Search

Background: This paper explores the extent to which the implementation and evaluation of a collaborative care model of face-to-face service delivery for people with severe mental illness was viable during the first UK lockdown associated with COVID-19. The PARTNERS2 cluster randomised controlled trial and process evaluation were co-designed with service users and carers. The aim of this paper is to explore whether digital adaptation of the PARTNERS model for people with severe mental illness during the COVID-19 lockdown was equitable, in terms of fostering collaboration and trust in a vulnerable population. Results: We collected qualitative data from multiple sources during lockdown and subsequently constructed case-studies of participating secondary care workers. We adopted Bauman’s notions of liquid modernity to inform our analysis, and identified that digital adaptation during lockdown was only successful where organisational policies, care partner skills and service users’ existing resources were optimal. Conclusion: PARTNERS2 can be delivered digitally by a care partner to support people with severe mental illness to identify and work towards their goals when existing resources are optimal. However, at a time of increased need, we identified that people who are very unwell and living with limited access to resources and opportunities, remained disenfranchised at great cost. Trial registration: ISRCTN 95702682, registered 26.10.2017

Background Individuals living with severe mental illness can have significant emotional, physical and social challenges. Collaborative care combines clinical and organisational components. Aims We tested whether a primary care-based collaborative care model (PARTNERS) would improve quality of life for people with diagnoses of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or other psychoses, compared with usual care. Method We conducted a general practice-based, cluster randomised controlled superiority trial. Practices were recruited from four English regions and allocated (1:1) to intervention or control. Individuals receiving limited input in secondary care or who were under primary care only were eligible. The 12-month PARTNERS intervention incorporated person-centred coaching support and liaison work. The primary outcome was quality of life as measured by the Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life (MANSA). Results We allocated 39 general practices, with 198 participants, to the PARTNERS intervention (20 practices, 116 participants) or control (19 practices, 82 participants). Primary outcome data were available for 99 (85.3%) intervention and 71 (86.6%) control participants. Mean change in overall MANSA score did not differ between the groups (intervention: 0.25, s.d. 0.73; control: 0.21, s.d. 0.86; estimated fully adjusted between-group difference 0.03, 95% CI −0.25 to 0.31; P = 0.819). Acute mental health episodes (safety outcome) included three crises in the intervention group and four in the control group. Conclusions There was no evidence of a difference in quality of life, as measured with the MANSA, between those receiving the PARTNERS intervention and usual care. Shifting care to primary care was not associated with increased adverse outcomes.

Background: This paper explores the extent to which the implementation and evaluation of a collaborative care model of face-to-face service delivery for people with severe mental illness was viable during the first UK lockdown associated with COVID-19. The PARTNERS2 cluster randomised controlled trial and process evaluation were co-designed with service users and carers. The aim of this paper is to explore whether digital adaptation of the PARTNERS model for people with severe mental illness during the COVID-19 lockdown was equitable, in terms of fostering collaboration and trust in a vulnerable population. Results: We collected qualitative data from multiple sources during lockdown and subsequently constructed case-studies of participating secondary care workers. We adopted Bauman’s notions of liquid modernity to inform our analysis, and identified that digital adaptation during lockdown was only successful where organisational policies, care partner skills and service users’ existing resources were optimal. Conclusion: PARTNERS2 can be delivered digitally by a care partner to support people with severe mental illness to identify and work towards their goals when existing resources are optimal. However, at a time of increased need, we identified that people who are very unwell and living with limited access to resources and opportunities, remained disenfranchised at great cost. Trial registration: ISRCTN 95702682, registered 26.10.2017

BACKGROUND: Many people diagnosed with schizophrenia, bipolar or other psychoses in England receive the majority of their healthcare from primary care. Primary care practitioners may not be well equipped to meet their needs and there is often poor communication with secondary care. Collaborative care is a promising alternative model but has not been trialled specifically with this service user group in England. Collaborative care for other mental health conditions has not been widely implemented despite evidence of its effectiveness. We carried out a formative evaluation of the PARTNERS model of collaborative care, with the aim of establishing barriers and facilitators to delivery, identifying implementation support requirements and testing the initial programme theory. METHODS: The PARTNERS intervention was delivered on a small scale in three sites. Qualitative data was collected from primary and secondary care practitioners, service users and family carers, using semi-structured interviews, session recordings and tape-assisted recall. Deductive and inductive thematic analysis was carried out; themes were compared to the programme theory and used to inform an implementation support strategy. RESULTS: Key components of the intervention that were not consistently delivered as intended were: interaction with primary care teams, the use of coaching, and supervision. Barriers and facilitators identified were related to service commitment, care partner skills, supervisor understanding and service user motivation. An implementation support strategy was developed, with researcher facilitation of communication and supervision and additional training for practitioners. Some components of the intervention were not experienced as intended; this appeared to reflect difficulties with operationalising the intervention. Analysis of data relating to the intended outcomes of the intervention indicated that the mechanisms proposed in the programme theory had operated as expected. CON

BACKGROUND: Many people diagnosed with schizophrenia, bipolar or other psychoses in England receive the majority of their healthcare from primary care. Primary care practitioners may not be well equipped to meet their needs and there is often poor communication with secondary care. Collaborative care is a promising alternative model but has not been trialled specifically with this service user group in England. Collaborative care for other mental health conditions has not been widely implemented despite evidence of its effectiveness. We carried out a formative evaluation of the PARTNERS model of collaborative care, with the aim of establishing barriers and facilitators to delivery, identifying implementation support requirements and testing the initial programme theory. METHODS: The PARTNERS intervention was delivered on a small scale in three sites. Qualitative data was collected from primary and secondary care practitioners, service users and family carers, using semi-structured interviews, session recordings and tape-assisted recall. Deductive and inductive thematic analysis was carried out; themes were compared to the programme theory and used to inform an implementation support strategy. RESULTS: Key components of the intervention that were not consistently delivered as intended were: interaction with primary care teams, the use of coaching, and supervision. Barriers and facilitators identified were related to service commitment, care partner skills, supervisor understanding and service user motivation. An implementation support strategy was developed, with researcher facilitation of communication and supervision and additional training for practitioners. Some components of the intervention were not experienced as intended; this appeared to reflect difficulties with operationalising the intervention. Analysis of data relating to the intended outcomes of the intervention indicated that the mechanisms proposed in the programme theory had operated as expected. CON

Background: Increasing pressure in the United Kingdom (UK) urgent care system has led to Emergency Departments (EDs) failing to meet the national requirement that 95% of patients are admitted, discharged or transferred within 4-h of arrival. Despite the target being the same for all acute hospitals, individual Trusts organise their services in different ways. The impact of this variation on patient journey time and waiting is unknown. Our study aimed to apply the Lean technique of Value Stream Mapping (VSM) to investigate care processes and delays in patient journeys at four contrasting hospitals. Methods: VSM timing data were collected for patients accessing acute care at four hospitals in South West England. Data were categorised according to waits and activities, which were compared across sites to identify variations in practice from the patient viewpoint. We included Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) to fully interpret our findings; observations and initial findings were considered in a PPI workshop. Results: One hundred eight patients were recruited, comprising 25,432 min of patient time containing 4098 episodes of care or waiting. The median patient journey was 223 min (3 h, 43 min); just within the 4-h target. Although total patient journey times were similar between sites, the stage where the greatest proportion of waiting occurred varied. Reasons for waiting were dominated by waits for beds, investigations or results to be available. From our sample we observed that EDs without a discharge/clinical decision area exhibited a greater proportion of waiting time following an admission or discharge decision. PPI interpretation indicated that patients who experience waits at the beginning of their journey feel more anxious because they are ‘not in the system yet’. Conclusions: The novel application of VSM analysis across different hospitals, coupled with PPI interpretation, provides important insight into the impact of care provision on patient exper

Background: Increasing pressure in the United Kingdom (UK) urgent care system has led to Emergency Departments (EDs) failing to meet the national requirement that 95% of patients are admitted, discharged or transferred within 4-h of arrival. Despite the target being the same for all acute hospitals, individual Trusts organise their services in different ways. The impact of this variation on patient journey time and waiting is unknown. Our study aimed to apply the Lean technique of Value Stream Mapping (VSM) to investigate care processes and delays in patient journeys at four contrasting hospitals. Methods: VSM timing data were collected for patients accessing acute care at four hospitals in South West England. Data were categorised according to waits and activities, which were compared across sites to identify variations in practice from the patient viewpoint. We included Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) to fully interpret our findings; observations and initial findings were considered in a PPI workshop. Results: One hundred eight patients were recruited, comprising 25,432 min of patient time containing 4098 episodes of care or waiting. The median patient journey was 223 min (3 h, 43 min); just within the 4-h target. Although total patient journey times were similar between sites, the stage where the greatest proportion of waiting occurred varied. Reasons for waiting were dominated by waits for beds, investigations or results to be available. From our sample we observed that EDs without a discharge/clinical decision area exhibited a greater proportion of waiting time following an admission or discharge decision. PPI interpretation indicated that patients who experience waits at the beginning of their journey feel more anxious because they are ‘not in the system yet’. Conclusions: The novel application of VSM analysis across different hospitals, coupled with PPI interpretation, provides important insight into the impact of care provision on patient exper

Background: Older people with common mental health problems (CMHPs) are known to have reduced rates of referral to psychological therapy. Aim: We aimed to assess referral rates to the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) service, contact with a therapist and clinical outcome by age. Design and Setting: Empirical research using patient episodes of care from South West IAPT. Method: By analysing 82,513 episodes of care (2010-2011), referral rates and clinical improvement were compared to both total population and estimated prevalence in each age group using IAPT data. Probable recovery of those completing treatment were calculated for each group. Results: Estimated prevalence of CMHPs peaks in 45–49 year olds (20.59% of population). The proportions of patients identified with CMHPs being referred peaks at 20-24 years (22.95%) and reduces with increase in age thereafter to 6.00% for 70-74 year olds. Once referred, the proportion of those attending first treatment increases with age between 18 years (57.64%) and 64 years (76.97%). In addition, the percentage of those having a clinical improvement gradually increases from the age 20 years (12.94%) to 69 years (20.74%). Conclusion: Younger adults are more readily referred to IAPT services. However, as a proportion of those referred, probabilities of attending once, attending more than once, and clinical improvement, increase with age. It is uncertain whether optimum levels of referral have been reached for young adults. It is important to establish whether changes to service configuration, treatment options, and GP behaviour can increase referrals for middle-aged and older adults.

Background: Older people with common mental health problems (CMHPs) are known to have reduced rates of referral to psychological therapy. Aim: We aimed to assess referral rates to the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) service, contact with a therapist and clinical outcome by age. Design and Setting: Empirical research using patient episodes of care from South West IAPT. Method: By analysing 82,513 episodes of care (2010-2011), referral rates and clinical improvement were compared to both total population and estimated prevalence in each age group using IAPT data. Probable recovery of those completing treatment were calculated for each group. Results: Estimated prevalence of CMHPs peaks in 45–49 year olds (20.59% of population). The proportions of patients identified with CMHPs being referred peaks at 20-24 years (22.95%) and reduces with increase in age thereafter to 6.00% for 70-74 year olds. Once referred, the proportion of those attending first treatment increases with age between 18 years (57.64%) and 64 years (76.97%). In addition, the percentage of those having a clinical improvement gradually increases from the age 20 years (12.94%) to 69 years (20.74%). Conclusion: Younger adults are more readily referred to IAPT services. However, as a proportion of those referred, probabilities of attending once, attending more than once, and clinical improvement, increase with age. It is uncertain whether optimum levels of referral have been reached for young adults. It is important to establish whether changes to service configuration, treatment options, and GP behaviour can increase referrals for middle-aged and older adults.

Background: Increasing pressure in the United Kingdom (UK) urgent care system has led to Emergency Departments (EDs) failing to meet the national requirement that 95% of patients are admitted, discharged or transferred within 4-h of arrival. Despite the target being the same for all acute hospitals, individual Trusts organise their services in different ways. The impact of this variation on patient journey time and waiting is unknown. Our study aimed to apply the Lean technique of Value Stream Mapping (VSM) to investigate care processes and delays in patient journeys at four contrasting hospitals. Methods: VSM timing data were collected for patients accessing acute care at four hospitals in South West England. Data were categorised according to waits and activities, which were compared across sites to identify variations in practice from the patient viewpoint. We included Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) to fully interpret our findings; observations and initial findings were considered in a PPI workshop. Results: One hundred eight patients were recruited, comprising 25,432 min of patient time containing 4098 episodes of care or waiting. The median patient journey was 223 min (3 h, 43 min); just within the 4-h target. Although total patient journey times were similar between sites, the stage where the greatest proportion of waiting occurred varied. Reasons for waiting were dominated by waits for beds, investigations or results to be available. From our sample we observed that EDs without a discharge/clinical decision area exhibited a greater proportion of waiting time following an admission or discharge decision. PPI interpretation indicated that patients who experience waits at the beginning of their journey feel more anxious because they are ‘not in the system yet’. Conclusions: The novel application of VSM analysis across different hospitals, coupled with PPI interpretation, provides important insight into the impact of care provision on patient exper

Background: Increasing pressure in the United Kingdom (UK) urgent care system has led to Emergency Departments (EDs) failing to meet the national requirement that 95% of patients are admitted, discharged or transferred within 4-h of arrival. Despite the target being the same for all acute hospitals, individual Trusts organise their services in different ways. The impact of this variation on patient journey time and waiting is unknown. Our study aimed to apply the Lean technique of Value Stream Mapping (VSM) to investigate care processes and delays in patient journeys at four contrasting hospitals. Methods: VSM timing data were collected for patients accessing acute care at four hospitals in South West England. Data were categorised according to waits and activities, which were compared across sites to identify variations in practice from the patient viewpoint. We included Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) to fully interpret our findings; observations and initial findings were considered in a PPI workshop. Results: One hundred eight patients were recruited, comprising 25,432 min of patient time containing 4098 episodes of care or waiting. The median patient journey was 223 min (3 h, 43 min); just within the 4-h target. Although total patient journey times were similar between sites, the stage where the greatest proportion of waiting occurred varied. Reasons for waiting were dominated by waits for beds, investigations or results to be available. From our sample we observed that EDs without a discharge/clinical decision area exhibited a greater proportion of waiting time following an admission or discharge decision. PPI interpretation indicated that patients who experience waits at the beginning of their journey feel more anxious because they are ‘not in the system yet’. Conclusions: The novel application of VSM analysis across different hospitals, coupled with PPI interpretation, provides important insight into the impact of care provision on patient exper

For older people with multiple chronic co-morbidities, strategies to coordinate care depend heavily on information exchange. We analyse the information-sharing difficulties arising from differences between patients’ oral narratives and medical sense-making; and whether a modified form of ‘narrative medicine’ might mitigate them. We systematically compared 66 general practice patients’ own narratives of their health problems and care with the contents of their clinical records. Data were collected in England during 2012–13. Patients’ narratives differed from the accounts in their medical record, especially the summary, regarding mobility, falls, mental health, physical frailty and its consequences for accessing care. Parts of patients’ viewpoints were never formally encoded, parts were lost when clinicians de-coded it, parts supplemented, and sometimes the whole narrative was re-framed. These discrepancies appeared to restrict the patient record's utility even for GPs for the purposes of risk stratification, case management, knowing what other care-givers were doing, and coordinating care. The findings suggest combining the encoding/decoding theory of communication with inter-subjectivity and intentionality theories as sequential, complementary elements of an explanation of how patients communicate with clinicians. A revised form of narrative medicine might mitigate the discursive gap and its consequences for care coordination.

BACKGROUND: In the general population the prevalence of bipolar and schizophrenia is 0.24% and 1.4% respectively. People with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder have a significantly reduced life expectancy, increased rates of unemployment and a fear of stigma leading to reduced self-confidence. A core outcome set is a standardised collection of items that should be reported in all controlled trials within a research area. There are currently no core outcome sets available for use in effectiveness trials involving bipolar or schizophrenia service users managed in a community setting. METHODS: A three-step approach is to be used to concurrently develop two core outcome sets, one for bipolar and one for schizophrenia. First, a comprehensive list of outcomes will be compiled through qualitative research and systematic searching of trial databases. Focus groups and one-to-one interviews will be completed with service users, carers and healthcare professionals. Second, a Delphi study will be used to reduce the lists to a core set. The three-round Delphi study will ask service users to score the outcome list for relevance. In round two stakeholders will only see the results of their group, while in round three stakeholders will see the results of all stakeholder group by stakeholder group. Third, a consensus meeting with stakeholders will be used to confirm outcomes to be included in the core set. Following the development of the core set a systematic literature review of existing measures will allow recommendations for how the core outcomes should be measured and a stated preference survey will explore the strength of people's preferences and estimate weights for the outcomes that comprise the core set. DISCUSSION: A core outcome set represents the minimum measurement requirement for a research area. We aim to develop core outcome sets for use in research involving service users with schizophrenia or bipolar managed in a community setting. This will inform the wider PARTN

BACKGROUND: In the general population the prevalence of bipolar and schizophrenia is 0.24% and 1.4% respectively. People with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder have a significantly reduced life expectancy, increased rates of unemployment and a fear of stigma leading to reduced self-confidence. A core outcome set is a standardised collection of items that should be reported in all controlled trials within a research area. There are currently no core outcome sets available for use in effectiveness trials involving bipolar or schizophrenia service users managed in a community setting. METHODS: A three-step approach is to be used to concurrently develop two core outcome sets, one for bipolar and one for schizophrenia. First, a comprehensive list of outcomes will be compiled through qualitative research and systematic searching of trial databases. Focus groups and one-to-one interviews will be completed with service users, carers and healthcare professionals. Second, a Delphi study will be used to reduce the lists to a core set. The three-round Delphi study will ask service users to score the outcome list for relevance. In round two stakeholders will only see the results of their group, while in round three stakeholders will see the results of all stakeholder group by stakeholder group. Third, a consensus meeting with stakeholders will be used to confirm outcomes to be included in the core set. Following the development of the core set a systematic literature review of existing measures will allow recommendations for how the core outcomes should be measured and a stated preference survey will explore the strength of people's preferences and estimate weights for the outcomes that comprise the core set. DISCUSSION: A core outcome set represents the minimum measurement requirement for a research area. We aim to develop core outcome sets for use in research involving service users with schizophrenia or bipolar managed in a community setting. This will inform the wider PARTN

Background and aims: Individuals living with severe mental illness such as schizophrenia and bipolar can have significant emotional, cognitive, physical and social challenges. Most people with severe mental illness in the United Kingdom do not receive specialist mental health care. Collaborative care is a system of support that combines clinical and organisational components to provide integrated and person-centred care. It has not been tested for severe mental illness in the United Kingdom. We aimed to develop and evaluate a primary care-based collaborative care model (PARTNERS) designed to improve quality of life for people with diagnoses of schizophrenia, bipolar or other psychoses when compared with usual care. Methods: Phase 1 included studies to (1) understand context: an observational retrospective study of primary and secondary care medical records and an update of the Cochrane review ‘Collaborative care approaches for people with severe mental illness’; (2) develop and formatively evaluate the PARTNERS intervention: a review of literature on collaborative care and recovery, interviews with key leaders in collaborative care and recovery, focus groups with service users and a formative evaluation of a prototype intervention model; and (3) develop trial science work in this area: a core outcome set for bipolar and recruitment methods. In phase 2 we conducted a cluster randomised controlled trial measuring quality of life using the Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life and secondary outcomes including time use, recovery and mental well-being; a cost-effectiveness study; and a mixed-methods process evaluation. Public involvement underpinned all of the workstream activity through the study Lived Experience Advisory Panel and the employment of service user researchers in the project team. Results phase 1: The study of records showed that care for individuals under secondary care is variable and substantial and that people are seen every 2 weeks on average

Objectives This paper examines how the interaction between financial and clinical risk at two critical phases of health care reform in England has been experienced by frontline staff caring for vulnerable patients with long term conditions. Methods The paper draws on contracting theory and two interdisciplinary and in-depth qualitative research studies undertaken in 1995 and 2007. Methods common to both studies included documentary analysis and interviews with managers and front line professionals. The 1995 study employed action-based research and included observation of community care; the 2007 study used realistic evaluation and included engagement with service user groups. Results In both reform processes, financial risk was increasingly devolved to frontline practitioners and smaller organisational units such as GP commissioning groups, with payment by unit of activity, aimed at changing professionals’ behaviour. This financing increased perceived clinical risk and fragmented the delivery of health and social care services requiring staff efforts to improve collaboration and integration, and created some perverse incentives and staff demoralisation. Conclusions Health services reform should only shift financial risk to frontline professionals to the extent that it can be efficiently borne. Where team work is required, contracts should reward collaborative multi-professional activity.

Background: Different dementia support roles exist but evidence is lacking on which aspects are best, for whom, and in what circumstances, and on their associated costs and benefits. Phase 1 of the Dementia PersonAlised Care Team programme (D-PACT) developed a post-diagnostic primary care-based intervention for people with dementia and their carers and assessed the feasibility of a trial. Aim: Phase 2 of the programme aims to 1) refine the programme theory on how, when, and for whom the intervention works; and 2) evaluate its value and impact. Design & setting: A realist longitudinal mixed-methods evaluation will be conducted in urban, rural, and coastal areas across South West and North West England where low-income or ethnic minority populations (for example, South Asian) are represented. Design was informed by patient, public, and professional stakeholder input and phase 1 findings. Method: High-volume qualitative and quantitative data will be collected longitudinally from people with dementia, carers, and practitioners. Analyses will comprise the following: 1) realist longitudinal case studies; 2) conversation analysis of recorded interactions; 3) statistical analyses of outcome and experience questionnaires; 4a) health economic analysis examining costs of delivery; and 4b) realist economic analysis of high-cost events and ‘near misses’. All findings will be synthesised using a joint display table, evidence appraisal tool, triangulation, and stakeholder co-analysis. Conclusion: The realist evaluation will describe how, why, and for whom the intervention does or does not lead to change over time. It will also demonstrate how a non-randomised design can be more appropriate for complex interventions with similar questions or populations.

Practitioner understanding of patients’ preferences, wishes and needs is essential for personalised health care i.e., focusing on ‘what matters’ to people based on their individual life situation. To develop such an understanding, dementia practitioners need to use communication practices that help people share their experiences, preferences, and priorities. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, dementia support is likely to continue to be delivered both remotely and in-person. This study analysed multiple sources of qualitative data to examine the views of practitioners, people living with dementia and carers, and researchers on how an understanding of what matters to people living with dementia can be developed remotely via telephone and video call. Access to environmental stimuli, the remote use of visual tools, peoples’ tendency to downplay or omit details about their troubles and carers’ ability to disclose privately were interpreted, through thematic analysis, to be factors affecting how practitioners sought to develop understanding remotely. Cumulatively, findings show that while remote support created unique challenges to practitioners’ ability to develop understanding for personalised care, practitioners developed adaptive strategies to overcome some of these challenges. Further research should examine how, when and for whom these adapted practices for remote personalised care work, informing the development of evidence-based guidance and training on how practitioners can remotely develop the understanding required for personalised care.

BACKGROUND: Individuals living with severe mental illness can have significant emotional, physical and social challenges. Collaborative care combines clinical and organisational components. AIMS: We tested whether a primary care-based collaborative care model (PARTNERS) would improve quality of life for people with diagnoses of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or other psychoses, compared with usual care. METHOD: We conducted a general practice-based, cluster randomised controlled superiority trial. Practices were recruited from four English regions and allocated (1:1) to intervention or control. Individuals receiving limited input in secondary care or who were under primary care only were eligible. The 12-month PARTNERS intervention incorporated person-centred coaching support and liaison work. The primary outcome was quality of life as measured by the Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life (MANSA). RESULTS: We allocated 39 general practices, with 198 participants, to the PARTNERS intervention (20 practices, 116 participants) or control (19 practices, 82 participants). Primary outcome data were available for 99 (85.3%) intervention and 71 (86.6%) control participants. Mean change in overall MANSA score did not differ between the groups (intervention: 0.25, s.d. 0.73; control: 0.21, s.d. 0.86; estimated fully adjusted between-group difference 0.03, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.31; P = 0.819). Acute mental health episodes (safety outcome) included three crises in the intervention group and four in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of a difference in quality of life, as measured with the MANSA, between those receiving the PARTNERS intervention and usual care. Shifting care to primary care was not associated with increased adverse outcomes.

There are long-standing concerns that people experiencing homelessness may not recover well if left unsupported after a hospital stay. This study reports on a study investigating the cost-effectiveness of three different ‘in patient care coordination and discharge planning’ configurations for adults experiencing homelessness who are discharged from hospitals in England. The first configuration provided a clinical and housing in-reach service during acute care and discharge coordination but with no ‘step-down’ care. The second configuration provided clinical and housing in-reach, discharge coordination and ‘step-down’ intermediate care. The third configuration consisted of housing support workers providing in-reach and discharge coordination as well as step-down care. These three configurations were each compared with ‘standard care’ (control, defined as one visit by the homelessness health nurse before discharge during which patients received an information leaflet on local services). Multiple sources of data and multi-outcome measures were adopted to assess the cost utility of hospital discharge service delivery for the NHS and broader public perspective. Details of 354 participants were collated on service delivery costs (salary, on-costs, capital, overheads and ‘hotel’ costs, advertising and other indirect costs), the economic consequences for different public services (e.g. NHS, social care, criminal justice, housing, etc.) and health utilities (quality-adjusted-life-years, QALYs). Findings were complex across the configurations, but, on the whole, there was promising evidence suggesting that, with delivery costs similar to those reported for bed-based intermediate care, step-down care secured better health outcomes and improved cost-effectiveness (compared with usual care) within NICE cost-effectiveness recommendations.

‘Dementia - Personalised Care Team’ (D-PACT) is a five-year NIHR funded programme, using realist methods to develop and evaluate a complex, person-centred intervention for people with dementia and their carers. During the early project stages, we engaged with multiple stakeholders, including people with dementia and their carers, to develop an initial programme theory (IPT) – into an elaborated programme theory (EPT), by helping to uncover intervention mechanisms leading to outcomes in specific contexts. Realist research methods for developing programme theories are under-reported. In addition, there is a paucity of practical guidance on how to engage underserved and vulnerable populations in complex interventions programme theory development. We attend to these gaps, providing a worked example of how we meaningfully engaged people living with dementia and carers, alongside field experts, as stakeholders in this process. Our IPT theory building included multi-stakeholder primary research exercises and meetings with PPI contributors and an Expert Reference Group. We adapted interview schedules, and used visual resources and scenario-based activities, to support stakeholders to think in a ‘realist’ way. Using realist and thematic analyses led to hypothesis-building of causal mechanisms. Sharing findings with stakeholders led to further refinement of the intervention design, ready for testing in a subsequent feasibility study. We found that, despite the cognitive challenges associated with dementia, innovative methods of engagement can enable this stakeholder group to understand the realist approach and provide a platform through which to share their experiences. Taking a highly flexible and unhurried approach, led to novel insights into the complexities of person-centred dementia support. We argue for more detailed methodological guidance, based on realist principles, on how to collaborate with underrepresented populations to rigorously gain insights as to what is lik

Background: Current NHS policy encourages an integrated approach to provision of mental and physical care for individuals with long term mental health problems. The ‘PARTNERS2’ complex intervention is designed to support individuals with psychosis in a primary care setting. Aim: The trial will evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the PARTNERS2 intervention. Design & setting: This is a cluster randomised controlled superiority trial comparing collaborative care (PARTNERS2) with usual care, with an internal pilot to assess feasibility. The setting will be primary care within four trial recruitment areas: Birmingham & Solihull, Cornwall, Plymouth, and Somerset. GP practices are randomised 1:1 to either (a) the PARTNERS2 intervention plus modified standard care (‘intervention’); or (b) standard care only (‘control’). Method: PARTNERS2 is a flexible, general practice-based, person-centred, coaching-based intervention aimed at addressing mental health, physical health, and social care needs. Two hundred eligible individuals from 39 GP practices are taking part. They were recruited through identification from secondary and primary care databases. The primary hypothesis is quality of life (QOL). Secondary outcomes include: mental wellbeing, time use, recovery, and process of physical care. A process evaluation will assess fidelity of intervention delivery, test hypothesised mechanisms of action, and look for unintended consequences. An economic evaluation will estimate its cost-effectiveness. Intervention delivery and follow-up have been modified during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusion: The overarching aim is to establish the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the model for adults with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, bipolar, or other types of psychoses.

Background There is global interest in the reconfiguration of community mental health services, including primary care, to improve clinical and cost effectiveness. Aims This study seeks to describe patterns of service use, continuity of care, health risks, physical healthcare monitoring and the balance between primary and secondary mental healthcare for people with severe mental illness in receipt of secondary mental healthcare in the UK. Method We conducted an epidemiological medical records review in three UK sites. We identified 297 cases randomly selected from the three participating mental health services. Data were manually extracted from electronic patient medical records from both secondary and primary care, for a 2-year period (2012-2014). Continuous data were summarised by mean and s.d. or median and interquartile range (IQR). Categorical data were summarised as percentages. Results The majority of care was from secondary care practitioners: of the 18 210 direct contacts recorded, 76% were from secondary care (median, 36.5; IQR, 14-68) and 24% were from primary care (median, 10; IQR, 5-20). There was evidence of poor longitudinal continuity: in primary care, 31% of people had poor longitudinal continuity (Modified Modified Continuity Index ≤0.5), and 43% had a single named care coordinator in secondary care services over the 2 years. Conclusions The study indicates scope for improvement in supporting mental health service delivery in primary care. Greater knowledge of how care is organised presents an opportunity to ensure some rebalancing of the care that all people with severe mental illness receive, when they need it. A future publication will examine differences between the three sites that participated in this study.

Purpose: People experiencing homelessness often have complex needs requiring a range of support. These may include health problems (physical illness, mental health and/or substance misuse) as well as social, financial and housing needs. Addressing these issues requires a high degree of coordination amongst services. It is, thus, an example of a wicked policy issue. The purpose of this paper is to examine the challenge of integrating care in this context using evidence from an evaluation of English hospital discharge services for people experiencing homelessness. Design/methodology/approach: The paper undertakes secondary analysis of qualitative data from a mixed methods evaluation of hospital discharge schemes and uses an established framework for understanding integrated care, the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care (RMIC), to help examine the complexities of integration in this area. Findings: Supporting people experiencing homelessness to have a good discharge from hospital was confirmed as a wicked policy issue. The RMIC provided a strong framework for exploring the concept of integration, demonstrating how intertwined the elements of the framework are and, hence, that solutions need to be holistically organised across the RMIC. Limitations to integration were also highlighted, such as shortages of suitable accommodation and the impacts of policies in aligned areas of the welfare state. Research limitations/implications: The data for this secondary analysis were not specifically focussed on integration which meant the themes in the RMIC could not be explored directly nor in as much depth. However, important issues raised in the data directly related to integration of support, and the RMIC emerged as a helpful organising framework for understanding integration in this wicked policy context. Practical implications: Integration is happening in services directly concerned with the discharge from hospital of people experiencing homelessness. Key challenges to this integ

Background Inpatients experiencing homelessness are often discharged to unstable accommodation or the street, which may increase the risk of readmission. Methods We conducted a cohort study of 2772 homeless patients discharged after an emergency admission at 78 hospitals across England between November 2013 and November 2016. For each individual, we selected a housed patient who lived in a socioeconomically deprived area, matched on age, sex, hospital, and year of discharge. Counts of emergency readmissions, planned readmissions, and Accident and Emergency (A&E) visits post-discharge were derived from national hospital databases, with a median of 2.8 years of follow-up. We estimated the cumulative incidence of readmission over 12 months, and used negative binomial regression to estimate rate ratios. Results After adjusting for health measured at the index admission, homeless patients had 2.49 (95% CI 2.29 to 2.70) times the rate of emergency readmission, 0.60 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.68) times the rate of planned readmission and 2.57 (95% CI 2.41 to 2.73) times the rate of A&E visits compared with housed patients. The 12-month risk of emergency readmission was higher for homeless patients (61%, 95% CI 59% to 64%) than housed patients (33%, 95% CI 30% to 36%); and the risk of planned readmission was lower for homeless patients (17%, 95% CI 14% to 19%) than for housed patients (30%, 95% CI 28% to 32%). While the risk of emergency readmission varied with the reason for admission for housed patients, for example being higher for admissions due to cancers than for those due to accidents, the risk was high across all causes for homeless patients. Conclusions Hospital patients experiencing homelessness have high rates of emergency readmission that are not explained by health. This highlights the need for discharge arrangements that address their health, housing and social care needs.

Background: Homelessness has increased by 165% since 2010 in England, with evidence from many settings that those affected experience high levels of mortality. In this paper we examine the contribution of different causes of death to overall mortality in homeless people recently admitted to hospitals in England with specialist integrated homeless health and care (SIHHC) schemes. Methods: We undertook an analysis of linked hospital admission records and mortality data for people attending any one of 17 SIHHC schemes between 1st November 2013 and 30th November 2016. Our primary outcome was death, which we analysed in subgroups of 10th version international classification of disease (ICD-10) specific deaths; and deaths from amenable causes. We compared our results to a sample of people living in areas of high social deprivation (IMD5 group). Results: We collected data on 3,882 individual homeless hospital admissions that were linked to 600 deaths. The median age of death was 51.6 years (interquartile range 42.7-60.2) for SIHHC and 71.5 for the IMD5 (60.67-79.0). The top three underlying causes of death by ICD-10 chapter in the SIHHC group were external causes of death (21.7%; 130/600), cancer (19.0%; 114/600) and digestive disease (19.0%; 114/600). The percentage of deaths due to an amenable cause after age and sex weighting was 30.2% in the homeless SIHHC group (181/600) compared to 23.0% in the IMD5 group (578/2,512). Conclusion: Nearly one in three homeless deaths were due to causes amenable to timely and effective health care. The high burden of amenable deaths highlights the extreme health harms of homelessness and the need for greater emphasis on prevention of homelessness and early healthcare interventions.

In this article, we present an exemplar of the initial theory-building phase of theory-driven evaluation for the PARTNERS2 project, a collaborative care intervention for people with experience of psychosis in England. Initial theory-building involved analysis of the literature, interviews with key leaders and focus groups with service users. The initial programme theory was developed from these sources in an iterative process between researchers and stakeholders (service users, practitioners, commissioners) involving four activities: articulation of 442 explanatory statements systematically developed using realist methods; debate and consensus; communication; and interrogation. We refute two criticisms of theory-driven evaluation of complex interventions. We demonstrate how the process of initial theory-building made a meaningful contribution to our complex intervention in five ways. Although time-consuming, it allowed us to develop an internally coherent and well-documented intervention. This study and the lessons learnt provide a detailed resource for other researchers wishing to build theory for theory-driven evaluation.

This review presents a realist synthesis of “what works and why” in intermediate care for people who are homeless. The overall aim was to update an earlier synthesis of intermediate care by capturing new evidence from a recent UK government funding initiative (the “Homeless Hospital Discharge Fund”). The initiative made resources available to the charitable sector to enable partnership working with the National Health Service (NHS) in order to improve hospital discharge arrangements for people who are homeless. The synthesis adopted the RAMESES guidelines and reporting standards. Electronic searches were carried out for peer-reviewed articles published in English from 2000 to 2016. Local evaluations and the grey literature were also included. The inclusion criteria was that articles and reports should describe “interventions” that encompassed most of the key characteristics of intermediate care as previously defined in the academic literature. Searches yielded 47 articles and reports. Most of these originated in the UK or the USA and fell within the realist quality rating of “thick description”. The synthesis involved using this new evidence to interrogate the utility of earlier programme theories. Overall, the results confirmed the importance of (i) collaborative care planning, (ii) reablement and (iii) integrated working as key to effective intermediate care delivery. However, the additional evidence drawn from the field of homelessness highlighted the potential for some theory refinements. First, that “psychologically informed” approaches to relationship building may be necessary to ensure that service users are meaningfully engaged in collaborative care planning and second, that integrated working could be managed differently so that people are not “handed over” at the point at which the intermediate care episode ends. This was theorised as key to ensuring that ongoing care arrangements do not break down and that gains are not lost to the person or the system vi

Introduction People who are homeless often experience poor hospital discharge arrangements, reflecting ongoing care and housing needs. Specialist integrated homeless health and care provision (SIHHC) schemes have been developed and implemented to facilitate the safe and timely discharge of homeless patients from hospital. Our study aims to investigate the health outcomes of patients who were homeless and seen by a selection of SIHHC services. Methods and analysis Our study will employ a historical population-based cohort in England. We will examine health outcomes among three groups of adults: (1) homeless patients seen by specialist discharge schemes during their hospital admission; (2) homeless patients not seen by a specialist scheme and (3)admitted patients who live in deprived neighbourhoods and were not recorded as being homeless. Primary outcomes will be: time from discharge to next hospital inpatient admission; time from discharge to next accident and emergency attendance and 28-day emergency readmission. Outcome data will be generated through linkage to hospital admissions data (Hospital Episode Statistics) and mortality data for November 2013 to November 2016. Multivariable regression will be used to model the relationship between the study comparison groups and each of the outcomes. Ethics and dissemination Approval has been obtained from the National Health Service (NHS) Confidentiality Advisory Group (reference 16/CAG/0021) to undertake this work using unconsented identifiable data. Health Research Authority Research Ethics approval (REC 16/EE/0018) has been obtained in addition to local research and development approvals for data collection at NHS sites. We will feedback the results of our study to our advisory group of people who have lived experience of homelessness and seek their suggestions on ways to improve or take this work further for their benefit. We will disseminate our findings to SIHHC schemes through a series of regional workshops.

Objectives This paper examines how the interaction between financial and clinical risk at two critical phases of health care reform in England has been experienced by frontline staff caring for vulnerable patients with long term conditions. Methods The paper draws on contracting theory and two interdisciplinary and in-depth qualitative research studies undertaken in 1995 and 2007. Methods common to both studies included documentary analysis and interviews with managers and front line professionals. The 1995 study employed action-based research and included observation of community care; the 2007 study used realistic evaluation and included engagement with service user groups. Results In both reform processes, financial risk was increasingly devolved to frontline practitioners and smaller organisational units such as GP commissioning groups, with payment by unit of activity, aimed at changing professionals’ behaviour. This financing increased perceived clinical risk and fragmented the delivery of health and social care services requiring staff efforts to improve collaboration and integration, and created some perverse incentives and staff demoralisation. Conclusions Health services reform should only shift financial risk to frontline professionals to the extent that it can be efficiently borne. Where team work is required, contracts should reward collaborative multi-professional activity.

Background: The NHS policy of constructing multispecialty community providers (MCPs) rests on a complex set of assumptions about how health systems can replace hospital use with enhanced primary care for people with complex, chronic or multiple health problems, while contributing savings to health-care budgets. Objectives: To use policy-makers’ assumptions to elicit an initial programme theory (IPT) of how MCPs can achieve their outcomes and to compare this with published secondary evidence and revise the programme theory accordingly. Design: Realist synthesis with a three-stage method: (1) for policy documents, elicit the IPT underlying the MCP policy, (2) review and synthesise secondary evidence relevant to those assumptions and (3) compare the programme theory with the secondary evidence and, when necessary, reformulate the programme theory in a more evidence-based way. Data sources: Systematic searches and data extraction using (1) the Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC) database for policy statements and (2) topically appropriate databases, including MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA). A total of 1319 titles and abstracts were reviewed in two rounds and 116 were selected for full-text data extraction. We extracted data using a formal data extraction tool and synthesised them using a framework reflecting the main policy assumptions. Results: The IPT of MCPs contained 28 interconnected context–mechanism–outcome relationships. Few policy statements specified what contexts the policy mechanisms required. We found strong evidence supporting the IPT assumptions concerning organisational culture, interorganisational network management, multidisciplinary teams (MDTs), the uses and effects of health information technology (HIT) in MCP-like settings, planned referral networks, care planning for individ