Search

Background: The term ‘safeguarding’ refers to measures designed to protect health, wellbeing and human rights, allowing people (especially children, young people and vulnerable adults) to live without fear of abuse, harm or neglect. The Children Act 2004 placed a responsibility on key agencies, including those in health and social care, to have regard to the need to safeguard children and promote their welfare. Objectives: To address the question ‘What interventions are feasible/acceptable, effective and cost effective in: • improving health and social care practitioners' recognition of children or young people who are at risk of abuse? • improving recognition of co-occurring forms of abuse where relevant? • preventing abuse in these groups?‘ Data sources: Fourteen health and social care databases were searched from 2004 (date of Children Act) to October 2019. Methods: This mapping review included an extensive literature search, independent study selection, extraction of study data and quality assessment of study design features. The research was carried out in two stages. We systematically retrieved and coded UK research and policy documents to gain a contemporary picture of safeguarding issues and practice. We also identified systematic reviews or narrative reviews that reported safeguarding practice from other high-income countries. Studies were summarised using narrative synthesis in four pre-defined groupings. A further grouping of policy/guidance documents was added based on examination of the evidence retrieved. Results: The review included 179 papers (Strategies=15; Policy/Guidance=36; Cultural/Organisational=31; Initiatives=69 and Reviews=28). There were four empirical evaluations of strategies (‘what to do’) and 54 of initiatives (‘how to do it’). Most initiatives fell into three categories: training, service development and use of data. Promising initiatives included liaison nurses; assessment clinics; secondment; joint protocols; and a ‘hub and spoke’ model. Approaches using routinely collected data also appeared promising. However, the evidence base comprised mainly cross-sectional or before/after studies with no control group, providing little hard evidence of effectiveness. Barriers to effective implementation of safeguarding strategies were identified at all levels of the health and care system. Limitations: We used a number of methods to abbreviate the review process. Limitations of the evidence base included lack of long-term follow-up, control groups and data on service relevant outcomes. Conclusions: The UK and international literature documents increased awareness and activity in relation to safeguarding. A limited number of types of interventions have been reported and generally these lack rigorous evaluation. In particular, the user voice is muted in relation to experience of different interventions or services. Taken as a whole the topic of child safeguarding seems to be lacking a whole system approach which would facilitate a more joined-up approach. Future work: Future research questions centre on the need to balance multi-agency training and development initiatives with the specific needs of individual health and social care professional groups.

Background For systematic reviews to be rigorous, deliverable and useful, they need a well-defined review question. Scoping for a review also requires the specification of clear inclusion criteria and planned synthesis methods. Guidance is lacking on how to develop these, especially in the context of undertaking rapid and responsive systematic reviews to inform health services and health policy. Objective This report describes and discusses the experiences of review scoping of three commissioned research centres that conducted evidence syntheses to inform health and social care organisation, delivery and policy in the UK, between 2017 and 2020. Data sources Sources included researcher recollection, project meeting minutes, e-mail correspondence with stakeholders and scoping searches, from allocation of a review topic through to review protocol agreement. Methods We produced eight descriptive case studies of selected reviews from the three teams. From case studies, we identified key issues that shape the processes of scoping and question formulation for evidence synthesis. The issues were then discussed and lessons drawn. Findings Across the eight diverse case studies, we identified 14 recurrent issues that were important in shaping the scoping processes and formulating a review’s questions. There were ‘consultative issues’ that related to securing input from review commissioners, policy customers, experts, patients and other stakeholders. These included managing and deciding priorities, reconciling different priorities/perspectives, achieving buy-in and engagement, educating the end-user about synthesis processes and products, and managing stakeholder expectations. There were ‘interface issues’ that related to the interaction between the review team and potential review users. These included identifying the niche/gap and optimising value, assuring and balancing rigour/reliability/relevance, and assuring the transferability/applicability of study evidence to specific policy/service user contexts. There were also ‘technical issues’ that were associated with the methods and conduct of the review. These were choosing the method(s) of synthesis, balancing fixed and fluid review questions/components/definitions, taking stock of what research already exists, mapping versus scoping versus reviewing, scoping/relevance as a continuous process and not just an initial stage, and calibrating general compared with specific and broad compared with deep coverage of topics. Limitations As a retrospective joint reflection by review teams on their experiences of scoping processes, this report is not based on prospectively collected research data. In addition, our evaluations were not externally validated by, for example, policy and service evidence users or patients and the public. Conclusions We have summarised our reflections on scoping from this programme of reviews as 14 common issues and 28 practical ‘lessons learned’. Effective scoping of rapid, responsive reviews extends beyond information exchange and technical procedures for specifying a ‘gap’ in the evidence. These considerations work alongside social processes, in particular the building of relationships and shared understanding between reviewers, research commissioners and potential review users that may be reflective of consultancy, negotiation and co-production models of research and information use. Funding This report has been based on work commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research (HSDR) programme as three university-based evidence synthesis centres to inform the organisation, delivery and commissioning of health and social care; at the University of Exeter (NIHR 16/47/22), the University of Sheffield (NIHR 16/47/17) and the University of York (NIHR 16/47/11). This report was commissioned by the NIHR HSDR programme as a review project (NIHR132708) within the NIHR HSDR programme. This project was funded by the NIHR HSDR programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

BackgroundService reconfigurations sometimes increase travel time and/or distance for patients to reach their nearest hospital or other urgent and emergency care facility. Many communities value their local services and perceive that proposed changes could worsen outcomes for patients.ObjectivesTo identify, appraise and synthesise existing research evidence regarding the outcomes and impacts of service reconfigurations that increase the time and/or distance for patients to reach an urgent and emergency care facility. We also aimed to examine the available evidence regarding associations between distance to a facility and outcomes for patients and health services, together with factors that may influence (moderate or mediate) these associations.Data sourcesWe searched seven bibliographic databases in February 2019. The search was supplemented by citation-tracking and reference list checking. A separate search was conducted to identify the current systematic reviews of telehealth to support urgent and emergency care.MethodsBrief inclusion and exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) population – adults or children with conditions that required emergency treatment; (2) intervention/comparison – studies comparing outcomes before and after a service reconfiguration, which affects the time/distance to urgent and emergency care or comparing outcomes in groups of people travelling different distances to access urgent and emergency care; (3) outcomes – any patient or health system outcome; (4) setting – the UK and other developed countries with relevant health-care systems; and (5) study design – any. The search results were screened against the inclusion criteria by one reviewer, with a 10% sample screened by a second reviewer. A quality (risk-of-bias) assessment was undertaken using The Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Quasi-Experimental Studies. We performed a narrative synthesis of the included studies and assessed the overall strength of evidence using a previously published method.ResultsWe included 44 studies in the review, of which eight originated from the UK. For studies of general urgent and emergency care populations, there was no evidence that reconfiguration that resulted in increased travel time/distance affected mortality rates. By contrast, evidence of increased risk was identified from studies restricted to patients with acute myocardial infarction. Increases in mortality risk were most obvious within the first 1–4 years after reconfiguration. Evidence for other conditions was inconsistent or very limited. In the absence of reconfiguration, evidence mainly from cohort studies indicated that increased travel time or distance is associated with increased mortality risk for the acute myocardial infarction and trauma populations, whereas for obstetric emergencies the evidence was inconsistent. We included 12 systematic reviews of telehealth. Meta-analyses suggested that telehealth technologies can reduce time to treatment for people with stroke and ST elevation myocardial infarction.LimitationsMost studies came from non-UK settings and many were at high risk of bias because there was no true control group. Most review processes were carried out by a single reviewer within a constrained time frame.ConclusionsWe found no evidence that increased distance increases mortality risk for the general population of people requiring urgent and emergency care, although this may not be true for people with acute myocardial infarction or trauma. Increases in mortality risk were most likely in the first few years after reconfiguration.Future workResearch is needed to better understand how health systems plan for and adapt to increases in travel time, to quantify impacts on health system outcomes, and to address the uncertainty about how risk increases with distance in circumstances relevant to UK settings.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019123061.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. 8, No. 31. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background Reconfiguration of urgent and emergency care services often increases travel time/distance for patients to reach an appropriate facility. Evidence of the effects of reconfiguration is important for local communities and commissioners and providers of health services. Methods We performed a systematic review of the evidence regarding effects of service reconfigurations that increase the time/distance for some patients to reach an urgent and emergency care (UEC) facility. We searched seven bibliographic databases from 2000 to February 2019 and used citation tracking and reference lists to identify additional studies. We included studies of any design that compared outcomes for people with conditions requiring emergency treatment before and after service reconfiguration with an associated change in travel time/distance to access UEC. Studies had to be conducted in the UK or other developed countries. Data extraction and quality assessment (using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for quasi-experimental studies) were undertaken by a single reviewer with a sample checked for accuracy and consistency. We performed a narrative synthesis of the included studies. Overall strength of evidence was assessed using a previously published method that considers volume, quality and consistency. Results We included 12 studies, of which six were conducted in the USA, two in the UK and four in other European countries. The studies used a variety of observational designs, with before–after and cohort designs being most common. Only two studies included an independent control site/sites where no reconfiguration had taken place. The reconfigurations evaluated in these studies reported relatively small effects on average travel times/distance. Discussion For studies of general UEC populations, there was no convincing evidence as to whether reconfiguration affected mortality risk. However, evidence of increased risk was identified from studies of patients with acute myocardial infarction, particularly 1 to 4 years after reconfiguration. Evidence for other conditions was inconsistent or very limited. Conclusions We found insufficient evidence to determine whether increased distance to UEC increases mortality risk for the general population of people requiring UEC, although this conclusion may not extend to people with specific conditions.

BackgroundEmergency departments (EDs) are facing unprecedented levels of demand. One of the causes of this increased demand is the ageing population. Older people represent a particular challenge to the ED as those older people who are frail will require management that considers their frailty alongside their presenting complaint. How to identify these older people as frail and how best to manage them in the ED is a major challenge for the health service to address.ObjectivesTo systematically map interventions to identify frail and high-risk older people in the ED and interventions to manage older people in the ED and to map the outcomes of these interventions and examine whether or not there is any evidence of the impact of these interventions on patient and health service outcomes.DesignA systematic mapping review.SettingEvidence from developed countries on interventions delivered in the ED.ParticipantsFrail and high-risk older people and general populations of older people (aged > 65 years).InterventionsInterventions to identify older people who are frail or who are at high risk of adverse outcomes and to manage (frail) older people within the ED.Main outcome measuresPatient outcomes (direct and indirect) and health service outcomes.Data sourcesEvidence from 103 peer-reviewed articles and conference abstracts and 17 systematic reviews published from 2005 to 2016.Review methodsA review protocol was drawn up and a systematic database search was undertaken for the years 2005–2016 (using MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Health Management Information Consortium and PROSPERO). Studies were included according to predefined criteria. Following data extraction, evidence was classified into interventions relating to the identification of frail/high-risk older people in the ED and interventions relating to their management. A narrative synthesis of interventions/outcomes relating to these categories was undertaken. A quality assessment of individual studies was not undertaken; instead, an assessment of the overall evidence base in this area was made.ResultsOf the 90 included studies, 32 focused on a frail/high-risk population and 60 focused on an older population. These studies reported on interventions to identify (n = 57) and manage (n = 53) older people. The interventions to identify frail and at-risk older people, on admission and at discharge, utilised a number of different tools. There was extensive evidence on these question-based tools, but the evidence was inconclusive and contradictory. Service delivery innovations comprised changes to staffing, infrastructure and care delivery. There was a general trend towards improved outcomes in admissions avoidance, reduced ED reattendance and improved discharge outcomes.LimitationsThis review was a systematic mapping review. Some of the methods adopted differed from those used in a standard systematic review. Mapping the evidence base has led to the inclusion of a wide variety of evidence (in terms of study type and reporting quality). No recommendations on the effectiveness of specific interventions have been made as this was outside the scope of the review.ConclusionsA substantial body of evidence on interventions for frail and high-risk older people was identified and mapped.Future workFuture work in this area needs to determine why interventions work and whether or not they are feasible for the NHS and acceptable to patients.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016043260.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Background The NHS currently faces increasing demands on accident and emergency departments. Concern has been expressed regarding whether the needs of vulnerable groups are being handled appropriately or whether alternative methods of service delivery may provide more appropriate emergency and urgent care services for particular groups. Objective Our objective was to identify what interventions exist to manage use of the emergency and urgent care system by people from a prespecified list of vulnerable groups. We aimed to describe the characteristics of these interventions and examine service delivery outcomes (for patients and the health service) resulting from these interventions. Review methods We conducted an initial mapping review to assess the quantity and nature of the published research evidence relating to seven vulnerable groups (socioeconomically deprived people and families, migrants, ethnic minority groups, the long-term unemployed/inactive, people with unstable housing situations, people living in rural/isolated areas and people with substance abuse disorders). Databases, including MEDLINE and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and other sources were searched between 2008 and 2018. Quantitative and qualitative systematic reviews and primary studies of any design were eligible for inclusion. In addition, we searched for UK interventions and initiatives by examining press reports, commissioning plans and casebooks of ‘good practice’. We carried out a detailed intervention analysis, using an adapted version of the TIDieR (Template for Intervention Description and Replication) framework for describing interventions, and an analysis of current NHS practice initiatives. Results We identified nine different types of interventions: care navigators [three studies – moderate GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations)], care planning (three studies – high), case finding (five studies – moderate), case management (four studies – high), front of accident and emergency general practice/front-door streaming model (one study – low), migrant support programme (one study – low), outreach services and teams (two studies – moderate), rapid access doctor/paramedic/urgent visiting services (one study – low) and urgent care clinics (one systematic review – moderate). Few interventions had been targeted at vulnerable populations; instead, they represented general population interventions or were targeted at frequent attenders (who may or may not be from vulnerable groups). Interventions supported by robust evidence (care navigators, care planning, case finding, case management, outreach services and teams, and urgent care clinics) demonstrated an effect on the general population, rather than specific population effects. Many programmes mixed intervention components (e.g. case finding, case management and care navigators), making it difficult to isolate the effect of any single component. Promising UK initiatives (front of accident and emergency general practice/front-door streaming model, migrant support programmes and rapid access doctor/paramedic/urgent visiting services) lacked rigorous evaluation. Evaluation should therefore focus on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these initiatives. Conclusions The review identified a limited number of intervention types that may be useful in addressing the needs of specific vulnerable populations, with little evidence specifically relating to these groups. The evidence highlights that vulnerable populations encompass different subgroups with potentially differing needs, and also that interventions seem particularly context sensitive. This indicates a need for a greater understanding of potential drivers for varying groups in specific localities. Limitations Resources did not allow exhaustive identification of all UK initiatives; the examples cited are indicative. Future work Research is required to examine how specific vulnerable populations differentially benefit from specific types of alternative service provision. Further exploration, using primary mixed-methods data and potentially realist evaluation, is required to explore what works for whom under what circumstances. Rigorous evaluation of UK initiatives is required, including a specific need for economic evaluations and for studies that incorporate effects on the wider emergency and urgent care system. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

ObjectivesIn England, the NHS111 service provides assessment and triage by telephone for urgent health problems. A digital version of this service has recently been introduced. We aimed to systematically review the evidence on digital and online symptom checkers and similar services.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesWe searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Health Management Information Consortium, Web of Science and ACM Digital Library up to April 2018, supplemented by phrase searches for known symptom checkers and citation searching of key studies.Eligibility criteriaStudies of any design that evaluated a digital or online symptom checker or health assessment service for people seeking advice about an urgent health problem.Data extraction and synthesisData extraction and quality assessment (using the Cochrane Collaboration version of QUADAS for diagnostic accuracy studies and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute tool for observational studies) were done by one reviewer with a sample checked for accuracy and consistency. We performed a narrative synthesis of the included studies structured around pre-defined research questions and key outcomes.ResultsWe included 29 publications (27 studies). Evidence on patient safety was weak. Diagnostic accuracy varied between different systems but was generally low. Algorithm-based triage tended to be more risk averse than that of health professionals. There was very limited evidence on patients’ compliance with online triage advice. Study participants generally expressed high levels of satisfaction, although in mainly uncontrolled studies. Younger and more highly educated people were more likely to use these services.ConclusionsThe English ‘digital 111’ service has been implemented against a background of uncertainty around the likely impact on important outcomes. The health system may need to respond to short-term changes and/or shifts in demand. The popularity of online and digital services with younger and more educated people has implications for health equity.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018093564.

Background There have been calls for greater consideration of applicability and transferability in systematic reviews, to improve their usefulness in informing policy and practice. Understanding how evidence is, or is not applicable and transferable to varying local situations and contexts, is a key challenge for systematic review synthesis in healthcare. Assessing applicability and transferability in systematic reviews is reported to be difficult, particularly in reviews of complex interventions. There is a need for exploration of factors perceived to be important by policy-makers, and for further guidance on which items should be reported. In this paper we focus on the process of development of a framework that can be used by systematic reviewers to identify and report data across studies relating to applicability and transferability. Methods The framework was developed by scrutinising existing literature on applicability and transferability, examining data during a systematic review of highly complex changes to health service delivery, and was informed by stakeholder engagement. The items of the framework were thus grounded in both data identified during a real review, and stakeholder input. The paper describes examples of data identified using the framework during a review of integrated care interventions, and outlines how it informed analysis and reporting of the review findings. Results The Framework for Implementation Transferability Applicability Reporting (FITAR) comprises 44 items which can be used to structure analysis and reporting across studies during systematic reviews of complex interventions. The framework prompts detailed consideration of contextual data during extraction and reporting, within areas of: patient type and populations; type of organisations and systems; financial and commissioning processes; systems leadership elements; features of services; features of the workforce; and finally elements of the interventions/initiatives. Conclusions Use of the framework during our review of complex healthcare interventions helped the review team to surface contextual data, which may not be commonly extracted, analysed and reported. Further exploration and evaluation of systems for identifying and reporting these factors during reviews is required. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-019-0723-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Healthcare systems around the world have been responding to the demand for better integrated models of service delivery. However, there is a need for further clarity regarding the effects of these new models of integration, and exploration regarding whether models introduced in other care systems may achieve similar outcomes in a UK national health service context. Methods The study aimed to carry out a systematic review of the effects of integration or co-ordination between healthcare services, or between health and social care on service delivery outcomes including effectiveness, efficiency and quality of care. Electronic databases including MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; CINAHL; Science and Social Science Citation Indices; and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant literature published between 2006 to March 2017. Online sources were searched for UK grey literature, and citation searching, and manual reference list screening were also carried out. Quantitative primary studies and systematic reviews, reporting actual or perceived effects on service delivery following the introduction of models of integration or co-ordination, in healthcare or health and social care settings in developed countries were eligible for inclusion. Strength of evidence for each outcome reported was analysed and synthesised using a four point comparative rating system of stronger, weaker, inconsistent or limited evidence. Results One hundred sixty seven studies were eligible for inclusion. Analysis indicated evidence of perceived improved quality of care, evidence of increased patient satisfaction, and evidence of improved access to care. Evidence was rated as either inconsistent or limited regarding all other outcomes reported, including system-wide impacts on primary care, secondary care, and health care costs. There were limited differences between outcomes reported by UK and international studies, and overall the literature had a limited consideration of effects on service users. Conclusions Models of integrated care may enhance patient satisfaction, increase perceived quality of care, and enable access to services, although the evidence for other outcomes including service costs remains unclear. Indications of improved access may have important implications for services struggling to cope with increasing demand. Trial registration Prospero registration number: 42016037725. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3161-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background The rate of elective Caesarean Section (CS) is rising in many countries. Many obstetric units in the UK have either introduced or are planning to introduce enhanced recovery (ER) as a means of reducing length of stay for planned CS. However, to date there has been very little evidence produced regarding the necessary components of ER for the obstetric population. We conducted a rapid review of the composition of published ER pathways for elective CS and undertook an umbrella review of systematic reviews evaluating ER components and pathways in any surgical setting. Methods Pathways were identified using MEDLINE, EMBASE and the National Guideline Clearing House, appraised using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool and their components tabulated. Systematic reviews were identified using the Cochrane Library and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and appraised using The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Two reviewers aggregated summaries of findings for Length of Stay (LoS). Results Five clinical protocols were identified, involving a total of 25 clinical components; 3/25 components were common to all five pathways (early oral intake, mobilization and removal of urinary catheter). AGREE II scores were generally low. Systematic reviews of single components found that minimally invasive Joel-Cohen surgical technique, early catheter removal and post-operative antibiotic prophylaxis reduced LoS after CS most significantly by around half to 1 and a half days. Ten meta-analyses of multi-component Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) packages demonstrated reductions in LoS of between 1 and 4 days. The quality of evidence was mostly low or moderate. Conclusions Further research is needed to develop, using formal methods, and evaluate pathways for enhanced recovery in elective CS. Appropriate quality improvement packages are needed to optimise their implementation. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12884-017-1265-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundThere has been growing interest in the NHS over recent years in the use of enhanced recovery programmes for elective surgery to deliver productivity gains through reduced length of stay, fewer postoperative complications, reduced readmissions and improved patient outcomes.ObjectivesTo evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of enhanced recovery programmes for patients undergoing elective surgery in acute hospital settings. To identify and critically describe key factors associated with successful adoption, implementation and sustainability of enhanced recovery programmes in UK settings. To summarise existing knowledge about patient experience of enhanced recovery programmes in UK settings.Data sourcesEight databases, including Database of Abstracts of Reviews and Effects, International Prospective of Systematic Reviews, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and MEDLINE, were searched from 1990 to March 2013 without language restrictions. Relevant reports and guidelines and reference lists of retrieved articles were scanned to identify additional studies.Review methodsSystematic reviews, randomised controlled trials (RCTs), economic evaluations, and UK NHS cost analysis studies were included if they evaluated the impact of enhanced recovery programmes on any health- and cost-related outcomes. Eligible studies included patients undergoing elective surgery in an acute hospital setting. Implementation case studies and surveys of patient experience in a UK setting were also eligible for inclusion. Quality assessment of systematic reviews, RCTs and economic evaluations was based on existing Centre for Reviews and Dissemination processes. All stages of the review process were performed by one researcher and checked by a second with discrepancies resolved by consensus. The type and range of evidence precluded meta-analysis and we therefore performed a narrative synthesis, differentiating between clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, implementation case studies and evidence on patient experience.ResultsSeventeen systematic reviews of varying quality were included in this report. Twelve additional RCTs were included; all were considered at high risk of bias. Most of the evidence focused on colorectal surgery. Fourteen innovation case studies and 15 implementation case studies undertaken in NHS settings were identified and provide descriptions of factors critical to the success of an enhanced recovery programme. Ten relevant economic evaluations were identified evaluating costs and outcomes over short time horizons. Despite the plethora of studies, robust evidence was sparse. Evidence for colorectal surgery suggests that enhanced recovery programmes may reduce hospital stays by 0.5–3.5 days compared with conventional care. There were no significant differences in reported readmission rates. Other surgical specialties showed greater variation in reported reductions in length of stay reflecting the limited evidence identified.LimitationsFindings relating to other clinical outcomes, cost-effectiveness, implementation and patient experience were hampered by a lack of robust evidence and poor reporting.ConclusionsThere is consistent, albeit limited, evidence that enhanced recovery programmes may reduce length of patient hospital stay without increasing readmission rates. The extent to which managers and clinicians considering implementing enhanced recovery programmes can realise reductions and cost savings will depend on length of stays achieved under their existing care pathway. RCTs comparing an enhanced recovery programme with conventional care continue to be conducted and published. Further single-centre RCTs of this kind are not a priority. Rather, what is needed is improved collection and reporting of how enhanced recovery programmes are implemented, resourced and experienced in NHS settings.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

BackgroundCurrent NHS policy favours the expansion of diagnostic testing services in community and primary care settings.ObjectivesOur objectives were to identify current models of community diagnostic services in the UK and internationally and to assess the evidence for quality, safety and clinical effectiveness of such services. We were also interested in whether or not there is any evidence to support a broader range of diagnostic tests being provided in the community.Review methodsWe performed an initial broad literature mapping exercise to assess the quantity and nature of the published research evidence. The results were used to inform selection of three areas for investigation in more detail. We chose to perform focused reviews on logistics of diagnostic modalities in primary care (because the relevant issues differ widely between different types of test); diagnostic ultrasound (a key diagnostic technology affected by developments in equipment); and a diagnostic pathway (assessment of breathlessness) typically delivered wholly or partly in primary care/community settings. Databases and other sources searched, and search dates, were decided individually for each review. Quantitative and qualitative systematic reviews and primary studies of any design were eligible for inclusion.ResultsWe identified seven main models of service that are delivered in primary care/community settings and in most cases with the possible involvement of community/primary care staff. Not all of these models are relevant to all types of diagnostic test. Overall, the evidence base for community- and primary care-based diagnostic services was limited, with very few controlled studies comparing different models of service. We found evidence from different settings that these services can reduce referrals to secondary care and allow more patients to be managed in primary care, but the quality of the research was generally poor. Evidence on the quality (including diagnostic accuracy and appropriateness of test ordering) and safety of such services was mixed.ConclusionsIn the absence of clear evidence of superior clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, the expansion of community-based services appears to be driven by other factors. These include policies to encourage moving services out of hospitals; the promise of reduced waiting times for diagnosis; the availability of a wider range of suitable tests and/or cheaper, more user-friendly equipment; and the ability of commercial providers to bid for NHS contracts. However, service development also faces a number of barriers, including issues related to staffing, training, governance and quality control.LimitationsWe have not attempted to cover all types of diagnostic technology in equal depth. Time and staff resources constrained our ability to carry out review processes in duplicate. Research in this field is limited by the difficulty of obtaining, from publicly available sources, up-to-date information about what models of service are commissioned, where and from which providers.Future workThere is a need for research to compare the outcomes of different service models using robust study designs. Comparisons of ‘true’ community-based services with secondary care-based open-access services and rapid access clinics would be particularly valuable. There are specific needs for economic evaluations and for studies that incorporate effects on the wider health system. There appears to be no easy way of identifying what services are being commissioned from whom and keeping up with local evaluations of new services, suggesting a need to improve the availability of information in this area.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Systematic reviews provide high-level evidence but there are barriers to their use by policy makers. This paper reports the preparation and evaluation of an evidence briefing, using systematic reviews and other existing sources of synthesised evidence, to support a possible reorganisation of services for young people with eating disorders in an English primary care trust. There was no evidence of differences in outcomes between community, outpatient and specialist inpatient treatment. The provision of specialist outpatient services appeared most cost-effective. The commissioning group agreed to move towards providing services on an outpatient basis. This work suggests that evidence briefings based on systematic reviews warrant further methodological development and evaluation.

Context: Barriers to the use of systematic reviews by policymakers may be overcome by resources that adapt and present the findings in formats more directly tailored to their needs. We performed a systematic scoping review to identify such knowledge-translation resources and evaluations of them. Methods: Resources were eligible for inclusion in this study if they were based exclusively or primarily on systematic reviews and were aimed at health care policymakers at the national or local level. Resources were identified by screening the websites of health technology assessment agencies and systematic review producers, supplemented by an email survey. Electronic databases and proceedings of the Cochrane Colloquium and HTA International were searched as well for published and unpublished evaluations of knowledge-translation resources. Resources were classified as summaries, overviews, or policy briefs using a previously published classification. Findings: Twenty knowledge-translation resources were identified, of which eleven were classified as summaries, six as overviews, and three as policy briefs. Resources added value to systematic reviews by, for example, evaluating their methodological quality or assessing the reliability of their conclusions or their generalizability to particular settings. The literature search found four published evaluation studies of knowledge-translation resources, and the screening of abstracts and contact with authors found three more unpublished studies. The majority of studies reported on the perceived usefulness of the service, although there were some examples of review-based resources being used to assist actual decision making. Conclusions: Systematic review producers provide a variety of resources to help policymakers, of which focused summaries are the most common. More evaluations of these resources are required to ensure users’ needs are being met, to demonstrate their impact, and to justify their funding.

Introduction: The UK National Health Service has been challenged to adopt new, integrated models of service delivery that are tailored to local populations. Learning from the UK and international literature is needed in order to support the development and implementation of these new models of integrated care. Methods: The study carried out a systematic review of available evidence on integrated care since 2006, to enhance understanding of the mechanisms whereby new models of integrated care impact on healthcare outcomes. The study combined rigorous and systematic methods for identification of literature, together with innovative methods for synthesis and presentation of findings. We searched electronic databases to identify studies of relevance. In addition we searched relevant websites, screened reference lists, and carried out citation searching on a previous review. Searches were undertaken in October 2016 to March 2017 in databases including: MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; CINAHL. Evidence identified via these sources was synthesised in a number of ways. Data were used to develop an evidence-based logic model outlining the pathway from interventions to impacts We also examined the strength of evidence for process changes, outcomes and impacts via a comparative four item rating system of stronger, weaker, inconclusive, or insufficient evidence. Results: We included 267 studies in the review. The findings detail the complex pathway from new models to impacts, with evidence outlined regarding elements of integrated care, reported targets for change, changes in process, influencing factors, service-level outcomes, and system-wide impacts. A number of positive process changes were reported such as improved flow of care and better sharing of knowledge, although increased practitioner time was a potential adverse outcome. There was evidence of positive outcomes in terms of increase in: perceived quality of care; patient satisfaction; and access to care, although the evidence regarding wider impacts on the care system was inconclusive.There was an indication that new models have particular potential with patients who have complex needs. Discussion: While some stronger evidence of posiitive effects was apparent, evidence was inconsistent regarding many outcomes, and regarding system-wide impacts. There is evidence that new models of integrated care may have positive effects in terms of improvements in some processes of care delivery, enhanced patient satisfaction and improved access however, the evidence regarding other outcomes is currently inconsistent. Lessons learned: A wide range of factors potentially influencing outcomes are reported which require consideration in planning, implementation, evaluation and sustainability. Limitations: The diverse study populations and interventionsn precluded statistical summary of effectiveness. Defining new models of integrated care is challenging, with potential for our study to have excluded potentially relevant literature due to use of varyng terms and definitions. Suggestions for future research: We identified a need for research to more clearly link particular elements of integrated care to outcomes. Currently much of the research evidence comes from studies in older adults. There is a need for further research to explore the potential for new models of care to impact on the care for other patient groups.

Objective To assess what is known about effective patient and public engagement in health service reconfiguration processes and identify implications for further research and health care practice. Methods Rapid systematic review of published and grey literature to identify methods or approaches to engagement in decisions about health service reconfiguration; and to examine how engagement has worked or not worked in specific examples of system change. Following a search for literature published in English from 2000 to March 2014, eight systematic reviews, seven primary studies and 24 case studies (of which 6 were exemplars) were included. We undertook a narrative synthesis to consider five aspects of engagement with health service reconfiguration. Results Engagement varied in nature and intensity, and efforts generally involved multiple methods. There was no evidence on the isolated impact of any particular engagement method or collection of methods. In general, engagement was most likely to be successful when started early, when led and supported by clinicians, and when it offered opportunities for genuine interaction. The impact of engagement was variably measured and demonstrated, and frequently defined as process measures rather than the outcomes of proposals for service reconfiguration. Little was reported on the potential negative impact of service user engagement. Conclusions Patients and the public can be engaged through various methods. Problems often arise because decision-makers paid insufficient attention to issues considered important by patients and the public. Guidance setting out the stages of reconfiguration and opportunities for service user input could be a helpful practical framework for future engagement activity. Future evaluation and explicit reporting of engagement and impact is needed.

BackgroundIn 2013 NHS England set out its strategy for the development of an emergency and urgent care system that is more responsive to patients’ needs, improves outcomes and delivers clinically excellent and safe care. Knowledge about the current evidence base on models for provision of safe and effective urgent care, and the gaps in evidence that need to be addressed, can support this process.ObjectiveThe purpose of the evidence synthesis is to assess the nature and quality of the existing evidence base on delivery of emergency and urgent care services and identify gaps that require further primary research or evidence synthesis.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and the Web of Science.MethodsWe have conducted a rapid, framework-based, evidence synthesis approach. Five separate reviews linked to themes in the NHS England review were conducted. One general and five theme-specific database searches were conducted for the years 1995–2014. Relevant systematic reviews and additional primary research papers were included and narrative assessment of evidence quality was conducted for each review.ResultsThe review was completed in 6 months. In total, 45 systematic reviews and 102 primary research studies have been included across all five reviews. The key findings for each review are as follows: (1) demand – there is little empirical evidence to explain increases in demand for urgent care; (2) telephone triage – overall, these services provide appropriate and safe decision-making with high patient satisfaction, but the required clinical skill mix and effectiveness in a system is unclear; (3) extended paramedic roles have been implemented in various health settings and appear to be successful at reducing the number of transports to hospital, making safe decisions about the need for transport and delivering acceptable, cost-effective care out of hospital; (4) emergency department (ED) – the evidence on co-location of general practitioner services with EDs indicates that there is potential to improve care. The attempt to summarise the evidence about wider ED operations proved to be too complex and further focused reviews are needed; and (5) there is no empirical evidence to support the design and development of urgent care networks.LimitationsAlthough there is a large body of evidence on relevant interventions, much of it is weak, with only very small numbers of randomised controlled trials identified. Evidence is dominated by single-site studies, many of which were uncontrolled.ConclusionsThe evidence gaps of most relevance to the delivery of services are (1) a requirement for more detailed understanding and mapping of the characteristics of demand to inform service planning; (2) assessment of the current state of urgent care network development and evaluation of the effectiveness of different models; and (3) expanding the current evidence base on existing interventions that are viewed as central to delivery of the NHS England plan by assessing the implications of increasing interventions at scale and measuring costs and system impact. It would be prudent to develop a national picture of existing pilot projects or interventions in development to support decisions about research commissioning.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research Programme.

BackgroundUK NHS organisations are required to consult patients and the public about proposals for major changes to services. The evidence base for current UK guidance is unclear.ObjectivesTo assess what is known about effective patient and public engagement in reconfiguration processes and to identify implications for further research.DesignRapid evidence synthesis.SettingHealth services affected by reconfiguration proposals in the UK (particularly the English) NHS and similar health systems.ParticipantsMembers of the public and their representatives, patients and patient groups.InterventionsAny intervention to encourage patients and the public and their representatives to be involved in discussions about proposals for major service change.Main outcome measuresAny measure of ‘successful’ engagement as reported by health service decision-makers, patients and public representatives. We were also interested in the outcome of controversial reconfiguration proposals.Data sourcesWe carried out separate searches for systematic reviews, primary research studies and grey literature. Database searches were limited to material published in English from 2000 to March 2014.Review methodsFinal decisions on study inclusion were made by two reviewers independently. We used EPPI-Reviewer 4 (Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre, University of London, London, UK) to record decisions and for data extraction and quality assessment. We carried out a narrative synthesis using multiple frameworks (including pre-specified research questions and current guidance). In synthesising the case studies, we selected a number of ‘exemplars’ based on quality of reporting and some evaluation of the process of engagement.ResultsEight systematic reviews, seven empirical research studies and 24 case studies (six exemplars) were included. Methods of engagement varied in nature and intensity, and generally involved a mixed methods approach. There was no evidence on the isolated impact of any particular engagement method or collection of methods. In general, engagement was most likely to be successful when the process started at an early stage, offered opportunities for genuine interaction and was led and supported by clinicians involved in delivering the relevant services. The impact of engagement was variably measured and demonstrated. Impact was more frequently defined in terms of process measures than success or failure of reconfiguration. Little was reported on the potential negative impact of service user engagement.ConclusionsPatients and the public could be engaged through a wide variety of methods. In selecting which methods to employ locally, decision-makers should take into account the nature of the local population and of the proposed service changes. Problems often arose because decision-makers paid insufficient attention to issues considered important by the public. NHS England guidance could be a helpful practical framework for future engagement activity.Future workClearly reported evaluations of interventions are needed including those that test the sustainability of methods of engagement and their impact over time. The NHS England guidance on planning and delivering service change may provide a foundation for the design of future research.FundingCommissioned by the National Institute for Health Research Health Service and Delivery Research (HSDR) programme from the University of York HSDR Evidence Synthesis Centre (project no. 13/05/11).

Objectives To assess the evidence on the impact of enhanced recovery programmes for patients undergoing elective surgery in acute hospital settings in the UK. Design Rapid evidence synthesis. Eight databases were searched from 1990 to March 2013 without language restrictions. Relevant reports and guidelines, websites and reference lists of retrieved articles were scanned to identify additional studies. Systematic reviews, RCTs not included in the systematic reviews, economic evaluations and UK NHS cost analysis, implementation case studies and surveys of patient experience in a UK setting were eligible for inclusion. Primary and secondary outcome measures We assessed the impact of enhanced recovery programmes on health or cost-related outcomes, and assessed implementation case studies and patient experience in UK settings. Studies were quality assessed where appropriate using the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects critical appraisal process. Results 17 systematic reviews and 12 additional RCTs were included. Ten relevant economic evaluations were included. No cost analysis studies were identified. Most of the evidence focused on colorectal surgery. 14 innovation case studies and 15 implementation case studies undertaken in National Health Service settings described factors critical to the success of an enhanced recovery programme. Evidence for colorectal surgery suggests that enhanced recovery programmes may reduce hospital stays by 0.5–3.5 days compared with conventional care. There were no significant differences in reported readmission rates. Other surgical specialties showed greater variation in reductions in length of stay reflecting the limited evidence identified. Findings relating to other outcomes were hampered by a lack of robust evidence and poor reporting. Conclusions There is consistent, albeit limited, evidence that enhanced recovery programmes can reduce length of patient hospital stay without increasing readmission rates. The extent to which managers and clinicians considering implementing enhanced recovery programmes in UK settings can realise savings will depend on length of stay achieved under their existing care pathway.

Background We have developed a framework for translating existing sources of synthesized and quality-assessed evidence, primarily systematic reviews, into actionable messages in the form of short accessible briefings. The service aims to address real-life problems in response to requests from decision-makers. Development of the framework was based on a scoping review of existing resources and our initial experience with two briefing topics, including models of service provision for young people with eating disorders. We also drew on previous experience in dissemination research and practice. Where appropriate, we made use of the SUPporting POlicy relevant Reviews and Trials (SUPPORT) tools for evidence-informed policymaking. Findings To produce a product that it is fit for this purpose it has been necessary to go beyond a traditional summary of the available evidence relating to effectiveness. Briefings have, therefore, included consideration of cost effectiveness, local applicability, implications relating to local service delivery, budgets, implementation and equity. Our first evidence briefings produced under this framework cover diagnostic endoscopy by specialist nurses and integrated care pathways in mental healthcare settings. Conclusions The framework will enable researchers to present and contextualize evidence from systematic reviews and other sources of synthesized and quality-assessed evidence. The approach is designed to address the wide range of questions of interest to decision-makers, especially those commissioning services or managing service delivery and organization in primary or secondary care. Evaluation of the use and usefulness of the evidence briefings we produce is an integral part of the framework and will help to fill a gap in the literature.

Objective Case series can influence clinical practice but are often omitted from systematic reviews. We evaluated the contribution of case series to a systematic review of radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) for treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). Study Design and Setting Analysis of the results of a systematic review based on a search of 25 electronic databases and Internet sources. Results We included eight controlled trials and 53 case series. Case series provided most patients longest follow-up and data on adverse events and complications. Rates of freedom from arrhythmia were comparable between case series, RFCA arms of controlled trials, and a survey of RFCA centers. Conclusion In the case of RFCA for AF, the case series make a useful contribution to the systematic review. Inclusion of case series can increase the evidence base and strengthen the credibility of a review of an emerging health technology. These advantages must be balanced against the risk of bias associated with the lack of a control group, potential publication bias, overrepresentation of results from specialist centers, and overlap of patients across series. Specification in the review protocol of inclusion criteria for outcomes and quality criteria is recommended to make optimum use of case series.

Objective To summarise evidence on the effectiveness of behaviour change interventions to encourage prescribing of generic forms of prescription drugs where clinically appropriate in the UK National Health Service (NHS) and similar settings. Design Systematic review. Search strategy We conducted a rapid evidence synthesis in two stages: First, we searched databases, such as the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), for systematic reviews of interventions that reported outcomes related to utilisation of generic drugs. In the second stage, we searched several databases including MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify primary studies of any interventions not covered by systematic reviews. Data extraction and quality assessment Data were extracted into a standardised data extraction form. Standardised quality assessment tools were used to assess study quality. Two reviewers were involved in data extraction and quality assessment. Results 10 reviews were included for the initial evidence synthesis, but most were of limited usefulness to our focused review question. One review evaluated the effect of prescribing policies using financial incentives and showed an increase in generic prescribing. Thirteen primary studies of other interventions were included for the rapid review. Two studies showed an increase in percentage of overall generic prescribing with an educational intervention; two studies showed an improvement in generic prescribing rates when physicians collaborated with pharmacists, though in one study this was not statistically significant; two US studies showed improvements in generic prescribing with electronic prescribing. Five out of seven studies showed positive results with multifaceted interventions. Conclusions The existing evidence remains insufficient to determine which behaviour change intervention or combination of interventions is most effective due to methodological weaknesses and conflicting results. Based on the evidence, financial incentives with educational intervention and audit/feedback look promising but decision-makers should take into account the practicality and costs of the interventions before implementation.

Objectives To identify and critically assess the extent to which systematic reviews of enhanced recovery programmes for patients undergoing colorectal surgery differ in their methodology and reported estimates of effect. Design Review of published systematic reviews. We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database from 1990 to March 2013. Systematic reviews of enhanced recovery programmes for patients undergoing colorectal surgery were eligible for inclusion. Primary and secondary outcome measures The primary outcome was length of hospital stay. We assessed changes in pooled estimates of treatment effect over time and how these might have been influenced by decisions taken by researchers as well as by the availability of new trials. The quality of systematic reviews was assessed using the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) DARE critical appraisal process. Results 10 systematic reviews were included. Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials have consistently shown a reduction in length of hospital stay with enhanced recovery compared with traditional care. The estimated effect tended to increase from 2006 to 2010 as more trials were published but has not altered significantly in the most recent review, despite the inclusion of several unique trials. The best estimate appears to be an average reduction of around 2.5 days in primary postoperative length of stay. Differences between reviews reflected differences in interpretation of inclusion criteria, searching and analytical methods or software. Conclusions Systematic reviews of enhanced recovery programmes show a high level of research waste, with multiple reviews covering identical or very similar groups of trials. Where multiple reviews exist on a topic, interpretation may require careful attention to apparently minor differences between reviews. Researchers can help readers by acknowledging existing reviews and through clear reporting of key decisions, especially on inclusion/exclusion and on statistical pooling.

Objective To assess whether limitations of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) can be addressed by evidence from non-randomised studies. Design Analysis of data from a systematic review. Methods We conducted a review of EVAR versus open repair or non-surgical management of abdominal aortic aneurysms. In addition to RCTs, we included pre-specified registries of EVAR and open repair. Results The six included RCTs randomised patients in 2003 and earlier. Of the three registries included, one contributed data on a large (>8000) sample of patients treated with newer generation EVAR devices and followed up for up to 8 years. However, treatment dates of these patients overlapped with those of the RCTs. The other registries were of limited usefulness. A large (>45,000) controlled observational study published while the review was in progress broadly supported the findings of RCTs comparing EVAR with open surgery. A comparison of outcomes across all studies did not support the hypothesis that the findings of the RCTs are no longer representative of clinical practice. Conclusions Both randomised and non-randomised sources of evidence have strengths and weaknesses for assessing the effectiveness of EVAR. Further research should explore the optimum use of registry data, including patient-level analyses.