Search

Background: The NHS Health Checks preventative programme aims to reduce cardiovascular morbidity across England. To improve equity in uptake, telephone outreach was developed in Bristol, involving community workers telephoning patients amongst communities potentially at higher risk of cardiovascular disease and/or less likely to take up a written invitation, to engage them with NHS Health Checks. Where possible, caller cultural background/main language is matched with that of the patient called. The call includes an invitation to book an NHS Health Check appointment, lifestyle questions from the Health Check, and signposting to lifestyle services. Objective: To explore the experiences of patients who received an outreach call. Design/Setting/Participants: Thematic analysis of semi‐structured interviews with 24 patients (15 female), from seven primary care practices, who had received an outreach call. Results: The call increased participants' understanding of NHS Health Checks and overcame anticipated difficulties with making an appointment. Half reported that they would not have booked if only invited by letter. The cultural identity/language skills of the caller were important in facilitating the interaction for some who might otherwise encounter language or cultural barriers. The inclusion of lifestyle questions and signposting prompted a minority to make lifestyle changes. Conclusions: Participants valued easily generalizable aspects of the intervention—a telephone invitation with ability to book during the call—and reported that it prompted acceptance of an NHS Health Check. A caller who shared their main language/cultural background was important for a minority of participants, and improved targeting of this would be beneficial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The use of external consultants from private and not-for-profit providers in the National Health Service (NHS) is intended to improve the quality of commissioning. The aim of this study was to learn about the support offered to healthcare commissioners, how external consultants and their clients work together and the perceived impact on the quality of commissioning. Setting: NHS commissioning organisations and private and not-for-profit providers. Design: Mixed methods case study of eight cases. Data collection: 92 interviews with external consultants (n=36), their clients (n=47) and others (n=9). Observation of 25 training events and meetings. Documentation, for example, meeting minutes and reports. Analysis: Constant comparison. Data were coded, summarised and analysed by the research team with a coding framework to facilitate cross-case comparison. Results: In the four contracts presented here, external providers offered technical solutions (eg, software tools), outsourcing and expertise including project management, data interpretation and brokering relationships with experts. In assessing perceived impact on quality of commissioning, two contracts had limited value, one had short-term benefits and one provided short and longer term benefits. Contracts with commissioners actively learning, embedding and applying new skills were more valued. Other elements of success were: (1) addressing clearly agreed problems of relevance to managerial and operational staff (2) solutions co-produced at all organisational levels (3) external consultants working directly with clients to interpret data outputs to inform locally contextualised commissioning strategies. Without explicit knowledge exchange strategies, outsourcing commissioning to external providers resulted in the NHS clients becoming dependent. Conclusions: NHS commissioning will be disadvantaged if commissioners both fail to learn in the short term from the knowledge of external providers and in the longer term lose local skills. Knowledge exchange mechanisms are a vital component of commissioning and should be embedded in external provider contracts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Ethical issues arise daily in the delivery of palliative care. Despite much (largely theoretical) literature, evidence from specialist palliative care practitioners (SPCPs) about real-world ethical challenges has not previously been synthesised. This evidence is crucial to inform education and training and adequately support staff. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesise the evidence regarding the ethical challenges which SPCPs encounter during clinical practice., Methods and Analysis: We will conduct a systematic review with narrative synthesis of empirical studies that use inductive methods to describe the ethical challenges reported by SPCPs. We will search multiple databases (MEDLINE, Philosopher's Index, EMBASE, PsycINFO, LILACS, WHOLIS, Web of Science and CINAHL) without time, language or geographical restrictions. Keywords will be developed from scoping searches, consultation with information specialists and reference to key systematic reviews in palliative care and bioethics. Reference lists of included studies will be hand-searched. 10% of retrieved titles and abstracts will be independently dual screened, as will all full text papers. Quality will be dual assessed using the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool (2018). Narrative synthesis following Popay et al (2006) will be used to synthesise findings. The strength of resulting recommendations will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach for qualitative evidence (GRADE-CERQual)., Ethics and Dissemination: As this review will include only published data, no specific ethical approval is required. We anticipate that the systematic review will be of interest to palliative care practitioners of all backgrounds and educators in palliative care and medical ethics. Findings will be presented at conferences and published open access in a peer-reviewed journal., Trial Registration Number: CRD42018105365., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)