The NHS visitor and migrant cost recovery programme - a threat to health?

BACKGROUND: In April 2014 the UK government launched the 'NHS Visitor and Migrant Cost Recovery Programme Implementation Plan' which set out a series of policy changes to recoup costs from 'chargeable' (largely non-UK born) patients. In England, approximately 75% of tuberculosis (TB) cases occur in people born abroad. Delays in TB treatment increase risk of morbidity, mortality and transmission in the community. We investigated whether diagnostic delay has increased since the Cost Recovery Programme (CRP) was introduced. METHODS: There were 3342 adult TB cases notified on the London TB Register across Barts Health NHS Trust between 1st January 2011 and 31st December 2016. Cases with missing relevant information were excluded. The median time between symptom onset and treatment initiation before and after the CRP was calculated according to birthplace and compared using the Mann Whitney test. Delayed diagnosis was considered greater or equal to median time to treatment for all patients (79 days). Univariable logistic regression was used to manually select exposure variables for inclusion in a multivariable model to test the association between diagnostic delay and the implementation of the CRP. RESULTS: We included 2237 TB cases. Among non-UK born patients, median time-to-treatment increased from 69 days to 89 days following introduction of CRP (p < 0.001). Median time-to-treatment also increased for the UK-born population from 75.5 days to 89.5 days (p = 0.307). The multivariable logistic regression model showed non-UK born patients were more likely to have a delay in diagnosis after the CRP (adjOR 1.37, 95% CI 1.13-1.66, p value 0.001). CONCLUSION: Since the introduction of the CRP there has been a significant delay for TB treatment among non-UK born patients. Further research exploring the effect of policies restricting access to healthcare for migrants is urgently needed if we wish to eliminate TB nationally.

Questioning in general practice--a tool for change.

In general practice, as in all branches of medicine, doctors are encouraged to ensure their decisions reflect research findings, and are 'evidence-based'. This depends upon general practitioners (GPs) questioning their practice, finding 'evidence-based' answers, and changing their practice where necessary. Questioning behaviour is therefore fundamental to this process. Research into the questioning behaviour and information needs of GPs is difficult and it is unknown whether better access to information necessarily results in behavioural change or better health outcomes. This paper summarises research on doctors' questioning behaviour, factors influencing their likelihood of finding answers, and discusses some of the obstacles they face in implementing change. Finally, we introduce the concept of a 'clinical informaticist', whose role is to provide evidence-based answers to specific questions raised by GPs. This service may facilitate learning and increase uptake of research findings.

A clinical informaticist to support primary care decision making.

OBJECTIVES: To develop and evaluate an information service in which a "clinical informaticist" (a GP with training in evidence-based medicine) provided evidence-based answers to questions posed by GPs and nurse practitioners. DESIGN: Descriptive pilot study with systematic recording of the process involved in searching for and critically appraising literature. Evaluation by questionnaire and semi-structured interview. SETTING: General practice. PARTICIPANTS: 34 clinicians from two London primary care groups (Fulham and Hammersmith). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number and origin of questions; process and time involved in producing summaries; satisfaction with the service. RESULTS: All 100 clinicians in two primary care groups were approached. Thirty four agreed to participate, of whom 22 asked 60 questions over 10 months. Participants were highly satisfied with the summaries they received. For one third of questions the clinicians stated they would change practice in the index patient, and for 55% the participants stated they would change practice in other patients. Answering questions thoroughly was time consuming (median 130 minutes). The median turnaround time was 9 days; 82% of questions were answered within the timeframe specified by the questioner. Without the informaticist, one third of questions would not have been pursued. CONCLUSION: The clinical informaticist service increased access to evidence for busy clinicians. Satisfaction was high among users and clinicians stated that changes in practice would occur. However, uptake of the service was lower than expected (22% of those offered the service). Further research is needed into how this method of increasing access to evidence compares with other strategies, and whether it results in improved health outcomes for patients.

Narrative methods in quality improvement research.

This paper reviews and critiques the different approaches to the use of narrative in quality improvement research. The defining characteristics of narrative are chronology (unfolding over time); emplotment (the literary juxtaposing of actions and events in an implicitly causal sequence); trouble (that is, harm or the risk of harm); and embeddedness (the personal story nests within a particular social, historical and organisational context). Stories are about purposeful action unfolding in the face of trouble and, as such, have much to offer quality improvement researchers. But the quality improvement report (a story about efforts to implement change), which is common, must be distinguished carefully from narrative based quality improvement research (focused systematic enquiry that uses narrative methods to generate new knowledge), which is currently none. We distinguish four approaches to the use of narrative in quality improvement research--narrative interview; naturalistic story gathering; organisational case study; and collective sense-making--and offer a rationale, describe how data can be collected and analysed, and discuss the strengths and limitations of each using examples from the quality improvement literature. Narrative research raises epistemological questions about the nature of narrative truth (characterised by sense-making and emotional impact rather than scientific objectivity), which has implications for how rigour should be defined (and how it might be achieved) in this type of research. We offer some provisional guidance for distinguishing high quality narrative research in a quality improvement setting from other forms of narrative account such as report, anecdote, and journalism.