首页 > 最新文献

Health and social care delivery research最新文献

英文 中文
Understanding how children and young people with chronic non-cancer pain and their families experience living with pain, pain management and services: a meta-ethnography. 了解患有慢性非癌症疼痛的儿童和青少年及其家人如何体验疼痛、疼痛管理和服务:荟萃民族志。
Pub Date : 2024-07-01 DOI: 10.3310/UTPM7986
Mayara Silveira Bianchim, Line Caes, Liz Forbat, Abbie Jordan, Jane Noyes, Katie Thomson, Ruth Turley, Isabelle Uny, Emma F France
<p><strong>Background: </strong>Childhood chronic pain is a widespread public health issue. We need to understand how children with chronic pain and their families experience chronic pain and its management.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To conduct a meta-ethnography on the experiences and perceptions of children with chronic pain and their families of chronic pain, treatments and services. We investigated how children and their families conceptualise and live with chronic pain; what they think of and want from health and social care services; and what they conceptualise as 'good' pain management.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Meta-ethnography with stakeholder and patient and public involvement in the design, search and sampling strategies, analysis and dissemination. Review strategy: comprehensive searches of 12 bibliographic databases and supplementary searches in September 2022, to identify qualitative studies with children aged 3 months to 18 years with chronic non-cancer pain and their families. We included studies with rich explanatory data; appraised methodological limitations using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool; and extracted, analysed and synthesised studies' findings. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-confidence in the evidence from reviews of qualitative research to assess confidence in review findings. We integrated findings with 14 Cochrane treatment effectiveness reviews on children's chronic non-cancer pain.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We synthesised 43 studies sampled from 170 eligible studies reported in 182 publications. Studies had minor (<i>n</i> = 24) or moderate (<i>n</i> = 19) methodological limitations. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-confidence in the evidence from reviews of qualitative research assessments of review findings were high (<i>n</i> = 22), moderate (<i>n</i> = 13) or very low confidence (<i>n</i> = 1). Moderate and severe chronic pain had profound adverse impacts on family members' well-being, autonomy and self-identity; family dynamics; parenting approaches; friendships and socialising; children's education and parental paid employment. Most children and families sought a biomedical cure for pain. They experienced difficulties seeking and receiving support from health services to manage pain and its impacts. Consequently, some families repeatedly visited health services. Cochrane reviews of intervention effects and trials did not measure some outcomes important to children and families, for example effects of pain on the family and resolution of pain. Reviews have mainly neglected a biopsychosocial approach when considering how interventions work.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>There were limited data on common pain conditions like migraine/headache, abdominal pain; some rarer conditions; children with learning disabilities and under-fives; siblings; fathers and experiences of treatments/services. We excl
背景:儿童慢性疼痛是一个普遍的公共卫生问题。我们需要了解患有慢性疼痛的儿童及其家人是如何体验慢性疼痛及其管理的:就慢性疼痛儿童及其家人对慢性疼痛、治疗和服务的体验和看法开展一项元民族志研究。我们调查了儿童及其家人对慢性疼痛的概念和生活方式;他们对医疗和社会护理服务的看法和需求;以及他们对 "良好 "疼痛管理的概念:设计:元人种学,利益相关者、患者和公众参与设计、搜索和取样策略、分析和传播。综述策略:2022 年 9 月对 12 个文献数据库进行了全面检索和补充检索,以确定针对 3 个月至 18 岁患有慢性非癌性疼痛的儿童及其家人的定性研究。我们纳入了具有丰富解释性数据的研究;使用 "批判性评估技能计划 "工具评估了研究方法的局限性;并对研究结果进行了提取、分析和综合。我们使用 "建议评估、发展和评价分级--定性研究综述中的证据可信度 "来评估综述结论的可信度。我们将研究结果与 14 篇有关儿童慢性非癌症疼痛的 Cochrane 治疗效果综述进行了整合:我们从 182 份出版物中报告的 170 项符合条件的研究中抽取了 43 项研究进行综合。研究存在轻微(24 项)或中度(19 项)方法限制。建议评估、制定和评价分级--定性研究综述的证据置信度对综述结果的评估为高度置信(22 项)、中度置信(13 项)或极低置信(1 项)。中度和重度慢性疼痛对家庭成员的幸福感、自主性和自我认同感、家庭动态、养育方式、友谊和社交、子女教育和父母有偿就业产生了深远的不利影响。大多数儿童和家庭都希望通过生物医学方法治愈疼痛。他们在寻求和获得医疗服务支持以控制疼痛及其影响方面遇到了困难。因此,一些家庭反复到医疗服务机构就诊。对干预效果和试验的 Cochrane 综述没有衡量对儿童和家庭很重要的一些结果,例如疼痛对家庭的影响和疼痛的解决。在考虑干预措施如何发挥作用时,综述主要忽视了生物-心理-社会方法:有关偏头痛/头痛、腹痛等常见疼痛病症、一些罕见病症、有学习障碍的儿童和五岁以下儿童、兄弟姐妹、父亲以及治疗/服务经验的数据有限。我们排除了有关癌症、临终疼痛和医护人员经验的研究:我们提出了以家庭为中心的儿童慢性疼痛管理理论,将医疗和社会护理与社区支持相结合:未来的研究:未来的研究应探讨家庭对服务和治疗(包括阿片类药物)以及社会护理服务的体验;自闭症和学习障碍儿童、5 岁以下儿童以及患有某些常见疼痛病症儿童的体验。我们需要开发和测试以家庭为中心的干预措施和服务:本研究注册为 PROSPERO (CRD42019161455) 和 Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care (623):本奖项由美国国家健康与护理研究所(NIHR)健康与社会护理服务研究项目(NIHR奖项编号:NIHR128671)资助,全文发表于《健康与社会护理服务研究》第12卷第17期。如需了解更多奖项信息,请访问 NIHR Funding and Awards 网站。
{"title":"Understanding how children and young people with chronic non-cancer pain and their families experience living with pain, pain management and services: a meta-ethnography.","authors":"Mayara Silveira Bianchim, Line Caes, Liz Forbat, Abbie Jordan, Jane Noyes, Katie Thomson, Ruth Turley, Isabelle Uny, Emma F France","doi":"10.3310/UTPM7986","DOIUrl":"10.3310/UTPM7986","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background: &lt;/strong&gt;Childhood chronic pain is a widespread public health issue. We need to understand how children with chronic pain and their families experience chronic pain and its management.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Objectives: &lt;/strong&gt;To conduct a meta-ethnography on the experiences and perceptions of children with chronic pain and their families of chronic pain, treatments and services. We investigated how children and their families conceptualise and live with chronic pain; what they think of and want from health and social care services; and what they conceptualise as 'good' pain management.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Design: &lt;/strong&gt;Meta-ethnography with stakeholder and patient and public involvement in the design, search and sampling strategies, analysis and dissemination. Review strategy: comprehensive searches of 12 bibliographic databases and supplementary searches in September 2022, to identify qualitative studies with children aged 3 months to 18 years with chronic non-cancer pain and their families. We included studies with rich explanatory data; appraised methodological limitations using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool; and extracted, analysed and synthesised studies' findings. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-confidence in the evidence from reviews of qualitative research to assess confidence in review findings. We integrated findings with 14 Cochrane treatment effectiveness reviews on children's chronic non-cancer pain.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results: &lt;/strong&gt;We synthesised 43 studies sampled from 170 eligible studies reported in 182 publications. Studies had minor (&lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 24) or moderate (&lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 19) methodological limitations. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-confidence in the evidence from reviews of qualitative research assessments of review findings were high (&lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 22), moderate (&lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 13) or very low confidence (&lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 1). Moderate and severe chronic pain had profound adverse impacts on family members' well-being, autonomy and self-identity; family dynamics; parenting approaches; friendships and socialising; children's education and parental paid employment. Most children and families sought a biomedical cure for pain. They experienced difficulties seeking and receiving support from health services to manage pain and its impacts. Consequently, some families repeatedly visited health services. Cochrane reviews of intervention effects and trials did not measure some outcomes important to children and families, for example effects of pain on the family and resolution of pain. Reviews have mainly neglected a biopsychosocial approach when considering how interventions work.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Limitations: &lt;/strong&gt;There were limited data on common pain conditions like migraine/headache, abdominal pain; some rarer conditions; children with learning disabilities and under-fives; siblings; fathers and experiences of treatments/services. We excl","PeriodicalId":519880,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":"12 17","pages":"1-218"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141753752","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Improving support and planning ahead for older people with learning disabilities and family carers: a mixed-methods study. 改善对有学习障碍的老年人和家庭照顾者的支持并提前规划:一项混合方法研究。
Pub Date : 2024-06-01 DOI: 10.3310/MTHW2644
Sara Ryan, Louise Wallace, Elizabeth Tilley, Irene Tuffrey-Wijne, Magdalena Mikulak, Rebecca Anderson, Angeli Vaid, Pam Bebbington, Richard Keagan-Bull, Emmie Morrissey, Angela Martin

Background: People with learning disabilities are living longer. Despite government policy to encourage people to lead supported lives in their community, family carers often maintain support due to dissatisfaction with services. This can lead to people moving from the family home in a crisis.

Objectives: (1) Find out what is known about health needs and resources for older people with learning disabilities (aged ≥ 40 years); (2) identify exemplars of good services for older people with learning disabilities; (3) explore service exemplars through ethnographic case studies; (4) evaluate support for older people with learning disabilities and their families through co-producing and testing future planning tools and (5) co-produce recommendations and resources.

Design and methods: Work package 1 rapid scoping reviews - three reviews focused on the health and social care needs of older people with learning disabilities and 'behaviours that challenge others', and family carers, and the co-ordination of support for this group. Work package 2 scoping and mapping exemplars of good practice - analysis of published service standards to assess excellence criteria, by mapping services, interviews (n = 30), survey (n = 9) and informal discussion with commissioners. Work package 3 ethnography of case studies of exemplar provision; independent supported living (n = 4); residential/nursing home (n = 2); day activities (n = 1), Shared Lives (n = 2). Fieldwork (20 days per model), interviews (n = 77) with older people with learning disabilities, family carers, support staff and commissioners. Work package 4 - co-producing and testing resources for older people with learning disabilities and their families involved interviews and focus groups with 36 people with learning disabilities, parents, and siblings, and experience-based co-design with 11 participants. Eight families evaluated the resources. Work package 5 - three stakeholder workshops co-produced service recommendations.

Findings: The reviews confirmed an inadequate evidence base concerning the experiences and support of family carers and older people with learning disabilities and 'behaviours that challenge others'. Criteria of excellence were produced, and a shortlist of 15 services was identified for consideration in work package 3. The ethnographic work found that environmental, organisational and social factors were important, including supporting independence and choice about who people live with, matching staff to people, consistent relationships and adapting to ageing. Practices of institutionalisation were observed. In work package 4, we found that families were worried about the future and unsupported to explore options. 'Planning Ahead' cards and a booklet to record discussions were produced, and the evaluation was positively rated. Finally, formative discussio

背景:有学习障碍的人寿命越来越长。尽管政府的政策是鼓励他们在社区中过有支持的生活,但由于对服务不满意,家庭照护者通常会继续提供支持。目标:(1)了解有学习障碍的老年人(年龄≥ 40 岁)的健康需求和资源;(2)确定为有学习障碍的老年人提供良好服务的范例;(3)通过人种学案例研究探索服务范例;(4)通过共同制作和测试未来规划工具,评估为有学习障碍的老年人及其家人提供的支持;(5)共同制作建议和资源:工作包 1 快速范围界定审查--三项审查的重点是有学习障碍和 "挑战他人的行为 "的老年人、家庭照顾者的健康和社会护理需求,以及对这一群体的支持协调。工作包 2 确定范围并绘制良好实践范例图--通过绘制服务图、访谈(30 人)、调查(9 人)以及与专员进行非正式讨论,分析已发布的服务标准,以评估卓越标准。工作包 3:对示范服务案例进行人种学研究;独立辅助生活(4 个);寄宿/护理之家(2 个);日间活动(1 个);共享生活(2 个)。实地调查(每种模式 20 天),与有学习障碍的老年人、家庭照顾者、辅助人员和专员进行访谈(n = 77)。工作包 4--为有学习障碍的老年人及其家庭共同制作和测试资源,包括与 36 名有学习障碍的老年人、父母和兄弟姐妹进行访谈和焦点小组讨论,以及与 11 名参与者进行基于经验的共同设计。8 个家庭对资源进行了评估。工作包 5--三个利益相关者研讨会共同提出了服务建议:审查证实,有关家庭照顾者和有学习障碍及 "挑战他人的行为 "的老年人的经验和支持的证据基础不足。制定了卓越标准,并确定了一份包含 15 项服务的短名单,供工作包 3 审议。人种学工作发现,环境、组织和社会因素都很重要,包括支持独立和选择与谁生活在一起、工作人员与人的匹配、一致的关系和适应老龄化。我们还观察到了机构化的做法。在工作包 4 中,我们发现家庭对未来忧心忡忡,在探索各种选择时得不到支持。我们制作了 "未雨绸缪 "卡和小册子来记录讨论情况,评估结果得到了积极评价。最后,通过形成性讨论提出了建议。成果包括培训教材、照顾者论坛、电影、播客和学术论文:对有学习障碍的老年人和家庭照顾者的关注很少。服务机构对老年支持的规划方法各不相同。家庭在规划方面得不到支持,使人们没有选择的余地。挑战他人的行为 "被认为是无益的术语。建议:建议为有学习障碍的老年人和家庭照顾者制定一项新的战略,其中包括委托实践、专业投入和同伴学习、积极主动的老龄化支持以及优秀的服务设计:局限性:COVID-19 大流行给招聘工作带来了挑战。局限性:COVID-19 大流行带来了招聘方面的挑战,依赖于提供者的招聘导致工作包 3 缺乏多样性。未来的工作:鉴于在这一领域缺乏重点,未来有一系列工作需要考虑:来自不同种族背景的有学习障碍的老年人的经验;支持人们 "就地 "养老和死亡;设计/委托服务(包括住房)的最佳实践;社工的作用;接触自然;获得主流支持;以及对 "提前规划 "卡的评估:该试验的注册号为 ISRCTN74264887:该奖项由国家健康与护理研究所(NIHR)的健康与社会护理服务研究计划(NIHR奖项编号:NIHR129491)资助,全文发表于《健康与社会护理服务研究》第12卷第16期。如需了解更多奖项信息,请访问 NIHR Funding and Awards 网站。
{"title":"Improving support and planning ahead for older people with learning disabilities and family carers: a mixed-methods study.","authors":"Sara Ryan, Louise Wallace, Elizabeth Tilley, Irene Tuffrey-Wijne, Magdalena Mikulak, Rebecca Anderson, Angeli Vaid, Pam Bebbington, Richard Keagan-Bull, Emmie Morrissey, Angela Martin","doi":"10.3310/MTHW2644","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3310/MTHW2644","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>People with learning disabilities are living longer. Despite government policy to encourage people to lead supported lives in their community, family carers often maintain support due to dissatisfaction with services. This can lead to people moving from the family home in a crisis.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>(1) Find out what is known about health needs and resources for older people with learning disabilities (aged ≥ 40 years); (2) identify exemplars of good services for older people with learning disabilities; (3) explore service exemplars through ethnographic case studies; (4) evaluate support for older people with learning disabilities and their families through co-producing and testing future planning tools and (5) co-produce recommendations and resources.</p><p><strong>Design and methods: </strong>Work package 1 rapid scoping reviews - three reviews focused on the health and social care needs of older people with learning disabilities and 'behaviours that challenge others', and family carers, and the co-ordination of support for this group. Work package 2 scoping and mapping exemplars of good practice - analysis of published service standards to assess excellence criteria, by mapping services, interviews (<i>n</i> = 30), survey (<i>n</i> = 9) and informal discussion with commissioners. Work package 3 ethnography of case studies of exemplar provision; independent supported living (<i>n</i> = 4); residential/nursing home (<i>n</i> = 2); day activities (<i>n</i> = 1), Shared Lives (<i>n</i> = 2). Fieldwork (20 days per model), interviews (<i>n</i> = 77) with older people with learning disabilities, family carers, support staff and commissioners. Work package 4 - co-producing and testing resources for older people with learning disabilities and their families involved interviews and focus groups with 36 people with learning disabilities, parents, and siblings, and experience-based co-design with 11 participants. Eight families evaluated the resources. Work package 5 - three stakeholder workshops co-produced service recommendations.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>The reviews confirmed an inadequate evidence base concerning the experiences and support of family carers and older people with learning disabilities and 'behaviours that challenge others'. Criteria of excellence were produced, and a shortlist of 15 services was identified for consideration in work package 3. The ethnographic work found that environmental, organisational and social factors were important, including supporting independence and choice about who people live with, matching staff to people, consistent relationships and adapting to ageing. Practices of institutionalisation were observed. In work package 4, we found that families were worried about the future and unsupported to explore options. 'Planning Ahead' cards and a booklet to record discussions were produced, and the evaluation was positively rated. Finally, formative discussio","PeriodicalId":519880,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":"12 16","pages":"1-161"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141474491","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Service innovations for people with multiple long-term conditions: reflections of a rapid evaluation team. 为患有多种长期疾病的人提供的服务创新:快速评估小组的反思。
Pub Date : 2024-06-01 DOI: 10.3310/PTRU7108
Jon Sussex, Judith Smith, Frances M Wu

Background: People living with multiple long-term conditions represent a significant concern for National Health Service policy and practice, and their care is a major theme in the 2019 National Health Service Long Term Plan. The Birmingham RAND and Cambridge Rapid Evaluation Centre team has undertaken a thematic synthesis of the 10 evaluations it has conducted from 2018 to 2023, exploring the needs, priorities and implications for people with multiple long-term conditions.

Objectives: The aims for this overarching study were to: (1) build a body of learning about service innovations in primary and community settings for people of all ages with multiple long-term conditions, focused on questions that matter most to people with multimorbidity; and (2) develop methodological insights about how rapid evaluation can be used to inform the scoping, testing and implementation of service innovations for people with multiple long-term conditions.

Design: The focus on multiple long-term conditions came from a Birmingham RAND and Cambridge Rapid Evaluation Centre prioritisation process undertaken in 2018 using James Lind Alliance methods. Cross-analysis of the findings from the 10 individual rapid evaluations was supplemented by (1) building aspects of multimorbidity into the design of later evaluations; (2) interviewing national and regional stakeholders (n=19) working in or alongside integrated care systems; (3) undertaking a rapid review of evidence on remote monitoring for people with multiple long-term conditions (19 papers included); and (4) testing overall insights with organisations representing patients and carers through a patient, public and professional engagement workshop with 10 participants plus members of the research team.

Results: While living with multiple long-term conditions is common and is the norm for people over the age of 50 using health and care services, it is not often a focus of health service provision or innovation, nor of research and evaluation activity. We discuss six themes emerging from the totality of the study: (1) our health system is mainly organised around single conditions and not multiple long-term conditions; (2) research calls and studies usually focus on single conditions and associated services; (3) building opportunities for engaged, informed individuals and carers and improved self-management; (4) the importance of measures that matter for patients and carers; (5) barriers to developing and implementing service innovations for people with multiple long-term conditions; and (6) what is needed to make patients with multiple long-term conditions a priority in healthcare planning and delivery.

Limitations: Care of people with multiple long-term conditions was not the principal focus of several of the rapid evaluations. While this was a finding in itself, it limited our learning about designing a

背景:患有多种长期疾病的人是国家卫生服务政策和实践的一个重要关注点,他们的护理是 2019 年国家卫生服务长期计划的一个重要主题。伯明翰兰德和剑桥快速评估中心团队对其在 2018 年至 2023 年期间开展的 10 项评估进行了专题综合,探讨了多种长期病症患者的需求、优先事项和影响:这项总体研究的目标是目标:这项研究的总体目标是:(1) 建立一个有关在初级和社区环境中为患有多种长期病症的各年龄段人群提供服务创新的学习体系,重点关注对患有多种长期病症的人群最重要的问题;(2) 就如何利用快速评价为患有多种长期病症的人群确定服务创新的范围、测试和实施提供信息,提出方法论见解:设计:对多种长期病症的关注来自于伯明翰兰德公司和剑桥快速评估中心于 2018 年采用詹姆斯-林德联盟方法开展的优先排序程序。对 10 项单独快速评估结果的交叉分析通过以下方式进行了补充:(1)将多病症的各个方面纳入后期评估的设计中;(2)采访在综合护理系统中工作或与该系统一起工作的国家和地区利益相关者(n=19);(3)对有关多种长期病症患者远程监测的证据进行快速审查(包括 19 篇论文);以及(4)通过有 10 名参与者和研究团队成员参加的患者、公众和专业人士参与研讨会,与代表患者和护理者的组织一起测试总体见解:虽然患有多种长期疾病的情况很常见,而且是 50 岁以上人群使用医疗和护理服务的常态,但它往往不是医疗服务提供或创新的重点,也不是研究和评估活动的重点。我们讨论了从整个研究中产生的六个主题:(1)我们的医疗系统主要是围绕单一病症而非多重长期病症组织的;(2)研究呼吁和研究通常侧重于单一病症和相关服务;(3)为参与、知情的个人和护理者创造机会并改善自我管理;(4)对患者和护理者重要的措施的重要性;(5)为多重长期病症患者开发和实施服务创新的障碍;以及(6)将多重长期病症患者作为医疗保健规划和提供的优先事项需要做些什么:局限性:对患有多种长期疾病的患者的护理并不是几项快速评估的主要重点。虽然这本身就是一个发现,但它限制了我们对设计和实施的学习,以及对评估方法的学习,也限制了我们对多种长期疾病患者服务创新的学习:通过对评估组合的主题分析,我们推导出了一系列建议,涉及如何将多种长期病症患者的需求更好地纳入政策、研究和实践中:今后的工作:应进一步探索与多重长期病症患者护理相关的不确定领域,包括开发和测试患者在不同环境下(未)协调护理体验的衡量标准,以及调查医疗和护理人员在与多重长期病症患者合作时的体验,以了解哪些方法有效:该奖项由国家健康与护理研究所(NIHR)的健康与社会护理服务研究项目(NIHR奖项编号:NIHR134284)资助,全文发表于《健康与社会护理服务研究》第12卷第15期。更多奖项信息请参阅 NIHR Funding and Awards 网站。
{"title":"Service innovations for people with multiple long-term conditions: reflections of a rapid evaluation team.","authors":"Jon Sussex, Judith Smith, Frances M Wu","doi":"10.3310/PTRU7108","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3310/PTRU7108","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>People living with multiple long-term conditions represent a significant concern for National Health Service policy and practice, and their care is a major theme in the 2019 National Health Service Long Term Plan. The Birmingham RAND and Cambridge Rapid Evaluation Centre team has undertaken a thematic synthesis of the 10 evaluations it has conducted from 2018 to 2023, exploring the needs, priorities and implications for people with multiple long-term conditions.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aims for this overarching study were to: (1) build a body of learning about service innovations in primary and community settings for people of all ages with multiple long-term conditions, focused on questions that matter most to people with multimorbidity; and (2) develop methodological insights about how rapid evaluation can be used to inform the scoping, testing and implementation of service innovations for people with multiple long-term conditions.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>The focus on multiple long-term conditions came from a Birmingham RAND and Cambridge Rapid Evaluation Centre prioritisation process undertaken in 2018 using James Lind Alliance methods. Cross-analysis of the findings from the 10 individual rapid evaluations was supplemented by (1) building aspects of multimorbidity into the design of later evaluations; (2) interviewing national and regional stakeholders (<i>n</i>=19) working in or alongside integrated care systems; (3) undertaking a rapid review of evidence on remote monitoring for people with multiple long-term conditions (19 papers included); and (4) testing overall insights with organisations representing patients and carers through a patient, public and professional engagement workshop with 10 participants plus members of the research team.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>While living with multiple long-term conditions is common and is the norm for people over the age of 50 using health and care services, it is not often a focus of health service provision or innovation, nor of research and evaluation activity. We discuss six themes emerging from the totality of the study: (1) our health system is mainly organised around single conditions and not multiple long-term conditions; (2) research calls and studies usually focus on single conditions and associated services; (3) building opportunities for engaged, informed individuals and carers and improved self-management; (4) the importance of measures that matter for patients and carers; (5) barriers to developing and implementing service innovations for people with multiple long-term conditions; and (6) what is needed to make patients with multiple long-term conditions a priority in healthcare planning and delivery.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Care of people with multiple long-term conditions was not the principal focus of several of the rapid evaluations. While this was a finding in itself, it limited our learning about designing a","PeriodicalId":519880,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":"12 15","pages":"1-76"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141474490","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Factors influencing effective data sharing between health care and social care regarding the care of older people: a qualitative evidence synthesis. 影响医疗保健与社会医疗保健之间有效共享老年人护理数据的因素:定性证据综述。
Pub Date : 2024-05-01 DOI: 10.3310/TTWG4738
Siân de Bell, Zhivko Zhelev, Alison Bethel, Jo Thompson Coon, Rob Anderson

Background: Sharing data about patients between health and social care organisations and professionals, such as details of their medication, is essential to provide co-ordinated and person-centred care. While professionals can share data in a number of ways - for example, through shared electronic record systems or multidisciplinary team meetings - there are many factors that make sharing data across the health and social care boundary difficult. These include professional hierarchies, inaccessible electronic systems and concerns around confidentiality. Data-sharing is particularly important for the care of older people, as they are more likely to have multiple or long-term conditions; understanding is needed on how to enable effective data-sharing.

Objectives: To identify factors perceived as influencing effective data-sharing, including the successful adoption of interventions to improve data-sharing, between healthcare and social care organisations and professionals regarding the care of older people.

Methods: MEDLINE and seven further databases were searched (in March 2023) for qualitative and mixed-methods studies. Relevant websites were searched and citation-chasing completed on included studies. Studies were included if they focused on older people, as defined by the study, and data-sharing, defined as the transfer of information between healthcare and social care organisations, or care professionals, regarding a patient, and were conducted in the United Kingdom. Purposive sampling was used to obtain a final set of studies which were analysed using framework synthesis. Quality appraisal was conducted using the Wallace checklist. Stakeholder and public and patient involvement groups were consulted throughout the project.

Results: Twenty-four studies were included; most scored highly on the quality appraisal checklist. Four main themes were identified. Within Goals, we found five purposes of data-sharing: joint (health and social care) assessment, integrated case management, transitions from hospital to home, for residents of care homes, and for palliative care. In Relationships, building interprofessional relationships, and therefore trust and respect, between professionals supported data-sharing, while the presence of professional prejudices and mistrust hindered it. Interorganisational Processes and procedures, such as a shared vision of care and operationalisation of formal agreements, for example data governance, supported data-sharing. Within Technology and infrastructure, the use of technology as a tool supported data-sharing, as did professionals' awareness of the wider care system. There were also specific factors influencing data-sharing related to its purpose; for example, there was a lack of legal frameworks in the area of palliative care.

Limitations: Data-sharing was usually discussed in th

背景:在医疗和社会医疗机构及专业人员之间共享病人的数据(如用药详情)对于提供协调的、以人为本的医疗服务至关重要。虽然专业人员可以通过多种方式共享数据--例如,通过共享电子记录系统或多学科团队会议--但有许多因素使得跨越医疗和社会护理边界共享数据变得困难。这些因素包括专业等级制度、无法访问电子系统以及对保密性的担忧。数据共享对老年人的护理尤为重要,因为他们更有可能患有多种或长期疾病;需要了解如何实现有效的数据共享:目的:确定影响有效数据共享的因素,包括成功采取干预措施以改善医疗保健和社会护理组织及专业人员之间有关老年人护理的数据共享:方法:检索了 MEDLINE 和其他七个数据库(截至 2023 年 3 月)中的定性和混合方法研究。对相关网站进行了搜索,并对纳入的研究进行了引文搜索。如果研究的重点是老年人(由研究定义)和数据共享(定义为医疗保健和社会护理机构或护理专业人员之间有关患者的信息传递),并且是在英国进行的,则纳入研究。通过有目的的抽样,最终获得了一组研究,并采用框架综合法对其进行了分析。采用华莱士核对表进行质量评估。在整个项目过程中,我们咨询了利益相关者、公众和患者参与团体:结果:共纳入 24 项研究;大多数研究在质量评估清单中得分很高。确定了四大主题。在 "目标 "中,我们发现了数据共享的五个目的:联合(医疗和社会护理)评估、综合病例管理、从医院到家庭的过渡、针对护理院居民的数据共享以及姑息治疗。在 "关系 "中,专业人员之间建立跨专业关系,从而建立信任和尊重,有助于数据共享,而专业偏见和不信任的存在则阻碍了数据共享。组织间的流程和程序,如共同的护理愿景和正式协议(如数据管理)的可操作性,支持数据共享。在技术和基础设施方面,技术作为一种工具的使用支持数据共享,专业人员对更广泛的护理系统的认识也支持数据共享。影响数据共享的具体因素还与其目的有关;例如,姑息关怀领域缺乏法律框架:局限性:数据共享通常是在综合医疗等更广泛的倡议背景下讨论的,这意味着所提供的信息往往是有限的。COVID-19大流行对工作方式产生了重大影响;我们所纳入的研究都不是在大流行期间或之后进行的:我们的研究结果表明,建立跨专业关系并确保专业人员能够以多种方式共享数据非常重要:需要探索 COVID-19 大流行后采用的新技术和工作方式对数据共享的影响。此外,研究还应该探讨患者的体验以及预防医疗和社会护理专业人员中的数字排斥现象:研究方案已在 PROSPERO CRD42023416621 上注册:该奖项由国家健康与护理研究所(NIHR)的健康与社会护理服务研究计划(NIHR奖项编号:NIHR135660)资助,是NIHR130538奖项下一系列证据综合的一部分,全文发表于《健康与社会护理服务研究》第12卷第12期。更多奖项信息,请参阅 NIHR Funding and Awards 网站。
{"title":"Factors influencing effective data sharing between health care and social care regarding the care of older people: a qualitative evidence synthesis.","authors":"Siân de Bell, Zhivko Zhelev, Alison Bethel, Jo Thompson Coon, Rob Anderson","doi":"10.3310/TTWG4738","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3310/TTWG4738","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Sharing data about patients between health and social care organisations and professionals, such as details of their medication, is essential to provide co-ordinated and person-centred care. While professionals can share data in a number of ways - for example, through shared electronic record systems or multidisciplinary team meetings - there are many factors that make sharing data across the health and social care boundary difficult. These include professional hierarchies, inaccessible electronic systems and concerns around confidentiality. Data-sharing is particularly important for the care of older people, as they are more likely to have multiple or long-term conditions; understanding is needed on how to enable effective data-sharing.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To identify factors perceived as influencing effective data-sharing, including the successful adoption of interventions to improve data-sharing, between healthcare and social care organisations and professionals regarding the care of older people.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>MEDLINE and seven further databases were searched (in March 2023) for qualitative and mixed-methods studies. Relevant websites were searched and citation-chasing completed on included studies. Studies were included if they focused on older people, as defined by the study, and data-sharing, defined as the transfer of information between healthcare and social care organisations, or care professionals, regarding a patient, and were conducted in the United Kingdom. Purposive sampling was used to obtain a final set of studies which were analysed using framework synthesis. Quality appraisal was conducted using the Wallace checklist. Stakeholder and public and patient involvement groups were consulted throughout the project.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-four studies were included; most scored highly on the quality appraisal checklist. Four main themes were identified. Within <i>Goals</i>, we found five purposes of data-sharing: joint (health and social care) assessment, integrated case management, transitions from hospital to home, for residents of care homes, and for palliative care. In <i>Relationships</i>, building interprofessional relationships, and therefore trust and respect, between professionals supported data-sharing, while the presence of professional prejudices and mistrust hindered it. Interorganisational <i>Processes and procedures</i>, such as a shared vision of care and operationalisation of formal agreements, for example data governance, supported data-sharing. Within <i>Technology and infrastructure</i>, the use of technology as a tool supported data-sharing, as did professionals' awareness of the wider care system. There were also specific factors influencing data-sharing related to its purpose; for example, there was a lack of legal frameworks in the area of palliative care.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Data-sharing was usually discussed in th","PeriodicalId":519880,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":"12 12","pages":"1-87"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141082778","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Service design for children and young people with common mental health problems: literature review, service mapping and collective case study. 为有常见心理健康问题的儿童和青少年设计服务:文献综述、服务规划和集体案例研究。
Pub Date : 2024-05-01 DOI: 10.3310/DKRT6293
Steven Pryjmachuk, Susan Kirk, Claire Fraser, Nicola Evans, Rhiannon Lane, Liz Neill, Elizabeth Camacho, Peter Bower, Penny Bee, Tim McDougall

Background: The mental health of children/young people is a growing concern internationally. Numerous reports and reviews have consistently described United Kingdom children's mental health services as fragmented, variable, inaccessible and lacking an evidence base. Little is known about the effectiveness of, and implementation complexities associated with, service models for children/young people experiencing 'common' mental health problems like anxiety, depression, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and self-harm.

Aim: To develop a model for high-quality service design for children/young people experiencing common mental health problems by identifying available services, barriers and enablers to access, and the effectiveness, cost effectiveness and acceptability of such services.

Design: Evidence syntheses with primary research, using a sequential, mixed-methods design. Inter-related scoping and integrative reviews were conducted alongside a map of relevant services across England and Wales, followed by a collective case study of English and Welsh services.

Setting: Global (systematic reviews); England and Wales (service map; case study).

Data sources: Literature reviews: relevant bibliographic databases and grey literature. Service map: online survey and offline desk research. Case study: 108 participants (41 children/young people, 26 parents, 41 staff) across nine case study sites.

Methods: A single literature search informed both reviews. The service map was obtained from an online survey and internet searches. Case study sites were sampled from the service map; because of coronavirus disease 2019, case study data were collected remotely. 'Young co-researchers' assisted with case study data collection. The integrative review and case study data were synthesised using the 'weaving' approach of 'integration through narrative'.

Results: A service model typology was derived from the scoping review. The integrative review found effectiveness evidence for collaborative care, outreach approaches, brief intervention services and the 'availability, responsiveness and continuity' framework. There was cost-effectiveness evidence only for collaborative care. No service model appeared to be more acceptable than others. The service map identified 154 English and Welsh services. Three themes emerged from the case study data: 'pathways to support'; 'service engagement'; and 'learning and understanding'. The integrative review and case study data were synthesised into a coproduced model of high-quality service provision for children/young people experiencing common mental health problems.

Limitations: Defining 'service model' was a challenge. Some service initiatives were too new to have filtered through into the literature or service map. Coronavirus disease 2019 brought ab

背景:儿童/青少年的心理健康在国际上日益受到关注。许多报告和评论都一致认为英国的儿童心理健康服务支离破碎、多变、难以获取且缺乏证据基础。对于焦虑症、抑郁症、注意力缺陷多动障碍和自残等 "常见 "心理健康问题的儿童/青少年服务模式的有效性及其实施的复杂性,人们知之甚少。目标:通过确定现有服务、获得服务的障碍和促进因素,以及此类服务的有效性、成本效益和可接受性,为遇到常见心理健康问题的儿童/青少年开发一个高质量服务设计模型:设计:采用循序渐进的混合方法设计,对原始研究进行证据综合。在绘制英格兰和威尔士相关服务地图的同时,还进行了相互关联的范围界定和综合审查,随后对英格兰和威尔士的服务进行了集体案例研究:全球(系统综述);英格兰和威尔士(服务地图;案例研究):文献综述:相关书目数据库和灰色文献。服务地图:在线调查和离线案头研究。案例研究:108 名参与者(41 名儿童/青少年、26 名家长、41 名工作人员),涉及 9 个案例研究地点:方法:两份综述均采用单一文献检索。服务地图来自在线调查和互联网搜索。从服务地图中抽取案例研究地点;由于 2019 年冠状病毒疾病,案例研究数据是远程收集的。年轻的合作研究者 "协助收集案例研究数据。采用 "通过叙述进行整合 "的 "编织 "方法,对综合综述和案例研究数据进行了综合:结果:从范围界定审查中得出了服务模式类型。综合评审发现了协作护理、外联方法、简短干预服务和 "可用性、响应性和连续性 "框架的有效性证据。只有协作护理具有成本效益证据。没有一种服务模式似乎比其他模式更容易被接受。服务地图确定了 154 项英格兰和威尔士服务。案例研究数据中出现了三个主题:支持途径"、"服务参与 "和 "学习与理解"。综合评述和案例研究数据被归纳为一个共同制作的模式,为有常见心理健康问题的儿童/青少年提供高质量的服务:局限性:"服务模式 "的定义是一个挑战。局限性:定义 "服务模式 "是一项挑战,有些服务举措太新,还没有被纳入文献或服务地图。2019 年冠状病毒疾病导致远程/数字服务激增,而这些服务在文献中的代表性不足。相关研究的缺乏意味着几乎无法得出成本效益结论:没有强有力的证据表明任何现有服务模式优于其他模式。相反,我们开发了一种共同制作、以证据为基础的模式,该模式包含了高质量儿童心理健康服务所需的基本要素,对政策、实践和研究都很有用:未来工作:未来工作的重点应该是:我们的模式在协助设计、提供和审核儿童心理健康服务方面的潜力;不参与服务的原因;儿童心理健康不同方法的成本效益;数字/远程平台在提供服务方面的优势/劣势;了解法定部门如何以及从非法定部门学到什么有关选择、个性化和灵活性的知识:本研究已注册为 PROSPERO CRD42018106219:本奖项由英国国家健康与护理研究所(NIHR)的健康与社会护理服务研究项目(NIHR奖项编号:17/09/08)资助,全文发表于《健康与社会护理服务研究》(Health and Social Care Delivery Research)第12卷第13期。更多奖项信息,请参阅 NIHR Funding and Awards 网站。
{"title":"Service design for children and young people with common mental health problems: literature review, service mapping and collective case study.","authors":"Steven Pryjmachuk, Susan Kirk, Claire Fraser, Nicola Evans, Rhiannon Lane, Liz Neill, Elizabeth Camacho, Peter Bower, Penny Bee, Tim McDougall","doi":"10.3310/DKRT6293","DOIUrl":"10.3310/DKRT6293","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The mental health of children/young people is a growing concern internationally. Numerous reports and reviews have consistently described United Kingdom children's mental health services as fragmented, variable, inaccessible and lacking an evidence base. Little is known about the effectiveness of, and implementation complexities associated with, service models for children/young people experiencing 'common' mental health problems like anxiety, depression, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and self-harm.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To develop a model for high-quality service design for children/young people experiencing common mental health problems by identifying available services, barriers and enablers to access, and the effectiveness, cost effectiveness and acceptability of such services.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Evidence syntheses with primary research, using a sequential, mixed-methods design. Inter-related scoping and integrative reviews were conducted alongside a map of relevant services across England and Wales, followed by a collective case study of English and Welsh services.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Global (systematic reviews); England and Wales (service map; case study).</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Literature reviews: relevant bibliographic databases and grey literature. Service map: online survey and offline desk research. Case study: 108 participants (41 children/young people, 26 parents, 41 staff) across nine case study sites.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A single literature search informed both reviews. The service map was obtained from an online survey and internet searches. Case study sites were sampled from the service map; because of coronavirus disease 2019, case study data were collected remotely. 'Young co-researchers' assisted with case study data collection. The integrative review and case study data were synthesised using the 'weaving' approach of 'integration through narrative'.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A service model typology was derived from the scoping review. The integrative review found effectiveness evidence for collaborative care, outreach approaches, brief intervention services and the 'availability, responsiveness and continuity' framework. There was cost-effectiveness evidence only for collaborative care. No service model appeared to be more acceptable than others. The service map identified 154 English and Welsh services. Three themes emerged from the case study data: 'pathways to support'; 'service engagement'; and 'learning and understanding'. The integrative review and case study data were synthesised into a coproduced model of high-quality service provision for children/young people experiencing common mental health problems.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Defining 'service model' was a challenge. Some service initiatives were too new to have filtered through into the literature or service map. Coronavirus disease 2019 brought ab","PeriodicalId":519880,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":"12 13","pages":"1-181"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141066510","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Evaluating the real-world implementation of the Family Nurse Partnership in England: a data linkage study. 评估英格兰家庭护士伙伴关系在现实世界中的实施情况:数据链接研究。
Pub Date : 2024-05-01 DOI: 10.3310/BVDW6447
Francesca Cavallaro, Amanda Clery, Ruth Gilbert, Jan van der Meulen, Sally Kendall, Eilis Kennedy, Catherine Phillips, Katie Harron

Background/objectives: The Family Nurse Partnership is an intensive home visiting programme for adolescent mothers. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the Family Nurse Partnership on outcomes up to age 7 using national administrative data.

Design: We created a linked cohort of all mothers aged 13-19 using data from health, educational and children's social care and defined mothers enrolled in the Family Nurse Partnership or not using Family Nurse Partnership system data. Propensity scores were used to create matched groups for analysis.

Setting: One hundred and thirty-six local authorities in England with active Family Nurse Partnership sites between 2010 and 2017.

Participants: Mothers aged 13-19 at last menstrual period with live births between April 2010 and March 2019, living in a Family Nurse Partnership catchment area and their firstborn child(ren).

Interventions: The Family Nurse Partnership includes up to 64 home visits by a family nurse from early pregnancy until the child's second birthday and is combined with usual health and social care. Controls received usual health and social care.

Main outcome measures: Indicators of child maltreatment (hospital admissions for injury/maltreatment, referral to social care services); child health and development (hospital utilisation and education) outcomes and maternal hospital utilisation and educational outcomes up to 7 years following birth.

Data sources: Family Nurse Partnership Information System, Hospital Episode Statistics, National Pupil Database.

Results: Of 110,520 eligible mothers, 25,680 (23.2%) were enrolled in the Family Nurse Partnership. Enrolment rates varied across 122 sites (range: 11-68%). Areas with more eligible mothers had lower enrolment rates. Enrolment was higher among mothers aged 13-15 (52%), than 18-19 year-olds (21%). Indicators of child maltreatment: we found no evidence of an association between the Family Nurse Partnership and indicators of child maltreatment, except for an increased rate of unplanned admissions for maltreatment/injury-related diagnoses up to age 2 for children born to Family Nurse Partnership mothers (6.6% vs. 5.7%, relative risk 1.15; 95% confidence interval 1.07 to 1.24). Child health and developmental outcomes: there was weak evidence that children born to Family Nurse Partnership mothers were more likely to achieve a Good Level of Development at age 5 (57.5% vs. 55.4%, relative risk 1.05; 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.09). Maternal outcomes: There was some evidence that Family Nurse Partnership mothers were less likely to have a subsequent delivery within 18 months of the index birth (8.4% vs. 9.3%, relative risk 0.92; 95% confidence interval 0.88 to 0.97). Younger and more vulnerable mothers received higher numbers of visits and were more likely to achiev

背景/目标:家庭护士合作计划是一项针对青少年母亲的强化家访计划。我们的目的是利用全国性的行政数据,评估 "家庭护士伙伴关系 "对 7 岁以下儿童的效果:设计:我们利用卫生、教育和儿童社会关怀方面的数据创建了一个包含所有 13-19 岁母亲的关联队列,并利用家庭护士合作计划系统数据定义了是否加入家庭护士合作计划的母亲。使用倾向分数创建匹配组进行分析:2010年至2017年期间,英格兰有136个地方当局设有活跃的家庭护士伙伴关系站点:干预措施:家庭护士合作计划包括家庭护士从怀孕初期到孩子两岁生日期间进行的多达 64 次家访,并与常规医疗和社会护理相结合。对照组接受常规医疗和社会护理:主要结果测量指标:儿童虐待指标(因受伤/虐待入院、转诊至社会医疗服务机构);儿童健康和发展(医院使用率和教育)结果以及产妇住院使用率和教育结果(直至出生后 7 年):数据来源:家庭护士伙伴关系信息系统、医院事件统计、全国学生数据库:在 110 520 名符合条件的母亲中,有 25 680 名(23.2%)参加了家庭护士合作计划。122 个地点的登记率各不相同(范围:11%-68%)。符合条件的母亲越多的地区,注册率越低。13-15 岁母亲的注册率(52%)高于 18-19 岁母亲的注册率(21%)。儿童虐待指标:我们没有发现家庭护士合作计划与儿童虐待指标之间存在关联的证据,但家庭护士合作计划母亲所生儿童 2 岁以下因虐待/伤害相关诊断而计划外入院的比率有所增加(6.6% 对 5.7%,相对风险 1.15;95% 置信区间 1.07 至 1.24)。儿童健康和发育结果:有微弱证据表明,"家庭护士合作计划 "母亲所生子女更有可能在 5 岁时达到良好发育水平(57.5% 对 55.4%,相对风险 1.05;95% 置信区间 1.00 至 1.09)。孕产妇结果:有证据表明,"家庭护士合作计划 "的母亲在分娩后 18 个月内再次分娩的可能性较低(8.4% 对 9.3%,相对风险为 0.92;95% 置信区间为 0.88 至 0.97)。更年轻、更脆弱的母亲接受的访视次数更多,也更有可能达到忠诚度目标。达到忠诚度目标与某些结果有关:局限性:指标的偏差以及干预和常规护理在不同时期和不同地区的差异可能限制了我们检测效果的能力。多重测试可能会导致虚假的显著结果:本研究支持家庭护士合作计划的评估结果,即没有证据表明行政数据中测量的虐待结果是有益的。在所有测量的结果中,我们发现有微弱的证据表明,家庭护士合作计划与儿童入学时的发育改善、快速重复怀孕的减少以及母亲和儿童寻求医疗保健的增加有关:未来的工作:未来的评估应更好地衡量家庭护士合作计划的干预措施和常规护理,提供更多有关孕产妇风险因素的信息以及与孕产妇福祉相关的其他结果:研究注册:该研究注册为 NIHR CRN Portfolio (42900):该奖项由国家健康与护理研究所(NIHR)的健康与社会护理服务研究计划(NIHR奖项编号:17/99/19)资助,全文发表于《健康与社会护理服务研究》第12卷第11期。更多奖项信息,请参阅 NIHR Funding and Awards 网站。
{"title":"Evaluating the real-world implementation of the Family Nurse Partnership in England: a data linkage study.","authors":"Francesca Cavallaro, Amanda Clery, Ruth Gilbert, Jan van der Meulen, Sally Kendall, Eilis Kennedy, Catherine Phillips, Katie Harron","doi":"10.3310/BVDW6447","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3310/BVDW6447","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/objectives: </strong>The Family Nurse Partnership is an intensive home visiting programme for adolescent mothers. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the Family Nurse Partnership on outcomes up to age 7 using national administrative data.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>We created a linked cohort of all mothers aged 13-19 using data from health, educational and children's social care and defined mothers enrolled in the Family Nurse Partnership or not using Family Nurse Partnership system data. Propensity scores were used to create matched groups for analysis.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>One hundred and thirty-six local authorities in England with active Family Nurse Partnership sites between 2010 and 2017.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Mothers aged 13-19 at last menstrual period with live births between April 2010 and March 2019, living in a Family Nurse Partnership catchment area and their firstborn child(ren).</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>The Family Nurse Partnership includes up to 64 home visits by a family nurse from early pregnancy until the child's second birthday and is combined with usual health and social care. Controls received usual health and social care.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Indicators of child maltreatment (hospital admissions for injury/maltreatment, referral to social care services); child health and development (hospital utilisation and education) outcomes and maternal hospital utilisation and educational outcomes up to 7 years following birth.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Family Nurse Partnership Information System, Hospital Episode Statistics, National Pupil Database.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 110,520 eligible mothers, 25,680 (23.2%) were enrolled in the Family Nurse Partnership. Enrolment rates varied across 122 sites (range: 11-68%). Areas with more eligible mothers had lower enrolment rates. Enrolment was higher among mothers aged 13-15 (52%), than 18-19 year-olds (21%). Indicators of child maltreatment: we found no evidence of an association between the Family Nurse Partnership and indicators of child maltreatment, except for an increased rate of unplanned admissions for maltreatment/injury-related diagnoses up to age 2 for children born to Family Nurse Partnership mothers (6.6% vs. 5.7%, relative risk 1.15; 95% confidence interval 1.07 to 1.24). Child health and developmental outcomes: there was weak evidence that children born to Family Nurse Partnership mothers were more likely to achieve a Good Level of Development at age 5 (57.5% vs. 55.4%, relative risk 1.05; 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.09). Maternal outcomes: There was some evidence that Family Nurse Partnership mothers were less likely to have a subsequent delivery within 18 months of the index birth (8.4% vs. 9.3%, relative risk 0.92; 95% confidence interval 0.88 to 0.97). Younger and more vulnerable mothers received higher numbers of visits and were more likely to achiev","PeriodicalId":519880,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":"12 11","pages":"1-223"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141089647","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
A service-user digital intervention to collect real-time safety information on acute, adult mental health wards: the WardSonar mixed-methods study. 服务用户数字干预,收集急性成人精神健康病房的实时安全信息:WardSonar 混合方法研究。
Pub Date : 2024-05-01 DOI: 10.3310/UDBQ8402
John Baker, Sarah Kendal, Chris Bojke, Gemma Louch, Daisy Halligan, Saba Shafiq, Charlotte Sturley, Lauren Walker, Mark Brown, Kathryn Berzins, Lyn Brierley-Jones, Jane K O'Hara, Kirstin Blackwell, Gemma Wormald, Krysia Canvin, Charles Vincent

Background: Acute inpatient mental health services report high levels of safety incidents. The application of patient safety theory has been sparse, particularly concerning interventions that proactively seek patient perspectives.

Objective(s): Develop and evaluate a theoretically based, digital monitoring tool to collect real-time information from patients on acute adult mental health wards about their perceptions of ward safety.

Design: Theory-informed mixed-methods study. A prototype digital monitoring tool was developed from a co-design approach, implemented in hospital settings, and subjected to qualitative and quantitative evaluation.

Setting and methods: Phase 1: scoping review of the literature on patient involvement in safety interventions in acute mental health care; evidence scan of digital technology in mental health contexts; qualitative interviews with mental health patients and staff about perspectives on ward safety. This, alongside stakeholder engagement with advisory groups, service users and health professionals, informed the development processes. Most data collection was virtual. Phase 1 resulted in the technical development of a theoretically based digital monitoring tool that collected patient feedback for proactive safety monitoring. Phase 2: implementation of the tool in six adult acute mental health wards across two UK NHS trusts; evaluation via focused ethnography and qualitative interviews. Statistical analysis of WardSonar data and routine ward data involving construction of an hour-by-hour data set per ward, permitting detailed analysis of the use of the WardSonar tool.

Participants: A total of 8 patients and 13 mental health professionals participated in Phase 1 interviews; 33 staff and 34 patients participated in Phase 2 interviews.

Interventions: Patients could use a web application (the WardSonar tool) to record real-time perceptions of ward safety. Staff could access aggregated, anonymous data to inform timely interventions.

Results: Coronavirus disease 2019 restrictions greatly impacted the study. Stakeholder engagement permeated the project. Phase 1 delivered a theory-based, collaboratively designed digital tool for proactive patient safety monitoring. Phase 2 showed that the tool was user friendly and broadly acceptable to patients and staff. The aggregated safety data were infrequently used by staff. Feasibility depended on engaged staff and embedding use of the tool in ward routines. There is strong evidence that an incident leads to increased probability of further incidents within the next 4 hours. This puts a measure on the extent to which social/behavioural contagion persists. There is weak evidence to suggest that an incident leads to a greater use of the WardSonar tool in the following hour, but none to suggest that ward atmosphere predicts futur

背景:急诊住院病人精神健康服务的安全事故报告率很高。患者安全理论的应用还很少,特别是在主动征求患者观点的干预措施方面:开发并评估一种基于理论的数字监控工具,以收集急诊成人精神疾病病房患者对病房安全看法的实时信息:设计:基于理论的混合方法研究。根据共同设计方法开发了数字监控工具原型,在医院环境中实施,并进行了定性和定量评估:第一阶段:对患者参与急性精神疾病护理安全干预的文献进行范围界定;对精神疾病背景下的数字技术进行证据扫描;对精神疾病患者和员工进行定性访谈,了解他们对病房安全的看法。这些工作以及咨询小组、服务使用者和医疗专业人员等利益相关者的参与,都为开发过程提供了信息。大部分数据的收集都是虚拟的。第 1 阶段:从技术角度开发了一个以理论为基础的数字监控工具,用于收集病人的反馈意见,进行主动安全监控。第 2 阶段:在英国国家医疗服务系统(NHS)两家托管机构的六个成人急症精神病房实施该工具;通过重点人种学和定性访谈进行评估。对 WardSonar 数据和常规病房数据进行统计分析,包括构建每个病房每小时的数据集,以便对 WardSonar 工具的使用情况进行详细分析:共有 8 名患者和 13 名精神卫生专业人员参加了第一阶段的访谈;33 名员工和 34 名患者参加了第二阶段的访谈:患者可以使用网络应用程序(WardSonar 工具)记录对病房安全的实时感知。工作人员可以访问汇总的匿名数据,以便及时采取干预措施:结果:2019 年冠状病毒疾病的限制对研究产生了很大影响。利益相关者的参与贯穿了整个项目。第一阶段提供了一个基于理论、合作设计的数字工具,用于主动监测患者安全。第 2 阶段表明,该工具对用户友好,并被患者和员工广泛接受。员工很少使用汇总的安全数据。其可行性取决于员工的参与度以及在病房日常工作中使用该工具的情况。有确凿证据表明,一起事故会导致在接下来的 4 小时内发生更多事故的可能性增加。这可以衡量社会/行为传染的持续程度。有微弱的证据表明,事件会导致在接下来的一小时内更多地使用 WardSonar 工具,但没有证据表明病房氛围可以预测未来的事件。因此,与病人对病房气氛的实时报告相比,病人使用该工具的频率似乎能发出更强的潜在事件信号:局限性:实施范围仅限于两个国家医疗服务系统信托机构。2019年冠状病毒疾病影响了设计过程,包括利益相关者的参与、实施以及在常规临床实践中对监测工具的评估。更高的使用率可以提高结果的有效性:WardSonar 有可能为患者提供一个传达安全问题的重要途径。WardSonar 监测工具具有很强的患者视角,并采用主动的实时安全监测而非传统的回顾性数据审查:未来工作:WardSonar 工具可在 2019 年后冠状病毒疾病的背景下进一步完善和测试:本研究注册为 ISRCTN14470430:本奖项由国家健康与护理研究所(NIHR)健康与社会护理服务研究计划(NIHR奖项编号:NIHR128070)资助,全文发表于《健康与社会护理服务研究》第12卷第14期。更多奖项信息请参阅 NIHR Funding and Awards 网站。
{"title":"A service-user digital intervention to collect real-time safety information on acute, adult mental health wards: the WardSonar mixed-methods study.","authors":"John Baker, Sarah Kendal, Chris Bojke, Gemma Louch, Daisy Halligan, Saba Shafiq, Charlotte Sturley, Lauren Walker, Mark Brown, Kathryn Berzins, Lyn Brierley-Jones, Jane K O'Hara, Kirstin Blackwell, Gemma Wormald, Krysia Canvin, Charles Vincent","doi":"10.3310/UDBQ8402","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3310/UDBQ8402","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Acute inpatient mental health services report high levels of safety incidents. The application of patient safety theory has been sparse, particularly concerning interventions that proactively seek patient perspectives.</p><p><strong>Objective(s): </strong>Develop and evaluate a theoretically based, digital monitoring tool to collect real-time information from patients on acute adult mental health wards about their perceptions of ward safety.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Theory-informed mixed-methods study. A prototype digital monitoring tool was developed from a co-design approach, implemented in hospital settings, and subjected to qualitative and quantitative evaluation.</p><p><strong>Setting and methods: </strong>Phase 1: scoping review of the literature on patient involvement in safety interventions in acute mental health care; evidence scan of digital technology in mental health contexts; qualitative interviews with mental health patients and staff about perspectives on ward safety. This, alongside stakeholder engagement with advisory groups, service users and health professionals, informed the development processes. Most data collection was virtual. Phase 1 resulted in the technical development of a theoretically based digital monitoring tool that collected patient feedback for proactive safety monitoring. Phase 2: implementation of the tool in six adult acute mental health wards across two UK NHS trusts; evaluation via focused ethnography and qualitative interviews. Statistical analysis of WardSonar data and routine ward data involving construction of an hour-by-hour data set per ward, permitting detailed analysis of the use of the WardSonar tool.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>A total of 8 patients and 13 mental health professionals participated in Phase 1 interviews; 33 staff and 34 patients participated in Phase 2 interviews.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Patients could use a web application (the WardSonar tool) to record real-time perceptions of ward safety. Staff could access aggregated, anonymous data to inform timely interventions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Coronavirus disease 2019 restrictions greatly impacted the study. Stakeholder engagement permeated the project. Phase 1 delivered a theory-based, collaboratively designed digital tool for proactive patient safety monitoring. Phase 2 showed that the tool was user friendly and broadly acceptable to patients and staff. The aggregated safety data were infrequently used by staff. Feasibility depended on engaged staff and embedding use of the tool in ward routines. There is strong evidence that an incident leads to increased probability of further incidents within the next 4 hours. This puts a measure on the extent to which social/behavioural contagion persists. There is weak evidence to suggest that an incident leads to a greater use of the WardSonar tool in the following hour, but none to suggest that ward atmosphere predicts futur","PeriodicalId":519880,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":"12 14","pages":"1-182"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141094170","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Linkage of routinely collected NHS data to evaluate liaison mental health services: challenges and lessons learned. 将常规收集的国家医疗服务系统数据与评估联络心理健康服务联系起来:挑战与经验教训。
Pub Date : 2024-05-01 DOI: 10.3310/WCPA5283
Elspeth Guthrie, Allan House, Chris Smith, Sam Relton, Daniel Romeu, Sonia Saraiva, Peter Trigwell, Robert West, Farag Shuweihdi, Mike Crawford, Matt Fossey, Jenny Hewison, Claire Hulme, Sandy Tubeuf

Background: Liaison mental health services provide mental health care to patients in acute hospital settings. Evaluation of liaison services is challenging due to their heterogeneous organisation and delivery, high case throughput and varied patient case mix. We aimed to link routinely collected National Health Service data from secondary care settings, chosen for their service characteristics, to data from primary care to evaluate hospital-based liaison mental health services in England.

Methods: We planned to compare patients referred to hospital-based liaison services with comparable patients in the same hospital not referred to liaison services and comparable patients in hospitals without any liaison services. We designed and enacted a methodology to link data from: (1) Hospital Episode Statistics, a database controlled by the National Health Service Digital and (2) ResearchOne, a primary care database controlled by The Phoenix Partnership.

Results: Obtaining approvals for the steps prespecified in the methodological protocol took 907 days. Enactment following approvals took 385 days. Data supplied from Hospital Episode Statistics contained 181,063 patients from 6 hospitals (mean = 30,177, standard deviation = 28,875.86) who matched the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data supplied from ResearchOne contained 33,666 (18.6%) of these patients from the 6 hospitals (mean = 5611, standard deviation = 5206.59).

Discussion: Time required for approvals and enactment was attributable to slowness of data handling processes within each data holder and to resolution of technical and organisational queries between them. Variation in number of patients for which data was supplied between databases and between hospitals was attributable to coding inconsistencies and to the limited intersection of patient populations between databases and variation in recording practices between hospitals.

Conclusion: Although it is technically feasible to link primary and secondary care data, the current system is challenging, complicated, unnecessarily bureaucratic, time consuming and costly. This limits the number of studies that could be conducted with these rich data sources.

Funding: This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme as award number 13/58/08.

背景:心理健康联络服务为急症医院的患者提供心理健康护理。由于联络服务的组织和提供方式不尽相同,病例吞吐量大,病例组合各异,因此对其进行评估具有挑战性。我们的目标是将从二级医疗机构定期收集的国民健康服务数据(根据其服务特点进行选择)与初级医疗机构的数据联系起来,对英格兰的医院心理健康联络服务进行评估:我们计划将转诊至医院联络服务机构的患者与同一医院未转诊至联络服务机构的可比患者以及未提供任何联络服务的医院的可比患者进行比较。我们设计并实施了一种方法,将以下两个数据库中的数据联系起来:(1) 医院事件统计(Hospital Episode Statistics),这是一个由英国国家卫生服务数字部(National Health Service Digital)控制的数据库;(2) ResearchOne,这是一个由凤凰合作组织(The Phoenix Partnership)控制的初级医疗数据库:方法学协议中规定的步骤获得批准耗时 907 天。批准后的执行工作耗时 385 天。医院事件统计提供的数据包含来自 6 家医院的 181063 名符合纳入和排除标准的患者(平均值 = 30177,标准差 = 28875.86)。ResearchOne提供的数据包含来自6家医院的33666名(18.6%)符合纳入和排除标准的患者(平均值=5611,标准差=5206.59):讨论:批准和颁布所需的时间可归因于每个数据持有者内部数据处理流程的缓慢,以及他们之间技术和组织问题的解决。数据库之间和医院之间提供数据的病人数量存在差异,原因是编码不一致、数据库之间病人群体的交叉有限以及医院之间记录方法的差异:尽管将初级和二级医疗数据联系起来在技术上是可行的,但目前的系统具有挑战性、复杂性、不必要的官僚主义、耗时且成本高昂。这限制了利用这些丰富的数据源开展研究的数量:本文为独立研究,由美国国家健康与护理研究所(NIHR)健康与社会护理服务研究项目资助,获奖编号为 13/58/08。
{"title":"Linkage of routinely collected NHS data to evaluate liaison mental health services: challenges and lessons learned.","authors":"Elspeth Guthrie, Allan House, Chris Smith, Sam Relton, Daniel Romeu, Sonia Saraiva, Peter Trigwell, Robert West, Farag Shuweihdi, Mike Crawford, Matt Fossey, Jenny Hewison, Claire Hulme, Sandy Tubeuf","doi":"10.3310/WCPA5283","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3310/WCPA5283","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Liaison mental health services provide mental health care to patients in acute hospital settings. Evaluation of liaison services is challenging due to their heterogeneous organisation and delivery, high case throughput and varied patient case mix. We aimed to link routinely collected National Health Service data from secondary care settings, chosen for their service characteristics, to data from primary care to evaluate hospital-based liaison mental health services in England.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We planned to compare patients referred to hospital-based liaison services with comparable patients in the same hospital not referred to liaison services and comparable patients in hospitals without any liaison services. We designed and enacted a methodology to link data from: (1) Hospital Episode Statistics, a database controlled by the National Health Service Digital and (2) ResearchOne, a primary care database controlled by The Phoenix Partnership.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Obtaining approvals for the steps prespecified in the methodological protocol took 907 days. Enactment following approvals took 385 days. Data supplied from Hospital Episode Statistics contained 181,063 patients from 6 hospitals (mean = 30,177, standard deviation = 28,875.86) who matched the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data supplied from ResearchOne contained 33,666 (18.6%) of these patients from the 6 hospitals (mean = 5611, standard deviation = 5206.59).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Time required for approvals and enactment was attributable to slowness of data handling processes within each data holder and to resolution of technical and organisational queries between them. Variation in number of patients for which data was supplied between databases and between hospitals was attributable to coding inconsistencies and to the limited intersection of patient populations between databases and variation in recording practices between hospitals.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although it is technically feasible to link primary and secondary care data, the current system is challenging, complicated, unnecessarily bureaucratic, time consuming and costly. This limits the number of studies that could be conducted with these rich data sources.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme as award number 13/58/08.</p>","PeriodicalId":519880,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":" ","pages":"1-15"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140900697","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Evaluation of different models of general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments: a mixed-methods realist evaluation. 全科医生在急诊科工作或与急诊科并肩工作的不同模式评估:混合方法现实主义评估。
Pub Date : 2024-04-01 DOI: 10.3310/JWQZ5348
Freya Davies, Michelle Edwards, Delyth Price, Pippa Anderson, Andrew Carson-Stevens, Mazhar Choudhry, Matthew Cooke, Jeremy Dale, Liam Donaldson, Bridie Angela Evans, Barbara Harrington, Shaun Harris, Julie Hepburn, Peter Hibbert, Thomas Hughes, Faris Hussain, Saiful Islam, Rhys Pockett, Alison Porter, Aloysius Niroshan Siriwardena, Helen Snooks, Alan Watkins, Adrian Edwards, Alison Cooper
<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the effectiveness, safety, patient experience and system implications of the different general practitioner-emergency department models.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Mixed-methods realist evaluation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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. Quali
背景:急诊医疗服务正面临着巨大的压力,以满足日益增长的患者需求。在全科医生-急诊科服务模式中,许多到急诊科就诊的病人可以由全科医生管理:评估不同的全科医生-急诊科模式的有效性、安全性、患者体验和对系统的影响:混合方法现实主义评估:第一阶段(2017-8 年),了解当前实践:快速现实主义文献综述、全国调查和后续关键信息提供者访谈、全国利益相关者活动和安全数据分析。第 2 阶段(2018-21 年),收集和分析定性数据(观察、访谈)和定量数据(时间序列分析);常规数据的成本后果分析;以及英格兰和威尔士 13 个案例点的有目的性样本中用于 "标记条件 "分析的案例点数据。第 3 阶段(2021-2 年),对计划理论和工具包开发进行混合方法分析:结果:全科医生通常在急诊科工作,但在全科医生的职责范围和全科医生服务的规模方面,服务模式却大相径庭。我们制定了一个分类法来描述全科医生-急诊科服务模式(与急诊科服务整合、急诊科内并行、急诊科在医院外),并提出了一个方案理论作为研究的主要成果,以描述这些服务模式是如何运作的。常规数据质量参差不齐,限制了我们的分析。时间序列分析表明了各干预地点在以下方面的趋势:在急诊科花费的时间增加;急诊科就诊人次和再次就诊人次增加;住院人次方面的结果不一。有关患者体验的证据有限,但总体上是支持性的;我们确定了科室层面的流程,以优化全科医生-急诊科模式的安全性:局限性:研究期间急诊科常规数据收集的质量、异质性和范围限制了结论的得出。病例地点(时间序列要求)和个体患者(具有 "标记条件")的标准限制了招募工作。大流行和其他压力限制了标记条件分析的数据收集。收集和分析的数据是大流行前的数据;"电话先行 "等新方法及其与我们的研究结果的相关性仍有待探讨:研究结果表明,全科医生-急诊科服务模式并不能达到缩短急诊科总体等候时间和改善患者流量的目的,而且节约成本的证据也很有限。定性数据表明,全科医生作为更广泛的急诊科团队成员通常受到重视。我们根据研究结果开发了一个工具包,为实施和提供全科医生-急诊科服务提供指导:今后的工作:急诊护理数据集已在英格兰全国范围内推出,以帮助实现数据收集的标准化,从而促进进一步的研究。我们提倡在常规护理中系统地收集患者体验指标和患者报告结果指标。还可以开展更多工作来支持急诊科全科医生角色的发展,包括一套核心能力和管理结构,以反映不同的全科医生-急诊科模式,并评估其有效性和成本效益,为未来的政策提供指导:本研究已注册为 PROSPERO CRD42017069741:该奖项由国家健康与护理研究所(NIHR)的健康与社会护理服务研究计划(NIHR奖项编号:15/145/04)资助,全文发表于《健康与社会护理服务研究》(Health and Social Care Delivery Research)第12卷第10期。更多奖项信息,请访问 NIHR Funding and Awards 网站。
{"title":"Evaluation of different models of general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments: a mixed-methods realist evaluation.","authors":"Freya Davies, Michelle Edwards, Delyth Price, Pippa Anderson, Andrew Carson-Stevens, Mazhar Choudhry, Matthew Cooke, Jeremy Dale, Liam Donaldson, Bridie Angela Evans, Barbara Harrington, Shaun Harris, Julie Hepburn, Peter Hibbert, Thomas Hughes, Faris Hussain, Saiful Islam, Rhys Pockett, Alison Porter, Aloysius Niroshan Siriwardena, Helen Snooks, Alan Watkins, Adrian Edwards, Alison Cooper","doi":"10.3310/JWQZ5348","DOIUrl":"10.3310/JWQZ5348","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background: &lt;/strong&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Objectives: &lt;/strong&gt;To evaluate the effectiveness, safety, patient experience and system implications of the different general practitioner-emergency department models.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Design: &lt;/strong&gt;Mixed-methods realist evaluation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Methods: &lt;/strong&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results: &lt;/strong&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Limitations: &lt;/strong&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion: &lt;/strong&gt;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. Quali","PeriodicalId":519880,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":"12 10","pages":"1-152"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140873763","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
期刊
Health and social care delivery research
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1