Search

Background Innovation in healthcare technologies can result in more convenient and effective treatment that is less costly, but a persistent challenge to widespread adoption in health and social care is end user acceptability. The purpose of this study was to capture UK public opinions and attitudes to novel healthcare technologies (NHTs), and to better understand the factors that contribute to acceptance and future use. Methods An online survey was distributed to the UK public between April and May 2020. Respondents received brief information about four novel healthcare technologies (NHTs) in development: a laser-based tool for early diagnosis of osteoarthritis, a virtual reality tool to support diabetes self-management, a non-invasive continuous glucose monitor using microwave signals, a mobile app for patient reported monitoring of rheumatoid arthritis. They were queried on their general familiarity and attitudes to technology, and their willingness to accept each NHT in their future care. Responses were analysed using summary statistics and content analysis. Results Knowledge about NHTs was diverse, with respondents being more aware about the health applications of mobile apps (66%), followed by laser-based technology (63.8%), microwave signalling (28%), and virtual reality (18.3%). Increasing age and the presence of a self-reported medical condition favoured acceptability for some NHTs, whereas self-reported understanding of how the NHT works resulted in elevated acceptance scores across all NHTs presented. Common contributors to hesitancy were safety and risks from use. Respondents wanted more information and evidence to help inform their decisions, ideally provided verbally by a general practitioner or health professional. Other concerns, such as privacy, were NHT-specific but equally important in decision-making. Conclusions Early insight into the knowledge and preconceptions of the public about NHTs in development can assist their design and prospectively mitigate obstacles to acceptance and adoption.

BackgroundHealth services are increasingly using digital tools to deliver care, and online consultations are being widely adopted in primary care settings. The intended consequences of online consultations are to increase patient access to care and increase the efficiency of care.AimTo identify and understand the unintended consequences of online consultations in primary care.Design and settingQualitative interview study in eight general practices using online consultation tools in South West and North West England between February 2019 and January 2020.MethodThematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with 19 patients and 18 general practice staff.ResultsConsequences of online consultations were identified that restricted patient access to care by making it difficult for some patients to communicate effectively with a GP and disadvantaging digitally-excluded patients. This stemmed from patient uncertainty about how their queries were dealt with, and whether practices used online consultations as their preferred method for patients to contact the practice. Consequences were identified that limited increases in practice efficiency by creating additional work, isolation, and dissatisfaction for some staff.ConclusionUnintended consequences often present operational challenges that are foreseeable and partly preventable. However, these challenges must be recognised and solutions resourced sufficiently. Not everyone may benefit and local decisions will need to be made about trade-offs. Process changes tailored to local circumstances are critical to making effective use of online consultation tools. Unintended consequences also present clinical challenges that result from asynchronous communication. Online consultation tools favour simple, well-formulated information exchange that leads to diffuse relationships and a more transactional style of medicine.

Background The national shielding programme was introduced by UK Government at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, with individuals identified as clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) offered advice and support to stay at home and avoid all non-essential contact. This study aimed to explore the impact and responses of “shielding” on the health and wellbeing of CEV individuals in Southwest England during the first COVID-19 lockdown. Methods A two-stage mixed methods study, including a structured survey (7 August—23 October 2020) and semi-structured telephone interviews (26 August—30 September 2020) with a sample of individuals who had been identified as CEV and advised to “shield” by Bristol, North Somerset & South Gloucestershire (BNSSG) Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG). Results The survey was completed by 203 people (57% female, 54% > 69 years, 94% White British, 64% retired) in Southwest England identified as CEV by BNSSG CCG. Thirteen survey respondents participated in follow-up interviews (53% female, 40% > 69 years, 100% White British, 61% retired). Receipt of ‘official’ communication from NHS England or General Practitioner (GP) was considered by participants as the legitimate start of shielding. 80% of survey responders felt they received all relevant advice needed to shield, yet interviewees criticised the timing of advice and often sought supplementary information. Shielding behaviours were nuanced, adapted to suit personal circumstances, and waned over time. Few interviewees received community support, although food boxes and informal social support were obtained by some. Worrying about COVID-19 was common for survey responders (90%). Since shielding had begun, physical and mental health reportedly worsened for 35% and 42% of survey responders respectively. 21% of survey responders scored ≥ 10 on the PHQ-9 questionnaire indicating possible depression and 15% scored ≥ 10 on the GAD-7 questionnaire indicating possible anxiety. Conclusions This research highlights the difficulties in providing generic messaging that is applicable and appropriate given the diversity of individuals identified as CEV and the importance of sharing tailored and timely advice to inform shielding decisions. Providing messages that reinforce self-determined action and assistance from support services could reduce the negative impact of shielding on mental health and feelings of social isolation.

Rapid multi-viral respiratory microbiological point-of-care tests (POCTs) have not been evaluated in UK primary care. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of a multi-viral microbiological POCT for suspected respiratory tract infections (RTIs).In this observational, mixed-methods feasibility study practices were provided with a POCT machine for any patient aged ≥3 months with suspected RTI. Dual throat/nose swabs tested for 17 respiratory viruses and three atypical bacteria, 65 minutes per sample.Twenty clinicians recruited 93 patients (estimated 1:3 of all RTI cases). Patient's median age was 29, 57% female, and 44% with co-morbidities. Pre-test diagnoses: upper RTI (48%); lower RTI (30%); viral/influenza-like illness (18%); other (4%). Median set-up time was 2.72 minutes, with 72% swabs processed4 hours, 90%24 hours. Tests detected ≥1 virus in 58%, no pathogen 37% and atypical bacteria 2% (3% inconclusive). Antibiotics were prescribed pre-test to 35% of patients with no pathogen detected and 25% with a virus. Post-test diagnoses changed in 20%, and diagnostic certainty increased (P = 0.02), more so when the test was positive rather than negative (P0.001). Clinicians predicted decreased antibiotic benefit post-test (P = 0.02). Interviews revealed the POCT has clear potential, was easy to use and well-liked, but limited by time-to-result and the absence of testing for typical respiratory bacteria.This POCT was acceptable and appeared to influence clinical reasoning. Clinicians wanted faster time-to-results and more information about bacteria. Randomized trials are needed to understand the safety, efficacy and patient perceptions of these POCTs.The UK government has called for the introduction of rapid diagnostics to curb overuse of antibiotics for common infections. Multi-viral respiratory ‘point-of-care’ tests (POCTs) are available but have not been used in UK primary care before. These POCTs use samples from the nose or back of the throat and give results quickly, to see if viruses or bacteria are there. In this study, four GP practices were given POCT machines for 6 weeks to see how they were used. Of the 93 patient samples tested, 3% were inconclusive, 37% tested negative, 58% had at least one virus and only 2% had a bacterial infection. Clinicians were more certain of patient diagnoses after testing especially when a virus or bacterium was detected and they were also less likely to predict the patient would benefit from antibiotics. Clinical diagnoses changed in 20% of patients after testing but less than 10% were contacted to change their treatment plan. During interviews, clinicians revealed they liked the test finding it easy-to-use but wanted faster time-to-results and testing for more bacteria. Clinical trials are needed to see if these POCTs can safely and cost-effectively reduce antibiotic prescribing in primary care.

Background The aim of this work was to explore barriers and facilitators to uptake of COVID-19 vaccines and to explore views and reactions to efforts to improve vaccine uptake among vaccine hesitant individuals. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with people between the age of 18–29 years who had not had a COVID-19 vaccine, and those between 30 and 49 years who had not had a second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Results A total of 70 participants took part in the study, 35 participants had received one dose, and 35 had not been vaccinated. Participants described a willingness to be vaccinated to keep themselves and those around them safe and to avoid restrictions. Barriers to uptake included: (1) perceived lack of need for COVID-19 vaccinations, (2) concerns about the efficacy of vaccinations, (3) concerns about safety, and (4) access issues. Uptake appeared to be influenced by age and health status, trust in government, and knowledge and understanding of science. Introduction of vaccine passes may provide a motive for having a vaccine but may be viewed as coercive. Conclusion Participants were hesitant, rather than opposed, and had questions about their need for, and the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. Young people did not consider themselves to be at risk of becoming ill from COVID-19, did not think the vaccination was effective in preventing transmission, and did not think sufficient research had been conducted regarding possible long-term side-effects. Concerns were exacerbated by a lack of trust in government, and misunderstanding of science. To promote uptake, public health campaigns should focus on the provision of information from trusted sources that explains the benefits of vaccination and addresses safety concerns more effectively. To overcome inertia in people with low levels of motivation to be vaccinated, appointments must be easily accessible.

Background: Recent debates on the introduction of new childhood vaccines in the UK have suggested that ‘peace of mind’ (PoM) might influence decision making. The aim of this study is to ascertain the importance of ‘PoM’ in individuals’ decision making. Methods: Four focus groups were conducted in the UK. Participants were 22 females and 2 males, aged 18–74 years, with a selection of non-parents, parents, guardians and foster carers. Data were analysed using an inductive thematic framework approach and conceptualised using the Health Belief Model, which provided an overview of participants’ perceptions and behaviours about childhood vaccinations. Results: Vaccine associated PoM was associated with individuals’ perceptions of disease severity, with individuals feeling more reassurance after obtaining vaccinations against diseases that they considered to be severe compared to relatively mild diseases. Conversely, concerns about vaccination side-effects reduced participants PoM, but the duration of this effect varied between individuals. Other factors, such as social pressure and the emotional anxiety related to children’s feelings, or physical reactions, to vaccinations also negatively impacted on participants’ vaccine associated PoM. Conclusion: Vaccine associated PoM was a consideration for some participants seeking vaccinations but was only a minor motivating factor for these individuals. These differences stemmed from whether participants received PoM from the uptake of a vaccination because they perceived some intrinsic benefit from it or, conversely, they considered vaccinations as a routine health intervention. Overall, vaccine related PoM varied between participants in magnitude and fluctuated over time, even in the same individuals.

ObjectiveTo gain a better understanding of decisions around adherence to self-isolation advice during the first phase of the COVID-19 response in England.DesignA mixed-methods cross sectional study.Setting: EnglandParticipants COVID-19 cases and contacts who were contacted by Public Health England (PHE) during the first phase of the response in England (January-March 2020).ResultsOf 250 respondents who were advised to self-isolate, 63% reported not leaving home at all during their isolation period, 20% reported leaving only for lower risk activities (dog walking or exercise) and 16% reported leaving for potentially higher risk, reasons (shopping, medical appointments, childcare, meeting family or friends). Factors associated with adherence to never going out included: the belief that following isolation advice would save lives, experiencing COVID-19 symptoms, being advised to stay in their room (rather than just “inside”), having help from outside and having regular contact by text message from PHE. Factors associated with non-adherence included being angry about the advice to isolate, being unable to get groceries delivered and concerns about losing touch with friends and family. Interviews highlighted that a sense of duty motivated people to adhere to isolation guidance and where people did leave their homes, these decisions were based on rational calculations of the risk of transmission – people would only leave their homes when they thought they were unlikely to come into contact with others.ConclusionsMeasures of adherence should be nuanced to allow for the adaptations people make to their behaviour during isolation. Understanding adherence to isolation and associated reasoning during the early stages of the pandemic is an essential part of pandemic preparedness for future emerging infectious diseases.Strengths and limitations of this studyOur participants were contacted directly by Public Health England during the first three months of the pandemic – the only cohort of cases and contacts who experienced self-isolation during this early phase of the pandemic.Results may not be directly generalisable to wider populations or later phases of pandemic response.We classified reasons for leaving the home as higher or lower contact, as a proxy for potential risk of transmission, however further research published since we conducted our research as refined our understanding of transmission risk, highlighting the need for more in-depth research on adherence behaviour and transmission risk.The mixed methods approach combined quantitative measures of adherence with an exploration of how and why these decisions were being made in the same people.Our study provides unique insights into self-isolation during the earliest stages of the pandemic, against a background of uncertainty and lack of information that will recur, inevitably, in the face of future pandemic and similar threats.

Objective: Explore the impact and responses to public health advice on the health and wellbeing of individuals identified as clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) and advised to shield (not leave home for 12 weeks at start of the pandemic) in Southwest England during the first COVID-19 lockdown. Design: Mixed-methods study; structured survey and follow-up semi-structured interviews. Setting: Communities served by Bristol, North Somerset & South Gloucestershire Clinical Commissioning Group. Participants: 204 people (57% female, 54% >69 years, 94% White British, 64% retired) in Southwest England identified as CEV and were advised to shield completed the survey. Thirteen survey respondents participated in follow-up interviews (53% female, 40% >69years, 100% White British, 61% retired). Results: Receipt of official communication from NHS England or General Practitioner (GP) was considered by participants as the legitimate start of shielding. 80% of survey responders felt they received all relevant advice needed to shield, yet interviewees criticised the timing of advice and often sought supplementary information. Shielding behaviours were nuanced, adapted to suit personal circumstances, and waned over time. Few interviewees received community support, although food boxes and informal social support were obtained by some. Worrying about COVID-19 was common for survey responders (90%). Since shielding had begun, physical and mental health reportedly worsened for 35% and 42% of survey responders respectively. 21% of survey responders scored 10 or more on the PHQ-9 questionnaire indicating possible depression and 15% scored 10 or more on the GAD-7 questionnaire indicating possible anxiety. Conclusions: This research highlights the difficulties in providing generic messaging that is applicable and appropriate given the diversity of individuals identified as CEV and the importance of sharing tailored and timely advice to inform shielding decisions. Providing messages that reinforce self-determined action and assistance from support services could reduce the negative impact of shielding on mental health and feelings of social isolation.

BackgroundHealth systems are seeking to harness digital tools to promote patient autonomy and increase the efficiency of care worldwide. The NHS Long Term Plan created the right for patients to access ‘digital first’ primary care by 2023–2024, including online patient access to full medical records.AimTo identify and understand the unintended consequences of online patient access to medical records.Design and settingQualitative interview study in 10 general practices in South West and North West England.MethodSemi-structured individual interviews with 13 patients and 16 general practice staff with experience of patient online access to health records.ResultsOnline access generated unintended consequences that negatively impacted patients’ understanding of their health care, with patients finding surprising or difficult to interpret information. Online access impacted GPs’ documentation practices, such as when GPs pre-emptively attempted to minimise potential misunderstandings to aid patient understanding of their health care. In other cases, this negatively impacted the quality of the records and patient safety when GPs avoided documenting speculations or concerns. Contrary to assumptions that workload would be reduced, online access introduced extra work, such as managing and monitoring access, and taking measures to prevent possible harm to patients.ConclusionThe unintended consequences described by both staff and patients show that, to achieve the intended consequences set out in NHS policy, additional work is necessary to prepare records for sharing and to prepare patients about what to expect. It is crucial that practices are adequately supported and resourced to manage the unintended consequences of online access, now that it is the default position. A table of potential unintended consequences and mitigation measures is provided to aid practice managers and clinicians implementing online access.

In an effort to reduce the spread of COVID-19, the UK government has introduced a series of mitigation measures. The success of these measures in preventing transmission is dependent on adherence, which is currently considered to be low. Evidence highlights the disproportionate impact of mitigation measures on individuals from Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) communities, as well as among those on a low income, and an understanding of barriers to adherence in these populations is needed. In this qualitative study we examined patterns of adherence to mitigation measures and reasons underpinning these behaviors among people on low income and those from BAME communities.Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 participants from BAME and low-income White backgrounds. The topic guide was designed to explore how individuals are adhering to social distancing and self-isolation measures during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to explore in detail the reasons underpinning this behavior. Data were analyzed using ‘thematic analysis following which charts were used to help compare concepts within and between participants and develop an understanding of patterns of adherence.Participants were confused by the constantly changing and seemingly contradictory rules and guidance. As a result, decisions were made about how best to protect themselves and their household from COVID-19, and from the detrimental impact of lockdown restrictions. This was not always in line with government advice. We identified three categories of adherence to lockdown measures 1) caution motivated super-adherence 2) risk-adapted partial-adherence and 3) necessity-driven partial-adherence. Decisions about adherence considered potential for exposure to the virus, ability to reduce risk through use of protective measures, and perceived importance of/need for the behavior.This research highlights a need for a more nuanced understanding of adherence to lockdown measures. Provision of practical and financial support could reduce the number of people who have to engage in necessity-driven partial-adherence. Information about viral transmission could help people assess the risk associated with partial-adherence more accurately. More evidence is required on population level risks of people adopting risk-adapted partial-adherence.

Electronic palliative care coordination systems (EPaCCS) detail preferred place of death across health and voluntary sector boundaries. Quantitative studies suggest that individuals recorded on EPaCCS are more likely to die at home. This study aimed to explore this relationship between EPaCCS and home deaths. Patient records from EPaCCS were collected from 1 September 2011 to 29 February 2012, linked to death data and analysed using descriptive statistics. We interviewed 101 professionals, including community nurses, and employed framework analysis. Few eligible patients were entered on EPaCCS (9% North Somerset, 13% Somerset). Of those, the majority died in community settings (87%, 81/93 North Somerset; 93% 307/331 Somerset). However, interviews and EPaCCS record analysis suggested that EPaCCS was almost exclusively used by community nurses and GPs, so, unsurprisingly, the relationship between EPaCCS and home deaths was strong. Difficulties included professional reluctance to discuss death, and the burden of data entry falling on daytime staff for out-of-hours colleagues. These results challenge assumptions that EPaCCS facilitates increased home deaths, as qualitative investigation identified selection bias. To avoid misinterpretations, future studies should employ mixed methods. The implementation of an electronic tool is not enough on its own to ensure that advanced care wishes are available, as long-standing organisational and cultural issues, such as professionals working in silos and professional reluctance to have ‘end of life’ discussions, also need to be addressed.

Members of the public and patients repeatedly indicate their willingness to take part in research, but current UnitedKingdom research governance involves complex rules about gaining consent. Research participation registers that seekconsent from participants to be approached about future studies have several potential benefits, including: increasedresearch participation across clinical and healthy populations; simplified recruitment to health care research; support forpeople’s autonomy in decision making; and improved efficiency and generalizability of research. These potential benefitshave to be balanced against ethical and governance considerations. With appropriate processes in place, seeking prospectiveconsent from patients and members of the public to be approached about future studies could potentiallyincrease public participation in health research without compromising informed consent and other ethical principles.

BACKGROUND:Decisions regarding which vaccines are funded in the United Kingdom (UK) are increasingly informed by cost-effectiveness analyses. Such analyses use Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) as a measure of effectiveness and assume that QALYs are equal regardless of where and in whom they occur in the population. However, there is increasing debate about whether this QALY approach is appropriate and whether societal preferences for childhood vaccinations should be used to help inform childhood immunisation policy.OBJECTIVE:To gauge the general public's preferences for prioritising certain characteristics of childhood vaccination, to help inform future policy making decisions in the UK.DESIGN:Qualitative design using individual face-to-face interviews, with data analysed using an inductive thematic framework approach.SETTING:Two counties in England, UK.POPULATION:Adult members of the general public were recruited using the Bristol and South Gloucestershire open electoral registers, using gender and deprivation quotas for each area.PARTICIPANTS:21 members of the public participated in qualitative interviews.RESULTS:The qualitative research identified three major themes and several key attributes that influences participant's opinions about priority setting for childhood vaccinations: (1) population segment (i.e. age group, carer impact and social group), (2) vaccine preventable diseases preferences (i.e. disease severity, disease incidence and declining infection) and (3) risks and benefits associated with childhood vaccinations (i.e. vaccine associated side-effects, herd protection and peace of mind).CONCLUSION:Evidence from this qualitative study suggests that some members of the UK general public have more nuanced views than the health-maximisation approach when considering how childhood vaccines should be prioritised. This is not necessarily captured by the current economic approaches for assessing the benefits from childhood vaccinations in the UK, but is an important area for future research to ensure appropriate decision making.

The text in Chapter 4, Results, Main findings, Complications has been replaced with the following text [these data do not alter the economic modelling (which was based on the correct data), nor the inferences from the trial that the FeverPAIN score is the optimal management approach]: There were very few complications in any trial groups: during the first trial phase there were two cases of otitis media and one case of cellulitis in the clinical score group and one case of cellulitis in the delayed antibiotic group; during the second trial phase (when using the FeverPAIN score) there were two cases of quinsy in the delayed antibiotic group and one case of otitis media in the RADT group.

Summary Background Most patients are prescribed Helicobacter pylori treatment without culture and antibiotic susceptibility testing, as current guidance recommends that patients with recurrent dyspepsia should be tested for H. pylori using a non-invasive breath or faecal antigen test. Aims To determine the prevalence of H. pylori antibiotic resistance in patients attending endoscopy in England and Wales, and the feasibility of an antibiotic resistance surveillance programme testing. Methods We tested the antibiotic susceptibility of H. pylori isolates from biopsy specimens from 2063 of 7791 (26%) patients attending for endoscopy in Gloucester and Bangor, and 339 biopsy specimens sent to the Helicobacter Reference Unit (HRU) in London. Culture and susceptibility testing was undertaken in line with National and European methods. Results Helicobacter pylori were cultured in 6.4% of 2063 patients attending Gloucester and Bangor hospitals. Resistance to amoxicillin, tetracycline and rifampicin/rifabutin was below 3% at all centres. Clarithromycin, metronidazole and quinolone resistance was significantly higher in HRU (68%, 88%, 17%) and Bangor isolates (18%, 43%, 13%) than Gloucester (3%, 22%, 1%). Each previous course of these antibiotics is associated with an increase in the risk of antibiotic resistance to that agent [clarithromycin: RR = 1.5 (P = 0.12); metronidazole RR = 1.6 (P = 0.002); quinolone RR = 1.8 (P = 0.01)]. Conclusions Helicobacter pylori infection is now uncommon in dyspeptic patients at endoscopy. A surveillance system is feasible and necessary to inform dyspepsia management guidance. Clinicians should take a thorough antibiotic history before prescribing metronidazole, clarithromycin or levofloxacin for H. pylori.

Objectives Using a prospective interrupted time series design, our goal was to determine whether a change in urine antibiotic susceptibility reporting from co-amoxiclav to cefalexin to community clinicians served by Southmead General Hospital led to a change in antibiotic prescribing. Methods We used longitudinal data on antibiotic prescribing using a clinician questionnaire to identify prescribing for urinary tract infections (UTIs) when a urine specimen was submitted to microbiology; MIQUEST computer search in general practices for prescribing for all UTIs in the community; and Prescribing Analysis and Cost (PACT) data to determine antibiotic prescribing for all infections. Results Cefalexin and cephalosporin prescribing increased when cefalexin was reported and co-amoxiclav prescribing decreased when co-amoxiclav was not reported by the laboratory. This was seen for episodes of UTI in which a general practitioner (GP) sent a specimen as determined with: the questionnaire results (9-fold rise in cephalosporins, 70% fall in co-amoxiclav); episodes of UTI identified by MIQUEST searches in the practice (50% increase in cefalexin, 25% reduction in co-amoxiclav); and overall antibiotic prescribing in the practice determined with PACT data (20% increase in cefalexin, 8% reduction in co-amoxiclav). MIQUEST data indicated that prescribing reverted to pre-intervention levels once the change in antibiotic reporting had stopped. Conclusions Our data provide more evidence that changing laboratory antibiotic susceptibility reporting has a direct effect on antibiotic prescribing by GPs. Our data indicate that much of the change in prescribing was attributable to the use of cefalexin and co-amoxiclav for persistent or recurrent infections. Microbiology laboratories can influence antibiotic use by selectively reporting antibiotics they would prefer GPs to prescribe.

This study represents an audit of microbiology laboratories in the UK to ascertain whether they are aware of, or follow, the Health Protection Agency (HPA) National Standard Methods Standard Operating Procedure (NSM SOP) for the investigation of dermatological specimens for superficial mycoses, or use a locally adapted version. A questionnaire audit was distributed to 179 NHS microbiology laboratories throughout England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The NSM SOP was followed by 92% of laboratories for the microscopy of dermatological samples; light microscopy/ KOH digestion was used by 63% and fluorescence microscopy/KOH digestion by 29% of laboratories. Preliminary reports post-microscopy were issued by 98% of laboratories, with 93% issuing reports within 48 hours. Adherence to the NSM SOP guidelines for culture was low; only 34% of laboratories incubated microscopy-negative specimens for the recommended 14 days, while approximately 60% incubated microscopy-positive specimens for 21 days. The culture medium recommended by the NSM SOP was used in 82% of laboratories. Comments were added to culture reports by 51% of laboratories; most were added manually and comments varied between laboratories. Nail samples were the most common sample received from primary care, followed by skin and hair. These results show no significant difference in the rate of microscopy positives versus culture positives. Microscopy and culture are the easiest and cheapest methods available to UK laboratories for the investigation of suspected superficial fungal infections. Although most laboratories included in this audit claimed to follow the NSM SOP for microscopy and culture, these results show that the techniques used vary throughout the UK. To maximise the service provided to primary care, UK laboratories should use standardise methods based on the NSM SOP.

Objectives The Marie Curie Cancer Care Delivering Choice Programme (DCP) aims to help palliative patients be cared for in their place of choice. In this study, new palliative care services delivered in two counties in England included end-of-life care coordination centres, an out-of-hours telephone line and discharge in-reach nurses. The study aimed to investigate the impact of DCP on place of death and hospital usage (emergency department (ED) and admissions). Methods Retrospective cohort of all eligible palliative patients who died over a 6-month period in two counties (n=3594). Participants were those who died of conditions considered to be eligible for end-of-life care, as defined by the Public Health England National End of Life Care Intelligence Network. The sample included people who did and did not access DCP services. DCP service, hospital admission and ED use data, demographic and death data were collected on all eligible participants. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression. Results After adjusting for potential confounders, those using Delivering Choice were at least 30% less likely to die in hospital or have an emergency hospital admission or ED visit in the last 30 or 7 days of life than those who did not. Conclusions Recipients of DCP services were less likely to die in or use hospital services. Those considering new ways of providing end-of-life care could explore the possibility of adopting similar services and evaluating the outcomes from patient, carer and system perspectives.

Background The criteria used when GPs submit stool specimens for microbiological investigation are unknown. Aim To determine what criteria GPs use to send stool specimens, and if they are consistent with national guidance, and whether GPs would prescribe an antibiotic before they receive a result. Design and setting Questionnaire survey of 974 GPs in 172 surgeries in England. Method GPs were sent a questionnaire (23 questions) based on national guidance. Results Questionnaires were returned by 90% (154/172) of surgeries and 49% (477/968) of GPs. GPs reported sending stool specimens in about 50% of cases of suspected infectious diarrhoea, most commonly because of individual symptoms, rather than public health implications. Fewer considered sampling with antibiotic-associated diarrhoea post hospitalisation, or children with acute, painful, bloody diarrhoea; only 14% mentioned outbreaks as a reason. Nearly one-half of GPs reported they would consider antibiotics in suspected cases of Escherichia coli O157, which is contraindicated. Only 23% of GPs would send the recommended three specimens for ova, cysts, and parasites (OCP) examination. Although 89% of GPs gave some verbal advice on how to collect stool specimens, only 2% of GPs gave patients any written instructions. Conclusion GPs need more education to address gaps in knowledge about the risks and diagnosis of different infections in suspected infectious diarrhoea, especially Clostridium difficile post-antibiotics, E. coli O157, and requesting OCPs. Advice on reports, tick boxes, or links to guidance on electronic request forms may facilitate this.

BackgroundAntibiotics are still prescribed to most patients attending primary care with acute sore throat, despite evidence that there is modest benefit overall from antibiotics. Targeting antibiotics using either clinical scoring methods or rapid antigen detection tests (RADTs) could help. However, there is debate about which groups of streptococci are important (particularly Lancefield groups C and G), and uncertainty about the variables that most clearly predict the presence of streptococci.ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare clinical scores or RADTs with delayed antibiotic prescribing.DesignThe study comprised a RADT in vitro study; two diagnostic cohorts to develop streptococcal scores (score 1; score 2); and, finally, an open pragmatic randomised controlled trial with nested qualitative and cost-effectiveness studies.SettingThe setting was UK primary care general practices.ParticipantsParticipants were patients aged ≥ 3 years with acute sore throat.InterventionsAn internet program randomised patients to targeted antibiotic use according to (1) delayed antibiotics (control group), (2) clinical score or (3) RADT used according to clinical score.Main outcome measuresThe main outcome measures were self-reported antibiotic use and symptom duration and severity on seven-point Likert scales (primary outcome: mean sore throat/difficulty swallowing score in the first 2–4 days).ResultsThe IMI TestPack Plus Strep A (Inverness Medical, Bedford, UK) was sensitive, specific and easy to use. Lancefield group A/C/G streptococci were found in 40% of cohort 2 and 34% of cohort 1. A five-point score predicting the presence of A/C/G streptococci [FeverPAIN: Fever; Purulence; Attend rapidly (≤ 3 days); severe Inflammation; and No cough or coryza] had moderate predictive value (bootstrapped estimates of area under receiver operating characteristic curve: 0.73 cohort 1, 0.71 cohort 2) and identified a substantial number of participants at low risk of streptococcal infection. In total, 38% of cohort 1 and 36% of cohort 2 scored ≤ 1 for FeverPAIN, associated with streptococcal percentages of 13% and 18%, respectively. In an adaptive trial design, the preliminary score (score 1;n = 1129) was replaced by FeverPAIN (n = 631). For score 1, there were no significant differences between groups. For FeverPAIN, symptom severity was documented in 80% of patients, and was lower in the clinical score group than in the delayed prescribing group (–0.33; 95% confidence interval –0.64 to –0.02;p = 0.039; equivalent to one in three rating sore throat a slight rather than moderately bad problem), and a similar reduction was observed for the RADT group (–0.30; –0.61 to 0.00;p = 0.053). Moderately bad or worse symptoms resolved significantly faster (30%) in the clinical score group (hazard ratio 1.30; 1.03 to 1.63) but not the RADT group (1.11; 0.88 to 1.40). In the delayed group, 75/164 (46%) used antibiotics, and 29% fewer used antibiotics in the clinical score group (risk ratio 0.71; 0.50 to 0.95;p = 0.018) and 27% fewer in the RADT group (0.73; 0.52 to 0.98;p = 0.033). No significant differences in complications or reconsultations were found. The clinical score group dominated both other groups for both the cost/quality-adjusted life-years and cost/change in symptom severity analyses, being both less costly and more effective, and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves indicated the clinical score to be the most likely to be cost-effective from an NHS perspective. Patients were positive about RADTs. Health professionals’ concerns about test validity, the time the test took and medicalising self-limiting illness lessened after using the tests. For both RADTs and clinical scores, there were tensions with established clinical experience.ConclusionsTargeting antibiotics using a clinical score (FeverPAIN) efficiently improves symptoms and reduces antibiotic use. RADTs used in combination with FeverPAIN provide no clear advantages over FeverPAIN alone, and RADTs are unlikely to be incorporated into practice until health professionals’ concerns are met and they have experience of using them. Clinical scores also face barriers related to clinicians’ perceptions of their utility in the face of experience. This study has demonstrated the limitation of using one data set to develop a clinical score. FeverPAIN, derived from two data sets, appears to be valid and its use improves outcomes, but diagnostic studies to confirm the validity of FeverPAIN in other data sets and settings are needed. Experienced clinicians need to identify barriers to the use of clinical scoring methods. Implementation studies that address perceived barriers in the use of FeverPAIN are needed.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN32027234.Source of fundingThis project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Objective:Relatively little attention has been paid to optimum ways in which community-based care services can support family caregivers in the context of end-of-life care at home. This paper addresses such concerns by focusing on the services provided by domiciliary care workers.Method:We draw on qualitative formal interviews with 42 family members, 1 patient, and 6 staff, as well as observation sessions and informal interviews with additional family caregivers and staff, to examine the aspects of domiciliary care perceived to be of most value. In particular, we compare and contrast family caregivers' experience of the support provided by generic domiciliary care workers with that of a team of specialist domiciliary care workers.Results:Our findings show that specialist domiciliary care workers had sufficient time and expertise to meet family caregivers' physical and emotional needs in sensitive, proactive, and family-centered ways, and that these attributes were not so prominent in the services received from generic domiciliary care workers.Significance of results:The availability to families of targeted support from an appropriately trained and carefully monitored team of specialist domiciliary care workers, able to operate flexibly and with staff consistency, appears to be an important foundation on which to build greater confidence in the reality of a good death at home.

Background We know little about when and why general practitioners (GPs) submit stool specimens in patients with diarrhoea. The recent UK-wide intestinal infectious disease (IID2) study found ten GP consultations for every case reported to national surveillance. We aimed to explore what factors influence GP’s decisions to send stool specimens for laboratory investigation, and what guidance, if any, informs them. Methods We used qualitative methods that enabled us to explore opinions and ask open questions through 20 telephone interviews with GPs with a range of stool submission rates in England, and a discussion group with 24 GPs. Interviews were transcribed and subjected to content analysis. Results Interviews: GPs only sent stool specimens to microbiology if diarrhoea persisted for over one week, after recent travel, or the patient was very unwell. Very few had a systematic approach to determine the clinical or public health need for a stool specimen. Only two GPs specifically asked patients about blood in their stool; only half asked about recent antibiotics, or potential food poisoning, and few asked about patients’ occupations. Few GPs gave patients advice on how to collect specimens. Results from interviews and discussion group in relation to guidance: All reported that the HPA stool guidance and patient collection instructions would be useful in their clinical work, but only one GP (an interviewee) had previously accessed them. The majority of GPs would value links to guidance on electronic requests. Most GPs were surprised that a negative stool report did not exclude all the common causes of IID. Conclusions GPs value stool culture and laboratories should continue to provide it. Patient instructions on how to collect stool specimens should be within stool collection kits. Through readily accessible guidance and education, GPs need to be encouraged to develop a more systematic approach to eliciting and recording details in the patient’s history that indicate greater risk of severe infection or public health consequences. Mild or short duration IID (under one week) due to any cause is less likely to be picked up in national surveillance as GPs do not routinely submit specimens in these cases.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ44 08454 2250 E-mail address: Gemma.Lasseter@hpa.or 0033-3506/$ e see front matter a 2011 The R doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2011.04.007 The National Dementia Strategy in 2009 called for an increased coordinated research programme (Objective 16), while a collaborative report from the Royal College of Physicians, Royal College of Nursing and the British Geriatric Society called for more research in care homes. Currently in the UK, £11 is spent on research for each individual with dementia, compared with around £300 for each cancer patient. A European Charter has been launched recently to highlight the rights and importance of recruiting older people into research trials. Section 30 of the Mental Capacity Act states that subjects without decisional capacity (including dementia) should only be recruited into research trials if their inclusion is essential. A ‘personal consultee’ must give informed consent on their behalf, and the subject themselves must demonstrate agreement in cooperating with the researcher. In practice, this process is problematic, illustrated by the authors’ experience below. The recognition of dementia by staff in long-term care is low, and there is no reliable objective method of defining who lacks decisional capacity. Consultees may not appreciate that their relative lacks decisional capacity and can be

SUMMARYThe aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence and associated risk factors of methicillin-susceptible and methicillin-resistant Staphylocccus aureus (MSSA and MRSA) carriage in care homes, with particular focus on dementia. A point-prevalence survey of 748 residents in 51 care homes in Gloucestershire and Greater Bristol was undertaken. Dementia was assessed by the clock test or abbreviated mini-mental test. Nasal swabs were cultured for S. aureus on selective agar media. Multivariable analysis indicated that dementia was not a significant risk factor for MSSA (16·2%) or MRSA (7·8%); and that residents able to move around the home unassisted were at a lower risk of MRSA (P=0·04). MSSA carriage increased with increasing age (P=0·03) but MRSA carriage decreased with increasing age (P=0·05). Hospitalization in the last 6 months increased the risk of MSSA (P=0·04) and MRSA (P=0·10). We concluded that cross-infection through staff caring for more dependent residents may spread MRSA within care homes and from the recently hospitalized. Control of MSSA and MRSA in care homes requires focused infection control interventions.

Background. Using accurate and easy to use rapid antigen detection tests (RADTs) to identify group A beta-haemolytic Streptococci (GABHS) sore throat infections could reduce unnecessary antibiotic prescribing and antimicrobial resistance. Although there is no international consensus on the use of RADTs, these kits have been widely adopted in Finland, France and the USA. Yet in the UK, the Clinical Knowledge Summaries, that provide the main online guidance for GPs, discourage RADTs use, citing their poor sensitivity and inability to impact on prescribing decisions in acute sore throat infections. Objective. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ease of use and in vitro accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of the five most commonly used RADTs in Europe (OSOM Ultra, Quickvue Dipstick, Streptatest, Clearview Exact Strep A and IMI Test Pack). Methods. To ensure the RADTs were evaluated objectively, a standardized in vitro method using known concentrations of GABHS was used to remove the inherent biases associated with clinical studies. Results. The IMI Test Pack was the easiest RADT to use overall. The ability to detect all positive GABHS (sensitivity) varied considerably between kits from 95% [95% confidence interval (CI): 88-98%], for the IMI Test Pack and OSOM, to 62% (95% CI: 51-72%) for Clearview, at the highest GABHS concentration. None of the RADTs gave any false-positive results with commensal flora - they were 100% specific. Conclusions. The IMI Test Pack is most suitable for use in primary care, as it had high sensitivity, high specificity and was easy to use. © The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

1. McNulty CAM, Lasseter G, Shaw I, et al. Is Helicobacter pylori antibiotic resistance surveillance needed and how can it be delivered? Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2012; 35: 1221–30. 2. Selgrad M, Bornschein J, Malfertheiner P. Guidelines for treatment of Helicobacter pylori in the East and West. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther 2011; 9: 581–8. 3. Hirschl AM, Makristathis A. Methods to detect Helicobacter pylori: from culture to molecular biology. Helicobacter 2007; 12(Suppl. 2): 6–11. 4. Selgrad M, Kandulski A, Malfertheiner P. Helicobacter pylori: diagnosis and treatment. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 2009; 25: 549–56. 5. Logan RP. The chemotherapeutic effects of H/K inhibitors on Helicobacter pylori infection. Pharmacol Ther 1996; 69: 79–83. 6. Wex T, Venerito M, Kreutzer J, Gotze T, Kandulski A, Malfertheiner P. Serological prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection in Saxony-Anhalt, Germany, in 2010. Clin Vaccine Immunol 2011; 18: 2109–12. 7. Malfertheiner P, Megraud F, O’Morain CA, et al. Management of Helicobacter pylori infection–the Maastricht IV/Florence Consensus Report. Gut 2012; 61: 646–64. 8. Malfertheiner P, Bazzoli F, Delchier JC, et al. Helicobacter pylori eradication with a capsule containing bismuth subcitrate potassium, metronidazole, and tetracycline given with omeprazole versus clarithromycin-based triple therapy: a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2011; 377: 905–13.

Background - We evaluated end of life care services in two English counties including: coordination centres, telephone advice line, ‘Discharge in Reach’ nurses, a specialist community personal care team and community nurse educators. Elsewhere, we published findings detailing high family carer satisfaction and fewer hospital admissions, Accident and Emergency attendances and hospital deaths for service users compared to controls. The aim of this paper is to discuss what contributed to those outcomes.Methods - Using realist evaluation, data collection included documentation (e.g. referral databases), 15 observations of services and interviews with 43 family carers and 105 professionals. Data were analysed using framework analysis, applying realist evaluation concepts. Findings were discussed at successive team meetings and further data was collected until team consensus was reached.Results - Services ‘worked’ primarily for those with cancer with ‘fast track’ funding who were close to death. Factors contributing to success included services staffed with experienced palliative care professionals with dedicated (and sufficient) time for difficult conversations with family carers, patients and/or clinical colleagues about death and the practicalities of caring for the dying. Using their formal and informal knowledge of the local healthcare system, they accessed community resources to support homecare and delivered excellent services. This engendered confidence and reassurance for staff, family carers and patients, possibly contributing to less hospital admissions and A&E attendances and more home deaths.Conclusions - With demand for 24-hour end of life care growing and care provision fragmented across health and social care boundaries, services like these that cut across organisational sectors may become more important. They offer an overview to help navigate those desiring a home death through the system.

*Primary Care Unit, Health Protection Agency, Gloucestershire Royal Hospital, Gloucester, UK. Endoscopy Unit, Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Gloucester, UK. Statistics Unit, Health Protection Agency, London, UK. Public Health Wales Microbiology Bangor, Ysbyty Gwynedd, Bangor, UK. Helicobacter Reference Unit, Laboratory of Gastrointestinal Pathogens, HPA, Colindale, London, UK. **Institute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, University Hospital Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. E-mail: cliodna.mcnulty@hpa.org.uk

Introduction Helicobacter pylori eradication requires PPI with two antibiotics: amoxicillin, clarithromycin or metronidazole. Treatment failures are increasing and alternative antibiotics include tetracyclines, quinolones and rifabutin. In England in 2008 H. pylori culture and antibiotic sensitivity was only routinely performed in Gloucester and the Helicobacter Reference Unit (HRU). Methods Determine the feasibility of H. pylori antimicrobial resistance surveillance, using gastric antral biopsy specimens from routine endoscopies cultured in Gloucester and Bangor and referred to HRU. European standard methods were used for culture and susceptibility by E-tests. Results Prevalence was low: Bangor 6.6%, Gloucester 5.5% and HRU 32.2%. Higher resistance rates in the HRU reflected a greater proportion of referrals ‘post treatment’. Resistance rates were: Metronidazole, HRU 87%, Glos 22%, Bangor 38%; Clarithromycin, HRU 68%, Glos 4%, Bangor 15%; Levofloxacin, HRU 17%, Glos 1%, Bangor 13%; Rifabutin, HRU 0%, Glos 2.8%, Bangor 3.3%; Amoxicillin, HRU 2.8%, Glos 0%, Bangor 1.7%; Tetracycline HRU Conclusion Surveillance is essential as a primary Clarithromycin resistance varies greatly between centres. There is higher resistance post treatment. In future a dedicated clerical officer will be required to collect all data. As prevalence is low, large numbers of biopsy specimens are needed to attain sufficient numbers of culture isolates for antibiotic susceptibility surveillance areas of higher prevalence.