Search

Autistic people in England face worse health outcomes than non-autistic people. Autism-specific annual health checks have been proposed as one solution to this issue. This study identified strategies to incentivise primary care providers to offer autism-specific annual health checks, using a behavioural science approach. In phase 1, we conducted interviews and focus groups with autistic people (n = 10) and primary care providers (n = 11). In phase 2, we conducted a national survey of primary care providers (n = 196). Qualitative data were analysed using a framework method and the Theoretical Domains Framework. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively, and comparisons between sub-groups of survey respondents were made using Mann–Whitney U and Kruskal–Wallis tests. The most salient theoretical domain was environmental context and resources. Participants identified lack of time and staff as key barriers to implementation. Delegating tasks to non-physician practitioners and automating processes were seen as key facilitators. Autism-specific knowledge was another relevant domain; education produced and delivered by autistic people was posited to increase health check uptake and quality. Overall, participants were enthusiastic about autism-specific annual health checks but were concerned about the practical aspects of implementation. We identified specific barriers and facilitators that can be addressed prior to policy adoption to maximise chances of success. Autistic people are more likely to have mental and physical health problems than non-autistic people. Annual health checks could reduce these problems by finding and treating them early. Annual health checks are yearly medical appointments where a primary healthcare provider (such as a doctor or nurse) can check things like a patient's weight and heart rate and ask if they have any worries about their health. In this study, we wanted to understand what might encourage primary healthcare providers to use annual health checks with their autistic patients. First, we spoke to 10 autistic people and 11 primary healthcare providers. Using the findings from these conversations, we created an online survey for primary healthcare providers in England. We used the findings from the interviews and survey to help us understand what would encourage primary healthcare providers to offer annual health checks for autistic people. Our participants said that a lack of time and staff would make it hard to provide health checks. To help, they said other members of staff (such as nurses and healthcare assistants) could do the health checks, rather than doctors. They also said parts of the process could be made automatic to save time (e.g. sending automatic reminders). Knowledge about autism was important too (e.g. knowing about the common conditions autistic people have, and how to best support autistic patients). Participants said training on these topics, produced and delivered with autistic people, could encourage them to use annual health checks with their autistic patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: It is increasingly recognized that patient safety requires heterogeneous insights from a range of stakeholders, yet incident reporting systems in health care still primarily rely on staff perspectives. This paper examines the potential of combining insights from patient complaints and staff incident reports for a more comprehensive understanding of the causes and severity of harm. Methods: Using five years of patient complaints and staff incident reporting data at a large multi-site hospital in London (in the United Kingdom), this study conducted retrospective patient-level data linkage to identify overlapping reports. Using a combination of quantitative coding and in-depth qualitative analysis, we then compared level of harm reported, identified descriptions of adjacent events missed by the other party and examined combined narratives of mutually identified events. Results: Incidents where complaints and incident reports overlapped (n = 446, reported in 7.6%' of all complaints and 0.6% of all incident reports) represented a small but critical area of investigation, with significantly higher rates of Serious Incidents and severe harm. Linked complaints described greater harm from safety incidents in 60% of cases, reported many surrounding safety events missed by staff (n = 582), and provided contesting stories of why problems occurred in 46% cases, and complementary accounts in 26% cases. Conclusions: This study demonstrates the value of using patient complaints to supplement, test, and challenge staff reports, including to provide greater insight on the many potential factors that may give rise to unsafe care. Accordingly, we propose that a more holistic analysis of critical safety incidents can be achieved through combining heterogeneous data from different viewpoints, such as through the integration of patient complaints and staff incident reporting data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]