Search

Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to increased use of digital clinical consultations (phone or video calls) within UK maternity services. This project aimed to review the evidence on digital clinical consultations in maternity systems to illuminate how, for whom and in what contexts, they can be used to support safe, personalised and equitable care., Design: A realist synthesis, drawing on diverse sources of evidence (2010-present) from OECD countries, alongside insights from knowledge user groups (representing healthcare providers and service users)., Methods: The review used three analytical processes (induction, abduction and retroduction) within three iterative stages (development of initial programme theories; evidence retrieval and synthesis; validation and refinement of the programme theories)., Results: Ninety-three evidence sources were included in the final synthesis. Fifteen programme theories were developed showing that digital clinical consultations involve different mechanisms operating across five key contexts: the organisation, healthcare providers, the clinical relationship, the reason for consultation and women. The review suggests that digital clinical consultations can be effective and acceptable to stakeholders if there is access to appropriate infrastructure/digital resources and if implementation is able to ensure personalisation, informed choice, professional autonomy and relationship-focused connections. The review found relatively less evidence in relation to safety and equity., Conclusions: Due to the complexity of maternity systems, there can be 'no one-size fits all' approach to digital clinical consultations. Nonetheless, the review distills four 'CORE' implementation principles: C-creating the right environment, infrastructure and support for staff; O-optimising consultations to be responsive, flexible and personalised to different needs and preferences; R-recognising the importance of access and inclusion; and E-enabling quality and safety through relationship-focused connections. Service innovation and research are needed to operationalise, explore and evaluate these principles, particularly in relation to safety and equity., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42021288702., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To systematically review and synthesise evidence on the effectiveness and implementation barriers/facilitators of pharmacist-led interventions to promote medicines optimisation and reduce overprescribing in UK primary care., Design: Systematic review., Setting: UK primary care., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL PsycINFO and The Cochrane Library for UK-based studies published between January 2013 and February 2023. Targeted searches for grey literature were conducted in May 2023. Quantitative and qualitative studies (including conference abstracts and grey literature) that addressed a relevant intervention and reported a primary outcome related to changes in prescribing were eligible for inclusion. Quality of included studies was assessed using the Multiple Methods Appraisal Tool. We performed a narrative synthesis, grouping studies by publication status, setting and type of data reported (effectiveness or implementation)., Results: We included 14 peer-reviewed journal articles and 11 conference abstracts, together with 4 case study reports. The journal articles reported 10 different interventions, 5 delivered in general practice, 4 in care homes and 1 in community pharmacy. The quality of evidence was higher in general practice than in care home settings. It was consistently reported that the intervention improved outcomes related to prescribing, although the limited number of studies and wide range of outcomes reported made it difficult to estimate the size of any effect. Implementation was strongly influenced by relationships between pharmacists and other health and care professionals, especially general practitioners. Implementation in care homes appeared to be more complex than in general practice because of differences in systems and 'culture' between health and social care., Conclusions: Pharmacist-led interventions have been reported to reduce overprescribing in primary care settings in the UK but a shortage of high-quality evidence means that more rigorous studies using high-quality designs are needed. More research is also needed in community pharmacy settings; to assess intervention effects on patient outcomes other than prescribing and to investigate how reducing overprescribing can impact health inequalities., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42023396366., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To assess the comparative accuracy of risk assessment models (RAMs) to identify women during pregnancy and the early postnatal period who are at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE)., Design: Systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines., Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and two research registers were searched until February 2021., Eligibility Criteria: All validation studies that examined the accuracy of a multivariable RAM (or scoring system) for predicting the risk of developing VTE in women who are pregnant or in the puerperium (within 6 weeks post-delivery)., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two authors independently selected and extracted data. Risk of bias was appraised using PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool). Data were synthesised without meta-analysis., Results: Seventeen studies, comprising 19 externally validated RAMs and 1 internally validated model, met the inclusion criteria. The most widely evaluated RAMs were the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists guidelines (six studies), American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidelines (two studies), Swedish Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology guidelines (two studies) and the Lyon score (two studies). In general, estimates of sensitivity and specificity were highly variable with sensitivity estimates ranging from 0% to 100% for RAMs that were applied to antepartum women to predict antepartum or postpartum VTE and 0% to 100% for RAMs applied postpartum to predict postpartum VTE. Specificity estimates were similarly diverse ranging from 28% to 98% and 5% to 100%, respectively., Conclusions: Available data suggest that external validation studies have weak designs and limited generalisability, so estimates of prognostic accuracy are very uncertain., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42020221094., Competing Interests: Competing interests: CN-P reports personal fees from Sanofi, and is the lead developer of the RCOG Green Top Guideline on thromboprophylaxis in pregnancy (37a). All other authors declare no competing interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: One of the most commonly reported COVID-19-related changes to all maternity services has been an increase in the use of digital clinical consultations such as telephone or video calling; however, the ways in which they can be optimally used along maternity care pathways remain unclear. It is imperative that digital service innovations do not further exacerbate (and, ideally, should tackle) existing inequalities in service access and clinical outcomes. Using a realist approach, this project aims to synthesise the evidence around implementation of digital clinical consultations, seeking to illuminate how they can work to support safe, personalised and appropriate maternity care and to clarify when they might be most appropriately used, for whom, when, and in what contexts?, Methods and Analysis: The review will be conducted in four iterative phases, with embedded stakeholder involvement: (1) refining the review focus and generating initial programme theories, (2) exploring and developing the programme theories in light of evidence, (3) testing/refining the programme theories and (4) constructing actionable recommendations. The review will draw on four sources of evidence: (1) published literature (searching nine bibliographic databases), (2) unpublished (grey) literature, including research, audit, evaluation and policy documents (derived from Google Scholar, website searches and e-thesis databases), (3) expertise contributed by service user and health professional stakeholder groups (n=20-35) and (4) key informant interviews (n=12). Included papers will consist of any study design, in English and from 2010 onwards. The review will follow the Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis Evolving Standards quality procedures and reporting guidance., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval has been obtained from the University of Nottingham, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences Ethics Committee (FMHS 426-1221). Informed consent will be obtained for all key informant interviews. Findings will be disseminated in a range of formats relevant to different audiences., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42021288702., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Hospital-acquired thrombosis accounts for a large proportion of all venous thromboembolism (VTE), with significant morbidity and mortality. This subset of VTE can be reduced through accurate risk assessment and tailored pharmacological thromboprophylaxis. This systematic review aimed to determine the comparative accuracy of risk assessment models (RAMs) for predicting VTE in patients admitted to hospital., Methods: A systematic search was performed across five electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library) from inception to February 2021. All primary validation studies were eligible if they examined the accuracy of a multivariable RAM (or scoring system) for predicting the risk of developing VTE in hospitalised inpatients. Two or more reviewers independently undertook study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessments using the PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool) tool. We used narrative synthesis to summarise the findings., Results: Among 6355 records, we included 51 studies, comprising 24 unique validated RAMs. The majority of studies included hospital inpatients who required medical care (21 studies), were undergoing surgery (15 studies) or receiving care for trauma (4 studies). The most widely evaluated RAMs were the Caprini RAM (22 studies), Padua prediction score (16 studies), IMPROVE models (8 studies), the Geneva risk score (4 studies) and the Kucher score (4 studies). C-statistics varied markedly between studies and between models, with no one RAM performing obviously better than other models. Across all models, C-statistics were often weak (<0.7), sometimes good (0.7-0.8) and a few were excellent (>0.8). Similarly, estimates for sensitivity and specificity were highly variable. Sensitivity estimates ranged from 12.0% to 100% and specificity estimates ranged from 7.2% to 100%., Conclusion: Available data suggest that RAMs have generally weak predictive accuracy for VTE. There is insufficient evidence and too much heterogeneity to recommend the use of any particular RAM., Prospero Registration Number: Steve Goodacre, Abdullah Pandor, Katie Sworn, Daniel Horner, Mark Clowes. A systematic review of venous thromboembolism RAMs for hospital inpatients. PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020165778. Available from https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display&#95;record.php?RecordID=165778https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display&#95;record.php?RecordID=165778., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)