Search

Background Women’s sexual and reproductive health needs are complex and vary across the life course. They are met by a range of providers, professionals and venues. Provision is not well integrated, with inequalities in access. In some areas of the United Kingdom Women’s Health Hubs have been established to improve provision, experience and outcomes for women, and to address inequalities and reduce costs. These models were established prior to the national implementation of Women’s Health Hubs announced in the English 2022 Women’s Health Strategy. Objective To explore the ‘current state of the art’, mapping the United Kingdom landscape, and studying experiences of delivering and using Women’s Health Hubs across England, defining key features and early markers of success to inform policy and practice. Design A mixed-methods evaluation, comprising three work packages: Mapping the Women’s Health Hub landscape and context and developing a definition of Women’s Health Hubs, informed by an online national survey of Women’s Health Hub leaders, and interviews with regional stakeholders. In-depth evaluation in four hub sites, including interviews with staff and women, focus groups in local communities and documentary analysis. Interviews with national stakeholders and consolidation of findings from work packages 1 and 2. Fieldwork was undertaken from May 2022 to March 2023. The evaluation was initiated prior to the national scale-up of Women’s Health Hubs announced in the 2022 Women’s Health Strategy. Results Most areas of the United Kingdom did not have a Women’s Health Hub. Seventeen active services were identified, established between 2001 and 2022. Women’s Health Hubs were diverse, predominantly GP-led, with different perspectives of the role and definition of a hub. Women using hubs reported positive experiences, finding services caring and convenient. Implementation facilitators included committed, collaborative leaders working across boundaries, sufficient workforce capacity and a supportive policy context. Challenges included access to funding, commissioning, workforce issues, facilities and equipment, stakeholder engagement and wider system integration, priorities and pressures. Leaders were committed to addressing inequalities, but evidence of impact was still emerging. Limitations It was challenging to locate models; therefore, some may have been missed. Data availability limited assessment of impact, including inequalities. Some population groups were not represented in the data, and the evaluation was more provider-oriented. It was not possible to develop a typology of Women’s Health Hubs as planned due to heterogeneity in models. Conclusions Existing Women’s Health Hub models were providing integrated approaches to meet local needs. Many were at an early stage of development. Evidence of system-level impact and costs was still emerging. Women’s Health Hubs may widen inequalities if models are more accessible to advantaged groups. The important role of committed leaders in existing ‘bottom-up’ models may limit scalability and sustainability. Findings suggest that national scale-up will take time and requires funding and that it is necessary to design models according to local needs and resources. In 2023, the Department of Health and Social Care announced funding to establish a Women’s Health Hub in every Integrated Care System in England. Future work Future evaluation should consider system-level impact and costs, explore unintended consequences and test assumptions. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR135589) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 30. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary In the National Health Service, care for women’s health issues such as heavy periods, menopause, contraception and abortion is provided by different services, such as GPs and hospital gynaecology and sexual health clinics. Services are not always joined up and often women find it hard to access care. To improve care, United Kingdom National Health Service teams have set up Women’s Health Hubs. Women’s Health Hubs involve a group of health professionals working together to provide more joined-up community-based services to women throughout their lives. This evaluation aimed to explore why, where and how Women’s Health Hubs have been set up and what they have achieved and to understand staff and patient experiences. The results will be shared with the government and National Health Service as new Women’s Health Hubs are set up. The evaluation included a survey of people who have set up hubs across the United Kingdom and interviews with women’s health leaders in England. In four hubs in England, we talked to local women and staff, and reviewed documents. We found 17 hubs, and most areas of the United Kingdom did not have one. Every hub was different, with different views about how hubs should work. Most were set up to improve access and experiences for women, and reduce pressure on other services. Six hubs had involved women in developing their service but most had not. Hubs offered appointments with health professionals, usually in GP or community clinics. The most common services were for coil fitting, menopause and heavy periods. The set-up of hubs was helped by passionate leaders who involved the right people, and identified funding and time. Challenges included National Health Service pressures and a lack of funding, clinic space and staff. Women who have used hubs report a good experience, with caring and convenient services. More work is needed to understand how hubs can improve care for all women, including unfair differences in care. Scientific summary Background Sexual and reproductive health covers a range of needs and conditions, including contraception, pregnancy and abortion, sexually transmitted infections (STIs), psychosexual services (e.g. counselling for sexual dysfunction), and gynaecological health (e.g. peri-menopause, menopause and menstrual problems) [All-Party Parliamentary Group on Sexual and Reproductive Health. Women’s Lives, Women’s Rights: Strengthening Access to Contraception Beyond the COVID-19 Pandemic (Internet). 2020. www.fsrh.org/documents/womens-lives-womens-rights-full-report/ (accessed 24 October 2023)]. Women’s sexual and reproductive health needs are complex and vary across the life course, and they are met by a variety of providers, venues and professionals. In England, challenges in access, workforce, funding and fragmented commissioning impact on women’s health service provision. In response to these challenges, local teams across the UK established Women’s Health Hubs (WHHs) to improve provision, experiences and outcomes. WHHs aimed to integrate women’s health services more effectively, with a more woman-centred, life-course approach. These emerging models were highlighted as best practice and wider adoption was subsequently recommended as a part of England’s Women’s Health Strategy in 2022. However, there was no agreed definition of a WHH in clinical and policy communities. Hubs were described as not necessarily a ‘place’, but a ‘concept’, and the term was being used differently across services and organisations. In response to WHHs being identified as an important policy topic, in 2022, the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) asked the BRACE Rapid Evaluation Centre to undertake a rapid evaluation of current hub evidence and practice. Objectives The aim of this evaluation was to explore the ‘current state of the art’ of WHHs, mapping the landscape, studying experiences of delivering and using hub services and defining key features and early markers of success to inform policy and practice. The evaluation explored the following questions: What are WHHs, and is there variation in how stakeholders name and define them? How many WHHs have been established or are in development across the UK, where are they and what are their characteristics, including models of structure, commissioning and delivery? Why have WHHs been implemented, and how are they intended to address health inequalities? What have WHHs achieved to date? How do WHHs achieve this? What are the experiences and perspectives of staff regarding WHH set-up, commissioning, funding, implementation and delivery? What are the experiences and perspectives of women who have used hub services? How are WHHs’ performance, outcomes and costs measured, and how might they be measured in future? Methods This was a mixed-methods evaluation, combining quantitative and qualitative data collection, with data collected at local, regional and national levels. This approach offered both breadth and depth in data collection. The evaluation comprised three work packages (WPs): Mapping the current landscape and context for WHHs, including an online survey of leads from hubs across the UK and interviews with regional stakeholders. Detailed research in four purposively selected exemplar hub sites in England, including interviews with staff and service users, focus groups in local communities and documentary analysis. Bringing together and consolidating findings from WPs 1 and 2 to generate evidence on WHH models, including interviews with national stakeholders. The mapping in WP1 was UK-wide, but the remainder of the work focused on WHHs in England. The England focus was decided collaboratively with a multidisciplinary Stakeholder Group, due to the particularly complex commissioning context in English health and social care systems. In total, interviews with 85 people were conducted: 40 WHH and wider staff, 7 regional stakeholders, 6 national stakeholders and 32 women. Four focus groups were undertaken with women in the local communities served by exemplar hubs. Ten initial scoping interviews undertaken to inform protocol design were included in the analysis. Results There were diverse approaches to implementing WHHs across England, with no standard or ‘typical’ model, and a lack of common language and terminology to describe hubs. A hub can be interpreted as a physical place, but also as a virtual platform (e.g. to triage or offer educational events for women), which can be difficult to understand for some stakeholders, including some women. In collaboration with our evaluation Stakeholder Group, and based on our findings across WPs, we developed a working definition of a WHH that represents a set of common features that were recognised within the community of practitioners as typifying a hub approach: Women’s Health Hubs are based in the community and work at the interface between primary and secondary care and/or voluntary sector and wider. Women’s Health Hubs offer more than a single service (and include the provision of both gynaecological services and contraception) or demonstrate plans to do so. Women’s Health Hubs have more than one organisation involved in the process of service delivery, including in design, commissioning and/or provision of care, beyond simply referring in. This definition should be considered alongside the need for hub design to be tailored to local contexts, needs and resources. As a result, we have not specified which model(s) should be used to implement hubs, which role(s) should lead design/delivery or other details about how the hub is established and resourced. While this offers flexibility to local areas to design a service that meets local needs, there is a risk of creating confusion for women, healthcare professionals and policy-makers regarding what a hub is and should do. This may impact on engagement by these groups and on hub implementation. The heterogeneity in hub models can also hinder evaluation, monitoring and comparison of hub impact. The working definition we have developed can be refined over time in response to evolving evidence and practice. A clear definition can support policy and decision-makers to better understand which models work best for women, including those from groups with greater needs, and which are most effective (including cost-effective). Further refinement of the definition could include standardisation of terminology, for example, to confirm the number and type of services that constitute a 'one-stop shop', and whether the ’spoke’ aspect of a ‘hub-and-spoke’ model must be a physical location or could be virtual. Clear definitions of a hub may also avoid simple rebadging of local services as hubs in response to policy initiatives, without meaningful transformation of care pathways. We identified 17 active WHHs across the UK. This means that most women did not have access to a hub at the time of data collection. Most of the hubs we identified were continuing to evolve and had plans in place to expand their offer and/or geographical reach. Hubs were introduced to meet a range of aims, primarily intending to improve healthcare access, quality and experience. Hub leaders were committed to reducing inequalities and many were implementing strategies to do so but approaches and evidence were still evolving. Hub services were often described as filling the intermediary space between standard primary care and specialist secondary care, although this boundary varied across hubs. Hubs were predominantly clinically led by GPs with a special interest in women’s health, although some were led by other professionals. Often, leadership was not well defined, with unspecified responsibilities and accountabilities, and a blurring of leadership, management and governance boundaries. While many hubs were reported as being one-stop shops, it was rare for them to offer multiple services at the same time and those that did were often opportunistic rather than a planned service offer (e.g. offering a smear test at the same time as fitting a coil). Most hubs operated from multiple venues, often in primary care or community settings. The professionals working to deliver services within hubs varied, and there was no consistent approach to staffing, with different costs associated with the roles deployed. A range of commissioning approaches were in place, often involving collaboration between multiple organisations. Given the challenges in securing funding and overcoming commissioning barriers, hub leaders had developed a range of creative approaches to accessing resources for implementation and delivery. However, these innovative local workarounds may not be suitable for long-term, sustainable scale-up and spread of WHHs. Some hubs had been unable to expand their clinical offer due to pre-existing commissioning barriers. Challenges included moving funding or activity from secondary care gynaecology to WHHs and identifying a long-term solution to enable offer of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) for both gynaecological and contraceptive reasons in a hub. Resolving these challenges was often described as critical to successful implementation of hubs. In addition to financial resources, some hubs had secured additional expertise and capacity to support implementation, including from other areas of the health system, local authorities and pharmaceutical companies. Development of metrics and the measurement of hub outcomes was evolving and varied between hubs, making comprehensive assessment and comparison difficult. Some hubs had used local data to measure and model population need to inform hub design, and to estimate hub costs and benefits. Available data to quantify hub activity and impact so far were limited, but where reported it indicated that hubs had provided care for many hundreds of women in England. It also indicated that hubs have the potential to reduce waiting times and referral to secondary care gynaecology and increase LARC uptake. Evidence of impact on inequalities was still emerging. Women who participated in the evaluation reported having a positive experience of accessing their local hub and the care they received. However, women using the hub and other local women in the community were generally not familiar with the term ‘women’s health hub’ or did not know that they had received care from a hub, though they welcomed the hub concept. Women also described some challenges in accessing hub services, including difficulties making a GP appointment in order to be referred to the hub. A minority of hubs reported involving women in the design and development of the service. There is scope for greater involvement of women with a range of backgrounds and experiences in WHH development at both a national and local level to ensure that they meet the needs of all women and address inequalities. A number of factors facilitated the implementation and delivery of WHHs. This included leaders (both clinical and non-clinical) who were committed to the hub vision and worked collaboratively across organisational and sector boundaries to design and set up the service. Sufficient workforce capacity and wider policy and strategic support were also important. Implementation challenges included identification of funding and other resources (e.g. facilities equipment, physical space), stakeholder engagement (including allaying concerns regarding negative impacts on other parts of the system), competing priorities and pressures in the healthcare system, and IT issues. The fragmentation of English commissioning arrangements for gynaecology and contraception was a frequently reported barrier. We identified examples of hubs that had overcome some of these barriers to integrate care for women in their area. The creation of Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) in 2022 was seen as a potential route to scale-up hubs nationally. The lack of an ICB leader with responsibility for women’s health (with the exception of maternity) was noted as a challenge. The many competing priorities for ICBs were highlighted as limiting capacity to focus on women’s health. Subsequent to the completion of our evaluation in 2023, additional national funding was announced linked to the Women’s Health Strategy, to support the setting up of a WHH in each ICB in England, along with the appointment of a Women’s Health Champion in every ICB. Hubs had largely been developed bottom up by local professionals, designed to meet the specific needs of the local population. Participants often reflected that a top-down approach to implementing hubs may limit the flexibility to adapt to local needs, context, leadership, workforce and resources. A middle ground between a bottom-up and top-down approach may be required to balance standardisation across hubs (e.g. to have a shared vision and definition) with flexibility to align with local context. Hub establishment was still in the early stages, and it will take time to scale the approach up across the NHS and to ensure long-term sustainability of services, and localities were all at different starting points. The small number of highly diverse hub models in place at the time of this evaluation and varied approaches to measurement meant that it was challenging to assess impact. However, it highlights the opportunity to develop resources to support local systems to design and establish hubs, agree on core definitions and model components, standardise approaches (where appropriate), capture learning/data and test assumptions of different ways of working. Implementation efforts should include exploring and understanding any unintended consequences, a common occurrence when introducing complex changes into health systems. Agreeing some aspects of standardisation (where appropriate), sharing learning and measuring outcomes and impact data can facilitate future and ongoing implementation and evaluation of WHHs, and allow exploration of the relative benefits of different models. This learning can inform further scale-up of and development of WHHs. Conclusions At the start of this evaluation, WHHs were a set of innovative service models spread across the UK, and at the end of the evaluation, they were an explicitly stated policy objective for the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC). Our findings identified that the few existing WHHs are diverse, and continuously evolving, with many at an early stage of development or delivery, with some employing innovative approaches such as virtual group consultations. The launch of the Women’s Health Strategy, and the associated funding to support hub implementation announced in March 2023, provides an opportunity to expedite the spread of these models. However, the heterogeneity in models and contexts, and the complexity of women’s health care, means that rapid scale-up may be challenging, and substantial commissioning barriers must be overcome. Our findings suggest that implementing models informed by local needs and resources will be necessary, and requires input from women, particularly those who are least well served by current services. We do not yet have clear evidence for the system-level impact or costs of WHHs, and the gathering of consistent data to test assumptions, and measure and learn from WHH achievements, including impacts on inequalities, will enable evaluation of further scale-up. WHHs have the potential to transform women’s access to care, and there is a large community of experts striving to improve women’s health care. The Women’s Health Strategy for England provides a further catalyst to national-level change, alongside the emerging system-level approaches to health improvement driven by ICBs, and wider population interest in women’s health. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research (NIHR award ref: NIHR135589) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 30. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Background General practices are facing challenges such as rising patient demand and difficulties recruiting and retaining general practitioners. Greater use of digital technology has been advocated as a way of mitigating some of these challenges and improving patient access. This includes Digital First Primary Care, when a patient’s first contact with primary care is through a digital route, either through a laptop or smartphone. The use of Digital First Primary Care has been expedited since COVID-19. There is little evidence of staff experiences of using Digital First Primary Care with more complex patients, such as those with multiple long-term conditions. Objective To understand the experiences of those with multiple long-term conditions of Digital First Primary Care from the perspectives of healthcare professionals and stakeholders. Design This was a qualitative evaluation, comprised of four distinct work packages: Work package 1: Locating the study within the wider context, engaging with literature, and co-designing the study approach and research questions with patients. Work package 2: Interviews with health professionals working across general practice and key expert topic stakeholders, including academics and policy-makers. Work package 3: Analysis of data and generation of themes, and testing findings with patients. Work package 4: Synthesis, reporting and dissemination. Results The study commenced in January 2021 and in total 28 interviews were conducted with 14 health professionals and 15 stakeholders between January and August 2022. From the perspective of health professionals, Digital First Primary Care approaches could enable patients to speak with a clinician more quickly than traditional approaches. Those with multiple long-term conditions could submit healthcare readings from home, though health professionals felt patients may struggle navigating digital systems not designed to capture the nuances associated with living with multiple conditions. Clinicians expressed preferences for seeing patients face-to-face, particularly those with multiple long-term conditions, to identify non-verbal cues about a patient’s health. Digital First Primary Care approaches provided an opportunity for clinicians to engage with the carers of patients living with multiple long-term conditions, yet there were concerns around obtaining consent and confidentiality. There remain debates among stakeholders about the nature and extent to which Digital First Primary Care impacts on staff workload. Limitations At the time of data collection, general practices were facing considerable pressure to deliver care and respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. While it was originally intended that the study would include interviews with patients with multiple long-term conditions and their carers, none of the general practices that took part in the study were willing and/or able to recruit patients and carers in the time available. Conclusions The rapid implementation of Digital First Primary Care, at a time of immense pressures, meant there has been little time for considering the impact on patients, including those with multiple long-term conditions. The impacts on care continuity depended largely on how surgeries implemented their approaches. Staff and stakeholders felt that Digital First Primary Care, as an additional route for accessing primary care, could be useful for patients with multiple long-term conditions but not at the expense of face-to-face consultations. Future work Future research obtaining patient and carer views of digital-first approaches, understanding the impacts on carers and how approaches are designed with patients with more complex conditions in mind, is essential. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 16/138/31) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 21. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary Healthcare professionals want to provide the best primary care in the face of increasing pressures, as well as improve access to care for patients. Digital First Primary Care is one response to this situation, when a patients’ first contact with primary care is through a digital route, either through a laptop or smartphone. Online systems allow the patient to provide information to their practice about their symptoms or needs and request a response from a health professional. Our study aimed to understand how Digital First Primary Care works for healthcare professionals providing care to increasing numbers of patients with multiple long-term conditions and their carers. Firstly, we examined the relatively limited existing findings and then interviewed healthcare professionals and key stakeholders experienced in digital approaches within primary care (e.g. from policy organisations, universities and the National Health Service). While we attempted to speak to patients and carers directly, unfortunately the pressures in general practice meant we were unable to do so. However, the study was co-designed with patients. Healthcare professionals and stakeholders felt that patients with multiple long-term conditions faced additional challenges with the use of Digital First Primary Care compared to other patients. For example, they reported difficulties navigating online forms and not being able to speak with a general practitioner who knew them well. There were differing views from healthcare professionals and stakeholders about how far Digital First Primary Care could help staff in general practice and enhance care. For some clinicians, the workload was easier to manage and some simple tasks (e.g. sick notes) could be completed quickly. This could reduce stress for staff and mean more patients could be seen per day. Others felt that the digital system had shortcomings. This could be important for patients with multiple long-term conditions; for example, when a digital form may not fully inform the general practitioner as to the exact nature of the problem, potentially requiring a further follow-up appointment. Health professionals reported that carers of patients with multiple long-term conditions generally liked the new systems as they helped to improve contact with general practice staff. The summary was co-authored by members of the BRACE Patient and Public Involvement group. Scientific summary Background Digital First Primary Care has become widespread in England, particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic. Digital First Primary Care is when a patients’ first contact with primary care is through a digital route, either through a laptop or smartphone. The design of Digital First Primary Care platforms varies by commercial provider, although the main principles are the same. The patient inputs their symptoms and concerns through a digital platform, either via a set of questions within a digital algorithm or through a free text submission. The patient is then given an appropriate response, which could be from a staff member within the practice or automatically generated by the algorithm. The consultation which results may be traditional in nature, for example by telephone or face-to-face, or be in the form of a message from a health professional to a patient or a video consultation. These approaches have been advocated by policy-makers in England since 2016, as it is believed they can enable clinicians to prioritise the care of patients. Despite the policy shift towards digital approaches, most general practitioner (GP) surgeries were not operating in this way in early 2020, with an analysis of primary care data suggesting that 13–15% of consultations were conducted remotely in January 2020. The COVID-19 pandemic has seen a rapid change in modes of service delivery in general practice, with all GP surgeries having to quickly adapt their services and offer some form of non-face-to-face consultation, to prevent viral transmission. Several studies have been conducted on the use of digital approaches in the National Health Service (NHS). The findings from these studies are wide-ranging. To summarise, digital approaches can provide a benefit to both staff and patients (e.g. greater convenience, including no need to travel to a general practice, and better monitoring of conditions), although there are some challenges. These include issues such as remote consultations taking longer than face-to-face care, potential problems with missed or delayed diagnoses, safeguarding issues, marginalising those who are digitally excluded due to poverty and digital literacy and seeing an increase in referrals to wider services. A mapping of the literature identified potential issues for patients with more complex health conditions accessing digital approaches, as well as the impact on staff in general practice, such as an increased clinical workload. Notably, there is a paucity of evidence in relation to staff experiences of using digital approaches with patients living with multiple long-term conditions. This rapid evaluation examined the views of health professionals in general practice and expert stakeholders to understand how the introduction of Digital First Primary Care influences the nature of the care delivered, any facilitators or barriers and how its use may help patients living with multiple long-term conditions. The findings provide insights that are helpful to primary care NHS staff treating patients with multiple long-term health conditions. Objectives Originally, our aim was to understand the experiences of those with multiple long-term conditions of Digital First Primary Care from the perspectives of patients, their carers and healthcare professionals. However, due to challenges related to COVID-19, GP practices were unable to recruit patients/carers to the study. The team reviewed and refined the research questions with respect to the ongoing challenges and changes occurring in general practice more widely. As a result, our research questions have been amended not only due to recruitment challenges, but also how general practice has responded to the COVID-19 pandemic. The research questions addressed in this rapid evaluation are: What is the experience of Digital First Primary Care for health professionals and stakeholders (including academics, policy makers and Digital First Primary Care providers), both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic? What is the impact of Digital First Primary Care on the nature of consultations, from the perspective of health professionals and stakeholders and for patients with multiple long-term conditions and their carers? This includes aspects of communication, timeliness of care and continuity of care. What, if any, are the advantages or disadvantages of Digital First Primary Care for health professionals when providing care for patients with multiple long-term conditions? What lessons can be learnt from staff and stakeholders, for future service delivery for patients with multiple long-term conditions in primary care? Are there individual groups within the community where there is particular learning for future service provision? Methods The evaluation comprised four interlinked work packages (WPs): WP1. Locating the study within the wider context, engaging with literature, as well as co-designing the study approach and research questions with patients–engaging with relevant literature on the use of Digital First Primary Care services by patients with multiple long-term conditions; a workshop with patients [members of the BRACE patient and public involvement (PPI) group] to shape the research questions (September 2020) as well as co-design research tools alongside continued engagement during data collection, analysis, and write up of findings. WP2. Interviews with health professionals working across general practice and key expert topic stakeholders–through in-depth interviews with GPs and nurses, at eight purposively selected general practice sites, identified via a range of strategies; analysis of data; testing findings with members from our BRACE steering group and BRACE PPI panel. The study included a variety of general practices covering differences across: (1) practice size; (2) mix of urban and rural; (3) the ethnic composition of patients; (4) the number of patients registered aged 65 years and over; (5) the nature of the digital-first applications implemented. Individual interviewees, 14 in all, were identified and approached through contacts in general practices. We also interviewed expert stakeholders (n = 15) from academia, policy think tanks and primary care-related member organisations. WP3. Analysis of data, generation of themes and testing findings with patients and carers–Data collection was undertaken between April and August 2022. We adopted a pragmatic approach to enable a comprehensive analysis within a rapid timescale: the collection and analysis of interview data were completed in parallel and facilitated through the use of one-page summaries of codes, frequent team meetings, data analysis workshops and systematic categorisation and coding according to an analytical framework based on the relevant literature identified in WP1. WP4. Synthesis, reporting and dissemination–Synthesis across WP1–3 and writing of the final report. Sharing of the findings with leading researchers and organisations in this field. Results We undertook interviews across eight general practice sites completing 14 interviews. Six of our eight practices were situated in rural locations, five were part of a single GP super-partnership and one practice was vertically integrated with an acute trust, while all practices used one of two different digital-first providers. All practices had introduced a programme of Digital First Primary Care prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, although its use had increased dramatically as a result of the pandemic. In addition, we undertook a further 15 interviews with a purposive selection of expert stakeholders. Owing to the small sample size, our findings cannot be assumed to be representative of general practice nationally, but they provide detailed insight from a diverse sample of practices where learning may be transferable to other primary care settings. The findings provide valuable insights into the use of Digital First Primary Care, both pre and post the COVID-19 pandemic. The implementation of Digital First Primary Care by health professionals providing care to patients with multiple long-term conditions The COVID-19 pandemic led to the rapid adoption and extensive roll out of Digital First Primary Care on a larger scale than pre-pandemic. The implementation of Digital First Primary Care across general practice was at speed and there was little opportunity for health care professionals to reflect on the impact that such an introduction would have on patient groups, such as those with multiple long-term conditions. In addition, the participants interviewed in our study felt that little consideration was given to the impact that the widespread use of these approaches might have on healthcare professionals who care for those with multiple long-term conditions. Some healthcare professionals felt that the introduction of Digital First Primary Care had led to an increase in demand from patients, as it was easier to access services in general practice. As a result, health professionals reported restricting the times Digital First Primary Care was available to patients in order to manage their workload and, ultimately, limited access (e.g. closing Digital First Primary Care platforms over weekends or for set times during the day). It was perceived by interviewees that patients with multiple long-term conditions may face additional challenges with the use of Digital First Primary Care compared to other patients. These challenges included navigating Digital First Primary Care systems (particularly those systems that used digital questionnaires for patients to report their symptoms/the reason they were seeking to consult, which followed algorithm approaches and restricted the opportunity to provide a descriptive narrative) and, potentially, reducing the likelihood of being able to speak with a health professional who knew them and their conditions well. Advantages and disadvantages of Digital First Primary Care for patients with multiple long-term conditions from the perspective of health professionals and stakeholders Participants reported that Digital First Primary Care could provide some benefits to patients with multiple long-term conditions, such as being seen or having their health-related queries addressed more quickly, receiving an initial response from their general practice within 1–2 days for non-urgent matters and avoiding the need to wait in long telephone queues for appointments. Where this was the case, it reduced the need for unnecessary face-to-face appointments and supported patients’ preferences where possible. Digital First Primary Care was also reported to be useful for patients with some long-term health conditions (e.g. diabetes, cardiovascular conditions, mental health conditions and hearing loss). For example, health professionals felt that patients with multiple long-term conditions found Digital First Primary Care platforms useful when submitting readings (e.g. blood sugar levels, blood pressure) from home compared to coming into the general practice, a feature which was particularly helpful for patients with well-managed long-term conditions. In addition, participants felt that younger patients, those working full-time and those who did not speak English as a first language (if translation was available within the system) benefitted from Digital First Primary Care. However, patient group participants who it was felt may benefit less from Digital First Primary Care included those who are older/frail and those without access to digital technology (or the skills or abilities to use it). Participants felt that there were some notable drawbacks when using Digital First Primary Care programmes for patients with multiple long-term conditions. Participants had concerns regarding how the introduction and application of Digital First Primary Care programmes impacts the quality of relationships patients have with healthcare professionals, as well as the impact on patient safety. Digital First Primary Care also puts the onus on the patient to articulate their problem through written means, and this can be challenging for patients who have difficulties with literacy. Further, several health professionals expressed a preference for seeing patients face-to-face, particularly those with multiple long-term conditions, so as to have the opportunity to holistically assess the patient. Finally, the participants felt that the carers of patients with long-term conditions may benefit from Digital First Primary Care as they can have more direct communication with healthcare professionals and can be more actively involved in their care. However, there are some concerns regarding confidentiality, privacy and consent when it comes to carers accessing medical information. Impact of Digital First Primary Care on the general-practice workforce within and outside of consultations with patients with multiple long-term conditions With regards to healthcare professionals, Digital First Primary Care can offer advantages in terms of better information sharing and communication across staff and patients, improved relationships with patients and greater efficiencies and flexibility. However, some felt that Digital First Primary Care was detrimental to the clinician–patient relationship, creating some inefficiencies. There were also concerns raised over the confidence staff have in their own clinical decision-making when using Digital First Primary Care and the issue of increased (unmanageable) patient demand. Conclusions Conducting interviews with clinical general-practice staff and expert stakeholders following the height of the pandemic was challenging. Useful insights have, nevertheless, been obtained. Digital First Primary Care approaches have been rapidly rolled out and COVID-19 has dramatically changed the way in which general practice operates. The implementation of Digital First Primary Care has been undertaken at great speed, with many in general practice reconsidering how best to use a suite of digital approaches, from initial patient contact to consultation, at a time of immense pressures on staff. The push for greater access to general practice and the corresponding focus on seeing and speaking to a patient rapidly have occurred at the expense of other aspects of general-practice care which the health professionals and stakeholders who were interviewed felt are valued by patients with multiple long-term conditions. These included continuity of care (particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic) and an established doctor–patient relationship which enables the clinician and patient to have clear communication. For the participants in our study, the overwhelming view was that Digital First Primary Care could be useful for patients with multiple long-term conditions, but it should be available in addition to, not at the expense of, face-to-face consultations. The authors see that there is important future work in obtaining the views of patients and their carers and comparing those alongside the views of health professionals and stakeholders obtained in this study; a cost-effectiveness analysis across providers; and understanding how individual providers of Digital First Primary Care are designed with the needs of complex patients in mind. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 16/138/31) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 21. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

It is my honor and privilege to deliver the AAP Presidential Address to this esteemed audience. The Presidential Address of the Spring meeting is a tradition dating back to the [...]

The recent approval of first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor plus immuno-oncology agent combination therapy for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma offers substantially improved response rates and survival compared with the previous standard of care. This expansion of treatment options has also led to a greater range and complexity of potential treatment-related adverse events related to overlapping toxicities. The aim of this article is to discuss the management of common treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) associated with axitinib plus immuno-oncology therapy, highlight the specific roles of oncology nurses in managing these events, and provide AE management resources to aid oncology nurses in their care of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Author experience, journal articles, and treatment guidelines were used. The use of oncology nurses and nurse-led innovations to monitor and assess treatments can have a positive impact on the management of AEs in cancer patients by identifying those who are most at risk, providing regular assessment, appropriate patient education, and supporting the monitoring of patient safety. Skilled oncology nurses should be a key part of a team that addresses the supportive care needs and management of AEs that are associated with novel cancer treatments. Early and ongoing communication between the patient and oncology nurses regarding the development of adverse events is a critical component of maximizing treatment outcomes and quality of life. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

All human tissues present with unique mechanical properties critical to their function. This is achieved in part through the specific architecture of the extracellular matrix (ECM) fibres within each tissue. An example of this is seen in the walls of the vasculature where each layer presents with a unique ECM orientation critical to its functions. Current adopted vascular grafts to bypass a stenosed/damaged vessel fail to recapitulate this unique mechanical behaviour, particularly in the case of small diameter vessels (<6 mm), leading to failure. Therefore, in this study, melt-electrowriting (MEW) was adopted to produce a range of fibrous scaffolds to mimic the extracellular matrix (ECM) architecture of the tunica media of the vasculature, in an attempt to match the mechanical and biological behaviour of the native porcine tissue. Initially, the range of collagen architectures within the native vessel was determined, and subsequently replicated using MEW (winding angles (WA) 45°, 26.5°, 18.4°, 11.3°). These scaffolds recapitulated the anisotropic, non-linear mechanical behaviour of native carotid blood vessels. Moreover, these grafts facilitated human mesenchymal stem cell (hMSC) infiltration, differentiation, and ECM deposition that was independent of WA. The bioinspired MEW fibre architecture promoted cell alignment and preferential neo-tissue orientation in a manner similar to that seen in native tissue, particularly for WA 18.4° and 11.3°, which is a mandatory requirement for long-term survival of the regenerated tissue post-scaffold degradation. Lastly, the WA 18.4° was translated to a tubular graft and was shown to mirror the mechanical behaviour of small diameter vessels within physiological strain. Taken together, this study demonstrates the capacity to use MEW to fabricate bioinspired scaffolds to mimic the tunica media of vessels and recapitulate vascular mechanics which could act as a framework for small diameter graft development to guide tissue regeneration and orientation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Two general phenotypes of heart failure (HF) are recognized: HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and with preserved EF (HFpEF). To develop HF disease phenotype-specific approaches to define and guide treatment, distinguishing biomarkers are needed. The goal of this study was to utilize quantitative metabolomics on a large, diverse population to replicate and extend existing knowledge of the plasma metabolic signatures in human HF., Methods: Quantitative, targeted LC/MS plasma metabolomics was conducted on 787 samples collected by the Penn Medicine BioBank from subjects with HFrEF (n=219), HFpEF (n=357), and matched non-failing Controls (n=211). A total of 90 metabolites were analyzed, comprising 28 amino acids, 8 organic acids, and 54 acylcarnitines. 733 of these samples were also processed via an OLINK protein panel for proteomic profiling., Results: Consistent with previous studies, unsaturated forms of medium/long chain acylcarnitines were elevated in the HFrEF group to a greater extent than the HFpEF group compared to Controls. A number of amino acid derivatives, including 1- and 3-methylhistidine, homocitrulline, and symmetric (SDMA) and asymmetric (ADMA) dimethylarginine were elevated in HF, with ADMA elevated uniquely in HFpEF. Plasma branched-chain amino acids (BCAA) were not different across the groups; however, short-chain acylcarnitine species indicative of BCAA catabolism were significantly elevated in both HF groups. The ketone body 3-hydroxybutyrate (3-HBA) and its metabolite C4-OH carnitine were uniquely elevated in the HFrEF group. Linear regression models demonstrated a significant correlation between plasma 3-HBA and NT-proBNP in both forms of HF, stronger in HFrEF., Conclusions: These results identify plasma signatures that are shared as well as potentially distinguish between HFrEF and HFpEF. Metabolite markers for ketogenic metabolic reprogramming in extra-cardiac tissues were identified as unique signatures in the HFrEF group, possibly related to the lipolytic action of increased levels of BNP. Future studies will be necessary to further validate these metabolites as HF biosignatures that may guide phenotype-specific therapeutics and provide insight into the systemic metabolic responses to HFpEF and HFrEF.