Background: As people age and accumulate long-term conditions, their physical activity and physical function declines, resulting in disability and loss of independence. Primary care is well placed to empower individuals and communities to reduce this decline; however, the best approach is uncertain. Objectives: To develop a programme theory to explain the mechanisms through which interventions improve physical activity and physical function in people with long-term conditions in different primary care contexts, and to co-design a prototype intervention. Data sources: Systematic literature searches of relevant databases with forwards and backwards citation tracking, grey literature searches and further purposive searches were conducted. Qualitative data were collected through workshops and interviews. Design: Realist evidence synthesis and co-design for primary care service innovation. Setting: Primary care in Wales and England. Participants: Stakeholders included people with long-term conditions, primary care professionals, people working in relevant community roles and researchers. Methods: The realist evidence synthesis combined evidence from varied sources of literature with the views, experiences and ideas of stakeholders. The resulting context, mechanism and outcome statements informed three co-design workshops and a knowledge mobilisation workshop for primary care service innovation. Results: Five context, mechanism and outcome statements were developed. (1) Improving physical activity and function is not prioritised in primary care (context). If the practice team culture is aligned to the elements of physical literacy (mechanism), then physical activity promotion will become routine and embedded in usual care (outcome). (2) Physical activity promotion is inconsistent and unco-ordinated (context). If specific resources are allocated to physical activity promotion (in combination with a supportive practice culture) (mechanism), then this will improve opportunities to change behaviour (outcome). (3) People with long-term conditions have varying levels of physical function and physical activity, varying attitudes to physical activity and differing access to local resources that enable physical activity (context). If physical activity promotion is adapted to individual needs, preferences and local resources (mechanism), then this will facilitate a sustained improvement in physical activity (outcome). (4) Many primary care practice staff lack the knowledge and confidence to promote physical activity (context). If staff develop an improved sense of capability through education and training (mechanism), then they will increase their engagement with physical activity promotion (outcome). (5) If a programme is credible with patients and professionals (context), then trust and confidence in the programme will develop (mechanism) and more patients and professionals will engage with the programme (outcome). A prototype multicomponent intervention was developed. This consisted of resources to nurture a culture of physical literacy, materials to develop the role of a credible professional who can promote physical activity using a directory of local opportunities and resources to assist with individual behaviour change. Limitations: Realist synthesis and co-design is about what works in which contexts, so these resources and practice implications will need to be modified for different primary care contexts. Conclusions: We developed a programme theory to explain how physical activity could be promoted in primary care in people with long-term conditions, which informed a prototype intervention. Future work: A future research programme could further develop the prototype multicomponent intervention and assess its acceptability in practice alongside existing schemes before it is tested in a feasibility study to inform a future randomised controlled trial. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018103027. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Background Organising health-care services for residents living in care homes is an important area of development in the UK and elsewhere. Medical care is provided by general practitioners in the UK, and the unique arrangement of the NHS means that general practitioners are also gatekeepers to other health services. Despite recent focus on improving health care for residents, there is a lack of knowledge about the role of general practitioners. Objectives First, to review reports of research and quality improvement (or similar change management) in care homes to explore how general practitioners have been involved. Second, to develop programme theories explaining the role of general practitioners in improvement initiatives and outcomes. Design A realist review was selected to address the complexity of integration of general practice and care homes. Setting Care homes for older people in the UK, including residential and nursing homes. Participants The focus of the literature review was the general practitioner, along with care home staff and other members of multidisciplinary teams. Alongside the literature, we interviewed general practitioners and held consultations with a Context Expert Group, including a care home representative. Interventions The primary search did not specify interventions, but captured the range of interventions reported. Secondary searches focused on medication review and end-of-life care because these interventions have described general practitioner involvement. Outcomes We sought to capture processes or indicators of good-quality care. Data sources Sources were academic databases [including MEDLINE, EMBASE™ (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycInfo® (American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, USA), Web of Science™ (Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, PA, USA) and Cochrane Collaboration] and grey literature using Google Scholar (Google Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA). Methods Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) guidelines were followed, comprising literature scoping, interviews with general practitioners, iterative searches of academic databases and grey literature, and synthesis and development of overarching programme theories. Results Scoping indicated the distinctiveness of the health and care system in UK and, because quality improvement is context dependent, we decided to focus on UK studies because of potential problems in synthesising across diverse systems. Searches identified 73 articles, of which 43 were excluded. To summarise analysis, programme theory 1 was ‘negotiated working with general practitioners’ where other members of the multidisciplinary team led initiatives and general practitioners provided support with the parts of improvement where their skills as primary care doctors were specifically required. Negotiation enabled matching of the diverse ways of working of general practitioners with diverse care home organisations. We found evidence that this could result in improvements in prescribing and end-of-life care for residents. Programme theory 2 included national or regional programmes that included clearly specified roles for general practitioners. This provided clarity of expectation, but the role that general practitioners actually played in delivery was not clear. Limitations One reviewer screened all search results, but two reviewers conducted selection and data extraction steps. Conclusions If local quality improvement initiatives were flexible, then they could be used to negotiate to build a trusting relationship with general practitioners, with evidence from specific examples, and this could improve prescribing and end-of-life care for residents. Larger improvement programmes aimed to define working patterns and build suitable capacity in care homes, but there was little evidence about the extent of local general practitioner involvement. Future work Future work should describe the specific role, capacity and expertise of general practitioners, as well as the diversity of relationships between general practitioners and care homes. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019137090. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 20. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Background Stroke Early Supported Discharge (ESD) is a service innovation that facilitates discharge from hospital and delivery of specialist rehabilitation in patients’ homes. There is currently widespread implementation of ESD services in many countries, driven by robust clinical trial evidence. In England, the type of ESD service patients receive on the ground is variable, and in some regions, ESD is still not offered at all. This protocol presents a study designed to investigate the mechanisms and outcomes of implementing ESD at scale in real-world conditions. This will help to establish which models of ESD are most effective and in what context. Methods A realist evaluation approach composed of two interlinking work packages will be adopted to investigate how and why ESD works, for whom and in what circumstances. Work package 1 (WP1) will begin with a rapid evidence synthesis to formulate preliminary realist hypotheses. Quantitative analyses of historical prospective Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme (SSNAP) data will be performed to evaluate service outcomes based on the degree to which evidence-based ESD has been implemented. Work package 2 (WP2) will involve the qualitative investigation of purposively selected case study sites featuring in WP1 and covering different regions in England. The perspectives of clinicians, managers, commissioners, and service users will be explored qualitatively. Cost implications of ESD models will be examined using a cost-consequence analysis. Cross-case comparisons and triangulation of the data sources from both work packages will be performed to test, revise, and refine initial programme theories and address research aims. Discussion This study will investigate whether and how current large-scale implementation of ESD is achieving the outcomes suggested by the evidence base. The theory-driven evaluation approach will highlight key mechanisms and contextual conditions necessary to optimise outcomes and allow us to draw transferable lessons to inform the effective implementation and sustainability of ESD in clinical practice. In addition, the methodological framework will progress the theoretical understanding of implementation and evaluation of complex rehabilitation interventions in stroke care. Trial registration ISRCTN: 15568163, registration date: 26 October 2018.
Background: For people in mental health crisis, acute day units provide daily structured sessions and peer support in non-residential settings as an alternative to crisis resolution teams. Objectives: To investigate the provision, effectiveness, intervention acceptability and re-admission rates of acute day units. Design: Work package 1 – mapping and national questionnaire survey of acute day units. Work package 2.1 – cohort study comparing outcomes during a 6-month period between acute day unit and crisis resolution team participants. Work package 2.2 – qualitative interviews with staff and service users of acute day units. Work package 3 – a cohort study within the Mental Health Minimum Data Set exploring re-admissions to acute care over 6 months. A patient and public involvement group supported the study throughout. Setting and participants: Work package 1 – all non-residential acute day units (NHS and voluntary sector) in England. Work packages 2.1 and 2.2 – four NHS trusts with staff, service users and carers in acute day units and crisis resolution teams. Work package 3 – all individuals using mental health NHS trusts in England. Results: Work package 1 – we identified 27 acute day units in 17 out of 58 trusts. Acute day units are typically available on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., providing a wide range of interventions and a multidisciplinary team, including clinicians, and having an average attendance of 5 weeks. Work package 2.1 – we recruited 744 participants (acute day units, n = 431; crisis resolution teams, n = 312). In the primary analysis, 21% of acute day unit participants (vs. 23% of crisis resolution team participants) were re-admitted to acute mental health services over 6 months. There was no statistically significant difference in the fully adjusted model (acute day unit hazard ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.54 to 1.14; p = 0.20), with highly heterogeneous results between trusts. Acute day unit participants had higher satisfaction and well-being scores and lower depression scores than crisis resolution team participants. The health economics analysis found no difference in resource use or cost between the acute day unit and crisis resolution team groups in the fully adjusted analysis. Work package 2.2 – 36 people were interviewed (acute day unit staff, n = 12; service users, n = 21; carers, n = 3). There was an overwhelming consensus that acute day units are highly valued. Service users found the high amount of contact time and staff continuity, peer support and structure provided by acute day units particularly beneficial. Staff also valued providing continuity, building strong therapeutic relationships and providing a variety of flexible, personalised support. Work package 3 – of 231,998 individuals discharged from acute care (crisis resolution team, acute day unit or inpatient ward), 21.4% were re-admitted for acute treatment within 6 months, with women, single people, people of mixed or black ethnicity, those living in more deprived areas and those in the severe psychosis care cluster being more likely to be re-admitted. Little variation in re-admissions was explained at the trust level, or between trusts with and trusts without acute day units (adjusted odds ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 1.15). Limitations: In work package 1, some of the information is likely to be incomplete as a result of trusts’ self-reporting. There may have been recruitment bias in work packages 2.1 and 2.2. Part of the health economics analysis relied on clinical Health of the Nations Outcome Scale ratings. The Mental Health Minimum Data Set did not contain a variable identifying acute day units, and some covariates had a considerable number of missing data. Conclusions: Acute day units are not provided routinely in the NHS but are highly valued by staff and service users, giving better outcomes in terms of satisfaction, well-being and depression than, and no significant differences in risk of re-admission or increased costs from, crisis resolution teams. Future work should investigate wider health and care system structures and the place of acute day units within them; the development of a model of best practice for acute day units; and staff turnover and well-being (including the impacts of these on care). Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Background: The increasing number of older, complex patients who require emergency admission to hospital has prompted calls for better models of medical generalist care, especially for smaller hospitals, whose size constrains resources and staffing. Objective: To investigate the strengths and weaknesses of the current models of medical generalism used in smaller hospitals from patient, professional and service perspectives. Methods: The design was a mixed-methods study. Phase 1 was a scoping and mapping exercise to create a typology of models of care, which was then explored further through 11 case studies. Phase 2 created a classification using the Hospital Episode Statistics of acute medical ‘generalist’ and ‘specialist’ work and described differences in workload and explored the links between case mix, typology and length of stay and between case mix and skill mix. Phase 3 analysed the relationships between models of care and patient-level costs. Phase 4 examined the strengths and weaknesses of the models of care through focus groups, a discrete choice experiment and an exploration of the impact of typology on other outcomes. Results: In total, 50 models of care were explored through 48 interviews. A typology was constructed around generalist versus specialist patterns of consultant working. Twenty-five models were deployed by 48 hospitals, and no more than four hospitals used any one model of care. From the patient perspective, analysis of Hospital Episode Statistics data of 1.9 million care episodes found that the differences in case mix between hospitals were relatively small, with 65–70% of episodes accounted for by 20 case types. The skill mix of hospital staff varied widely; there were no relationships with case mix. Patients exhibited a preference for specialist care in the discrete choice experiment but indicated in focus groups that overall hospital quality was more important. From a service perspective, qualitative work found that models of care were contingent on complex constellations of factors, including staffing, the local hospital environment and policy imperatives. Neither the model of care nor the case mix accounted for variability in the length of stay (no associations were significant at p < 0.05). No significant differences were found in the costs of the models. Professionally, the preferences of doctors for specialist versus generalist work depended on their experiences of providing care and were associated with a healthy organisational culture and a co-operative approach to managing emergency work. Concepts of medical generalism were found to be complex and difficult to define, with theoretical models differing markedly from models in action. Limitations: Smaller hospitals in multisite trusts were excluded, potentially leading to sample bias. The rapidly changing nature of the models limited the analysis of typology against outcomes. Conclusions: The case mix of smaller hospitals was dominated by patients with presentations amenable to generalist approaches to care; however, there was no evidence to support any particular pattern of consultant working. Matching hospital staff to better meet local need and the creation of more collaborative working environments appear more likely to improve care in smaller hospitals than changing models. Future work: The exploration of the relationships between workforce, measures of hospital culture, models of care, costs and outcomes in both smaller and larger hospitals is urgently required to underpin service reforms. Study registration: This study is registered as Integrated Research Application System project ID 191393. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
