2: Two-way communication: involving communities to improve the dissemination, accessibility and acceptability of information Two-way communication (engagement) with the public is needed over the course of a public health emergency: at first, recognition of a health threat (despite uncertainties), and regularly as public health measures are introduced or adjusted. Engagement needs to be embedded at all stages of the response and inform tailoring of communications and implementation of public health measures over time. Theme 3: Development of and preparation for public communication: target audience, equity and tailoring Communication and information must be tailored to reach all groups within populations, and explicitly consider existing inequities and the needs of disadvantaged groups, including those who are underserved, vulnerable, from diverse cultural or language groups, or who have lower educational attainment. Awareness that implementing public health measures may magnify existing or emerging inequities is also needed in response planning, enactment and adjustment over time. Theme 4: Public communication features: content, timing and duration, delivery Public communication needs to be based on clear, consistent, actionable and timely (up-to-date) information about preventive measures, including the benefits (whether for individual, social groupings or wider society), harms (likewise) and rationale for use, and include information about supports available to help follow recommended measures. Communication needs to occur through multiple channels and/or formats to build public trust and reach more of the community. Theme 5: Supporting behaviour change at individual and population levels Supporting implementation of public health measures with practical supports and services (e.g. essential supplies, financial support) is critical. Information about available supports must be widely disseminated and well understood. Supports and communication related to them require flexibility and tailoring to explicitly consider community needs, including those of vulnerable groups. Proactively monitoring and countering stigma related to preventive measures (e.g. quarantine) is also necessary to support adherence. Theme 6: Fostering and sustaining receptiveness and responsiveness to public health communication Efforts to foster and sustain public receptiveness and responsiveness to public health communication are needed throughout a public health emergency. Trust, acceptance and behaviours change over time, and communication needs to be adaptive and responsive to these changing needs. Ongoing community engagement efforts should inform communication and public health response measures. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Implications for practice Evidence highlights the critical role of communication throughout a public health emergency. Like any intervention, communication can be done well or poorly, but the consequences of poor communication during a pandemic may mean the difference between life and death. The approaches to effective communication identified in this review can be used by policymakers and decision-makers, working closely with communication teams, to plan, implement and adjust public communications over the course of a public health emergency like the COVID-19 pandemic. Implications for research Despite massive growth in research during the COVID-19 period, gaps in the evidence persist and require high-quality, meaningful research. This includes investigating the experiences of people at heightened COVID-19 risk, and identifying barriers to implementing public communication and protective health measures particular to lower- and middle-income countries, and how to overcome these.

Experiences and views of people who frequently call emergency ambulance services: A qualitative study of UK service users.

INTRODUCTION: People who call emergency ambulances frequently are often vulnerable because of health and social circumstances, have unresolved problems or cannot access appropriate care. They have higher mortality rates. Case management by interdisciplinary teams can help reduce demand for emergency services and is available in some UK regions. We report results of interviews with people who use emergency ambulance services frequently to understand their experiences of calling and receiving treatment. METHODS: We used a two-stage recruitment process. A UK ambulance service identified six people who were known to them as frequently calling emergency services. Through third-sector organisations, we also recruited nine individuals with healthcare experiences reflecting the characteristics of people who call frequently. We gained informed consent to record and transcribe all telephone interviews. We used thematic analysis to explore the results. RESULTS: People said they make frequent calls to emergency ambulance services as a last resort when they perceive their care needs are urgent and other routes to help have failed. Those with the most complex health needs generally felt their immediate requirements were not resolved and underlying mental and physical problems led them to call again. A third of respondents were also attended to by police and were arrested for behaviour associated with their health needs. Those callers receiving case management did not know they were selected for this. Some respondents were concerned that case management could label frequent callers as troublemakers. CONCLUSION: People who make frequent calls to emergency ambulance services feel their health and care needs are urgent and ongoing. They cannot see alternative ways to receive help and resolve problems. Communication between health professionals and service users appears inadequate. More research is needed to understand service users' motivations and requirements to inform design and delivery of accessible and effective services. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: People with relevant experience were involved in developing, undertaking and disseminating this research. Two public contributors helped design and deliver the study, including developing and analysing service user interviews and drafting this paper. Eight public members of a Lived Experience Advisory Panel contributed at key stages of study design, interpretation and dissemination. Two more public contributors were members of an independent Study Steering Committee.

The cost of implementing the COVID-19 shielding policy in Wales.

BACKGROUND: The EVITE Immunity study investigated the effects of shielding Clinically Extremely Vulnerable (CEV) people during the COVID-19 pandemic on health outcomes and healthcare costs in Wales, United Kingdom, to help prepare for future pandemics. Shielding was intended to protect those at highest risk of serious harm from COVID-19. We report the cost of implementing shielding in Wales. METHODS: The number of people shielding was extracted from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank. Resources supporting shielding between March and June 2020 were mapped using published reports, web pages, freedom of information requests to Welsh Government and personal communications (e.g. with the office of the Chief Medical Officer for Wales). RESULTS: At the beginning of shielding, 117,415 people were on the shielding list. The total additional cost to support those advised to stay home during the initial 14 weeks of the pandemic was £13,307,654 (£113 per person shielded). This included the new resources required to compile the shielding list, inform CEV people of the shielding intervention and provide medicine and food deliveries. The list was adjusted weekly over the 3-month period (130,000 people identified by June 2020). Therefore the cost per person shielded lies between £102 and £113 per person. CONCLUSION: This is the first evaluation of the cost of the measures put in place to support those identified to shield in Wales. However, no data on opportunity cost was available. The true costs of shielding including its budget impact and opportunity costs need to be investigated to decide whether shielding is a worthwhile policy for future health emergencies.

Short-term risk prediction after major lower limb amputation: PERCEIVE study.

BACKGROUND: The accuracy with which healthcare professionals (HCPs) and risk prediction tools predict outcomes after major lower limb amputation (MLLA) is uncertain. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of predicting short-term (30 days after MLLA) mortality, morbidity, and revisional surgery. METHODS: The PERCEIVE (PrEdiction of Risk and Communication of outcomE following major lower limb amputation: a collaboratIVE) study was launched on 1 October 2020. It was an international multicentre study, including adults undergoing MLLA for complications of peripheral arterial disease and/or diabetes. Preoperative predictions of 30-day mortality, morbidity, and MLLA revision by surgeons and anaesthetists were recorded. Probabilities from relevant risk prediction tools were calculated. Evaluation of accuracy included measures of discrimination, calibration, and overall performance. RESULTS: Some 537 patients were included. HCPs had acceptable discrimination in predicting mortality (931 predictions; C-statistic 0.758) and MLLA revision (565 predictions; C-statistic 0.756), but were poor at predicting morbidity (980 predictions; C-statistic 0.616). They overpredicted the risk of all outcomes. All except three risk prediction tools had worse discrimination than HCPs for predicting mortality (C-statistics 0.789, 0.774, and 0.773); two of these significantly overestimated the risk compared with HCPs. SORT version 2 (the only tool incorporating HCP predictions) demonstrated better calibration and overall performance (Brier score 0.082) than HCPs. Tools predicting morbidity and MLLA revision had poor discrimination (C-statistics 0.520 and 0.679). CONCLUSION: Clinicians predicted mortality and MLLA revision well, but predicted morbidity poorly. They overestimated the risk of mortality, morbidity, and MLLA revision. Most short-term risk prediction tools had poorer discrimination or calibration than HCPs. The best method of predicting mortality was a statistical tool that incorporated HCP estimation.

Shared decision-making interventions for people with mental health conditions.

BACKGROUND: One person in every four will suffer from a diagnosable mental health condition during their life. Such conditions can have a devastating impact on the lives of the individual and their family, as well as society.  International healthcare policy makers have increasingly advocated and enshrined partnership models of mental health care. Shared decision-making (SDM) is one such partnership approach. Shared decision-making is a form of service user-provider communication where both parties are acknowledged to bring expertise to the process and work in partnership to make a decision.  This review assesses whether SDM interventions improve a range of outcomes. This is the first update of this Cochrane Review, first published in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of SDM interventions for people of all ages with mental health conditions, directed at people with mental health conditions, carers, or healthcare professionals, on a range of outcomes including: clinical outcomes, participation/involvement in decision-making process (observations on the process of SDM; user-reported, SDM-specific outcomes of encounters), recovery, satisfaction, knowledge, treatment/medication continuation, health service outcomes, and adverse outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We ran searches in January 2020 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO (2009 to January 2020). We also searched trial registers and the bibliographies of relevant papers, and contacted authors of included studies.  We updated the searches in February 2022. When we identified studies as potentially relevant, we labelled these as studies awaiting classification. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-randomised controlled trials, of SDM interventions in people with mental health conditions (by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Classification of Diseases (ICD) criteria). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: This updated review included 13 new studies, for a total of 15 RCTs. Most participants were adults with severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, depression, and bipolar disorder, in higher-income countries. None of the studies included children or adolescents.  Primary outcomes We are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve clinical outcomes, such as psychiatric symptoms, depression, anxiety, and readmission, compared with control due to very low-certainty evidence. For readmission, we conducted subgroup analysis between studies that used usual care and those that used cognitive training in the control group. There were no subgroup differences. Regarding participation (by the person with the mental health condition) or level of involvement in the decision-making process, we are uncertain if SDM interventions improve observations on the process of SDM compared with no intervention due to very low-certainty evidence. On the other hand, SDM interventions may improve SDM-specific user-reported outcomes from encounters immediately after intervention compared with no intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.01; 3 studies, 534 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, there was insufficient evidence for sustained participation or involvement in the decision-making processes. Secondary outcomes We are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve recovery compared with no intervention due to very low-certainty evidence. We are uncertain if SDM interventions improve users' overall satisfaction. However, one study (241 participants) showed that SDM interventions probably improve some aspects of users' satisfaction with received information compared with no intervention: information given was rated as helpful (risk ratio (RR) 1.33, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.65); participants expressed a strong desire to receive information this way for other treatment decisions (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.68); and strongly recommended the information be shared with others in this way (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.58). The evidence was of moderate certainty for these outcomes. However, this same study reported there may be little or no effect on amount or clarity of information, while another small study reported there may be little or no change in carer satisfaction with the SDM intervention. The effects of healthcare professional satisfaction were mixed: SDM interventions may have little or no effect on healthcare professional satisfaction when measured continuously, but probably improve healthcare professional satisfaction when assessed categorically. We are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve knowledge, treatment continuation assessed through clinic visits, medication continuation, carer participation, and the relationship between users and healthcare professionals because of very low-certainty evidence. Regarding length of consultation, SDM interventions probably have little or no effect compared with no intervention (SDM 0.09, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.41; 2 studies, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). On the other hand, we are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve length of hospital stay due to very low-certainty evidence. There were no adverse effects on health outcomes and no other adverse events reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review update suggests that people exposed to SDM interventions may perceive greater levels of involvement immediately after an encounter compared with those in control groups. Moreover, SDM interventions probably have little or no effect on the length of consultations.  Overall we found that most evidence was of low or very low certainty, meaning there is a generally low level of certainty about the effects of SDM interventions based on the studies assembled thus far. There is a need for further research in this area.

Implementing public involvement throughout the research process-Experience and learning from the GPs in EDs study.

BACKGROUND: Public involvement in health services research is encouraged. Descriptions of public involvement across the whole research cycle of a major study are uncommon and its effects on research conduct are poorly understood. AIM: This study aimed to describe how we implemented public involvement, reflect on process and effects in a large-scale multi-site research study and present learning for future involvement practice. METHOD: We recorded public involvement roles and activities throughout the study and compared these to our original public involvement plan included in our project proposal. We held a group interview with study co-applicants to explore their experiences, transcribed the recorded discussion and conducted thematic analysis. We synthesized the findings to develop recommendations for future practice. RESULTS: Public contributors' activities went beyond strategic study planning and management to include active involvement in data collection, analysis and dissemination. They attended management, scrutiny, planning and task meetings. They also facilitated public involvement through annual planning and review sessions, conducted a Public Involvement audit and coordinated public and patient input to stakeholder discussions at key study stages. Group interview respondents said that involvement exceeded their expectations. They identified effects such as changes to patient recruitment, terminology clarification and extra dissemination activities. They identified factors enabling effective involvement including team and leader commitment, named support contact, building relationships and demonstrating equality and public contributors being confident to challenge and flexible to meet researchers' timescales and work patterns. There were challenges matching resources to roles and questions about the risk of over-professionalizing public contributors. CONCLUSION: We extended our planned approach to public involvement and identified benefits to the research process that were both specific and general. We identified good practice to support effective public involvement in health services research that study teams should consider in planning and undertaking research. PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This paper was co-conceived, co-planned and co-authored by public contributors to contribute research evidence, based on their experiences of active involvement in the design, implementation and dissemination of a major health services research study.

Designing clinical indicators for common residential aged care conditions and processes of care: the CareTrack Aged development and validation study.

BACKGROUND: People who live in aged care homes have high rates of illness and frailty. Providing evidence-based care to this population is vital to ensure the highest possible quality of life. OBJECTIVE: In this study (CareTrack Aged, CT Aged), we aimed to develop a comprehensive set of clinical indicators for guideline-adherent, appropriate care of commonly managed conditions and processes in aged care. METHODS: Indicators were formulated from recommendations found through systematic searches of Australian and international clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Experts reviewed the indicators using a multiround modified Delphi process to develop a consensus on what constitutes appropriate care. RESULTS: From 139 CPGs, 5609 recommendations were used to draft 630 indicators. Clinical experts (n = 41) reviewed the indicators over two rounds. A final set of 236 indicators resulted, mapped to 16 conditions and processes of care. The conditions and processes were admission assessment; bladder and bowel problems; cognitive impairment; depression; dysphagia and aspiration; end of life/palliative care; hearing and vision; infection; medication; mobility and falls; nutrition and hydration; oral and dental care; pain; restraint use; skin integrity and sleep. CONCLUSIONS: The suite of CT Aged clinical indicators can be used for research and assessment of the quality of care in individual facilities and across organizations to guide improvement and to supplement regulation or accreditation of the aged care sector. They are a step forward for Australian and international aged care sectors, helping to improve transparency so that the level of care delivered to aged care consumers can be rigorously monitored and continuously improved.

Patients' experiences of attending emergency departments where primary care services are located: qualitative findings from patient and clinician interviews from a realist evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Patient experience is an important outcome and indicator of healthcare quality, and patient reported experiences are key to improving quality of care. While patient experience in emergency departments (EDs) has been reported in research, there is limited evidence about patients' specific experiences with primary care services located in or alongside EDs. We aim to identify theories about patient experience and acceptability of being streamed to a primary care clinician in an ED. METHODS: Using theories from a rapid realist review as a basis, we interviewed 24 patients and 106 staff members to generate updated theories about patient experience and acceptability of streaming to primary care services in EDs. Feedback from 56 stakeholders, including clinicians, policymakers and patient and public members, as well as observations at 13 EDs, also contributed to the development of these theories, which we present as a programme theory. RESULTS: We found that patients had no expectations or preferences for which type of clinician they were seen by, and generally found being streamed to a primary care clinician in the ED acceptable. Clinicians and patients reported that patients generally found primary care streaming acceptable if they felt their complaint was dealt with suitably, in a timely manner, and when clinicians clearly communicated the need for investigations, and how these contributed to decision-making and treatment plans. CONCLUSIONS: From our findings, we have developed a programme theory to demonstrate that service providers can expect that patients will be generally satisfied with their experience of being streamed to, and seen by, primary care clinicians working in these services. Service providers should consider the potential advantages and disadvantages of implementing primary care services at their ED. If primary care services are implemented, clear communication is needed between staff and patients, and patient feedback should be sought.

Randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of a targeted cancer awareness intervention for adults living in deprived areas of the UK.

BACKGROUND: Cancer outcomes are poor in socioeconomically deprived communities, with low symptom awareness contributing to prolonged help-seeking and advanced disease. Targeted cancer awareness interventions require evaluation. METHODS: This is a randomised controlled trial involving adults aged 40+ years recruited in community and healthcare settings in deprived areas of South Yorkshire and South-East Wales. INTERVENTION: personalised behavioural advice facilitated by a trained lay advisor. CONTROL: usual care. Follow-up at two weeks and six months post-randomisation. PRIMARY OUTCOME: total cancer symptom recognition score two weeks post-randomisation. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty-four participants were randomised. The difference in total symptom recognition at two weeks [adjusted mean difference (AMD) 0.6, 95% CI: -0.03, 1.17, p = 0.06] was not statistically significant. Intervention participants reported increased symptom recognition (AMD 0.8, 95% CI: 0.18, 1.37, p = 0.01) and earlier intended presentation (AMD -2.0, 95% CI: -3.02, -0.91, p < 0.001) at six months. "Lesser known" symptom recognition was higher in the intervention arm (2 weeks AMD 0.5, 95% CI: 0.03, 0.97 and six months AMD 0.7, 95% CI: 0.16, 1.17). Implementation cost per participant was £91.34, with no significant between-group differences in healthcare resource use post-intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Improved symptom recognition and earlier anticipated presentation occurred at longer-term follow-up. The ABACus Health Check is a viable low-cost intervention to increase cancer awareness in socioeconomically deprived communities. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN16872545.

Bridging The Age Gap: observational cohort study of effects of chemotherapy and trastuzumab on recurrence, survival and quality of life in older women with early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy improves outcomes for high risk early breast cancer (EBC) patients but is infrequently offered to older individuals. This study determined if there are fit older patients with high-risk disease who may benefit from chemotherapy. METHODS: A multicentre, prospective, observational study was performed to determine chemotherapy (±trastuzumab) usage and survival and quality-of-life outcomes in EBC patients aged ≥70 years. Propensity score-matching adjusted for variation in baseline age, fitness and tumour stage. RESULTS: Three thousands four hundred sixteen women were recruited from 56 UK centres between 2013 and 2018. Two thousands eight hundred eleven (82%) had surgery. 1520/2811 (54%) had high-risk EBC and 2059/2811 (73%) were fit. Chemotherapy was given to 306/1100 (27.8%) fit patients with high-risk EBC. Unmatched comparison of chemotherapy versus no chemotherapy demonstrated reduced metastatic recurrence risk in high-risk patients(hazard ratio [HR] 0.36 [95% CI 0.19-0.68]) and in 541 age, stage and fitness-matched patients(adjusted HR 0.43 [95% CI 0.20-0.92]) but no benefit to overall survival (OS) or breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) in either group. Chemotherapy improved survival in women with oestrogen receptor (ER)-negative cancer (OS: HR 0.20 [95% CI 0.08-0.49];BCSS: HR 0.12 [95% CI 0.03-0.44]).Transient negative quality-of-life impacts were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Chemotherapy was associated with reduced risk of metastatic recurrence, but survival benefits were only seen in patients with ER-negative cancer. Quality-of-life impacts were significant but transient. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 46099296.

Balancing risks: Qualitative study of attitudes, motivations and intentions about attending for mammography during the COVID-19 pandemic.

AIMS: To explore attitudes, motivations and intentions about attending for mammography among women who cancelled or postponed breast cancer screening, which had remained open in Denmark during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A telephone interview study was conducted at the end of April 2020. A qualitative, phenomenological approach was chosen to identify themes and concepts and a semi-structured interview guide was developed. The analysis was structured according to constructs from the theory of planned behaviour, including attitudes to breast cancer screening, norms and motivations to comply with breast cancer screening, perceived control and anticipated regret. RESULTS: Interviews were carried out with 33 women aged 50-69 (mean 62) years. The women felt that screening was of secondary importance during the height of the pandemic and they felt low perceived control over transportation to the screening clinic and over the screening situation itself, where social distancing was impossible. They perceived messages from the authorities as conflicting regarding the request for social distancing and a lack of recommendations about using face masks at the screening clinic. CONCLUSIONS: Women who postponed or cancelled breast cancer screening during the COVID-19 pandemic felt that public recommendations appeared contradictory. Uncertainty about the 'new norm(al)' of COVID-19 made them stay at home, although the screening clinics remained open. The findings point to the importance of addressing perceived inconsistency between recommendations from the World Health Organization and the national management of these recommendations, and to secure univocal information from the authorities about the recommended use of healthcare services in a time of crisis.

Development and user-testing of a brief decision aid for aspirin as a preventive approach alongside colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Several epidemiological and cohort studies suggest that regular low-dose aspirin use independently reduces the long-term incidence and risk of colorectal cancer deaths by approximately 20%. However, there are also risks to aspirin use, mainly gastrointestinal bleeding and haemorrhagic stroke. Making informed decisions depends on the ability to understand and weigh up benefits and risks of available options. A decision aid to support people to consider aspirin therapy alongside participation in the NHS bowel cancer screening programme may have an additional impact on colorectal cancer prevention. This study aims to develop and user-test a brief decision aid about aspirin to enable informed decision-making for colorectal screening-eligible members of the public. METHODS: We undertook a qualitative study to develop an aspirin decision aid leaflet to support bowel screening responders in deciding whether to take aspirin to reduce their risk of colorectal cancer. The iterative development process involved two focus groups with public members aged 60-74 years (n = 14) and interviews with clinicians (n = 10). Interviews (n = 11) were used to evaluate its utility for decision-making. Analysis was conducted using a framework approach. RESULTS: Overall, participants found the decision aid acceptable and useful to facilitate decision-making. They expressed a need for individualised risk information, more detail about the potential risks of aspirin, and preferred risk information presented in pictograms when offered different options. Implementation pathways were discussed, including the possibility of involving different clinicians in the process such as GPs and/or community pharmacists. A range of potentially effective timepoints for sending out the decision aid were identified. CONCLUSION: An acceptable and usable decision aid was developed to support decisions about aspirin use to prevent colorectal cancer.

Current provision of general practitioner services in or alongside emergency departments in England.

BACKGROUND: In 2017, general practitioners in or alongside the emergency department (GPED), an approach that employs GPs in or alongside the ED to address increasing ED demand, was advocated by the National Health Service in England and supported by capital funding. However, little is known about the models of GPED that have been implemented. METHODS: Data were collected at two time points: September 2017 and December 2019, on the GPED model in use (if any) at 163/177 (92%) type 1 EDs in England. Models were categorised according to a taxonomy as 'inside/integrated', 'inside/parallel', 'outside/onsite' or 'outside/offsite'. Multiple data sources used included: on-line surveys, interviews, case study data and publicly available information. RESULTS: An increase of EDs using GPED was observed from 81% to 95% over the study period. 'Inside/parallel' was the most frequently used model: 30% (44/149) in 2017, rising to 49% (78/159) in 2019. The adoption of 'inside/integrated' models fell from 26% (38/149) to 9% (15/159). Capital funding was received by 87% (142/163) of the EDs sampled. We identified no significant difference between the GPED model adopted and observable characteristics of EDs of annual attendance, 4-hour wait, rurality and deprivation within the population served. CONCLUSION: The majority of EDs in England have now adopted GPED. The availability of capital funding to finance structural changes so that separate GP services can be provided may explain the rise in parallel models and the decrease in integrated models. Further research is required to understand the relative effectiveness of the various models of GPED identified.

Learning from diagnostic errors to improve patient safety when GPs work in or alongside emergency departments: incorporating realist methodology into patient safety incident report analysis.

BACKGROUND: Increasing demand on emergency healthcare systems has prompted introduction of new healthcare service models including the provision of GP services in or alongside emergency departments. In England this led to a policy proposal and £100million (US$130million) of funding for all emergency departments to have co-located GP services. However, there is a lack of evidence for whether such service models are effective and safe. We examined diagnostic errors reported in patient safety incident reports to develop theories to explain how and why they occurred to inform potential priority areas for improvement and inform qualitative data collection at case study sites to further refine the theories. METHODS: We used a mixed-methods design using exploratory descriptive analysis to identify the most frequent and harmful sources of diagnostic error and thematic analysis, incorporating realist methodology to refine theories from an earlier rapid realist review, to describe how and why the events occurred and could be mitigated, to inform improvement recommendations. We used two UK data sources: Coroners' reports to prevent future deaths (30.7.13-14.08.18) and National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS) patient safety incident reports (03.01.05-30.11.15). RESULTS: Nine Coroners' reports (from 1347 community and hospital reports, 2013-2018) and 217 NRLS reports (from 13 million, 2005-2015) were identified describing diagnostic error related to GP services in or alongside emergency departments. Initial theories to describe potential priority areas for improvement included: difficulty identifying appropriate patients for the GP service; under-investigation and misinterpretation of diagnostic tests; and inadequate communication and referral pathways between the emergency and GP services. High-risk presentations included: musculoskeletal injury, chest pain, headache, calf pain and sick children. CONCLUSION: Initial theories include the following topics as potential priority areas for improvement interventions and evaluation to minimise the risk of diagnostic errors when GPs work in or alongside emergency departments: a standardised initial assessment with streaming guidance based on local service provision; clinical decision support for high-risk conditions; and standardised computer systems, communication and referral pathways between emergency and GP services. These theories require refinement and testing with qualitative data collection from case study (hospital) sites.

The effect of assessing genetic risk of prostate cancer on the use of PSA tests in primary care: A cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Assessing genetic lifetime risk for prostate cancer has been proposed as a means of risk stratification to identify those for whom prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing is likely to be most valuable. This project aimed to test the effect of introducing a genetic test for lifetime risk of prostate cancer in general practice on future PSA testing. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We performed a cluster randomized controlled trial with randomization at the level of general practices (73 in each of two arms) in the Central Region (Region Midtjylland) of Denmark. In intervention practices, men were offered a genetic test (based on genotyping of 33 risk-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms) in addition to the standard PSA test that informed them about lifetime genetic risk of prostate cancer and distinguished between "normal" and "high" risk. The primary outcome was the proportion of men having a repeated PSA test within 2 years. A multilevel logistic regression model was used to test the association. After applying the exclusion criteria, 3,558 men were recruited in intervention practices, with 1,235 (34.7%) receiving the genetic test, and 4,242 men were recruited in control practices. Men with high genetic risk had a higher propensity for repeated PSA testing within 2 years than men with normal genetic risk (odds ratio [OR] = 8.94, p < 0.01). The study was conducted in routine practice and had some selection bias, which is evidenced by the relatively large proportion of younger and higher income participants taking the genetic test. CONCLUSIONS: Providing general practitioners (GPs) with access to a genetic test to assess lifetime risk of prostate cancer did not reduce the overall number of future PSA tests. However, among men who had a genetic test, knowledge of genetic risk significantly influenced future PSA testing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01739062.