Search

Competing Interests: Competing interests: We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and have no interests to declare.

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy outcomes of percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for localised renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in a tertiary hospital patient who remained unfit for surgical intervention., Methods: We retrospectively analysed survival outcomes for patients with biopsy proven RCC treated by RFA at Royal Perth Hospital between September 2009 and May 2018. Complication data were gathered for all patients that underwent renal RFA along with 2- and 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) rate and compared the outcomes with data from previous studies., Results: A total of 69 patients (73 procedures) were eligible for the study, and those patients had biopsy-proven RCC with a minimum of 2-year follow-up. The complication rate was 8.2% (6/73) and local recurrence rate 9.6% (7/73). Two-year RFS is 95.7% and 5-year RFS is 78.8% on a median 3.82-year follow-up (interquartile range 1.90-5.75 years)., Conclusion: RFA performed at our centre was found to be safe and effective with low complication rates and durable RFS in line with expectations from existing research. Our study demonstrated that RFA is an alternative modality of treatment for small renal tumours in patients unfit for surgical approach., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (© 2022 Editorial Office of Asian Journal of Urology. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: AM, clinical lead for the NHS England Evidence-Based Interventions programme. TS and MM cochairs of the independent Expert Advisory Committee.

In an attempt to support care integration that promotes joined up service provision and patient-centred care across care boundaries, local health and social care organisations have embarked on several initiatives and approaches. A key component of service integration is the co-location of different professional groups. In this study, we consider the extent to which co-location is an enabler for service integration by examining multi-professional community care teams. The study presents findings from a qualitative evaluation of integrated care initiatives in a borough of East London, England, undertaken between 2017 and 2018. The evaluation employed a participatory approach, the Researcher-in-Residence model. Participant observation (n = 80 hr) and both semi-structured individual (n = 16) and group interviews (six groups, n = 17 participants) were carried out. Thematic analysis of the data was undertaken. The findings show that co-location can be an effective enabler for service integration providing a basis for joint working, fostering improved communication and information sharing if conditions such as shared information systems and professional cultures (shared beliefs and values) are met. Organisations must consider the potential barriers to service integration such as differing professional identity, limited understanding of roles and responsibilities and a lack of continuity in personnel. Co-location remains an important facet in the development of multi-professional teams and local service integration arrangements, but as yet, has not been widely acknowledged as a priority in care practice. Organisations that are committed to greying care boundaries and providing joined up patient care must ensure that sufficient focus is provided at the service delivery level and not assume that decades of silo working in health and social care and strong professional cultures will be resolved by co-location., (© 2020 The Authors. Health and Social Care in the Community published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

A rare case of arterio-biliary fistula and haemobilia complicating intra-operative microwave ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma in a 58-year-old woman with cirrhosis., (© 2021 The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: none declared.

Integrated care has been proposed as an organising principle to address the challenges of the rising demand for care services and limited resources. There is limited understanding of the role of learning in integrated care systems. Organisational Learning (OL) theory in the guise of 'Learning Practice' can offer a lens to study service integration and reflect on some of the challenges faced by multi-professional teams in developing a learning culture. The study presents findings from two qualitative evaluations of integrated care initiatives in three East London boroughs, England, undertaken between 2017 and 2018. The evaluations employed a participatory approach, the researcher-in-residence model, to coproduce findings with frontline staff working in multi-professional teams in community care. Thematic analysis was undertaken using an adapted version of the 'Learning Practice' framework. The majority of learning in the teams was single loop i.e. learning was mainly reactive to issues that arise. Developing a learning culture in the three boroughs was hindered by the differences in the professional and organisational cultures of health and social care and challenges in developing effective structures for learning. Individual organisational priorities and pressures inhibited both the embedding of learning and effective integration of care services at the frontline. Currently, learning is not inherent in integrated care planning. The adoption of the principles of OL optimising learning opportunities, support of innovation, managed risk taking and capitalising on the will of staff to work in multidisciplinary teams might positively contribute to the development of service integration., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in a rapid change in workload across healthcare systems. Factors related to this adaptation in UK primary care have not yet been examined., Aim: To assess the responsiveness and prioritisation of primary care consultation type for older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic., Design and Setting: A cross-sectional database study examining consultations between 17 February and 10 May 2020 for patients aged ≥65 years, drawn from primary care practices within the Oxford Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) sentinel network, UK., Method: The authors reported the proportion of consultation type across five categories: clinical administration, electronic/video, face-to-face, telephone, and home visits. Temporal trends in telephone and face-to-face consultations were analysed by polypharmacy, frailty status, and socioeconomic group using incidence rate ratios (IRR)., Results: Across 3 851 304 consultations, the population median age was 75 years (interquartile range [IQR] 70-82); and 46% ( n = 82 926) of the cohort ( N = 180 420) were male. The rate of telephone and electronic/video consultations more than doubled across the study period (106.0% and 102.8%, respectively). Face-to-face consultations fell by 64.6% and home visits by 62.6%. This predominantly occurred across week 11 (week commencing 9 March 2020), coinciding with national policy change. Polypharmacy and frailty were associated with a relative increase in consultations. The greatest relative increase was among people taking ≥10 medications compared with those taking none (face-to-face IRR 9.90, 95% CI = 9.55 to 10.26; telephone IRR 17.64, 95% CI = 16.89 to 18.41)., Conclusion: Primary care has undergone an unprecedented in-pandemic reorganisation while retaining focus on patients with increased complexity., (©The Authors.)

Background: Routinely recorded primary care data have been used for many years by sentinel networks for surveillance. More recently, real world data have been used for a wider range of research projects to support rapid, inexpensive clinical trials. Because the partial national lockdown in the United Kingdom due to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in decreasing community disease incidence, much larger numbers of general practices are needed to deliver effective COVID-19 surveillance and contribute to in-pandemic clinical trials., Objective: The aim of this protocol is to describe the rapid design and development of the Oxford Royal College of General Practitioners Clinical Informatics Digital Hub (ORCHID) and its first two platforms. The Surveillance Platform will provide extended primary care surveillance, while the Trials Platform is a streamlined clinical trials platform that will be integrated into routine primary care practice., Methods: We will apply the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) metadata principles to a new, integrated digital health hub that will extract routinely collected general practice electronic health data for use in clinical trials and provide enhanced communicable disease surveillance. The hub will be findable through membership in Health Data Research UK and European metadata repositories. Accessibility through an online application system will provide access to study-ready data sets or developed custom data sets. Interoperability will be facilitated by fixed linkage to other key sources such as Hospital Episodes Statistics and the Office of National Statistics using pseudonymized data. All semantic descriptors (ie, ontologies) and code used for analysis will be made available to accelerate analyses. We will also make data available using common data models, starting with the US Food and Drug Administration Sentinel and Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership approaches, to facilitate international studies. The Surveillance Platform will provide access to data for health protection and promotion work as authorized through agreements between Oxford, the Royal College of General Practitioners, and Public Health England. All studies using the Trials Platform will go through appropriate ethical and other regulatory approval processes., Results: The hub will be a bottom-up, professionally led network that will provide benefits for member practices, our health service, and the population served. Data will only be used for SQUIRE (surveillance, quality improvement, research, and education) purposes. We have already received positive responses from practices, and the number of practices in the network has doubled to over 1150 since February 2020. COVID-19 surveillance has resulted in tripling of the number of virology sites to 293 (target 300), which has aided the collection of the largest ever weekly total of surveillance swabs in the United Kingdom as well as over 3000 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serology samples. Practices are recruiting to the PRINCIPLE (Platform Randomised trial of INterventions against COVID-19 In older PeopLE) trial, and these participants will be followed up through ORCHID. These initial outputs demonstrate the feasibility of ORCHID to provide an extended national digital health hub., Conclusions: ORCHID will provide equitable and innovative use of big data through a professionally led national primary care network and the application of FAIR principles. The secure data hub will host routinely collected general practice data linked to other key health care repositories for clinical trials and support enhanced in situ surveillance without always requiring large volume data extracts. ORCHID will support rapid data extraction, analysis, and dissemination with the aim of improving future research and development in general practice to positively impact patient care., International Registered Report Identifier (irrid): DERR1-10.2196/19773., (©Simon de Lusignan, Nicholas Jones, Jienchi Dorward, Rachel Byford, Harshana Liyanage, John Briggs, Filipa Ferreira, Oluwafunmi Akinyemi, Gayatri Amirthalingam, Chris Bates, Jamie Lopez Bernal, Gavin Dabrera, Alex Eavis, Alex J Elliot, Michael Feher, Else Krajenbrink, Uy Hoang, Gary Howsam, Jonathan Leach, Cecilia Okusi, Brian Nicholson, Philip Nieri, Julian Sherlock, Gillian Smith, Mark Thomas, Nicholas Thomas, Manasa Tripathy, William Victor, John Williams, Ian Wood, Maria Zambon, John Parry, Shaun O’Hanlon, Mark Joy, Chris Butler, Martin Marshall, FD Richard Hobbs. Originally published in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance (http://publichealth.jmir.org), 02.07.2020.)

Purpose: Organisational Development (OD), with its focus on partnership working and distributed leadership, is increasingly advocated as an effective approach to driving change. Our evaluation of the impact of OD on delivery of integrated care in three London boroughs sheds light on how OD is being understood and implemented within health services, and what impact it is having on delivery of care., Design/methodology/approach: The findings presented here are based on a qualitative and participatory evaluation. The authors looked at how health and social care professionals communicated and coordinated delivery of care and evaluated the impact of current OD activities on the ground to evidence whether and to which degree they are enabling frontline staff to change their working routines towards greater coordination., Findings: Our findings highlight the limited reach and scope of a top-down approach to OD based on ad hoc coaching and staff engagement events, often delivered by external consultancies, and mostly focused at the senior management level. This approach fell short of enabling the creation of sustainable, integrated and collaborative organisations. Instead, some of the professionals that participated in our study tried to develop spaces that facilitated ongoing dialogue and mutual support among professionals on the ground., Practical Implications: Initiatives of bottom-up OD such as those described in this paper have greater potential to change working routines as they enable staff to move towards more collaborative and coordinated work., Originality/value: These findings contribute to the literature on OD in public services and highlight the benefits of a context-sensitive, pragmatic, and long-term approach to OD to help create sustainable collaborative organisations., (© Sonia Bussu and Martin Marshall.)

Background: Health services have failed to respond to the pressures of multimorbidity. Improved measures of multimorbidity are needed for conducting research, planning services and allocating resources., Methods: We modelled the association between 37 morbidities and 3 key outcomes (primary care consultations, unplanned hospital admission, death) at 1 and 5 years. We extracted development ( n = 300 000) and validation ( n = 150 000) samples from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink. We constructed a general-outcome multimorbidity score by averaging the standardized weights of the separate outcome scores. We compared performance with the Charlson Comorbidity Index., Results: Models that included all 37 conditions were acceptable predictors of general practitioner consultations (C-index 0.732, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.731-0.734), unplanned hospital admission (C-index 0.742, 95% CI 0.737-0.747) and death at 1 year (C-index 0.912, 95% CI 0.905-0.918). Models reduced to the 20 conditions with the greatest combined prevalence/weight showed similar predictive ability (C-indices 0.727, 95% CI 0.725-0.728; 0.738, 95% CI 0.732-0.743; and 0.910, 95% CI 0.904-0.917, respectively). They also predicted 5-year outcomes similarly for consultations and death (C-indices 0.735, 95% CI 0.734-0.736, and 0.889, 95% CI 0.885-0.892, respectively) but performed less well for admissions (C-index 0.708, 95% CI 0.705-0.712). The performance of the general-outcome score was similar to that of the outcome-specific models. These models performed significantly better than those based on the Charlson Comorbidity Index for consultations (C-index 0.691, 95% CI 0.690-0.693) and admissions (C-index 0.703, 95% CI 0.697-0.709) and similarly for mortality (C-index 0.907, 95% CI 0.900-0.914)., Interpretation: The Cambridge Multimorbidity Score is robust and can be either tailored or not tailored to specific health outcomes. It will be valuable to those planning clinical services, policymakers allocating resources and researchers seeking to account for the effect of multimorbidity., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© 2020 Joule Inc. or its licensors.)

Purpose: This scoping review explores what is known about the role of organizational and professional cultures in medication safety. The aim is to increase our understanding of 'cultures' within medication safety and provide an evidence base to shape governance arrangements., Data Sources: Databases searched are ASSIA, CINAHL, EMBASE, HMIC, IPA, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and SCOPUS., Study Selection: Inclusion criteria were original research and grey literature articles written in English and reporting the role of culture in medication safety on either organizational or professional levels, with a focus on nursing, medical and pharmacy professions. Articles were excluded if they did not conceptualize what was meant by 'culture' or its impact was not discussed., Data Extraction: Data were extracted for the following characteristics: author(s), title, location, methods, medication safety focus, professional group and role of culture in medication safety., Results of Data Synthesis: A total of 1272 citations were reviewed, of which, 42 full-text articles were included in the synthesis. Four key themes were identified which influenced medication safety: professional identity, fear of litigation and punishment, hierarchy and pressure to conform to established culture. At times, the term 'culture' was used in a non-specific and arbitrary way, for example, as a metaphor for improving medication safety, but with little focus on what this meant in practice., Conclusions: Organizational and professional cultures influence aspects of medication safety. Understanding the role these cultures play can help shape both local governance arrangements and the development of interventions which take into account the impact of these aspects of culture., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press in association with the International Society for Quality in Health Care. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Buurtzorg, a model of community nursing conceived in the Netherlands, is widely cited as a promising and evidence-based approach to improving the delivery of integrated nursing and social care in community settings. The model is characterised by high levels of patient and staff satisfaction, professional autonomy exercised through self-managing nursing teams, client empowerment and holistic, patient centred care. This study aimed to examine the extent to which some of the principles of the Buurtzorg model could be adapted for community nursing in the United Kingdom., Methods: A community nursing model based on the Buurtzorg approach was piloted from June 2017-August 2018 with a team of nurses co-located in a single general practice in the Borough of Tower Hamlets, East London, UK. The initiative was evaluated using a participatory methodology known as the Researcher-in-Residence model. Qualitative data were collected using participant observation of meetings and semi-structured interviews with nurse team members, senior managers, patients/carers and other local stakeholders such as General Practitioners (GP) and social workers. A thematic framework analysis of the data was carried out., Results: Implementation of a community nursing model based on the Buurtzorg approach in East London had mixed success when assessed against its key principles. Patient experience of the service was positive because of the better access, improved continuity of care and longer appointment times in comparison with traditional community nursing provision. The model also provided important learning for developing service integration in community care, in particular, how to form effective collaborations across the care system with other health and social care professionals. However, some of the core features of the Buurtzorg model were difficult to put into practice in the National Health Service (NHS) because of significant cultural and regulatory differences between The Netherlands and the UK, especially the nurses' ability to exercise professional autonomy., Conclusions: Whilst many of the principles of the Buurtzorg model are applicable and transferable to the UK, in particular promoting independence among patients, improving patient experience and empowering frontline staff, the successful embedding of these aims as normalised ways of working will require a significant cultural shift at all levels of the NHS.

Introduction: Reflective practice has become the cornerstone of continuing professional development for doctors, with the expectation that it helps to develop and sustain the workforce for patient benefit. Annual appraisal is mandatory for all practicing doctors in the United Kingdom as part of medical revalidation. Doctors submit a portfolio of supporting information forming the basis of their appraisal discussion where reflection on the information is mandated and evaluated by a colleague, acting as an appraiser., Methods: Using an in-depth case study approach, 18 online portfolios in Scotland were examined with a template developed to record the types of supporting information submitted and how far these showed reflection and/or changes to practice. Data from semistructured interviews with the doctors (n = 17) and their appraisers (n = 9) were used to contextualize and broaden our understanding of the portfolios., Results: Portfolios generally showed little written reflection, and most doctors were unenthusiastic about documenting reflective practice. Appraisals provided a forum for verbal reflection, which was often detailed in the appraisal summary. Portfolio examples showed that reflecting on continued professional development, audits, significant events, and colleague multisource feedback were sometimes considered to be useful. Reflecting on patient feedback was seen as less valuable because feedback tended to be uncritical., Discussion: The written reflection element of educational portfolios needs to be carefully considered because it is clear that many doctors do not find it a helpful exercise. Instead, using the portfolio to record topics covered by a reflective discussion with a facilitator would not only prove more amenable to many doctors but would also allay fears of documentary evidence being used in litigation.

Competing Interests: I have read and understood the BMJ Group policy on declaration of interests and declare the following interests: none.

Group clinics are becoming popular as a new care model in diabetes care. This evidence synthesis, using realist review methodology, examined the role of group clinics in meeting the complex needs of young people living with diabetes. Following Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis-Evolving Standards (RAMESES) quality standards, we conducted a systematic search across 10 databases. A total of 131 articles met inclusion criteria and were analyzed to develop theoretically informed explanations of how and why group clinics could work (or not) for young people with diabetes. Models of group-based care in the literature varied significantly and incorporated different degrees of clinical and educational content. Our analysis identified four overarching principles that can be applied in different contexts to drive sustained engagement of young people in group clinics: 1 ) emphasizing self-management as practical knowledge; 2 ) developing a sense of affinity between patients; 3 ) providing safe, developmentally appropriate care; and 4 ) balancing group and individual needs. Implementation of group clinics was not always straightforward; numerous adjustments to operational and clinical processes were required to establish and deliver high-quality care. Group clinics for young people with diabetes offer the potential to complement individualized care but are not a panacea and may generate as well as solve problems., (© 2019 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) continues to develop as a central policy agenda in health care. The patient voice is seen as relevant, informative and can drive service improvement. However, critical exploration of PPI's role within monitoring and informing medical performance processes remains limited., Objective: To explore and evaluate the contribution of PPI in medical performance processes to understand its extent, purpose and process., Search Strategy: The electronic databases PubMed, PsycINFO and Google Scholar were systematically searched for studies published between 2004 and 2018., Inclusion Criteria: Studies involving doctors and patients and all forms of patient input (eg, patient feedback) associated with medical performance were included., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Using an inductive approach to analysis and synthesis, a coding framework was developed which was structured around three key themes: issues that shape PPI in medical performance processes; mechanisms for PPI; and the potential impacts of PPI on medical performance processes., Main Results: From 4772 studies, 48 articles (from 10 countries) met the inclusion criteria. Findings suggest that the extent of PPI in medical performance processes globally is highly variable and is primarily achieved through providing patient feedback or complaints. The emerging evidence suggests that PPI can encourage improvements in the quality of patient care, enable professional development and promote professionalism., Discussion and Conclusions: Developing more innovative methods of PPI beyond patient feedback and complaints may help revolutionize the practice of PPI into a collaborative partnership, facilitating the development of proactive relationships between the medical profession, patients and the public., (© 2018 The Authors Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to present the findings arising from a three year research project which investigated a major system-wide change in the design of the NHS in England. The radical policy change was enshrined in statute in 2012 and it dismantled existing health authorities in favour of new local commissioning groups built around GP Practices. The idea was that local clinical leaders would "step-up" to the challenge and opportunity to transform health services through exercising local leadership. This was the most radical change in the NHS since its inception in 1948., Design/methodology/approach: The research methods included two national postal surveys to all members of the boards of the local groups supplemented with 15 scoping case studies followed by six in-depth case studies. These case studies focused on close examination of instances where significant changes to service design had been attempted., Findings: The authors found that many local groups struggled to bring about any significant changes in the design of care systems. But the authors also found interesting examples of situations where pioneering clinical leaders were able to collaborate in order to design and deliver new models of care bridging both primary and secondary settings. The potential to use competition and market forces by fully utilising the new commissioning powers was more rarely pursued., Practical Implications: The findings carry practical implications stemming from positive lessons about securing change even under difficult circumstances., Originality/value: The paper offers novel insights into the processes required to introduce new systems of care in contexts where existing institutions tend to revert to the status quo. The national survey allows accurate assessment of the generalisability of the findings about the nature and scale of change.

The concept of knowledge co-production is used in health services research to describe partnerships (which can involve researchers, practitioners, managers, commissioners or service users) with the purpose of creating, sharing and negotiating different knowledge types used to make improvements in health services. Several knowledge co-production models have been proposed to date, some involving intermediary roles. This paper explores one such model, researchers-in-residence (also known as 'embedded researchers').In this model, researchers work inside healthcare organisations, operating as staff members while also maintaining an affiliation with academic institutions. As part of the local team, researchers negotiate the meaning and use of research-based knowledge to co-produce knowledge, which is sensitive to the local context. Even though this model is spreading and appears to have potential for using co-produced knowledge to make changes in practice, a number of challenges with its use are emerging. These include challenges experienced by the researchers in embedding themselves within the practice environment, preserving a clear focus within their host organisations and maintaining academic professional identity.In this paper, we provide an exploration of these challenges by examining three independent case studies implemented in the UK, each of which attempted to co-produce relevant research projects to improve the quality of care. We explore how these played out in practice and the strategies used by the researchers-in-residence to address them. In describing and analysing these strategies, we hope that participatory approaches to knowledge co-production can be used more effectively in the future., Competing Interests: Competing interests: CV-P worked as an embedded researcher in the UCLH ERT. NJF oversaw the work of the UCLH ERT. MM supervises and mentors a team of researchers-in-residence and lectures on the model nationally and internationally. HC was an embedded researcher at BCCG. HB works as an embedded researcher at BCCG. MU started a modellers-in-residence programme at Great Ormond Street Hospital, contributed to the work of the UCLH ERT and currently works as a researcher-in-residence at Care City London. LE and LW have no competing interests. NP has collaborated with an embedded research team., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2019. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Objective: A growing proportion of older people live in care homes and are at high risk of preventable harm. This study describes a participatory qualitative evaluation of a complex safety improvement intervention, comprising training, performance measurement and culture-change elements, on the safety of care provided for residents., Design: A participatory qualitative study., Setting: Ninety care homes in one geographical locality in southern England., Participants: A purposeful sample of care home managers, front-line staff, residents, quality improvement facilitators and trainers, local government and health service commissioners, and an embedded researcher., Main Outcome Measures: Changes in care home culture and work processes, assessed using documentary analysis, interviews, observations and surveys and analysed using a framework-based thematic approach., Results: Participation in the programme appears to have led to changes in the value that staff place on resident safety and to changes in their working practices, in particular in relation to their desire to proactively manage resident risk and their willingness to use data to examine established practice. The results suggest that there is a high level of commitment among care home staff to address the problem of preventable harm. Mobilisation of this commitment appears to benefit from external facilitation and the introduction of new methods and tools., Conclusions: An evidence-based approach to reducing preventable harm in care homes, comprising an intervention with both technical and social components, can lead to changes in staff priorities and practices which have the potential to improve outcomes for people who live in care homes.

Background: Patient feedback is considered integral to quality improvement and professional development. However, while popular across the educational continuum, evidence to support its efficacy in facilitating positive behaviour change in a postgraduate setting remains unclear. This review therefore aims to explore the evidence that supports, or refutes, the impact of patient feedback on the medical performance of qualified doctors., Methods: Electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, Medline and PsycINFO were systematically searched for studies assessing the impact of patient feedback on medical performance published in the English language between 2006-2016. Impact was defined as a measured change in behaviour using Barr's (2000) adaptation of Kirkpatrick's four level evaluation model. Papers were quality appraised, thematically analysed and synthesised using a narrative approach., Results: From 1,269 initial studies, 20 articles were included (qualitative (n=8); observational (n=6); systematic review (n=3); mixed methodology (n=1); randomised control trial (n=1); and longitudinal (n=1) design). One article identified change at an organisational level (Kirkpatrick level 4); six reported a measured change in behaviour (Kirkpatrick level 3b); 12 identified self-reported change or intention to change (Kirkpatrick level 3a), and one identified knowledge or skill acquisition (Kirkpatrick level 2). No study identified a change at the highest level, an improvement in the health and wellbeing of patients. The main factors found to influence the impact of patient feedback were: specificity; perceived credibility; congruence with physician self-perceptions and performance expectations; presence of facilitation and reflection; and inclusion of narrative comments. The quality of feedback facilitation and local professional cultures also appeared integral to positive behaviour change., Conclusion: Patient feedback can have an impact on medical performance. However, actionable change is influenced by several contextual factors and cannot simply be guaranteed. Patient feedback is likely to be more influential if it is specific, collected through credible methods and contains narrative information. Data obtained should be fed back in a way that facilitates reflective discussion and encourages the formulation of actionable behaviour change. A supportive cultural understanding of patient feedback and its intended purpose is also essential for its effective use.

Background: Clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) were established in England in 2013 to encourage GPs to exert greater influence over the processes of service improvement and redesign in the NHS. Little is known about the extent and the ways in which GPs have assumed these leadership roles., Aim: To explore the nature of clinical leadership of GPs in CCGs, and to examine the enablers and barriers to implementing a policy of clinical leadership in the NHS., Design and Setting: A qualitative multi-case study approach in six localities across England. The case studies were purposefully sampled to represent different geographical localities and population demographics, and for their commitment to redesigning specified clinical or service areas., Method: Data were collected from the case study CCGs and their partner organisations using a review of relevant documents, semi-structured individual or group interviews, and observations of key meetings. The data were analysed thematically and informed by relevant theories., Results: GPs prefer a collaborative style of leadership that may be unlikely to produce rapid or radical change. Leadership activities are required at all levels in the system from strategy to frontline delivery, and the leadership behaviours of GPs who are not titular leaders are as important as formal leadership roles. A new alliance is emerging between clinicians and managers that draws on their different skillsets and creates new common interests. The uncertain policy environment in the English NHS is impacting on the willingness and the focus of GP leaders., Conclusion: GPs are making an important contribution as leaders of health service improvement and redesign but there are significant professional and political barriers to them optimising a leadership role., (© British Journal of General Practice 2018.)

Objectives: This study explores the barriers and facilitators that impact on the motivation of practitioners to participate in a quality improvement collaborative., Design: A qualitative and formative evaluation using a participatory approach, the researcher-in-residence model which embraces the concept of 'coproducing' knowledge between researchers and practitioners using a range of research methods such as participant observation, interviews and documentary analysis. The design, creation and application of newly generated evidence are facilitated by the researcher through negotiation and compromise with team members., Participants: Senior and middle managers, doctors and nurses., Setting: Two hospitals in Southeast England participating in a Patient Safety Improvement Collaborative and the facilitator (host) of the collaborative, based in Central London., Results: The evaluation has revealed facilitators and barriers to motivation categorised under two main themes: (1) inherent motivation and (2) factors that influence motivation, interorganisational and intraorganisational features as well as external factors. Facilitators included collaborative 'champions,' individuals who drove the quality improvement agenda at a local level, raising awareness and inspiring colleagues. The collaborative itself acted as a facilitator, promoting shared learning as well as building motivation for participation. A key barrier was the lack of board engagement in the participating National Health Service organisations which may have affected motivation among front-line staff., Conclusions: Collaboratives maybe an important way of engaging practitioners in quality improvement initiatives. This study highlights that despite a challenging healthcare environment in the UK, there remains motivation among individuals to participate in quality improvement programmes as they recognise that improvement approaches may facilitate positive change in local clinical processes and systems. Collaboratives can harness this individual motivation to facilitate spread and adoption of improvement methodology and build engagement across their membership., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests. All three authors have senior leadership roles within the Royal College of General Practitioners. MM uses eConsult in his own practice but neither he nor HSL or RS have any commercial interest in it or any other online system.

Background: Understanding the cultural characteristics of healthcare organisations is widely recognised to be an important component of patient safety. A growing number of vulnerable older people are living in care homes but little attention has been paid to safety culture in this sector. In this study, we aimed to adapt the Manchester Patient Safety Framework (MaPSaF), a commonly used tool in the health sector, for use in care homes and then to test its face validity and preliminary feasibility as a tool for developing a better understanding of safety culture in the sector., Methods: As part of a wider improvement programme to reduce the prevalence of common safety incidents among residents in 90 care homes in England, we adapted MaPSaF and carried out a multimethod participatory evaluation of its face validity and feasibility for care home staff. Data were collected using participant observation, interviews, documentary analysis and a survey, and were analysed thematically., Results: MaPSaF required considerable adaptation in terms of its length, language and content in order for it to be perceived to be acceptable and useful to care home staff. The changes made reflected differences between the health and care home sectors in terms of the local context and wider policy environment, and the expectations, capacity and capabilities of the staff. Based on this preliminary study, the adapted tool, renamed 'Culture is Key', appears to have reasonable face validity and, with adequate facilitation, it is usable by front-line staff and useful in raising their awareness about safety issues., Conclusions: 'Culture is Key' is a new tool which appears to have acceptable face validity and feasibility to be used by care home staff to deepen their understanding of the safety culture of their organisations and therefore has potential to contribute to improving care for vulnerable older people., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

We report an extremely unique and previously unreported case of a pseudoaneurysm arising from an intercostal artery that also gave origin to the artery of Adamkiewicz. Due to the potential risk of losing the artery of Adamkiewicz, a conservative approach was indicated. On short interval follow-up imaging, the pseudoaneurysm and associated hematoma spontaneously resolved with preservation of the intercostal artery. We performed a literature review of the natural course of pseudoaneurysm as well as their occurrence in the intercostal arteries., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Better integration of care within the health sector and between health and social care is seen in many countries as an essential way of addressing the enduring problems of dwindling resources, changing demographics and unacceptable variation in quality of care. Current research evidence about the effectiveness of integration efforts supports neither the enthusiasm of those promoting and designing integrated care programmes nor the growing efforts of practitioners attempting to integrate care on the ground. In this paper we present a methodological approach, based on the principles of participatory research, that attempts to address this challenge. Participatory approaches are characterised by a desire to use social science methods to solve practical problems and a commitment on the part of researchers to substantive and sustained collaboration with relevant stakeholders. We describe how we applied an emerging practical model of participatory research, the researcher-in-residence model, to evaluate a large-scale integrated care programme in the UK. We propose that the approach added value to the programme in a number of ways: by engaging stakeholders in using established evidence and with the benefits of rigorously evaluating their work, by providing insights for local stakeholders that they were either not familiar with or had not fully considered in relation to the development and implementation of the programme and by challenging established mindsets and norms. While there is still much to learn about the benefits and challenges of applying participatory approaches in the health sector, we demonstrate how using such approaches have the potential to help practitioners integrate care more effectively in their daily practice and help progress the academic study of integrated care., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MM is a general practitioner in Newham., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Introduction: Young adults with diabetes often report dissatisfaction with care and have poor diabetes-related health outcomes. As diabetes prevalence continues to rise, group-based care could provide a sustainable alternative to traditional one-to-one consultations, by engaging young people through life stage-, context- and culturally-sensitive approaches. In this study, we will co-design and evaluate a group-based care model for young adults with diabetes and complex health and social needs in socioeconomically deprived areas., Methods and Analysis: This participatory study will include three phases. In phase 1, we will carry out a realist review to synthesise the literature on group-based care for young adults with diabetes. This theory-driven understanding will provide the basis for phase 2, where we will draw on experience-based co-design methodologies to develop a new, group-based care model for young adults (aged <25 years, under the care of adult diabetes services). In phase 3, we will use a researcher-in-residence approach to implement and evaluate the co-designed group clinic model and compare with traditional care. We will employ qualitative (observations in clinics, patient and staff interviews and document analysis) and quantitative methods (eg, biological markers, patient enablement instrument and diabetes distress scale), including a cost analysis., Ethics and Dissemination: National Health Service ethics approval has been granted (reference 17/NI/0019). The project will directly inform service redesign to better meet the needs of young adults with diabetes in socioeconomically deprived areas and may guide a possible cluster-randomised trial, powered to clinical and cost-effectiveness outcomes. Findings from this study may be transferable to other long-term conditions and/or age groups. Project outputs will include briefing statements, summaries and academic papers, tailored for different audiences, including people living with diabetes, clinicians, policy makers and strategic decision makers., Registration Details: PROSPERO (CRD42017058726)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)