Search

Objective: This study aimed to develop interpretive insights concerning Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) in care homes for older people. Design: This study had a meta-ethnography design. Data Sources: Six bibliographic databases were searched from inception to May 2020 to identify the relevant literature. Review Methods: A meta-ethnography was performed. Results: Searches yielded 652 records; 15 were included. Findings were categorized into groups: The difficulties of enacting IPC measures in the care home environment; workload as an impediment to IPC practice; the tension between IPC and quality of life for care home residents; and problems dealing with medical services located outside the facility including diagnostics, general practice and pharmacy. Infection was revealed as something seen to lie ‘outside’ the control of the care home, whether according to origins or control measures. This could help explain the reported variability in IPC practice. Facilitators to IPC uptake involved repetitive training and professional development, although such opportunities can be constrained by the ways in which services are organized and delivered. Conclusions: Significant challenges were revealed in implementing IPC in care homes including staffing skills, education, workloads and work routines. These challenges cannot be properly addressed without resolving the tension between the objectives of maintaining resident quality of life while enacting IPC practice. Repetitive staff training and professional development with parallel organisational improvements have prospects to enhance IPC uptake in residential and nursing homes. Patient or Public Contribution: A carer of an older person joined study team meetings and was involved in writing a lay summary of the study findings.

Background Patients and carers should be actively involved in patient safety and empowered to use person‐centred approaches where they are asked to both identify safety concerns and partner in preventing them. Objectives The aim of this study was to co‐design a patient safety guide for primary care (PSG‐PC) to support patients and carers to address key patient safety questions and identify key points where they can make their care safer. The objectives were to i) identify when and how patients and carers can be involved in primary care patient safety, and ii) identify the relevant information to include in the PSG‐PC. Design An experience‐based co‐design approach. Setting and Participants We conducted three workshops with patients, carers, community pharmacists and general practitioners to develop and refine the PSG‐PC. Results Participants identified both explicit and implicit issues of primary care patient safety especially relating to technical and relational components of involving patients and carers. The importance of communication, understanding roles and responsibilities, and developing partnerships between patients and health‐care providers were considered essential for actively involving patients in patient safety. Co‐developing the PSG‐PC provided insight to improve care to develop the PSG‐PC. Discussion The PSG‐PC is the first guide to be developed for primary care, co‐designed with patients, carers, general practitioners and pharmacists. The PSG‐PC will support patients and carers to partner with health‐care professionals to improve patient safety addressing international and national priorities to continuously improve patient safety.

Background National guidelines for the short-term management of self-harm are aimed at healthcare professionals who may be involved in the care of people who have self-harmed. However, evidence from small-scale studies globally suggest there is a lack of awareness of such guidelines among some groups of healthcare professionals. For the first time in a large representative sample of patient-facing healthcare professionals, we aimed to identify: (a) which healthcare professionals are aware of guidelines for the management of self-harm; (b) the perceived availability of training; (c) the use of risk screening tools; and (d) the extent to which healthcare professionals implement guidelines for the management of self-harm. Methods 1020 UK healthcare professionals completed a cross-sectional survey online. Results 85.6% (873/1020) of the sample had heard of the national guidelines, but only 24.3% (248/1020) knew “a fair amount” or more about them. Of the respondents who had previously encountered a patient who had self-harmed or was at risk of repeat self-harm, the guidelines were implemented in fewer than 50% (M = 43.89%, SD = 38.79) of encounters. 31% (312/1020) of the sample had received training in managing self-harm and, contrary to guidelines, 2.25% (23/1020) of the sample had used self-harm risk screening tools. Conclusions Our findings highlight a need to improve knowledge of self-harm management guidelines, and identifies professional groups where awareness and knowledge is currently low. Further work is required to develop interventions to change healthcare professional practice with respect to the implementation of self-harm management guidelines., Highlights • 85.6% of healthcare professionals have heard of the NICE guidelines for self-harm. • 24.3% of healthcare professionals know what is in the guidelines for self-harm. • 2.3% of healthcare professionals breach ‘do not do’ recommendations. • Guidelines for self-harm are implemented in 43.9% of encounters with patients. • Awareness of self-harm guidelines was lowest outside mental health settings.

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic forced the rapid implementation of changes to practice in mental health services, in particular transitions of care. Care transitions pose a particular threat to patient safety.AimsThis study aimed to understand the perspectives of different stakeholders about the impact of temporary changes in practice and policy of mental health transitions as a result of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on perceived healthcare quality and safety.MethodThirty-four participants were interviewed about quality and safety in mental health transitions during May and June 2020 (the end of the first UK national lockdown). Semi-structured remote interviews were conducted to generate in-depth information pertaining to various stakeholders (patients, carers, healthcare professionals and key informants). Results were analysed thematically.ResultsThe qualitative data highlighted six overarching themes in relation to practice changes: (a) technology-enabled communication; (b) discharge planning and readiness; (c) community support and follow-up; (d) admissions; (e) adapting to new policy and guidelines; (f) health worker safety and well-being. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated some quality and safety concerns such as tensions between teams, reduced support in the community and increased threshold for admissions. Also, several improvement interventions previously recommended in the literature, were implemented locally.DiscussionThe practice of mental health transitions has transformed during the COVID-19 pandemic, affecting quality and safety. National policies concerning mental health transitions should concentrate on converting the mostly local and temporary positive changes into sustainable service quality improvements and applying systematic corrective policies to prevent exacerbations of previous quality and safety concerns.

BackgroundDespite high level of health care need amongst people experiencing homelessness, poor access is a major concern. This is sometimes due to organisational and bureaucratic barriers, but also because they often feel stigmatised and treated badly when they do seek health care. The COVID-19 pandemic and the required social distancing measures have caused unprecedented disruption and change for the organisation of primary care, particularly for people experiencing homelessness. Against this backdrop there are many questions to address regarding whether the recent changes required to deliver services to people experiencing homelessness in the context of COVID-19 will help to address or compound problems in accessing care and inequalities in health outcomes.MethodsAn action led and participatory research methodology will be employed to address the study objectives. Interviews with people experiencing homelessness were will be conducted by a researcher with lived experience of homelessness. Researchers with lived experience are able to engage with vulnerable communities in an empathetic, non-judgemental way as their shared experience promotes a sense of trust and integrity, which in turn encourages participation in research and may help people speak more openly about their experience. The experiences of health professionals and stakeholders delivering and facilitating care for people experiencing homelessness during the pandemic will also be explored.DiscussionIt is important to explore whether recent changes to the delivery of primary care in response to the COVID-19 pandemic compromise the safety of people experiencing homelessness and exacerbate health inequalities. This could have implications for how primary healthcare is delivered to those experiencing homelessness not only for the duration of the pandemic but in the future.

Background Discharge from acute mental health services has long been associated with mortality, risk, and related adverse outcomes for patients. Many of the interventions that currently aim to reduce adverse outcomes focus on a single group of healthcare professionals within a single healthcare setting. A recent systematic review highlights very few robust interventions that specifically aim to improve communication across services. However the importance of promoting interagency working and improving information flow between services is continually highlighted as a key priority. Methods Using a novel codesign and experience based approach we worked with a multistakeholder group to develop possible solutions to reduce the adverse outcomes commonly associated with discharge from acute mental health services. This utilized a modified Nominal Group Technique and creative problem solving method to follow a four-stage process: Problem Identification, Solution Generation, Decision-Making, Prioritization and Implementation. Thirty-two healthcare professionals and an expert by lived experienced engaged with the process that took place over two stakeholder events. Results Stakeholders at the first event identified and agreed upon 24 potential ideas to improve discharge from acute mental health services. These were refined at the second event to four elements of an interagency intervention: a multiagency 'Discharge Team' (with designated discharge coordinator), inclusive technology enabled team meetings, universal documentation and a patient generated discharge plan. Conclusion This is the first study to codesign an interagency mental health discharge intervention based around a discharge team. We developed a model for working that places a greater focus on a patient generated discharge plan, interagency working, and information flow. A pilot of the proposed intervention is now needed to test the feasibility and effectiveness in reducing adverse outcomes.

Background: Never events (NEs) are serious preventable patient safety incidents and are a component of formal quality and safety improvement (Q&SI) policies in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. A preliminary list of NEs for UK general practice has been developed, but the frequency of these events, or their acceptability to general practitioner (GPs) as a Q&SI approach, is currently unknown. The study aims to estimate (1) the frequency of 10 NEs occurring within GPs' own practices and (2) the extent to which the NE approach is perceived as acceptable for use.\ud \ud Methods: General practitioners were surveyed, and mixed-effects logistic regression models examined the relationship between GP opinions of NE, estimates of NE frequency, and the characteristics of the GPs and their practices.\ud \ud Results: Responses from 556 GPs in 412 practices were analyzed. Most participants (70%-88%, depending on the NE) agreed that the described incident should be designated as a NE. Three NEs were estimated to have occurred in less than 4% of practices in the last year; however, two NEs were estimated to have occurred in 45% to 61% of the practices. General practitioners reporting that a NE had occurred in their practice in the last year were significantly less likely to agree with the designation as a NE compared with GPs not reporting a NE (odds ratio, 0.42; 95% CI = 0.36-0.49).\ud \ud Conclusions: The NE approach may have Q&SI potential for general practice, but further work to adapt the concept and content is required.

ObjectivesWe sought to explore patient and carer experiences of psychosocial assessments following presentations to hospital after self-harm.DesignThematic analysis of free-text responses to an open-ended online survey.SettingBetween March and November 2019, we recruited 88 patients (82% women) and 14 carers aged ≥18 years from 16 English mental health trusts, community organisations, and via social media.ResultsPsychosocial assessments were experienced as helpful on some occasions but harmful on others. Participants felt better, less suicidal and less likely to repeat self-harm after good-quality compassionate and supportive assessments. However, negative experiences during the assessment pathway were common and, in some cases, contributed to greater distress, less engagement and further self-harm. Participants reported receiving negative and stigmatising comments about their injuries. Others reported that they were refused medical care or an anaesthetic. Stigmatising attitudes among some mental health staff centred on preconceived ideas over self-harm as a ‘behavioural issue’, inappropriate use of services and psychiatric diagnosis.ConclusionOur findings highlight important patient experiences that can inform service provision and they demonstrate the value of involving patients/carers throughout the research process. Psychosocial assessments can be beneficial when empathetic and collaborative but less helpful when overly standardised, lacking in compassion and waiting times are unduly long. Patient views are essential to inform practice, particularly given the rapidly changing service context during and after the COVID-19 emergency.

IntroductionPatients and carers should be active partners in patient safety with healthcare professionals and be empowered to use personalised approaches to identify safety concerns and work together to prevent them. This protocol paper details a study to examine the feasibility of a multicomponent intervention to involve patients and/or carers in patient safety in primary care in the UK.Methods and analysisThis is a two-phase, non-randomised feasibility mixed methods pragmatic study of a patient safety guide for primary care (PSG-PC). 8 general practices will recruit 120 patient and/or carer participants. All patient and/or carer participants will receive the PSG-PC. It will examine the feasibility and acceptability of the PSG-PC in primary care settings in patients aged 18 years or older who attend appointments at general practice with health professionals four or more times per year as either patients or carers. It will identify secondary outcomes for improving patient safety, health status and patient empowerment, and reducing health service utilisation over 6 months between baseline and 6-month follow-ups. The findings will inform whether a main effectiveness trial is feasible and, if so, how it should be designed, and how many patients and practices will be needed. The study will be undertaken between January 2020 and September 2021.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was obtained from the National Health Service London-West London and Gene Therapy Advisory Committee Research Ethics Committee (reference: 19/LO/1289). Research findings will be disseminated with participating general practices and shared in a range of different ways to engage different audiences, including presenting at international and national conferences, publishing in open-access, peer-reviewed journals and facilitating dissemination workshops within local communities with patients, carers and healthcare professionals.Trial registration numberISRCTN90222092.

Despite 340 000 000 primary care consultations annually in the UK, most of the literature on patient safety has focused on hospital-based services. To improve safety in primary care settings, we must know what methods, tools and indicators are available to measure and monitor patient safety. In collaboration with patient safety experts at the University of Dundee, we were able to identify a number of existing tools, and many of these were adopted for use in the Patient Safety Toolkit.

BackgroundThe Salford Integrated Care Programme (SICP) was a large-scale transformation project to improve care for older people with long-term conditions and social care needs. We report an evaluation of the ability of the SICP to deliver an enhanced experience of care, improved quality of life, reduced costs of care and improved cost-effectiveness.ObjectivesTo explore the process of implementation of the SICP and the impact on patient outcomes and costs.DesignQualitative methods (interviews and observations) to explore implementation, a cohort multiple randomised controlled trial to assess patient outcomes through quasi-experiments and a formal trial, and an analysis of routine data sets and appropriate comparators using non-randomised methodologies.SettingSalford in the north-west of England.ParticipantsOlder people aged ≥ 65 years, carers, and health and social care professionals.InterventionsA large-scale integrated care project with three core mechanisms of integration (community assets, multidisciplinary groups and an ‘integrated contact centre’).Main outcome measuresPatient self-management, care experience and quality of life, and health-care utilisation and costs.Data sourcesProfessional and patient interviews, patient self-report measures, and routine quantitative data on service utilisation.ResultsThe SICP and subsequent developments have been sustained by strong partnerships between organisations. The SICP achieved ‘functional integration’ through the pooling of health and social care budgets, the development of the Alliance Agreement between four organisations and the development of the shared care record. ‘Service-level’ integration was slow and engagement with general practice was a challenge. We saw only minor changes in patient experience measures over the period of the evaluation (both improvements and reductions), with some increase in the use of community assets and care plans. Compared with other sites, the difference in the rates of admissions showed an increase in emergency admissions. Patient experience of health coaching was largely positive, although the effects of health coaching on activation and depression were not statistically significant. Economic analyses suggested that coaching was likely to be cost-effective, generating improvements in quality of life [mean incremental quality-adjusted life-year gain of 0.019, 95% confidence interval (CI) –0.006 to 0.043] at increased cost (mean incremental total cost increase of £150.58, 95% CI –£470.611 to £711.776).LimitationsThe Comprehensive Longitudinal Assessment of Salford Integrated Care study represents a single site evaluation, with consequent limits on external validity. Patient response rates to the cohort survey were ConclusionsThe SICP has been implemented in a way that is consistent with the original vision. However, there has been more rapid success in establishing new integrated structures (such as a formal integrated care organisation), rather than in delivering mechanisms of integration at sufficient scale to have a large impact on patient outcomes.Future workFurther research could focus on each of the mechanisms of integration. The multidisciplinary groups may require improved targeting of patients or disease subgroups to demonstrate effectiveness. Development of a proven model of health coaching that can be implemented at scale is required, especially one that would provide cost savings for commissioners or providers. Similarly, further exploration is required to assess the longer-term benefits of community assets and whether or not health impacts translate to reductions in care use.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN12286422.FundingThis project was funded by the NIHR Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full inHealth Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 6, No. 31. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

ObjectivesTo identify the top 10 unanswered research questions for primary care patient safety research.DesignA modified nominal group technique.SettingUK.ParticipantsAnyone with experience of primary care including: patients, carers and healthcare professionals. 341 patients and 86 healthcare professionals submitted questions.Main outcomesA top 10, and top 30, future research questions for primary care patient safety.Results443 research questions were submitted by 341 patients and 86 healthcare professionals, through a national survey. After checking for relevance and rephrasing, a total of 173 questions were collated into themes. The themes were largely focused on communication, team and system working, interfaces across primary and secondary care, medication, self-management support and technology. The questions were then prioritised through a national survey, the top 30 questions were taken forward to the final prioritisation workshop. The top 10 research questions focused on the most vulnerable in society, holistic whole-person care, safer communication and coordination between care providers, work intensity, continuity of care, suicide risk, complex care at home and confidentiality.ConclusionsThis study was the first national prioritisation exercise to identify patient and healthcare professional priorities for primary care patient safety research. The research priorities identified a range of important gaps in the existing evidence to inform everyday practice to address primary care patient safety.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to describe a national, comprehensive quality indicator set to support delivering high-quality clinical care in Irish general practice. Design/methodology/approach – Potential general practice quality indicators were identified through a literature review. A modified two-stage Delphi process was used to rationalise international indicators into an indicator set, involving both experts from key stakeholder groups (general practitioners (GPs), practice nurses, practice managers, patient and health policy representatives) and predominantly randomly selected GPs. An illustrative evaluation approach was used to road test the indicator set and supporting materials. Findings – In total, 80 panellists completed the two Delphi rounds and staff in 13 volunteer practices participated in the road test. The original 171 indicators was reduced to 147 during the Delphi process and further reduced to 68 indicators during the road test. The indicators were set out in 14 sub-domains across three areas (practice infrastructure, practice processes and procedures, and practice staff). Practice staff planned 77 quality improvement activities after their assessment against the indicators and 31 (40 per cent) were completed with 44 (57 per cent) ongoing and two (3 per cent) not advanced after a six-month road test. A General Practice Indicators of Quality indicator set and support materials were produced at the conclusion. Practical implications – It is important and relatively easy to customise existing quality indicators to a particular setting. The development process can be used to raise awareness, build capacity and drive quality improvement activity in general practices. Originality/value – The authors describe in detail a method to develop general practice quality indicators for a regional or national population from existing validated indicators using consensus, action research and an illuminative evaluation.

Background Diagnostic uncertainty is one of the largest contributory factors to the occurrence of diagnostic errors across most specialties in medicine and arguably uncertainty is greatest in primary care due to the undifferentiated symptoms primary care physicians are often presented with. Physicians can respond to diagnostic uncertainty in various ways through the interplay of a series of cognitive, emotional and ethical reactions. The consequences of such uncertainty however can impact negatively upon the primary care practitioner, their patients and the wider healthcare system. Understanding the nature of the existing empirical literature in relation to managing diagnostic uncertainty in primary medical care is a logical and necessary first step in order to understand what solutions are already available and/or to aid the development of any training or feedback aimed at better managing this uncertainty. This review is the first to characterize the existing empirical literature on managing diagnostic uncertainty in primary care. Methods Sixteen databases were systematically searched from inception to present with no restrictions. Hand searches of relevant websites and reference lists of included studies were also conducted. Two authors conducted abstract/article screening and data extraction. PRISMA guidelines were adhered to. Results Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. A narrative and conceptual synthesis was undertaken under the premises of critical reviews. Results suggest that studies have focused on internal factors (traits, skills and strategies) associated with managing diagnostic uncertainty with only one external intervention identified. Cognitive factors ranged from the influences of epistemological viewpoints to practical approaches such as greater knowledge of the patient, utilizing resources to hand and using appropriate safety netting techniques. Emotional aspects of uncertainty management included clinicians embracing uncertainty and working with provisional diagnoses. Ethical aspects of uncertainty management centered on communicating diagnostic uncertainties with patients. Personality traits and characteristics influenced each of the three domains. Conclusions There is little empirical evidence on how uncertainty is managed in general practice. However we highlight how the extant literature can be conceptualised into cognitive, emotional and ethical aspects of uncertainty which may help clinicians be more aware of their own biases as well as provide a platform for future research. Trial registration PROSPERO registration: CRD42015027555 Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12875-017-0650-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is growing internationally but little is known about black and minority ethnic (BME) involvement and the factors influencing their involvement in health and social care research. Objectives: To characterise and critique the empirical literature on BME-PPI involvement in health and social care research.Search strategy: Systematic searches of six electronic bibliographic databases were undertaken, utilising both MeSH and free-text terms to identify international empirical literature published between 1990-2016. Inclusion criteria: All study designs that report primary data that involved BME groups in health or social care research. Screening was conducted by two reviewers.Data extraction and synthesis: Data extraction and quality appraisal were performed independently. Data extraction focused on the level(s) of PPI involvement and where PPI activity occurred in the research cycle. Studies were quality assessed using the guidelines for measuring the quality and impact of user involvement in research. Data were analysed using a narrative approach.Main results: Forty-five studies were included with the majority undertaken in the USA focusing on African Americans and indigenous populations. Involvement most commonly occurred during the research design phase, and least in data analysis and interpretation. Conclusion: This is the first systematic review investigating BME involvement in health and social care research internationally. While there is a widespread support for BME involvement, this is limited to particular phases of the research and particular ethnic sub-groups. There is a need to understand factors that influence BME involvement in all parts of the research cycle.

In contemporary healthcare settings, ensuring patient safety must be an underlying principal through which systems, teams, individuals and environments work in tandem to strive for. The adoption of a culture in the NHS where patient safety is given greater priority is key to improvement. Recent events at Mid-Staffordshire hospitals among others have brought patient safety into the minds of the public and it increasingly demands attention from clinicians, the press and governments. However, much of the work into patient safety has been completed in the secondary care field with very little work completed in primary care settings. In primary care dentistry, improving patient safety is a relatively new concept with a distinct lack of evidence base. In this article, we discuss what patient safety is and debate its relevance to primary care dentistry. We also look at previous work completed in this field and make recommendations for future work to address the current lack of research.

Background Multiple Sclerosis (MS) is a chronic, degenerative condition with an estimated UK prevalence of 100 000. Contact with health-care services is frequent and long-term; however, little research has investigated the experiences of health care for MS in the UK. Objective The aim of this systematic narrative review was to critically review qualitative studies reporting patients' experiences of health-care services in the UK. Search strategy EMBASE, CINAHL, Medline, psychINFO and MS Society databases were searched with no date restrictions using search terms denoting ‘Multiple Sclerosis’, ‘health-care services’, ‘patient’, ‘experience’ and ‘qualitative research’. Snowballing and hand searching of journals were used. Inclusion criteria Studies were included if they used qualitative methods of data collection and analysis to investigate adult patient's experiences of health-care services for MS in the UK. Data extraction and synthesis Data were extracted independently and analysed jointly by two reviewers. Studies were appraised for the quality of evidence described using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme's qualitative tool. Due to the breadth of areas covered, the data were too heterogeneous for a synthesis and are presented as a narrative review. Main results and discussion Five studies were included. Studies primarily investigated diagnosis or palliative care. Themes of importance were the emotional experience of health care, continuity of care and access to services, and support from health-care professionals. Studies were mainly poor quality and focussed on a homogenous sample. Conclusions This study provides the first review of the UK evidence base of experiences of health care for MS. Future research should investigate experiences of care after diagnosis in a more varied sample of participants.

BackgroundAchieving positive treatment outcomes and patient safety are critical goals of the healthcare system. However, this is greatly undermined by near universal health workforce absenteeism, especially in public health facilities of rural Uganda. We investigated the coping adaptations and related consequences of health workforce absenteeism in public and private not-for-profit (PNFP) health facilities of rural Uganda.MethodsAn empirical qualitative study involving case study methodology for sampling and principles of grounded theory for data collection and analysis. Focus groups and in-depth interviews were used to interview a total of 95 healthcare workers (11 supervisors and 84 frontline workers). The NVivo V.10 QSR software package was used for data management.ResultsThere was tolerance of absenteeism in both the public and PNFP sectors, more so for clinicians and managers. Coping strategies varied according to the type of health facility. A majority of the PNFP participants reported emotion-focused reactions. These included unplanned work overload, stress, resulting anger directed towards coworkers and patients, shortening of consultation times and retaliatory absence. On the other hand, various cadres of public health facility participants reported ineffective problem-solving adaptations. These included altering weekly schedules, differing patient appointments, impeding absence monitoring registers, offering unnecessary patient referrals and rampant unsupervised informal task shifting from clinicians to nurses.ConclusionHigh levels of absenteeism attributed to clinicians and health service managers result in work overload and stress for frontline health workers, and unsupervised informal task shifting of clinical workload to nurses, who are the less clinically skilled. In resource-limited settings, the underlying causes of absenteeism and low staff morale require attention, because when left unattended, the coping responses to absenteeism can be seen to compromise the well-being of the workforce, the quality of healthcare and patients’ access to care.

In the first paper of a series exploring quality in primary dental care a definition for quality in dentistry is sought. There is a little agreement in academic literature as to what quality really means in primary dental care and without a true understanding it is difficult to measure and improve quality in a systematic way. 'Quality' of healthcare in dentistry will mean different things to practitioners, policy makers and patients but a framework could be modelled on other definitions within different healthcare sectors, with focus on access, equity and overall healthcare experience.

Item does not contain fulltext BACKGROUND: Job satisfaction of practice staff is important for optimal health care delivery and for minimizing the turnover of non-medical professions. OBJECTIVE: To document the job satisfaction of practice assistants in German general practice and to explore associations between job satisfaction, staff characteristics and culture in general practice organizations. METHODS: The study was based on data from the European Practice Assessment accreditation scheme for general practices and used an observational design. The study population consisted of 1158 practice assistants from 345 general practices across Germany. Job satisfaction was measured with the 10-item Warr-Cook-Wall questionnaire. Organizational culture was evaluated with four items. A linear regression analysis was performed in which each of the job satisfaction items was handled as dependent variable. RESULTS: Out of 1716 staff member questionnaires handed out to practice assistants, 1158 questionnaires were completed (response rate: 67.5%). Practice assistants were most satisfied with their colleagues and least satisfied with their income. Higher job satisfaction was associated with issues of organizational culture, particularly a good working atmosphere, opportunities to suggest and influence areas for improvement and clear responsibilities within the practice team. CONCLUSIONS: Prioritizing initiatives to maintain high levels of, or to improve the job satisfaction of practice assistants, is important for recruitment and retention. It will also help to improve working conditions for both practice assistants and GPs and create an environment to provide better quality care.

Background Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) is increasing in prevalence and significance as a global public health issue. Appropriate management of CKD stages 3?4 in either generalist or specialist care is essential in order to slow disease progression. As various consulting options between services may be used, it is important to understand how patients and practitioners view these options. Objective To elicit patient and practitioner views and preferences on the acceptability and appropriateness of referral practices and consulting options for CKD stage 3?4. Design A mixed methods approach involving a semi-structured interview and structured rating exercise administered by telephone. Setting & participants Adult (18+) patients with CKD stage 3?-4 were recruited via their General Practitioner (GP). Practitioners were recruited from both general and specialist services. Results Sixteen patients and twenty-two practitioners participated in the study between July and September, 2011. Both patients and practitioners preferred ?GP with access to a specialist? and least preferred ?Specialist Review?. Computer review and telephone review were acceptable to participants under certain conditions. Practitioners favoured generalist management of patients with CKD 3. Specialists recommended active discharge of patients with stabilised stage 4 back to generalist care. Both generalists and specialists strongly supported sharing patients? medical records via electronic consultation systems. Conclusion Participants tended to prefer the current model of CKD management. Suggested improvements included; increasing the involvement of patients in referral and discharge decisions; improving the adequacy of information given to specialists on referral and encouraging further use of clinical guidelines in practice.

Purpose: To explore perspectives and experiences of people with multiple sclerosis (MS) and health care professionals of mental health support for MS in the UK.\ud \ud Method: 24 people with MS, 13 practice nurses, 12 general practitioners (GPs) and 9 MS specialist nurses were recruited through community groups and primary care practices across North West England. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, and data analyzed thematically using constant comparative analysis within and across the data sets. The theoretical framework of candidacy was used to interrogate data.\ud \ud Results: Four themes were identified: candidates for care, management choices, defining roles, and permeability and responsiveness.\ud \ud Discussion: Candidacy for care, and symptom management, depended on the framing of symptoms through a social or medical model of depression. Normalizing symptoms could prevent help-seeking by patients. Reported referral behavior varied by professional group, based on perceived remit, competency and training needs. GPs were perceived by patients and other professionals as central for management of mental health needs in MS, but may not perceive this role themselves, suggesting a need for increased knowledge, training, and improved access to specialist care.\ud \ud Implications for Rehabilitation\ud Anxiety and depression are common in people with MS.\ud \ud Management of mental health needs in people with MS relies on complex decisions made by both people with MS and health care professionals.\ud \ud General practitioners may play a key role in the ongoing management of mental health needs of people with MS.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic degenerative condition, with heterogeneous symptoms, and an unpredictable prognosis. Previous literature suggests patients' experiences of healthcare are unsatisfactory. Primary care may play a key role in the management of people with MS (PwMS); however, provision of services for PwMS has received little focus in the primary care literature. This study aimed to explore perspectives and experiences of PwMS and healthcare professionals of UK healthcare services for MS. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 24 PwMS, 13 Practice Nurses, 12 General Practitioners and 9 MS Specialist Nurses in northern England, between October 2012 and April 2014. Participants were purposively selected. Data were analysed thematically using constant comparative analysis. The theoretical framework of candidacy was used to interrogate data, with themes mapping onto the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline for MS. How PwMS interpreted symptoms as leading to candidacy for care dictated help‐seeking. PwMS required additional support in identifying symptoms due to MS. Participants reported poor experiences of care including poor access to services, poor continuity of care and poor interpersonal interactions with perceptions of limited person‐centredness. PwMS and professionals identified that MS‐related disability and progression of symptoms required responsive care. Relational continuity enabled PwMS to feel understood, and professionals to holistically appraise symptoms and progression. In conclusion, continuity and patient‐centredness of care are central to positive healthcare experiences for PwMS and professionals. Services need to be more accessible to ensure responsive and effective MS management. This study provides unique findings on the role of primary care for PwMS, and the relationship between findings and MS NICE guideline recommendations with implications for service delivery in the community.

The Two-Factor Theory of job satisfaction distinguishes between intrinsic-motivation (i.e. recognition, responsibility) and extrinsic-hygiene (i.e. job security, salary, working conditions) factors. The presence of intrinsic-motivation facilitates higher satisfaction and performance, whereas the absences of extrinsic factors help mitigate against dissatisfaction. The consideration of these factors and their impact on dentists’ job satisfaction is essential for the recruitment and retention of dentists. Objectives The objective of the study is to assess the level of job satisfaction of German dentists and the factors that are associated with it. Methods This cross-sectional study was based on a job satisfaction survey. Data were collected from 147 dentists working in 106 dental practices. Job satisfaction was measured with the 10-item Warr-Cook-Wall job satisfaction scale. Organizational characteristics were measured with two items. Linear regression analyses were performed in which each of the nine items of the job satisfaction scale (excluding overall satisfaction) were handled as dependent variables. A stepwise linear regression analysis was performed with overall job satisfaction as the dependent outcome variable, the nine items of job satisfaction and the two items of organizational characteristics controlled for age and gender as predictors. Results The response rate was 95.0%. Dentists were satisfied with ‘freedom of working method’ and mostly dissatisfied with their ‘income’. Both variables are extrinsic factors. The regression analyses identified five items that were significantly associated with each item of the job satisfaction scale: ‘age’, ‘mean weekly working time’, ‘period in the practice’, ‘number of dentist's assistant’ and ‘working atmosphere’. Within the stepwise linear regression analysis the intrinsic factor ‘opportunity to use abilities’ (β = 0.687) showed the highest score of explained variance (R2 = 0.468) regarding overall job satisfaction. Conclusions With respect to the Two-Factor Theory of job satisfaction both components, intrinsic and extrinsic, are essential for dentists but the presence of intrinsic motivating factors like the opportunity to use abilities has most positive impact on job satisfaction. The findings of this study will be helpful for further activities to improve the working conditions of dentists and to ensure quality of care.

Contains fulltext : 96853.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) BACKGROUND: The European Practice Assessment program provides feedback and outreach visits to primary care practices to facilitate quality improvement in five domains (infrastructure, people, information, finance, and quality and safety). We examined the effectiveness of this program in improving management in primary care practices in Germany, with a focus on the domain of quality and safety. METHODS: In a before-after study, 102 primary care practices completed a practice assessment using the European Practice Assessment instrument at baseline and three years later (intervention group). A comparative group of 102 practices was included that completed their first assessment using this instrument at the time of the intervention group's second assessment. Mean scores were based on the proportion of indicators for which a positive response was achieved by all of the practices, on a scale of 0 to 100. RESULTS: We found significant improvements in all domains between the first and second assessments in the intervention group. In the domain of quality and safety, improvements in scores (mean scores were based on the proportion of indicators for which a positive response was achieved by all of the practices, on a scale of 0 to 100) were observed in the following dimensions: complaint management (from a mean score of 51.2 at first assessment to 80.7 at second assessment); analysis of critical incidents (from 79.1 to 89.6); and quality development, quality policy (from 40.7 to 55.6). Overall scores at the time of the second assessment were significantly higher in the intervention group than in the comparative group. INTERPRETATION: Primary care practices that completed the European Practice Assessment instrument twice over a three-year period showed improvements in practice management. Our findings show the value of the quality-improvement cycle in the context of practice assessment and the use of established organizational standards for practice management with the Europeaen Practice Assessment.

Contains fulltext : 98245.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) BACKGROUND: The number of patients with chronic diseases is increasing which poses a challenge to healthcare organisations. A proactive, structured, and population-orientated approach is needed: the chronic care model (CCM) provides such a framework. AIM: To assess organisational conditions for providing structured chronic care according to the CCM across different healthcare systems. DESIGN OF STUDY: International observational study. SETTING: A stratified sample of 315 primary care practices in 10 European countries and Israel in 2008 and 2009. METHOD: Practice questionnaires and interviews. Outcome measures were mean practice scores on CCM domains per country, as a percentage of the maximum score, and the influence of practice size and urbanisation on these scores. RESULTS: Practice size showed large differences with the largest practices in Spain, England, Finland, and Israel. These countries, with a strong primary care orientation, had most physicians and staff involved per practice. The CCM domains 'clinical information systems' and 'decision support' had total practice means of 90%; other domains scored about 50%. Spain and England scored above average on almost all domains. Practice size and urbanisation had little impact. CONCLUSION: Characteristics for chronic care delivery differed for most CCM domains. The most common characteristics related to computerisation, providing a good starting point and high potential everywhere. All countries showed room for improvement. Further research should focus on relations between practice characteristics, organisational features, including health system and primary care orientation, and outcomes. Primary care seems suited for chronic care delivery; however, a stronger primary care was associated with better scores.

Contains fulltext : 89603.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) BACKGROUND: While practice-level or team accreditation is not new to primary care in the UK and there are organisational indicators in the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) organisational domain, there is no universal system of accreditation of the quality of organisational aspects of care in the UK. AIM: To describe the development, content and piloting of version 1 of the Primary Medical Care Provider Accreditation (PMCPA) scheme, which includes 112 separate criteria across six domains: health inequalities and health promotion; provider management; premises, records, equipment, and medicines management; provider teams; learning organisation; and patient experience/involvement, and to present the results from the pilot service evaluation focusing on the achievement of the 30 core criteria and feedback from practice staff. DESIGN OF STUDY: Observational service evaluation using evidence uploaded onto an extranet system in support of 30 core summative pilot PMCPA accreditation criteria. SETTING: Thirty-six nationally representative practices across England, between June and December 2008. METHOD: Study population: interviews with GPs, practice managers, nurses and other relevant staff from the participating practices were conducted, audiotaped, transcribed, and analysed using a thematic approach. For each practice, the number of core criteria that had received either a 'good' or 'satisfactory' rating from a RCGP-trained assessment team, was counted and expressed as a percentage. RESULTS: Thirty-two practices completed the scheme, with nine practices passing 100% of core criteria (range: 27-100%). There were no statistical differences in achievement between practices of different sizes and in different localities. Practice feedback highlighted seven key issues: (1) overall view of PMCPA; (2) the role of accreditation; (3) different motivations for taking part; (4) practice managers dominated the workload associated with implementing the scheme; (5) facilitators for implementation; (6) patient benefit--relevance of PMCPA to quality improvement; (7) recommendations for improving the scheme. CONCLUSION: Version 1 of PMCPA has been piloted as a primary care accreditation scheme and shown to be relevant to different types of practice. The scheme is undergoing revision in accordance with the findings from the pilot and ongoing consultation. 01 juli 2010

Contains fulltext : 88876.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) OBJECTIVES: This article examines the diagnosis and management of type-2 diabetes when exactly the same "patient" is encountered by 192 randomly selected primary care doctors in 3 different health care systems--the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany. METHODS: We conducted a factorial experiment, employing 2 clinically authentic filmed scenarios, to examine country differences in the treatment of diabetes, while controlling the effects of selected characteristics of patients and physicians. The patient in the first scenario presented with (undiagnosed) signs and symptoms strongly suggestive of diabetes, while the second scenario presented an already diagnosed patient with an emerging foot neuropathy. Physicians were asked how they would diagnose and manage the patients after watching the video vignettes using a questionnaire with standardized and open-ended questions. RESULTS: Regarding the first (undiagnosed) case, US doctors would ask significantly more questions than physicians from the UK and Germany (P < 0.001). German physicians would give less advice but would want to see the patient again much sooner (P < 0.001). Regarding the diagnosed case with an emerging foot neuropathy, US physicians would be most active in terms of questioning, testing, prescribing, and advice giving. Again, physicians from Germany would be less active in terms of therapeutic strategies but they would like to see the patient again sooner (P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Although physicians in the 3 countries encountered exactly the same patient, differences in diagnostic and management decisions were evident. The experimental design provides unconfounded estimates of health system differences while simultaneously controlling for the effects of selected patient attributes and physician characteristics. 01 april 2010

Background. The Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) has contributed to modest improvements in chronic illness care in the UK. US policymakers have proposed similar pay-for-performance (P4P) approaches to improve care. Since previous studies have not compared chronic illness care quality in US and UK primary care practices prior to the QOF, the relative preparedness of practices to respond to P4P incentives is unknown. Objective. To compare US and UK practices on P4P measures prior to program implementation. Methods. We analysed medical record data collected before QOF implementation from randomly selected patients with diabetes or coronary artery disease (CAD) in 42 UK and 55 US family medicine practices. We compared care processes and intermediate outcomes using hierarchical logistic regression. Results. While we found gaps in chronic illness care quality across both samples, variation was lower in UK practices. UK patients were more likely to receive recommended care processes for diabetes [odds ratio (OR), 8.94; 95% confidence interval (CI), 4.26–18.74] and CAD (OR, 9.18; 95% CI, 5.22–16.17) but less likely to achieve intermediate diabetes outcome targets (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.39–0.64). Conclusions. Following National Health Service (NHS) investment in primary care preparedness, but prior to the QOF, UK practices provided more standardized care but did not achieve better intermediate outcomes than a sample of typical US practices. US policymakers should focus on reducing variation in care documentation to ensure the effectiveness of P4P efforts while the NHS should focus on moving from process documentation to better patient outcomes.

Background. As part of a trial aiming to improve care for patients with chronic (systolic) heart failure, a standardized, multifaceted case management approach was evaluated in German general practices. It consisted of regular telephone monitoring, home visits, health counselling, diagnostic screening and booklets for patients. Practice-based doctors’ assistants (equivalent to a nursing role) adopted these new tasks and reported regularly to the employing general practitioner (GP). Objective. To explore GPs’ perceptions of case management, subsequent changes in relationships within the practice team and the potential future role. Method. Twenty-four GPs participated in five moderated, semi-structured, audio-taped focus groups. Full transcription and thematic content analysis was undertaken. Results. GPs rated all elements and instruments of case management conducted by doctors’ assistants feasible, except for the geriatric assessment as patients had not been at risk. GPs perceived difficulties in their own role in delivering health behaviour counselling. Relationships between doctors’ assistants and patients and between GPs and patients or doctors’ assistants remained stable or improved. All GPs perceived a variety of role changes in doctors’ assistants including more in-depth medical knowledge and higher responsibilities yielding more recognition by patients and GPs. Some GPs suggested transferring the case management programme to other chronic conditions and that it should form part of a further education curriculum for doctors’ assistants. Conclusion. This primary care-based case management model characterized by the orchestrated delegation of tasks to doctors’ assistants offers a promising strategy of enhanced chronic illness care, but it needs further adaptation and evaluation.

This paper reports the impact on nurses working in primary health care settings of changes to the general practitioner (GP) contract in England implemented in 2004. Previous changes to the GP contract in 1990, which gave financial rewards for health promotion activities, were seen as enabling nurses to take on work that GPs did not want and providing an impetus for the development of a professional project (Broadbent, J. (1998). Practice nurses and the effects of the new general practitioner contract in the British NHS: the advent of a professional project? Social Science & Medicine, 47(4), 497-506). Our study, which involved interviews with nurses from 20 practices, finds that nurses are taking on work which has previously been the exclusive preserve of medical professionals. An increasing emphasis in nurses' accounts on technical skills and knowledge may help decouple nursing from a narrative of caring, which has been seen as detracting from professional advancement. Our research suggests that practice nurse work is changing to reflect a more medical (and masculine) orientation to service delivery. At the same time, nursing work is described as routine and template driven, which may limit claims to 'professional' status. The reaction of some practice nurses to Health Care Assistants encroaching on what was previously practice nurse territory suggests a policing of boundaries, rather than an inclusive approach to colleagues within the nursing team. This resonates with Davies' (Davies, C. (1995). Gender and the professional predicament in nursing. Bucks: Open University Press) suggestion that professionalisation as a process involves compliance with a masculine notion of professionalism (autonomous, elite, individual, divisive, detached) which marginalises feminine attributes and devalues the work done by women. The study also raises questions about the role of caring in general practice settings where nurses choose to prioritise other concerns.

Title. Doctors’ assistants’ views of case management to improve chronic heart failure care in general practice: a qualitative study. Aim. This paper is a report of a study to explore the views, concerns and experiences of doctors’ assistants of case management for patients with chronic heart failure, while experiencing the new role of being a case manager within the Heidelberg Integrated Case Management trial. Background. Case management is being investigated as part of a randomised controlled trial aiming to improve care for patients with chronic systolic heart failure. In a complex, multifaceted intervention, trained doctors’ assistants (equivalent to a nursing role) adopted new tasks using standardised case management involving telephone monitoring, home visits and diagnostic screening. Method. In April 2007, 3 months after implementation of the intervention programme, 27 doctors’ assistants participated in four focus group interviews discussing their views on, and experiences of, case management. Thematic analysis of the data was undertaken. Findings. Participants believed that the most positive factors in case management were about interaction with patients, including opportunities for identifying disease and psychosocial problems. However, barriers included lack of time allocated to perform case management in addition to their normal role and poor cooperation within the practice team. According to the doctors’ assistants, the routine implementation of case management was acceptable, feasible and effective in improving the management of patients with chronic systolic heart failure. Conclusion. Case management enhanced the role of doctors’ assistants, leading to increased awareness of the perspective of patients with chronic disease. In the wider international primary care practice nursing context, the orchestrated delegation of tasks using specific case management may be a promising strategy for improving the quality of care of chronically ill patients and enabling patient self-management.

Background Depression represents a major and growing disease burden. About 90% of depressed patients are treated solely in primary care, yet there are system-related barriers to primary care for people with depression in the UK and Australia, countries which have different health care arrangements. Objectives The aim was to explore the views of GPs and patients in London and Melbourne about primary care system features which support or hinder best care for mild-to-moderate depression. The study differentiated between policy and reality 'on the ground'. Methods Two round Delphi technique methodology with four panels: GPs and patients in London and GPs and patients in Melbourne, to elicit views on the extent to which system features were reflected in policy, reflected in reality and were of value for best care. Results Four themes were generated: system and financing, responsibility and continuity, consultations and primary care team. Patient-centred care, having sufficient time during a consultation, and the GP-patient relationship extending over time were rated highly by all panels. Panellists differentiated between policy and reality on a number of features. Conclusions The Australian system does not guarantee continuity of care with practitioner or practice but patients took steps to see the same doctor for depression. There was a difference in the way London and Melbourne panels responded to finance-related statements. There was a tendency for panellists to value aspects of their own system and to fail to see possibilities of other systems.

In 2004 a new contract was introduced for General Practitioners in the UK, which introduced a significant element of 'pay-for-performance', including both clinical and organisational targets. The introduction of this contract has caused interest across the world, particularly amongst those responsible for commissioning primary care services. It can be argued that the clinical targets in the contract (known as the Quality and Outcomes Framework, QOF) represent a move towards a more biomedical model of health and illness, which is contrary to the ideal of providing holistic (or biopsychosocial) care that has been traditionally espoused by GPs. This paper reports results from two linked studies (in England and Scotland) investigating the early stages of the new contract. We describe the way in which four practices with different organisational approaches and espoused identities have all changed their practice structures, consultations and clinical care in response to QOF in ways which will result in patients receiving a more biomedical type of care. In spite of these observed changes, respondents continued to maintain discursive claims to holism. We discuss how this disconnection between rhetoric and reality can be maintained, and consider its implications for the future development of GPs' claims to a professional identity.

PURPOSE We conducted an in-depth exploration of family physicians’ and nurses’ beliefs and concerns about changes to the family health care service as a result of the new pay-for-performance scheme in the United Kingdom (Quality and Outcomes Framework [QOF]). METHODS Using a semistructured interview format, we interviewed 21 family doctors and 20 nurses in 22 nationally representative practices across England between February and August 2007. RESULTS Participants believed the financial incentives had been sufficient to change behavior and to achieve targets. The findings suggest that it is not necessary to align targets to professional priorities and values to obtain behavior change, although doing so enhances enthusiasm and understanding. Participants agreed that the aims of the pay-for-performance scheme had been met in terms of improvements in disease-specific processes of patient care and physician income, as well as improved data capture. It also led to unintended effects, such as the emergence of a dual QOF-patient agenda within consultations, potential deskilling of doctors as a result of the enhanced role for nurses in managing long-term conditions, a decline in personal/relational continuity of care between doctors and patients, resentment by team members not benefiting financially from payments, and concerns about an ongoing culture of performance monitoring in the United Kingdom. CONCLUSIONS The QOF scheme may have achieved its declared objectives of improving disease-specific processes of patient care through the achievement of clinical and organizational targets and increased physician income, but our findings suggest that it has changed the dynamic between doctors and nurses and the nature of the practitioner-patient consultation.

In 2004, the United Kingdom invested $3.2 billion in a new program to reward general practitioners for the delivery of high-quality care. The authors examine longitudinal data on quality and report that the incentive program may have prompted a modest improvement in the quality of care for two of the three chronic conditions they studied.

Between 1991 and 1998 English general practices had the option of holding budgets for prescribing and elective secondary care. Fundholding was reintroduced in 2005. We examine the effect of fundholding on patients' satisfaction with their practice, using a cross section of 4441 patients from 60 practices in the last year of fundholding (1998). We employ instrumental variables to allow for the endogeneity of fundholding. Patients of fundholders were less satisfied with the opening hours of their practice, their GP's knowledge of their medical history, with their GP's ability to arrange tests and willingness to refer to a specialist, and were more likely to agree that their doctor was more concerned about keeping costs down. Fundholder practices performed better on a number of process measures of care, and fundholding patients were more satisfied with additional non-medical services provided by the practice. The probability that patients were overall at least very satisfied with their GP practice was 0.073 (95% CI, 0.009-0.138) smaller in fundholding practices.

Up to 20% of additional income is being provided to UK general practitioners (GPs) to improve quality of care, through a complex set of quality indicators which relate principally to chronic disease management and organizational aspects of care. Using data from semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of 20 GPs and responses from 1035 GPs to a questionnaire survey (53% response rate), we describe the initial impact of these incentives. GPs are employing more staff, especially nurses and data entry clerks, and computerizing their clinical records. Patients are more frequently seen in disease-oriented clinics run by nurses. While the health gains associated with the incentives may be realized, GPs predict that there may be unintended consequences, including reduced continuity of care, care fragmentation, neglect of unincentivized conditions, and the risk of damage to their internal motivation.

Introduction Patient safety research has tended to focus on hospital settings, although most clinical encounters occur in primary care, and to emphasize practitioner errors, rather than patients' own understandings of safety. Objective To explore patients' understandings of safety in primary care. Methods Qualitative interviews were conducted with patients recruited from general practices in northwest England. Participants were asked basic socio-demographic information; thereafter, topics were largely introduced by interviewees themselves. Transcripts were coded and analysed using NVivo10 (qualitative data software), following a process of constant comparison. Results Thirty-eight people (14 men, 24 women) from 19 general practices in rural, small town and city locations were interviewed. Many of their concerns (about access, length of consultation, relationship continuity) have been discussed in terms of quality, but, in the interviews, were raised as matters of safety. Three broad themes were identified: (i) trust and psycho-social aspects of professional–patient relationships; (ii) choice, continuity, access, and the temporal underpinnings of safety; and (iii) organizational and systems-level tensions constraining safety. Discussion Conceptualizations of safety included common reliance on a bureaucratic framework of accreditation, accountability, procedural rules and regulation, but were also individual and context-dependent. For patients, safety is not just a property of systems, but personal and contingent and is realized in the interaction between doctor and patient. However, it is the systems approach that has dominated safety thinking, and patients' individualistic and relational conceptualizations are poorly accommodated within current service organization.

Background Doctor–patient continuity is popular with patients and practitioners, and is associated with better outcomes; however, changes in policy and practice organisation have diminished its scope. Although there has been some discussion of safety implications from professionals’ perspective, patients’ views remain largely unexplored. Aim To explore patients’ understanding of safety in primary care. Design and setting An interview-based study with patients from general practices in the northwest of England. Method Patients were recruited from five general practices through patient participation groups and posters in waiting rooms, with further participants recruited through snowballing techniques until no new themes emerged. In-depth interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed. Anonymised transcripts were coded and analysed inductively. Emergent themes were discussed by the team. Results For patients, relationship continuity was not simply a matter of service quality but an important safety concern that offered greater psychosocial security than consultations with unfamiliar GPs. Relationship continuity enabled the GP to become a repository of information; acquire specialist knowledge of a patient’s condition; become familiar with the patient’s consulting behaviour; provide holistic care; and foster the development of trust. Patients were also aware of the risks: a false sense of security and lack of a fresh perspective. Their desire for continuity varied with the nature of their concerns, psychological vulnerability, and perception of GPs’ qualities and skills. No one supported a return to imposed continuity. Conclusion Relationship continuity and choice of GP were important safety strategies, neither of which is adequately supported by recent policy changes.

Objectives To assess whether the new contractual arrangements of first-wave Personal Medical Services (PMS) practices in England improved their quality of care, compared with changes in care provided in a control sample of General Medical Services (GMS) practices. Methods Controlled ‘before’ (at or near 1 April 1998) and ‘after’ (at or near 31 March 2001) quantitative observational study in a sample of 23 PMS and 23 GMS practices. Quantitative data focused on access, chronic disease management, mental health care, primary care of older people, costs and patient evaluation using the General Practice Assessment Survey. Case studies were also undertaken in all PMS pilots, involving interviews with general practitioners, nurses, practice managers and Health Authority and Primary Care Group/Trust managers, documentation review, and analysis of site-specific data. Results There were improvements in quality of care in PMS sites in all areas of care evaluated, but improvements in care over and above those found in GMS sites (the ‘PMS effect') were only statistically significant for angina care (P =0.05) and elderly care (P =0.04). Teamwork, shared culture, clear objectives and leadership were important catalysts for quality improvement in PMS sites. Improvements in PMS practices came at additional financial cost. There were concurrent improvements in GMS practices. No PMS site succeeded in meeting its aims without successfully introducing effective leadership and management, and changing relationships within the practice (e.g. equalising power between nurses and doctors). Conclusions Small but steady improvements were observed in English primary care. PMS contracts facilitated quality improvements in specific areas over and above these broad improvements (the ‘PMS effect') during the study period. New contractual arrangements for health care can be used to improve quality of care. However, the mechanisms that resulted in quality gains, while facilitated by the new contractual arrangements, were not specific or unique to the PMS experiment. Factors such as effective management, clear objectives and flexible professional relationships within practices are likely to be important in determining whether new contractual arrangements result in improved outcomes. The context within which care and services are provided is as important for quality innovations as specific contractual arrangements.

Before we can take steps to improve the quality of health care, we need to define what quality care means. This article describes how to make best use of available evidence and reach a consensus on quality indicators

Objectives: To identify a generic set of face valid quality indicators for primary care mental health services which reflect a multi-stakeholder perspective and can be used for facilitating quality improvement.Design: Modified two-round postal Delphi questionnaire.Setting: Geographical spread across Great Britain.Participants: One hundred and fifteen panellists representing 11 different stakeholder groups within primary care mental health services (clinical psychologist, health and social care commissioner, community psychiatric nurse, counsellor, general practitioner, practice nurse/district nurse/health visitor, psychiatrist, social worker, carer, patient and voluntary organisations).Main outcome measures: Face validity (median rating of 8 or 9 on a nine point scale with agreement by all panels) for assessing quality of care.Results: A maximum of 334 indicators were rated by panels in the second round; 26% were rated valid by all panels. These indicators were categorised into 21 aspects of care, 11 relating to general practices and 10 relating to health authorities or primary care groups/trusts. There was variation in the total number of indicators rated valid across the different panels. Overall, GPs rated the lowest number of indicators as valid (41%, n=138) and carers rated the highest number valid (91%, n=304).Conclusions: The quality indicators represent consensus among key stakeholder groups in defining quality of care within primary care mental health services. These indicators could provide a guide for primary care organisations embarking on quality improvement initiatives in mental health care when addressing national targets and standards relating to primary care set out in the National Service Framework for Mental Health for England. Although many of the indicators relate to parochial issues in UK service delivery, the methodology used in the development of the indicators could be applied in other settings to produce locally relevant indicators.

Objectives To investigate the involvement of users in clinical governance activities within Primary Care Groups (PCGs) and Trusts (PCTs). Drawing on policy and guidance published since 1997, the paper sets out a framework for how users are involved in this agenda, evaluates practice against this standard and suggests why current practice for user involvement in clinical governance is flawed and why this reflects a flaw in the policy design as much as its implementation. Design Qualitative data comprising semi-structured interviews, reviews of documentary evidence and relevant literature.

Objectives: To investigate the concept of clinical governance being advocated by primary care groups/trusts (PCG/Ts), approaches being used to implement clinical governance, and potential barriers to its successful implementation in primary care. Design: Qualitative case studies using semi-structured interviews and documentation review. Setting: Twelve purposively sampled PCG/Ts in England. Participants: Fifty senior staff including chief executives, clinical governance leads, mental health leads, and lay board members. Main outcome measures: Participants' perceptions of the role of clinical governance in PCG/Ts. Results: PCG/Ts recognise that the successful implementation of clinical governance in general practice will require cultural as well as organisational changes, and the support of practices. They are focusing their energies on supporting practices and getting them involved in quality improvement activities. These activities include, but move beyond, conventional approaches to quality assessment (audit, incentives) to incorporate approaches which emphasise corporate and shared learning. PCG/Ts are also engaged in setting up systems for monitoring quality and for dealing with poor performance. Barriers include structural barriers (weak contractual levers to influence general practices), resource barriers (perceived lack of staff or money), and cultural barriers (suspicion by practice staff or problems overcoming the perceived blame culture associated with quality assessment). Conclusion: PCG/Ts are focusing on setting up systems for implementing clinical governance which seek to emphasise developmental and supportive approaches which will engage health professionals. Progress is intentionally incremental but formidable challenges lie ahead, not least reconciling the dual role of supporting practices while monitoring (and dealing with poor) performance.

This paper reports the findings of a study concerned with the way in which Primary Care Groups (PCGs) and Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) engaged with the Mental Health National Service Framework (NSF) as part of their remit to implement clinical governance. A qualitative multiple case study is reported which used semi-structured interviews and documentary analysis in a purposive sample of 12 PCG-Ts in England. The study found a general awareness of and support for the Mental Health NSF among PCG-Ts. In some localities the NSF acted to reinforce existing local developments in primary care mental health. However, compared to the NSF for Coronary Heart Disease a number of difficulties in responding to the Mental Health NSF were identified. These related to the perceived clinical status and complexity of managing mental health problems at practice level (e.g. familiarity with and competence of General Practitioners (GPs) in managing the conditions), inter-agency working, clinical governance training and the feasibility of producing clear demonstrable mental health outcomes as part of performance management. While the NSF for mental health presents opportunities for establishing the principles of quality assurance and improvement in the area of mental health, it is in danger of being marginalized in the clinical governance agendas of new PCTs, because of an inability to compete on an equal footing with other clinical priorities. While the partial demedicalisation of mental health is increasingly recognised as desirable for policy and therapeutic reasons the corollary is that it is harder to implement non-medicalised forms of care through the essentially medicalised apparatus of clinical governance. In order to deal with the complexities and challenges posed by the mental health agenda targeted support and resources are needed to promote clinical governance developments within primary care organisations.

Background: Type 2 diabetes is impacting millions of people globally; however, many future cases can be prevented through lifestyle changes and interventions. Primary care is an important setting for diabetes prevention, for at-risk populations, because it is a patient’s primary point of contact with the health care system and professionals can provide lifestyle counselling and support, as well as monitoring health outcomes. These are all essential elements for diabetes prevention for at-risk adults.Aim: To understand the factors related to the delivery and uptake of type 2 diabetes prevention interventions within primary care in higher income countries.Methods: For this narrative systematic review, we combined qualitative and quantitative studies of diabetes prevention within a primary care setting for patients at-risk of developing the condition. We used an iterative approach for evidence collection, which included using several databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Pysch info, BNI, SSCI, CINAHL, ASSIA), where we combined diabetes terms with primary care terms. Narrative and thematic synthesis were utilised to identify the prominent themes emerging from the data.Results: A database of 6646 records was screened by the research team, and 18 papers were included. Three major themes were identified in this review. The first theme of context and setting of diabetes progression includes the risk and progression of diabetes, primary care as a setting, and where the responsibility for change is thought to lie. This review also found mixed views on the value of preventative services within primary care. The second theme focused on the various patient factors associated with diabetes prevention such as a patient’s motivation to modify their current lifestyle, perceptions and knowledge (or lack thereof) of the impacts of diabetes, lack of follow-up in healthcare settings, and trust in healthcare professionals. The third theme was centred on professional factors impacting on diabetes prevention which included workload, time constraints, resources, self-efficacy and knowledge as well as professionals’ perception of patient motivations towards change.Conclusion: This review explored the factors influencing diabetes prevention in primary care, and identified the context of prevention, as well as patient and professional factors related to preventative services being offered in primary care. This systematic review complements previous reviews of real-world settings by exploring the significant factors in prevention, and the findings are relevant to academics, policymakers, patients and practitioners interested in understanding the factors associated with the delivery and uptake of diabetes prevention interventions.