Search

Background: The National Health Service (NHS) and general practice are increasingly adopting digital services. These services can impact both positively and negatively upon patient experiences, and access to digital services is not equal amongst all groups. Within a wider project examining digital facilitation (the Di-Facto study) our team conducted a patient survey amongst English primary care practices aiming to investigate patient views of what supports uptake and use of web-based services. This paper reports on the analysis of the free-text responses from the patient survey. Methods: The Di-Facto patient survey was distributed to practices in eight clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) in England between 2021–2022. We examined free-text responses to two questions relating to access to primary care web-based and support for web-based services. We used qualitative reflexive thematic analysis based on a six-stage process to analyse responses. Results: Of the 3051 patients who responded to the Di-Facto survey, 2246 provided a free-text response. We present our findings in two major themes: systems and structures and their impact on use of web-based services, and 'what works for me', a description of how respondents described what worked, or did not work in terms of their interactions with web-based services. Respondents described how the technology, such as poor practice website design, confusion over multiple digital apps, data security and concerns about eConsultation offerings impacted on use of web-based services. Respondents described practice level barriers, such as a lack of or inconsistent provision, which prevented optimal use of web-based services. Respondents described personal and technical barriers that impacted on their use of digital services, and described which web-based services worked well for them. Respondents felt that web-based services were not a replacement for face-to-face interactions with a doctor. Conclusions: This analysis of free-text responses from a large patient survey highlights the system, practice, and person level barriers and facilitators to use of digital services in primary care. With an increasing push towards digital solutions in NHS primary care, practices should consider the design, rollout and communication of their web-based services to support patient access. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To evaluate the impact a novel education programme - to improve research engagement, awareness, understanding and confidence - had on a diverse health and social care workforce. Barriers and facilitators to engagement were explored together with research capacity-building opportunities and ways to embed a research culture. The programme is entitled 'Supporting The Advancement of Research Skills' (STARS programme); the paper reports findings from a health and social care setting in England, UK. Methods: A four-level outcome framework guided the approach to evaluation and was further informed by key principles of research capacity development and relevant theory. Quantitative data were collected from learners before and after engagement; these were analysed descriptively. Semi-structured online interviews were conducted with learners and analysed thematically. A purposive sample was achieved to include a diversity in age, gender, health and social care profession, and level of attendance (regular attendees, moderate attendees and non-attenders). Results: The evaluation spanned 18 half-day workshops and 11 seminars delivered by expert educators. 165 (2% of total staff at Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust (MPFT)) staffs booked one or more education sessions; 128 (77%) including Allied Health Professionals (AHPs), psychologists, nursing and midwifery, and social workers attended one or more session. Key themes of engagement with teaching sessions, relevance and impact of training and promoting a research active environment were identified with relevant sub-themes. Positive impacts of training were described in terms of research confidence, intentions, career planning and application of research skills as a direct result of training. Lack of dedicated time for research engagement, work pressures and time commitments required for the programme were key barriers. Facilitators that facilitated engagement are also described. Conclusions: Findings demonstrate the impact that a free, virtual and high-quality research education programme had at individual and organisational levels. The programme is the product of a successful collaboration between health and social care and academic organisations; this provides a useful framework for others to adapt and adopt. Key barriers to attendance and engagement spoke to system-wide challenges that an education programme could not address in the short-term. Potential solutions are discussed in relation to protecting staff time, achieving management buy-in, recognising research champions, and having a clear communication strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Over 180,000 people use crack cocaine in England, yet provision of smoking equipment to support safer crack use is prohibited under UK law. Pipes used for crack cocaine smoking are often homemade and/or in short supply, leading to pipe sharing and injuries from use of unsafe materials. This increases risk of viral infection and respiratory harm among a marginalised underserved population. International evaluations suggest crack pipe supply leads to sustained reductions in pipe sharing and use of homemade equipment; increased health risk awareness; improved service access; reduction in injecting and crack-related health problems. In this paper, we introduce the protocol for the NIHR-funded SIPP (Safe inhalation pipe provision) project and discuss implications for impact. Methods: The SIPP study will develop, implement and evaluate a crack smoking equipment and training intervention to be distributed through peer networks and specialist drug services in England. Study components comprise: (1) peer-network capacity building and co-production; (2) a pre- and post-intervention survey at intervention and non-equivalent control sites; (3) a mixed-method process evaluation; and (4) an economic evaluation. Participant eligibility criteria are use of crack within the past 28 days, with a survey sample of ~ 740 for each impact evaluation survey point and ~ 40 for qualitative process evaluation interviews. Our primary outcome measure is pipe sharing within the past 28 days, with secondary outcomes pertaining to use of homemade pipes, service engagement, injecting practice and acute health harms. Anticipated impact: SIPP aims to reduce crack use risk practices and associated health harms; including through increasing crack harm reduction awareness among service providers and peers. Implementation has only been possible with local police approvals. Our goal is to generate an evidence base to inform review of the legislation prohibiting crack pipe supply in the UK. This holds potential to transform harm reduction service provision and engagement nationally. Conclusion: People who smoke crack cocaine in England currently have little reason to engage with harm reduction and drug services. Little is known about this growing population. This study will provide insight into population characteristics, unmet need and the case for legislative reform. Trial registration: ISRCTN12541454 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN12541454 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Local health protection systems play a crucial role in infectious disease prevention and control and were critical to COVID-19 pandemic responses. Despite this vital function, few studies have explored the lived experience of health protection responders managing COVID-19. We provide new insights by examining how COVID-19 shaped infectious disease prevention and control in local health protection systems in England. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with twenty local health protection responders from three contrasting local authority areas, and Public Health England (PHE) health protection teams, in England between June 2021 - March 2022. Participants were from: PHE health protection teams (n=6); local authority public health teams (n=5); local authority Public Protection Services (n=7); and local authority commissioned Infection Prevention and Control Teams (n=2). Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: First, participants acknowledged the pandemic caused an unprecedented workload and disruption to local health protection service delivery. There was not enough capacity within existing local health protection systems to manage the increased workload. PHE health protection teams therefore transferred some COVID-19 related health protection tasks to other staff, mainly those employed by local authorities. Second, health protection responders highlighted how COVID-19 drew attention to the weaknesses in local health protection systems already stressed by reduced funding in the years leading up to the pandemic. Injecting money into the COVID-19 response did not completely overcome former losses in specialist health protection workforce. Third, health protection responders described how pandemic management raised the profile of public health, especially infectious disease prevention and control. Managing COVID-19 strengthened collaborative working, resulting in enhanced capacity of local health protection systems at the time. Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic challenged the public health preparedness of all countries. Health protection responders in this study also expressed many challenges. There was insufficient resilience in these local health protection systems and an inability to scale up the specialist health protection workforce, as required in a pandemic situation. The UK needs to learn from the pandemic experience by acknowledging and addressing the challenges faced by local health protection responders so that it can more effectively respond to future threats. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The National Health Service Type 2 Diabetes Path to Remission programme in England (known as the NHS Low Calorie Diet programme when piloted) was established to support people living with excess weight and Type 2 Diabetes to lose weight and improve their glycaemic control. A mixed method evaluation was commissioned to provide an enhanced understanding of the long-term cost effectiveness of the pilot programme, its implementation, equity and transferability across broad and diverse populations. This study provided key insights on implementation and equity from the service providers' perspective. Methods: Thirteen focus groups were conducted with commercial providers of the programme, during the initial pilot rollout. Participants were purposively sampled across all provider organisations and staff roles involved in implementing and delivering the programme. Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) was used to design the topic schedule, with the addition of topics on equity and person-centredness. Data were thematically analysed using NPT constructs with additional inductively created codes. Codes were summarised, and analytical themes generated. Results: The programme was found to fulfil the requirements for normalisation from the providers' perspective. However, barriers were identified in engaging GP practices and receiving sufficient referrals, as well as supporting service users through challenges to remain compliant. There was variation in communication and training between provider sites. Areas for learning and improvement included adapting systems and processes and closing the gap where needs of service users are not fully met. Conclusions: The evaluation of the pilot programme demonstrated that it was workable when supported by effective primary care engagement, comprehensive training, and effective internal and external communication. However, limitations were identified in relation to programme specifications e.g. eligibility criteria, service specification and local commissioning decisions e.g. pattern of roll out, incentivisation of general practice. A person-centred approach to care is fundamental and should include cultural adaptation(s), and the assessment and signposting to additional support and services where required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, in March 2020 health care delivery underwent considerable changes. It is unclear how this may have affected the delivery of Brief Interventions (BIs) for smoking and alcohol. We examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the receipt of BIs for smoking and alcohol in primary care in England and whether certain priority groups (e.g., less advantaged socioeconomic positions, or a history of a mental health condition) were differentially affected. Methods: We used nationally representative data from a monthly cross-sectional survey in England between 03/2014 and 06/2022. Monthly trends in the receipt of BIs for smoking and alcohol were examined using generalised additive models among adults who smoked in the past-year (weighted N = 31,390) and those using alcohol at increasing and higher risk levels (AUDIT score 38, weighted N = 22,386), respectively. Interactions were tested between social grade and the change in slope after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and results reported stratified by social grade. Further logistic regression models assessed whether changes in the of receipt of BIs for smoking and alcohol, respectively, from 12/2016 to 01/2017 and 10/2020 to 06/2022 (or 03/2022 in the case of BIs for alcohol), depended on history of a mental health condition. Results: The receipt of smoking BIs declined from an average prevalence of 31.8% (95%CI 29.4–35.0) pre-March 2020 to 24.4% (95%CI 23.5–25.4) post-March 2020. The best-fitting model found that after March 2020 there was a 12-month decline before stabilising by June 2022 in social grade ABC1 at a lower level (~ 20%) and rebounding among social grade C2DE (~ 27%). Receipt of BIs for alcohol was low (overall: 4.1%, 95%CI 3.9–4.4) and the prevalence was similar pre- and post-March 2020. Conclusions: The receipt of BIs for smoking declined following March 2020 but rebounded among priority socioeconomic groups of people who smoked. BIs for alcohol among those who use alcohol at increasing and higher risk levels were low and there was no appreciable change over time. Maintaining higher BI delivery among socioeconomic and mental health priority groups of smokers and increasing and higher risk alcohol users is important to support reductions in smoking and alcohol related inequalities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]