Search

Objectives: To describe and explain the primary care experiences of people with multiple long-term conditions in England. Design and methods: Using questionnaire data from 906 578 responders to the English 2012 General Practice Patient Survey, we describe the primary care experiences of patients with long-term conditions, including 583 143 patients who reported one or more long-term conditions. We employed mixed effect logistic regressions to analyse data on six items covering three care domains (access, continuity and communication) and a single item on overall primary care experience. We controlled for sociodemographic characteristics, and for general practice using a random effect, and further, controlled for, and explored the importance of, health-related quality of life measured using the EuroQoL (EQ-5D) scale. Results: Most patients with long-term conditions report a positive experience of care at their general practice (after adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics and general practice, range 74.0-93.1% reporting positive experience of care across seven questions) with only modest variation by type of condition. For all three domains of patient experience, an increasing number of comorbid conditions is associated with a reducing percentage of patients reporting a positive experience of care. For example, compared with respondents with no long-term condition, the OR for reporting a positive experience is 0.83 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.87) for respondents with four or more long-term conditions. However, this relationship is no longer observed after adjusting for health-related quality of life (OR (95% CI) single condition=1.23 (1.21 to 1.26); four or more conditions=1.31 (1.25 to 1.37)), with pain making the greatest difference among five quality of life variables included in the analysis. Conclusions: Patients with multiple long-term conditions more frequently report worse experiences in primary care. However, patient-centred measures of health-related quality of life, especially pain, are more important than the number of conditions in explaining why patients with multiple long-term conditions report worse experiences of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To describe patterns of virtual and in-person outpatient mental health service use and factors that may influence the choice of modality in a child and adolescent service., Design: A pragmatic mixed-methods approach using routinely collected administrative data between 1 April 2020 and 31 March 2022 and semi-structured interviews with clients, caregivers, clinicians and staff. Interview data were coded according to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and examined for patterns of similarity or divergence across data sources, respondents or other relevant characteristics., Setting: Child and adolescent outpatient mental health service, Nova Scotia, Canada., Participants: IWK Health clinicians and staff who had participated in virtual mental healthcare following its implementation in March 2020 and clients (aged 12-18 years) and caregivers of clients (aged 3-18 years) who had received treatment from an IWK outpatient clinic between 1 April 2020 and 31 March 2022 (n=1300). Participants (n=48) in semi-structured interviews included nine clients aged 13-18 years (mean 15.7 years), 10 caregivers of clients aged 5-17 years (mean 12.7 years), eight Community Mental Health and Addictions booking and registration or administrative staff and 21 clinicians., Results: During peak pandemic activity, upwards of 90% of visits (first or return) were conducted virtually. Between waves, return appointments were more likely to be virtual than first appointments. Interview participants (n=48) reported facilitators and barriers to virtual care within the CFIR domains of 'outer setting' (eg, external policies, client needs and resources), 'inner setting' (eg, communications within the service), 'individual characteristics' (eg, personal attributes, knowledge and beliefs about virtual care) and 'intervention characteristics' (eg, relative advantage of virtual or in-person care)., Conclusions: Shared decision-making regarding treatment modality (virtual vs in-person) requires consideration of client, caregiver, clinician, appointment, health system and public health factors across episodes of care to ensure accessible, safe and high-quality mental healthcare., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: The National Clinical Excellence Awards (NCEAs) in England and Wales were designed, as a form of performance-related pay, to reward high-performing senior doctors and dentists. To inform future scoring of applications and subsequent schemes, we sought to understand how current assessors and other stakeholders would define excellence, differentiate between levels of excellence and ensure unbiased definitions and scoring., Design: Semistructured qualitative interview study., Participants: 25 key informants were identified from Advisory Committee on Clinical Excellence Awards subcommittees, and relevant professional organisations in England and Wales. Informants were purposively sampled to achieve variety in gender and ethnicity., Findings: Participants reported that NCEAs had a role in incentivising doctors to strive for excellence. They were consistent in identifying 'clinical excellence' as involving making an exceptional difference to patients and the National Health Service, and in going over and above the expectations associated with the doctor's job plan. Informants who were assessors reported: encountering challenges with the current scoring scheme when seeking to ensure a fair assessment; recognising tendencies to score more or less leniently; and the potential for conscious or unconscious bias in assessments. Particular groups of doctors, including women, doctors in some specialties and settings, doctors from minority ethnic groups, and doctors who work less than full time, were described as being less likely to self-nominate, lacking support in making applications or lacking motivation to apply on account of a perceived likelihood of not being successful. Practical suggestions were made for improving support and training for applicants and assessors., Conclusions: Participants in this qualitative study identified specific concerns in respect of the current approaches adopted in applying for and in assessing NCEAs, pointing to the importance of equity of opportunity to apply, the need for regular training for assessors, and to improved support for applicants and potential applicants., Competing Interests: Competing interests: BMT, GAA, JS, RF, LH and EP declare no completing interests. JLC holds a national clinical excellence award. JLC has previously been both a member and Chair of a Regional Subcommittee of ACCEA, although had no involvement with ACCEA administration at the time the research was commissioned and undertaken., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)