Reintroducing face-to-face support alongside remote support to form a hybrid stop smoking service in England: a formative mixed methods evaluation.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, United Kingdom (UK) stop smoking services had to shift to remote delivery models due to social distancing regulations, later reintroducing face-to-face provision. The "Living Well Smokefree" service in North Yorkshire County Council adopted a hybrid model offering face-to-face, remote, or a mix of both. This evaluation aimed to assess the hybrid approach's strengths and weaknesses and explore potential improvements. METHODS: Conducted from September 2022 to February 2023, the evaluation consisted of three components. First, qualitative interviews involved 11 staff and 16 service users, analysed thematically. Second, quantitative data from the QuitManager system that monitored the numbers and proportions of individuals selecting and successfully completing a 4-week quit via each service option. Third, face-to-face service expenses data was used to estimate the value for money of additional face-to-face provision. The qualitative findings were used to give context to the quantitative data via an "expansion" approach and complementary analysis. RESULTS: Overall, a hybrid model was seen to provide convenience and flexible options for support. In the evaluation, 733 individuals accessed the service, with 91.3% selecting remote support, 6.1% face-to-face, and 2.6% mixed provision. Remote support was valued by service users and staff for promoting openness, privacy, and reducing stigma, and was noted as removing access barriers and improving service availability. However, the absence of carbon monoxide monitoring in remote support raised accountability concerns. The trade-off in "quantity vs. quality" of quits was debated, as remote support reached more users but produced fewer carbon monoxide-validated quits. Primarily offering remote support could lead to substantial workloads, as staff often extend their roles to include social/mental health support, which was sometimes emotionally challenging. Offering service users a choice of support options was considered more important than the "cost-per-quit". Improved dissemination of information to support service users in understanding their options for support was suggested. CONCLUSIONS: The hybrid approach allows smoking cessation services to evaluate which groups benefit from remote, face-to-face, or mixed options and allocate resources accordingly. Providing choice, flexible provision, non-judgmental support, and clear information about available options could improve engagement and match support to individual needs, enhancing outcomes.

Lessons from lockdown: Virtual Clinics and service reorganisation in fracture management during COVID 19 experience of an Irish Regional Trauma Unit.

BACKGROUND: Trauma places a burden on healthcare services accounting for a large proportion of Emergency Department presentations. COVID-19 spread rapidly affecting over 30 million worldwide. To manage trauma presentations the Department of Trauma & Orthopaedic Surgery reorganised service delivery. AIM: To assess the impact of service reorganisation and Virtual Clinics on patients in a Regional Unit in Ireland. METHODS: A retrospective review of trauma activity following introduction of Virtual Fracture Clinics and Theatre COVID Pathways for a 10 week period in comparison with the same 2019 period. All patients underwent both nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs PCR testing prior to operations. Theatre and outpatient activity were evaluated. Clinic data were accumulated using the Integrated Patient Management System. RESULTS: Theatre Activity: 242 patients underwent surgery in our trauma unit (mean 2.98 per list) during the COVID- 19 period. 29 cases were performed in repurposed elective hospital giving a total of 271 during the 2020 study period. 371 cases were performed in the same 2019 period (mean 4.58 per list). Outpatient Activity: We noted a 25.86% fracture clinic referral reduction during the COVID 19 period compared to 2019. There was a 150.77% increase in patients managed through Trauma Assessment Clinic. 639 patients were managed through the Virtual Fracture Clinic Pathway during COVID 19 period. CONCLUSIONS: Over one in four fracture clinic patients can be managed virtually. A new dedicated Acute Fracture Unit within our institution permitted streamlining of care and social distancing. The "Non-COVID" pathway for ambulatory trauma was essential in managing the growing presentations of these injuries.

Introducing a single point of access (SPA) to child and adolescent mental health services in England: a mixed-methods observational study.

BACKGROUND: In many high-income countries, primary care practitioners are the main point of referral for specialist mental health services. In England, Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) are increasingly adopting a Single Point of Access (SPA) to streamline referrals and introduce self and parent/carer-referrals. This involves a significant shift of responsibility from primary care towards CAMHS who adopt a more active role as gatekeeper for their service. This study evaluates the adoption of a SPA in CAMHS across a large region in England. METHODS: We conducted an observational mixed methods study in two CAMHS from January 2018 to March 2019 to evaluate the adoption of a SPA. We collected quantitative data from electronic patient records and qualitative data through ethnographic observation and in-depth interviews of staff and stakeholders with experience of using CAMHS. Additional data on volumes was shared directly from the SPAs and a further snapshot of 1 week's users was collected. RESULTS: A similar SPA model emerged across the two services. Staff were positive about what the model could achieve and access rates grew quickly following awareness-raising activities. Despite the initial focus being on a telephone line, online referrals became the more regularly used referral method. Increased access brought challenges in terms of resourcing, including identifying the right staff for the role of call handlers. A further challenge was to impose consistency on triage decisions, which required structured information collection during the assessment process. Similar to GP referrals, those self-referring via the SPA were mainly from the least deprived areas. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of a SPA has the potential to improve young people's access to mental health services. By addressing some of the barriers to access, simplifying where to go to get help and making it easier to contact the service directly, a SPA can help more individuals and families access timely support. However, the introduction of a SPA does not in itself expand the capacity of CAMHS, and therefore expectations within services and across sectors need to be tempered accordingly. SPA services providing different referral approaches can further improve access for the harder to reach populations.

Centralising specialist cancer surgery services in England: survey of factors that matter to patients and carers and health professionals.

BACKGROUND: The centralisation of specialist cancer surgical services across London Cancer and Greater Manchester Cancer, England, may significantly change how patients experience care. These centres are changing specialist surgical pathways for several cancers including prostate, bladder, kidney, and oesophago-gastric cancers, increasing the specialisation of centres and providing surgery in fewer hospitals. While there are potential benefits related to centralising services, changes of this kind are often controversial. The aim of this study was to identify factors related to the centralisation of specialist surgical services that are important to patients, carers and health care professionals. METHODS: This was a questionnaire-based study involving a convenience sample of patient and public involvement (PPI) and cancer health care professional (HCP) sub-groups in London and Greater Manchester (n = 186). Participants were asked to identify which of a list of factors potentially influenced by the centralisation of specialist cancer surgery were important to them and to rank these in order of importance. We ranked and shortlisted the most important factors. RESULTS: We obtained 52 responses (28% response rate). The factors across both groups rated most important were: highly trained staff; likelihood and severity of complications; waiting time for cancer surgery; and access to staff members from various disciplines with specialised skills in cancer. These factors were also ranked as being important separately by the PPI and HCP sub-groups. There was considerable heterogeneity in the relative ordering of factors within sub-groups and overall. CONCLUSIONS: This study examines and ranks factors important to patients and carers, and health care professionals in order to inform the implementation of centralisation of specialist cancer surgical services. The most important factors were similar in the two stakeholder sub-groups. Planners should consider the impact of reorganising services on these factors, and disseminate this information to patients, the public and health care professionals when deciding whether or not and how to centralise specialist cancer surgical services.

Mixed methods evaluation of the Getting it Right First Time programme - improvements to NHS orthopaedic care in England: study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Orthopaedic procedures, such as total hip replacement and total knee replacement, are among the commonest surgical procedures in England. The Getting it Right First Time project (GIRFT) aims to deliver improvements in quality and reductions in the cost of NHS orthopaedic care across the country. We will examine whether the planned changes have delivered improvements in the quality of care and patient outcomes. We will also study the processes involved in developing and implementing changes to care, and professional and organisational factors influencing these processes. In doing so, we will identify lessons to guide future improvement work in other services. METHODS/DESIGN: We will evaluate the implementation of the GIRFT programme, and its impact on outcomes and cost, using a mixed methods design. Qualitative methods will be used to understand the programme theory underlying the approach and study the effect of the intervention on practice, using a case study approach. This will include an analysis of the central GIRFT programme and local provider responses. Data will be collected via semi-structured interviews, non-participant observation, and documentary analysis. Quantitative methods will be used to examine 'what works and at what cost?' We will also conduct focus groups with patients and members of the public to explore their perceptions of the GIRFT programme. The research will draw on theories of adoption, diffusion, and sustainability of innovation; its characteristics; and contextual factors at provider-level that influence implementation. DISCUSSION: We will identify generalisable lessons to inform the organisation and delivery of future improvement programmes, to optimise their implementation and impact, both within the UK and internationally. Potential challenges involved in conducting the evaluation include the phased implementation of the intervention in different provider organisations; the inclusion of both retrospective and prospective components; and the effects of ongoing organisational turbulence in the English NHS. However, these issues reflect the realities of service change and its evaluation.

Beyond Received Wisdom and Authorised Accounts: What Knowledge Is Needed to Avoid Repeating History? Comment on "'Attending to History' in Major System Change in Healthcare in England: Specialist Cancer Surgery Service Reconfiguration".

Perry and colleagues' study of a programme to reconfigure cancer surgery provision in Greater Manchester highlights the importance of accounting for history in making successful change. In this short commentary, I expand on some of Perry and colleagues' key findings. I note the way in which those leading change in Greater Manchester combined formal expertise in change management with sensitivity to local context, enhancing their approach to change through attention to details around relationships, events and assumptions that might otherwise have derailed the process. I identify lessons for others in how best to account for history in leading change, highlighting in particular the need to attempt to access and understand forms of history that may be suppressed, difficult-to-articulate, or otherwise marginalised.

Non-communicable disease care and management in two sites of the Cape Town Metro during the first wave of COVID-19: A rapid appraisal.

BACKGROUND:  Non-communicable diseases (NCDs), including type-2 diabetes and hypertension, have been associated with increased morbidity and mortality rates because of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Maintaining quality care for these conditions is important but data on the impact of COVID-19 on NCD care in South Africa are sparse. AIM:  This study aimed to assess the impact of COVID-19 on facility and community-based NCD care and management during the first COVID-19 wave. SETTING:  Two public health sector primary care sites in the Cape Town Metro, including a Community Orientated Primary Care (COPC) learning site. METHODS:  A rapid appraisal with convergent mixed-methods design, including semi-structured interviews with facility and community health workers (CHWs) (n = 20) and patients living with NCDs (n = 8), was used. Interviews were conducted in English and Afrikaans by qualified interviewers. Transcripts were analysed by thematic content analysis. Quantitative data of health facility attendance, chronic dispensing unit (CDU) prescriptions and routine diabetes control were sourced from the Provincial Health Data Centre and analysed descriptively. RESULTS:  Qualitative analysis revealed three themes: disruption (cancellation of services, fear of infection, stress and anxiety), service reorganisation (communication, home delivery of medication, CHW scope of work, risk stratification and change management) and outcomes (workload and morale, stigma, appreciation and impact on NCD control). There was a drop in primary care attendance and an increase in CDU prescriptions and uncontrolled diabetes. CONCLUSION:  This study described the service disruption together with rapid reorganisation and change management at primary care level during the first COVID-19 wave. The changes were strengthened by the COPC foundation in one of the study sites. The impact of COVID-19 on primary-level NCD care and management requires more investigation.

Reorganising specialist cancer surgery for the twenty-first century: a mixed methods evaluation (RESPECT-21).

BACKGROUND: There are longstanding recommendations to centralise specialist healthcare services, citing the potential to reduce variations in care and improve patient outcomes. Current activity to centralise specialist cancer surgical services in two areas of England provides an opportunity to study the planning, implementation and outcomes of such changes. London Cancer and Manchester Cancer are centralising specialist surgical pathways for prostate, bladder, renal, and oesophago-gastric cancers, so that these services are provided in fewer hospitals. The centralisations in London were implemented between November 2015 and April 2016, while implementation in Manchester is anticipated in 2017. METHODS/DESIGN: This mixed methods evaluation will analyse stakeholder preferences for centralisations; it will use qualitative methods to analyse planning, implementation and sustainability of the centralisations ('how and why?'); and it will use a controlled before and after design to study the impact of centralisation on clinical processes, clinical outcomes, cost-effectiveness and patient experience ('what works and at what cost?'). The study will use a framework developed in previous research on major system change in acute stroke services. A discrete choice experiment will examine patient, public and professional preferences for centralisations of this kind. Qualitative methods will include documentary analysis, stakeholder interviews and non-participant observations of meetings. Quantitative methods will include analysis of local and national data on clinical processes, outcomes, costs and National Cancer Patient Experience Survey data. Finally, we will hold a workshop for those involved in centralisations of specialist services in other settings to discuss how these lessons might apply more widely. DISCUSSION: This multi-site study will address gaps in the evidence on stakeholder preferences for centralisations of specialist cancer surgery and the processes, impact and cost-effectiveness of changes of this kind. With increasing drives to centralise specialist services, lessons from this study will be of value to those who commission, organise and manage cancer services, as well as services for other conditions and in other settings. The study will face challenges in terms of recruitment, the retrospective analysis of some of the changes, the distinction between primary and secondary outcome measures, and obtaining information on the resources spent on the reconfiguration.