Search

BackgroundRisk assessment is central to primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD), but there remains a need to better understand the use of evidence-based interventions in practice. This study examines: (i) the policies and guidelines for risk assessment in Europe, (ii) the use of risk assessment tools in clinical practice and (iii) the barriers to, and facilitators of, risk assessment.MethodsData were collected from academics, clinicians and policymakers in an online questionnaire targeted at experts from all European Union member states, and in 8 in-depth country case studies that were developed from a targeted literature review and 36 interviews.ResultsThe European Society of Cardiology (ESC) produces European guidelines for CVD risk assessment and recommends the Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation tool, which is the most widely used risk assessment tool in Europe. The use of risk assessment tools is variable. Lack of time and resources are important barriers. Integrating risk assessment tools into clinical systems and providing financial incentives to carry out risk assessments could increase implementation. Novel biomarkers would need to be supported by evidence of their clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to be introduced in clinical practice. These findings were consistent across Europe.ConclusionsEfforts to improve the assessment of CVD risk in clinical practice should be carried out by or in collaboration with, the ESC. Increasing the use of existing risk assessment tools is likely to offer greater gains in primary prevention than the development of novel biomarkers.

Homelessness is much more than rough sleeping. One in 10 of us will experience homelessness at some time in our lives and, for those who do, access to primary care is vital to tackle the health consequences

Background The increasing difficulty experienced by general practices in meeting patient demand is leading to new approaches being tried, including greater use of telephone consulting. Objectives To evaluate a ‘telephone first’ approach, in which all patients requesting a general practitioner (GP) appointment are asked to speak to a GP on the telephone first. Methods The study used a controlled before-and-after (time-series) approach using national reference data sets; it also incorporated economic and qualitative elements. There was a comparison between 146 practices using the ‘telephone first’ approach and control practices in England with regard to GP Patient Survey scores and secondary care utilisation (Hospital Episode Statistics). A practice manager survey was used in the ‘telephone first’ practices. There was an analysis of practice data and the patient surveys conducted in 20 practices using the ‘telephone first’ approach. Interviews were conducted with 43 patients and 49 primary care staff. The study also included an analysis of costs. Results Following the introduction of the ‘telephone first’ approach, the average number of face-to-face consultations in practices decreased by 38% [95% confidence interval (CI) 29% to 45%; p p p = 0.0883). These average workload figures mask wide variation between practices, with some practices experiencing a substantial reduction in workload. Comparing ‘telephone first’ practices with control practices in England in terms of scores in the national GP Patient Survey, there was an improvement of 20 percentage points in responses to the survey question on length of time to get to see or speak to a doctor or nurse. Other responses were slightly negative. The introduction of the ‘telephone first’ approach was followed by a small (2%) increase in hospital admissions; there was no initial change in accident and emergency (A&E) department attendance, but there was a subsequent small (2%) decrease in the rate of increase in A&E attendances. We found no evidence that the ‘telephone first’ approach would produce net reductions in secondary care costs. Patients and staff expressed a wide range of both positive and negative views in interviews. Conclusions The ‘telephone first’ approach shows that many problems in general practice can be dealt with on the telephone. However, the approach does not suit all patients and is not a panacea for meeting demand for care, and it is unlikely to reduce secondary care costs. Future research could include identifying how telephone consulting best meets the needs of different patient groups and practices in varying circumstances and how resources can be tailored to predictable patterns of demand. Limitations We acknowledge a number of limitations to our approach. We did not conduct a systematic review of the literature, data collected from clinical administrative records were not originally designed for research purposes and for one element of the study we had no control data. In the economic analysis, we relied on practice managers’ perceptions of staff changes attributed to the ‘telephone first’ approach. In our qualitative work and patient survey, we have some evidence that the practices that participated in that element of the study had a more positive patient experience than those that did not. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

BackgroundTo better manage patient demand, some general practices have implemented a ‘telephone first’ approach in which all patients seeking a face-to-face appointment first have to speak to a GP on the telephone. Previous studies have suggested that there is considerable scope for this new approach, but there remain significant concerns.AimTo understand the views of GPs and practice staff of the telephone first approach, and to identify enablers and barriers to successful adoption of the approach.Design and settingA qualitative study of the telephone first approach in 12 general practices that have adopted it, and two general practices that have tried the approach but reverted to their previous system.MethodA total of 53 qualitative interviews with GPs and practice staff were conducted. Transcriptions of the interviews were systematically analysed.ResultsStaff in the majority of practices reported that the approach was an improvement on their previous system, but all practices experienced challenges; for example, where practices did not have the capacity to meet the increase in demand for telephone consultations. Staff were also aware that the new system suited some patients better than others. Adoption of the telephone first approach could be very stressful, with a negative impact on morale, especially reported in interviews with the two practices that had tried but stopped the approach. Interviewees identified enablers and barriers to the successful adoption of a telephone first approach in primary care. Enablers to successful adoption were: understanding demand, practice staff as pivotal, making modifications to the approach, and educating patients.ConclusionPractices considering adopting or clinical commissioning groups considering funding a telephone first approach should consider carefully a practice’s capacity and capability before launching.

ObjectiveTo understand patients’ views on a ‘telephone-first’ approach, in which all appointment requests in general practice are followed by a telephone call from the general practitioner (GP).DesignQualitative interviews with patients and carers.SettingTwelve general practices in England.Participants43 patients, including 30 women, nine aged over 75 years, four parents of young children, five carers, five patients with hearing impairment and two whose first language was not English.ResultsPatients expressed varied views, often strongly held, ranging from enthusiasm for to hostility towards the ‘telephone-first’ approach. The new system suited some patients, avoiding the need to come into the surgery but was problematic for others, for example, when it was difficult for someone working in an open plan office to take a call-back. A substantial proportion of negative comments were about the operation of the scheme itself rather than the principles behind it, for example, difficulty getting through on the phone or being unable to schedule when the GP would phone back. Some practices were able to operate the scheme in a way that met their patients’ needs better than others and practices varied significantly in how they had implemented the approach.ConclusionsThe ‘telephone-first’ approach appears to work well for some patients, but others find it much less acceptable. Some of the reported problems related to how the approach had been implemented rather than the ‘telephone-first’ approach in principle and suggests there may be potential for some of the challenges experienced by patients to be overcome.

BackgroundThe notion of a community hospital in England is evolving from the traditional model of a local hospital staffed by general practitioners and nurses and serving mainly rural populations. Along with the diversification of models, there is a renewed policy interest in community hospitals and their potential to deliver integrated care. However, there is a need to better understand the role of different models of community hospitals within the wider health economy and an opportunity to learn from experiences of other countries to inform this potential.ObjectivesThis study sought to (1) define the nature and scope of service provision models that fit under the umbrella term ‘community hospital’ in the UK and other high-income countries, (2) analyse evidence of their effectiveness and efficiency, (3) explore the wider role and impact of community engagement in community hospitals, (4) understand how models in other countries operate and asses their role within the wider health-care system, and (5) identify the potential for community hospitals to perform an integrative role in the delivery of health and social care.MethodsA multimethod study including a scoping review of community hospital models, a linked systematic review of their effectiveness and efficiency, an analysis of experiences in Australia, Finland, Italy, Norway and Scotland, and case studies of four community hospitals in Finland, Italy and Scotland.ResultsThe evidence reviews found that community hospitals provide a diverse range of services, spanning primary, secondary and long-term care in geographical and health system contexts. They can offer an effective and efficient alternative to acute hospitals. Patient experience was frequently reported to be better at community hospitals, and the cost-effectiveness of some models was found to be similar to that of general hospitals, although evidence was limited. Evidence from other countries showed that community hospitals provide a wide spectrum of health services that lie on a continuum between serving a ‘geographic purpose’ and having a specific population focus, mainly older people. Structures continue to evolve as countries embark on major reforms to integrate health and social care. Case studies highlighted that it is important to consider local and national contexts when looking at how to transfer models across settings, how to overcome barriers to integration beyond location and how the community should be best represented.LimitationsThe use of a restricted definition may have excluded some relevant community hospital models, and the small number of countries and case studies included for comparison may limit the transferability of findings for England. Although this research provides detailed insights into community hospitals in five countries, it was not in its scope to include the perspective of patients in any depth.ConclusionsAt a time when emphasis is being placed on integrated and community-based care, community hospitals have the potential to assume a more strategic role in health-care delivery locally, providing care closer to people’s homes. There is a need for more research into the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of community hospitals, the role of the community and optimal staff profile(s).FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Background: There is no single definition of a community hospital in the UK, despite its long history. We sought to understand the nature and scope of service provision in community hospitals, within the UK and other high-income countries. Methods: We undertook a scoping review of literature on community hospitals published from 2005 to 2014. Data were extracted on features of the hospital model and the services provided, with results presented as a narrative synthesis. Results: 75 studies were included from ten countries. Community hospitals provide a wide range of services, with wide diversity of provision appearing to reflect local needs. Community hospitals are staffed by a mixture of general practitioners (GPs), nurses, allied health professionals and healthcare assistants. We found many examples of collaborative working arrangements between community hospitals and other health care organisations, including colocation of services, shared workforce with primary care and close collaboration with acute specialists. Conclusions: Community hospitals are able to provide a diverse range of services, responding to geographical and health system contexts. Their collaborative nature may be particularly important in the design of future models of care delivery, where emphasis is placed on integration of care with a key focus on patient-centred care.