Search

BackgroundUsing computer software in general practice to predict patient risk of emergency hospital admission has been widely advocated, despite limited evidence about effects. In a trial evaluating the introduction of a Predictive Risk Stratification Model (PRISM), statistically significant increases in emergency hospital admissions and use of other NHS services were reported without evidence of benefits to patients or the NHS.AimTo explore GPs’ and practice managers’ experiences of incorporating PRISM into routine practice.Design and settingSemi-structured interviews were carried out with GPs and practice managers in 18 practices in rural, urban, and suburban areas of south Wales.MethodInterviews (30–90 min) were conducted at 3–6 months after gaining PRISM access, and ∼18 months later. Data were analysed thematically using Normalisation Process Theory.ResultsResponders (n = 22) reported that the decision to use PRISM was based mainly on fulfilling Quality and Outcomes Framework incentives. Most applied it to ConclusionQualitative results suggest mixed views of predictive risk stratification in general practice and raised awareness of highest-risk patients potentially affecting rates of unplanned hospital attendance and admissions. To inform future policy, decision makers need more information about implementation and effects of emergency admission risk stratification tools in primary and community settings.

Objectives • To present an efficient privacy-protecting model (PRIDAL) for linking routine and identifiable patient-reported research data. • To describe the application of the PRIDAL model with within a major portfolio trial linking a range of health and demographic datasets pertaining to >230,000 patients, alongside >2,300 questionnaires. • To summarise the lessons learned from the application of the PRIDAL model. Approach The rise in availability, quality and use of routine health data has resulted in well-developed methods for anonymised linkage of data from multiple sources. However methods for combining identifiable data (e.g. patient-reported questionnaires) with routine anonymised data are not yet tried and tested. Linking these data presents opportunities to improve the feasibility and effectiveness of observational and experimental studies, but emerging data linkage processes must address the appropriate balance between data security and usability. The Process for Routine and Identifiable Data Linkage (PRIDAL) was devised to efficiently link routine hospital data and patient-reported quality of life and quality of care questionnaire data as part of the PRISMATIC trial (http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/14/1/301). This is a mixed methods progressive cluster randomised trial of the efficacy of an emergency admission risk prediction tool in primary care, funded by the NIHR HS&DR programme. PRIDAL was conceived by a group of specialists in e-trials, health informatics, information governance and process mapping who reviewed data sources, flows, owners, and security to develop a practical and intuitive process model. Results We will present the PRIDAL process model and describe its application in relation to the PRISMATIC study. We will demonstrate that the model achieves high data matching rates (>99%), and consider the lessons learnt from its application. Conclusions The linking of routine health and patient self-reported data presents a valuable opportunity in health research, but clear, replicable models, are needed to support ethical and practical data linkage. We present the fully tested PRIDAL model as a potential solution.

BackgroundAsylum seekers and refugees (ASRs) often experience poor health in host countries. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) requires hosts to ensure these sanctuary seekers have access to basic health care.AimTo identify barriers and facilitators that affect access to health care by ASRs in Wales.Design & settingParticipatory research approach using qualitative focus groups across Wales, which hosts 10 000 refugees.MethodEight focus groups were undertaken with ASRs, support workers, and volunteers (n = 57).ResultsSpecialist NHS-funded services and grant-aided non-governmental organisations (NGOs) facilitated access to health care, including primary care. Most ASRs understood the role of general practice in providing and coordinating care, but were unaware of out-of-hours services. Reported barriers included: language difficulties, health literacy, unrecognised needs, and the cost of travel to appointments. Participants recognised the importance of mental health, but were disappointed by the state of mental health care. Some feared seeking support for mental health from their GP, and few were aware they had the right to move practice if they were unhappy. Written information about health care was not as accessible to refugees as to asylum seekers (ASs). While some participants read such material before consulting, others struggled to access information when in need. Few participants were aware of health prevention services. Even when they knew about services, such as smoking cessation, these services’ difficulty in accommodating ASRs was a barrier.ConclusionThe main barriers identified were: availability of interpreters; knowledge about entitlements; and access to specialist services.

BackgroundTRIM is an evaluation of the models used to triage and manage emergency ambulance service care for patients with suspected Covid-19 during the first wave of the pandemic in 2020. We aimed to understand experiences and concerns of clinical and managerial staff about implementation of triage protocols in call centre and on-scene.MethodsResearch paramedics in four study sites across England interviewed purposively selected stakeholders from ambulance services (call handlers, clinical advisors in call centres, clinicians providing emergency response, managers) and ED clinical staff from one hospital per site. Interviews (n=23) were conducted remotely using MS Teams, recorded, and transcribed in full. Analysis generated themes from the implicit and explicit ideas within participants’ accounts, following the six stages of analysis described by Braun and Clarke, conducted by a group of researchers and PPI partners working together.ResultsWe identified the following themes:Constantly changing guidelines– at some points, updates several times a dayThe ambulance service as part of the wider healthcare system- changes in other parts of the healthcare system left ambulance services as the default optionPeaks and troughs of demand- demand fluctuated greatly over time, with workload varying across the ambulance service, including an increased role for clinical advisorsA stretched system -resources to respond to patient demand were stretched thinner by staff sickness and isolation, longer job times, and increased handover delays at EDEmotional load of responding to the pandemic -particularly for call centre staffDoing the best they can in the face of uncertainty -in the face of a rapidly evolving situation unlike any which ambulance services had faced beforeDiscussionImplementing triage protocols in response to the Covid-19 pandemic was a complex and process which had to be actively managed by a range of front line staff, dealing with external pressures and a heavy emotional load.

BackgroundPressures of patient demand and GP shortages have prompted a major workforce shift in primary care. Increasingly, paramedics are joining the primary care team but with wide variation in how they are employed, managed and supported. With numbers of paramedics in primary care rapidly increasing, evidence is needed to understand how PPC can be successfully implemented.MethodsWe evaluated two collaborative health board/ambulance service initiatives. Each featured advanced paramedics (APs) – paramedics with additional education - rotating between their usual role and the new primary care role. In site A, the service of 9 APs spanned 5 general practice clusters. Site B featured 1 general practice with 8 APs. We completed 28 qualitative interviews with APs, managers, practice staff, and patients to understand implementation at both sites. We used the iPARIHS implementation framework (Harvey and Kitson 2015) as a conceptual lens to analyse transcripts, applying its interrelated domains of context, innovation, recipients and facilitation.ResultsSite A was introduced as part of an innovation project, with external funding, a focus on training and personal development, and a structured lead in time. In site B paramedics were rapidly introduced to address an acute GP shortage, without formal training and support. The innovations were similar – home-visits and in-practice clinics undertaken by the practitioners. Interviewees (recipients) at both sites reported that the services helped to increase capacity, and were well received by patients and most staff. At site A: facilitation (by dedicated project workers) and training helped to shape the culture and preparedness. Site B APs and practice staff reported less readiness, impacting on morale, interprofessional working, and sustainability.ConclusionsParamedics increasingly feature in primary care, but there is great variation in service models and implementation. Our comparative approach, informed by iPARIHS, illustrates the importance of understanding implementation - alongside or in addition to effectiveness.

AimIn a trial evaluating the introduction of a predictive risk stratification model (PRISM) into primary care, we reported statistically significant increases in emergency hospital admissions and use of other NHS services without evidence of benefits to patients or the NHS. The aim of this study was to explore the views and experiences of general practitioners (GPs) and practice managers on incorporating PRISM into routine practice.MethodsWe interviewed 22 GPs and practice managers in 18 participating practices at two timepoints: 3-6 months after PRISM was available in their practice; and at study end, up to 18 months later. We recorded and transcribed interviews and analysed data thematically using Normalisation Process Theory.ResultsRespondents reported that the decision to use PRISM was based mainly on fulfilling reporting requirements for Quality and Outcome Framework (QOF) incentives. Most applied it to a very small number of patients for a short period. Using PRISM entailed technical tasks, information sharing within practice meetings and changes to patient care. These were diverse and generally small scale. Use was inhibited by PRISM not being integrated with practice systems. Respondents’ evaluation of PRISM was mixed: most doubted it had any large scale impact, but many cited examples of impact on individual patient care. They reported increased awareness of patients in high risk groups.ConclusionsQualitative results suggest mixed views of predictive risk stratification in primary care and raised awareness of highest-risk patient groups, potentially affecting unplanned hospital attendance and admissions. To inform future policy, decision-makers need more information about implementation and effects of emergency admissions risk stratification tools in primary and community settings.Trial registrationControlled Clinical Trials no. ISRCTN55538212.

Background Ambulance services have a vital role in the shift towards the delivery of health care outside hospitals, when this is better for patients, by offering alternatives to transfer to the emergency department. The introduction of information technology in ambulance services to electronically capture, interpret, store and transfer patient data can support out-of-hospital care. Objective We aimed to understand how electronic health records can be most effectively implemented in a pre-hospital context in order to support a safe and effective shift from acute to community-based care, and how their potential benefits can be maximised. Design and setting We carried out a study using multiple methods and with four work packages: (1) a rapid literature review; (2) a telephone survey of all 13 freestanding UK ambulance services; (3) detailed case studies examining electronic health record use through qualitative methods and analysis of routine data in four selected sites consisting of UK ambulance services and their associated health economies; and (4) a knowledge-sharing workshop. Results We found limited literature on electronic health records. Only half of the UK ambulance services had electronic health records in use at the time of data collection, with considerable variation in hardware and software and some reversion to use of paper records as services transitioned between systems. The case studies found that the ambulance services’ electronic health records were in a state of change. Not all patient contacts resulted in the generation of electronic health records. Ambulance clinicians were dealing with partial or unclear information, which may not fit comfortably with the electronic health records. Ambulance clinicians continued to use indirect data input approaches (such as first writing on a glove) even when using electronic health records. The primary function of electronic health records in all services seemed to be as a store for patient data. There was, as yet, limited evidence of electronic health records’ full potential being realised to transfer information, support decision-making or change patient care. Limitations Limitations included the difficulty of obtaining sets of matching routine data for analysis, difficulties of attributing any change in practice to electronic health records within a complex system and the rapidly changing environment, which means that some of our observations may no longer reflect reality. Conclusions Realising all the benefits of electronic health records requires engagement with other parts of the local health economy and dealing with variations between providers and the challenges of interoperability. Clinicians and data managers, and those working in different parts of the health economy, are likely to want very different things from a data set and need to be presented with only the information that they need. Future work There is scope for future work analysing ambulance service routine data sets, qualitative work to examine transfer of information at the emergency department and patients’ perspectives on record-keeping, and to develop and evaluate feedback to clinicians based on patient records. Study registration This study is registered as Health and Care Research Wales Clinical Research Portfolio 34166. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

BackgroundStratifying patient populations by risk of adverse events was believed to support preventive care for those identified, but recent evidence does not support this. Emergency admission risk stratification (EARS) tools have been widely promoted in UK policy and GP contracts.AimTo describe availability and use of EARS tools across the UK, and identify factors perceived to influence implementation.Design and settingCross-sectional survey in UK.MethodOnline survey of 235 organisations responsible for UK primary care: 209 clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) in England; 14 health boards in Scotland; seven health boards in Wales; and five local commissioning groups (LCGs) in Northern Ireland. Analysis results are presented using descriptive statistics for closed questions and by theme for open questions.ResultsResponses were analysed from 171 (72.8%) organisations, of which 148 (86.5%) reported that risk tools were available in their areas. Organisations identified 39 different EARS tools in use. Promotion by NHS commissioners, involvement of clinical leaders, and engagement of practice managers were identified as the most important factors in encouraging use of tools by general practices. High staff workloads and information governance were identified as important barriers. Tools were most frequently used to identify individual patients, but also for service planning. Nearly 40% of areas using EARS tools reported introducing or realigning services as a result, but relatively few reported use for service evaluation.ConclusionEARS tools are widely available across the UK, although there is variation by region. There remains a need to align policy and practice with research evidence.

AimWe evaluated the introduction of a predictive risk stratification model (PRISM) into primary care. Contemporaneously National Health Service (NHS) Wales introduced Quality and Outcomes Framework payments to general practices to focus care on those at highest risk of emergency admission to hospital. The aim of this study was to evaluate the costs and effects of introducing PRISM into primary care.MethodsRandomised stepped wedge trial with 32 general practices in one Welsh health board. The intervention comprised: PRISM software; practice-based training; clinical support through two ‘general practitioner (GP) champions’ and technical support. The primary outcome was emergency hospital admissions.ResultsAcross 230 099 participants, PRISM implementation increased use of health services: emergency hospital admission rates by 1 % when untransformed (while change in log-transformed rate ΔL=0.011, 95% CI 0.010 to 0.013); emergency department (ED) attendance rates by untransformed 3 % (while ΔL=0.030, 95% CI 0.028 to 0.032); outpatient visit rates by untransformed 5 % (while ΔL=0.055, 95% CI 0.051 to 0.058); the proportion of days with recorded GP activity by untransformed 1 % (while ΔL=0.011, 95% CI 0.007 to 0.014) and time in hospital by untransformed 3 % (while ΔL=0.029, 95% CI 0.026 to 0.031). Thus NHS costs per participant increased by £76 (95% CI £46 to £106).ConclusionsIntroduction of PRISM resulted in a statistically significant increase in emergency hospital admissions and use of other NHS services without evidence of benefits to patients or the NHS.

BackgroundIn response to rising demand for health care and limited availability of GPs, paramedics are increasingly working in general practices, most commonly to carry out home visits. UK policy supports this change which involves role substitution across professional groups and sectors of care. In Wales, schemes have been introduced over the past few years, with various configuration, employment, and governance arrangements, but we do not know the risks and benefits of Paramedics working in Primary Care (PPC), or which model works best. There is an urgent need to better understand the PPC innovation.AimTo describe the evidence base, theoretical underpinning and current initiatives; and determine the feasibility of undertaking a definitive evaluation of PPC in order to produce generalisable evidence to inform policy and practice.MethodA survey of Welsh Health Boards has been undertaken to identify sites and stakeholders to take part in qualitative interviews. A feasibility study will be conducted with three GP practice sites: one with a directly-employed paramedic; one with a Welsh Ambulance Service-employed paramedic; and a control site. Data will be collected for the following outcomes: 1) number of home visits requested; 2) home visit outcomes (the proportion resolved, further home visit required, emergency admission, 999 call placed); 3) prescribing patterns; 4) subsequent healthcare contacts; 5) patient satisfaction; 6) serious adverse events; and 7) cost profile.ResultsWelsh Health Board survey and qualitative findings will be available at the time of the conference.ConclusionWe will submit an application for a fully powered application to NIHR HS&DR if indicated by our progression criteria.

BackgroundHalf a million people live in UK care homes. General practices struggle to deliver primary care for residents due to high demand and staff shortages. Meanwhile, ambulance services are seeing an increase in 999 calls from care homes. In response, some areas are involving paramedics in proactive support to care homes, part of a shift towards paramedics undertaking non-emergency community care. Yet such workforce changes require urgent evaluation to understand implications for residents, staff and health services. We aimed to explore the role of non-emergency paramedics in care homes to support the design of portfolio research.MethodsWe convened a Research Development Group of care home, ambulance service, health board, primary care, public and academic representatives. We:Conducted fact-finding visits to sitesAnalysed 999 call data from care homesSurveyed ENRICH (Enabling Research in Care Homes) care home managers in England and WalesHeld a stakeholder workshop to explore the issuesResultsWe identified sites in England and Wales where paramedics provide non-emergency care in care homes. Operating models varied with paramedics employed by ambulance services, health boards and practices. Monthly 999 data from 300 homes confirmed high call and hospital conveyance rates. Survey respondents thought paramedics were well suited to assessing residents, identifying issues, improving care and avoiding admissions. They foresaw benefits to inter-professional working, clinical support and person-centred care, but raised concerns over professional boundaries and role clarity. These messages were reinforced in our workshop, where the value of timely assessment was highlighted, alongside challenges of funding and governance.ConclusionsThe role of paramedics is shifting into dedicated primary and community work, including care homes. It is imperative that research is aligned and informs evidence based practice. We are developing PERCH2, a feasibility study evaluating the impact of paramedics working in this way.

BackgroundDue to medical advances, the population of care homes is becoming increasingly frail, often with co-morbidities. Recent innovations have seen paramedics take on non-emergency roles within or supporting care homes. This workforce innovation requires urgent evaluation, taking account of the multiple perspectives at stake. Research is more relevant, feasible and accountable if those who commission, deliver and use healthcare services are able to input their professional and personal insights.MethodWe conducted a stakeholder event as part of research development work for paramedics working in care homes (PERCH: Preliminary Exploration of paramedic Roles in Care Homes). We invited representatives from care homes, including Enabling Research in Care Homes (ENRICH) network members, ambulance services, primary and secondary care, patient/resident and public members, and the research community. To inform discussion, we presented examples of paramedics working in care homes. We then facilitated small-group discussions about how to evaluate such innovations and recorded views on sticky notes and flipcharts.Results23 people attended the event. Clarity of roles and communication processes were considered important to implement the pilot project. Attendees agreed that research outcome measures should include changes in avoidable hospital admissions, emergency department attendances and 999 calls plus staff, patient and family satisfaction. They identified some potential benefits to ambulance services and general practice, such as time saved for other patients, but believed these could be difficult to measure.DiscussionGaining the insights of a wide range of stakeholders prior to research being designed is an important, but under-utilised approach in research development. People who deliver and receive community-based care have insight derived from personal and professional experience which complements research expertise. Research in care home settings is challenging, and insights from stakeholders were significant in the development of a research proposal about the role of paramedics in care homes (PERCH study). We submitted this to the Health and Care Research Wales Research for Public and Patient Benefit funding scheme in 2019.

BackgroundIn response to rising healthcare demand and shortages of general practitioners (GPs), policy across the UK supports paramedics joining the clinical team in primary care. Numbers of paramedics in primary care (PPC) are increasing in England and Wales through a range of local initiatives. As the first stage in the ARRIVE feasibility study evaluating PPC, we conducted preliminary qualitative research to:Understand the key components of the PPC intervention and its potential impactsIdentify sites with PPC and describe the range of existing interventionsDevelop a logic model to describe PPC.MethodsWe interviewed a total of 19 stakeholders from across Wales, including Health Board managers, GPs, practice managers and paramedics. Interviews were recorded and transcribed in full, then analysed thematically. We held a stakeholder event, bringing together 21 people involved in commissioning, planning and delivering PPC to discuss the key components of a logic model, including outcome measures for evaluation.ResultsWe developed a logic model describing how paramedics provide direct clinical contact with patients in a primary care setting. Potential positive impacts include better patient experience, reductions in emergency admissions through better proactive care, increased sustainability of primary care, and increased levels of clinical skills and satisfaction for paramedics. Components of the intervention which varied across sites included type of patient contact (home visit or surgery); approaches to patient selection and triage; employment model; training and induction; and clinical supervision and support from GPs.ImplicationsPPC is a rapidly developing area of provision in primary care, but there is great variation in the nature of models which have been implemented, and there is still uncertainty about the risks and benefits of PPC, and about how best to deliver it. Our logic model underpins the ARRIVE feasibility study, which will help to build the evidence base urgently needed on the PPC innovation.

BackgroundPolicy initiatives have incentivised use of EARP tools in primary care to reduce emergency admissions. A recently published trial in South Wales found that EARP increased emergency admissions and emergency department attendances without clear benefits. This cost the NHS an additional £76 per patient per year. But the use of EARP in primary care across the UK was unknown.AimTo assess implementation and facilitators use of EARP tools in primary care across the UK.MethodStructured email survey of 235 UK primary care commissioners across the UK.ResultsThere were 148 (87%) of 171 responders (73%) who reported that EARP tools were available in their areas. We identified 39 different EARP tools in use. Access to EARP tools varied widely by country: Northern Ireland (100%), Scotland (91%), England (76%) and Wales (14%). Promotion by NHS commissioners, and engagement of clinical leaders and practice managers were identified as the most important factors in encouraging use of EARP tools. Research evidence was seen as less important. Nearly 40% of areas using EARP reported that they had revised services as a result, but few reported use of EARP for service evaluation.ConclusionThough EARP tools are widely available in primary care, new evidence shows that they are counter-productive. We estimate that by delaying the dissemination of EARP for evaluation NHS Wales saved >£200 million per year. We encourage further research and discussion about next steps in use of EARP tools in emergency admission prevention in the UK.

BackgroundWith a higher proportion of older people in the UK population, new approaches are needed to reduce emergency hospital admissions, thereby shifting care delivery out of hospital when possible and safe.Study aimTo evaluate the introduction of predictive risk stratification in primary care.ObjectivesTo (1) measure the effects on service usage, particularly emergency admissions to hospital; (2) assess the effects of the Predictive RIsk Stratification Model (PRISM) on quality of life and satisfaction; (3) assess the technical performance of PRISM; (4) estimate the costs of PRISM implementation and its effects; and (5) describe the processes of change associated with PRISM.DesignRandomised stepped-wedge trial with economic and qualitative components.SettingAbertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board, south Wales.ParticipantsPatients registered with 32 participating general practices.InterventionPRISM software, which stratifies patients into four (emergency admission) risk groups; practice-based training; and clinical support.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcome – emergency hospital admissions. Secondary outcomes – emergency department (ED) and outpatient attendances, general practitioner (GP) activity, time in hospital, quality of life, satisfaction and costs.Data sourcesRoutine anonymised linked health service use data, self-completed questionnaires and staff focus groups and interviews.ResultsAcross 230,099 participants, PRISM implementation led to increased emergency admissions to hospital [ΔL = 0.011, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.010 to 0.013], ED attendances (ΔL = 0.030, 95% CI 0.028 to 0.032), GP event-days (ΔL = 0.011, 95% CI 0.007 to 0.014), outpatient visits (ΔL = 0.055, 95% CI 0.051 to 0.058) and time spent in hospital (ΔL = 0.029, 95% CI 0.026 to 0.031). Quality-of-life scores related to mental health were similar between phases (Δ = –0.720, 95% CI –1.469 to 0.030); physical health scores improved in the intervention phase (Δ = 1.465, 95% CI 0.774 to 2.157); and satisfaction levels were lower (Δ = –0.074, 95% CI – 0.133 to –0.015). PRISM implementation cost £0.12 per patient per year and costs of health-care use per patient were higher in the intervention phase (Δ = £76, 95% CI £46 to £106). There was no evidence of any significant difference in deaths between phases (9.58 per 1000 patients per year in the control phase and 9.25 per 1000 patients per year in the intervention phase). PRISM showed good general technical performance, comparable with existing risk prediction tools (c-statistic of 0.749). Qualitative data showed low use by GPs and practice staff, although they all reported using PRISM to generate lists of patients to target for prioritised care to meet Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) targets.LimitationsIn Wales during the study period, QOF targets were introduced into general practice to encourage targeting care to those at highest risk of emergency admission to hospital. Within this dynamic context, we therefore evaluated the combined effects of PRISM and this contemporaneous policy initiative.ConclusionsIntroduction of PRISM increased emergency episodes, hospitalisation and costs across, and within, risk levels without clear evidence of benefits to patients.Future research(1) Evaluation of targeting of different services to different levels of risk; (2) investigation of effects on vulnerable populations and health inequalities; (3) secondary analysis of the Predictive Risk Stratification: A Trial in Chronic Conditions Management data set by health condition type; and (4) acceptability of predictive risk stratification to patients and practitioners.Trial and study registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN55538212 and PROSPERO CRD42015016874.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services Delivery and Research programme.

Objectives To present an efficient privacy-protecting model (PRIDAL) for linking routine and identifiable patient-reported research data. To describe the application of the PRIDAL model with within a major portfolio trial linking a range of health and demographic datasets pertaining to >230,000 patients, alongside >2,300 questionnaires. To summarise the lessons learned from the application of the PRIDAL model. ApproachThe rise in availability, quality and use of routine health data has resulted in well-developed methods for anonymised linkage of data from multiple sources. However methods for combining identifiable data (e.g. patient-reported questionnaires) with routine anonymised data are not yet tried and tested. Linking these data presents opportunities to improve the feasibility and effectiveness of observational and experimental studies, but emerging data linkage processes must address the appropriate balance between data security and usability. The Process for Routine and Identifiable Data Linkage (PRIDAL) was devised to efficiently link routine hospital data and patient-reported quality of life and quality of care questionnaire data as part of the PRISMATIC trial (http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/14/1/301). This is a mixed methods progressive cluster randomised trial of the efficacy of an emergency admission risk prediction tool in primary care, funded by the NIHR HS&DR programme. PRIDAL was conceived by a group of specialists in e-trials, health informatics, information governance and process mapping who reviewed data sources, flows, owners, and security to develop a practical and intuitive process model. ResultsWe will present the PRIDAL process model and describe its application in relation to the PRISMATIC study. We will demonstrate that the model achieves high data matching rates (>99%), and consider the lessons learnt from its application. ConclusionsThe linking of routine health and patient self-reported data presents a valuable opportunity in health research, but clear, replicable models, are needed to support ethical and practical data linkage. We present the fully tested PRIDAL model as a potential solution.

This workshop explores different ways to use technology to facilitate hunting behaviour enrichment for zoo-housed animals and parallel gaming experiences for zoo visitors.

BackgroundIn response to rising demand for health care and limited availability of GPs, paramedics are increasingly working in general practices, most commonly to carry out home visits. UK policy supports this change which involves role substitution across professional groups and sectors of care. In Wales, schemes have recently been introduced with various configuration, employment and governance arrangements, but we do not know the risks and benefits of Paramedics working in Primary Care (PPC), or which model works best. As well as effects at individual patient level (safety, acceptability, and quality of care), this interface-crossing innovation may have an impact on service and workforce issues including efficiency, costs, professional role development, emergency ambulance availability and 999 response. There is an urgent need to better understand the PPC innovation. We aim to describe the evidence base, theoretical underpinning and current initiatives; and determine the feasibility of undertaking a definitive evaluation of PPC in order to produce generalisable evidence to inform policy and practice.MethodA survey of Welsh Health boards has been undertaken to identify sites and stakeholders to take part in qualitative interviews. We will conduct a feasibility study using a controlled before and after natural experiment design with three GP practice sites: one with a directly-employed paramedic; one with a Welsh Ambulance Service-employed paramedic; and a control site. We will collect the following outcomes:Number of home visits requestedHome visit outcomes – the proportion resolved; further home visit required; emergency admission; 999 call placedPrescribing patternsSubsequent health care contactsPatient satisfactionSerious Adverse EventsCost profileConclusionWe will submit an application for a fully powered application to NIHR HS&DR if indicated by our progression criteria.ResultsWelsh Health board survey and qualitative findings will be available at the time of the conference.

BackgroundNumbers of asylum seekers and refugees living in Wales have increased sharply. Many are liable to have unmet health needs and difficulty accessing services. We investigated the experience of, and access to, unplanned and emergency health services by asylum seekers, refugees and those refused asylum living in Wales.MethodWe surveyed 210 asylum seekers, refused asylum seekers and refugees and conducted eight focus groups with 57 participants (with interpreters present when necessary) to explore experiences. We used descriptive statistics to analyse survey data and framework analyses to analyse interview data.ResultsSurvey data showed awareness of unscheduled health services was mixed. Best known was the 999 ambulance service (72% reportedly had heard of and could contact this outside daytime hours). NHS111 was familiar to 36% but just a quarter (26%) had heard of and could contact GP out-of-hours services. Fewer than half of respondents (44%) knew of the Emergency Department. 26% reported using a health service out-of-hours. Focus group respondents with little English reported difficulty explaining their health needs, particularly in emergencies and when seeking telephone help through 999 and 111 calls. Others said they used emergency services if they did not know how to access routine and out-of-hours care or if they felt their efforts to see a GP did not resolve their problem.ConclusionLanguage barriers and poor knowledge of UK health systems mean asylum seekers, refused asylum seekers and refugees use emergency health services to meet needs which could be seen and treated in routine primary services. Language barriers using phone lines may also result in paramedic attendance or conveyance to Emergency Departments because health needs are not clearly identified. Better information and support may help this population access services which match their needs and support their health more effectively.

Studies on a large variety of species have shown that enrichment can be successfully used to encourage natural behaviours, to decrease rates of abnormal behaviour and to improve welfare in captive animals. However, whether or not a specific enrichment device is enriching depends on the species and its circumstances in captivity. In this study, we investigate the effect of three different enrichment devices (a novel object, an olfactory and a food-based enrichment) on the behaviours of four groups of captive zoo-housed Javan gibbons ( Hylobates moloch ). This species is endangered in the wild, and captive populations form an important resource in ongoing conservation efforts. We investigated how three different enrichment devices affect gibbon activity budgets and stress related behaviours. We further assessed to what extent gibbons habituated to these devices over two periods of five consecutive exposure days. We found that gibbons engaged on average 0.08 times per minute with the foraging device, 0.03 times per minute with the novel object and 0.02 times per minute with the olfactory enrichment. All three enrichment devices were found to significantly increase the frequency of foraging behaviours, while the novel object and the foraging box were also found to increase rates of singing behaviour. No change in the already low rates of stress-related behaviours was found following exposure to enrichment devices and habituation to the devices was generally absent. We conclude, that all three enrichment devices offer a species-appropriate, practical and inexpensive form of environmental enrichment for captive Javan gibbons, which may enhance the wellbeing of captive groups.

The use of music as enrichment hasrarely been explored in zoos, despite evidence that music has a positive effect on a range of laboratoryhousedanimals.Inthisstudyofmolochgibbons,Hylobatesmoloch,atHowlettsWildAnimalPark(Kent,England), instrumental classical music was played to eight individuals in two family groups. Music was played 7hr a day during three of six study weeks for each group, alternating with control weeks in which no music was played. In focal watches, data were recorded on a measure of activity, brachiation, and on two rates of affiliative behavior, giving and receiving grooming. In addition, to assess potential impacts on emotional state, data were recorded on self‐scratching and self‐grooming, two widely used indices of anxiety or stress. Analyses were carried out for each individual separately, as previous studies of primates indicate animals may differ in their response to enrichment. Results revealed little evidence for effects of music on gibbons’ behavior. During the music compared to control weeks, the adult male from one group showed higher rates of self‐scratching and higher durations of both self‐grooming and grooming others. The adult female from the same group was groomed more duringthemusicweeksthancontrolweeks.Forthesixotheranimals,nosignificantdifferencesinbehaviorswereseenbetween music and control conditions. Our findings suggest music may not be an effective enrichment for captive gibbons, and further highlight the importance of considering individual differences when assessing the effects of potential enrichment. Zoo Biol. XX:XX–XX, 2013. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals Inc.

Background. Achieving knowledge translation in healthcare is growing in importance but methods to capture impact of research are not well developed. We present an attempt to capture impact of a programme of research in prehospital emergency care, aiming to inform the development of EMS models of care that avoid, when appropriate, conveyance of patients to hospital for immediate care.Methods. We describe the programme and its dissemination, present examples of its influence on policy and practice, internationally, and analyse routine UK statistics to determine whether conveyance practice has changed.Results. The programme comprises eight research studies, to a value of >£4 m. Findings have been disseminated through 18 published papers, cited 274 times in academic journals. We describe examples of how evidence has been put into practice, including new models of care in Canada and Australia. Routine statistics in England show that, alongside rising demand, conveyance rates have fallen from 90% to 58% over a 12-year period, 2,721 million fewer journeys, with publication of key studies 2003–2008.Comment. We have set out the rationale, key features, and impact on practice of a programme of publicly funded research. We describe evidence of knowledge translation, whilst recognising limitations in methods for capturing impact.

Introduction Emergency admission risk prediction models are increasingly used to identify patients, typically with one or more chronic conditions, for proactive management in primary care to avoid admissions, save costs and improve patient experience. Aim To identify and review the published evidence on the costs, effects and implementation of emergency admission risk prediction models in primary care for patients with, or at risk of, chronic conditions. Methods We shall search for studies of healthcare interventions using routine data-generated emergency admission risk models. We shall report: the effects on emergency admissions and health costs; clinician and patient views; and implementation findings. We shall search ASSIA, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, HMIC, ISI Web of Science, MEDLINE and Scopus from 2005, review references in and citations of included articles, search key journals and contact experts. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment will be performed by two independent reviewers. Ethics and dissemination No ethical permissions are required for this study using published data. Findings will be disseminated widely, including publication in a peer-reviewed journal and through conferences in primary and emergency care and chronic conditions. We judge our results will help a wide audience including primary care practitioners and commissioners, and policymakers. Trial registration number CRD42015016874; Pre-results.

Background Rising demand for health care has prompted interest in new technologies to support a shift of care from hospital to community and primary care, which may require clinicians to undertake new working practices. A predictive risk stratification tool (Prism) was developed for use in primary care to estimate patients’ risk of an emergency hospital admission. As part of an evaluation of Prism, we aimed to understand what might be needed to bring Prism into effective use by exploring clinicians and practice managers’ attitudes and expectations about using it. We were informed by Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) which examines the work needed to bring an innovation into use. Methods We conducted 4 focus groups and 10 interviews with a total of 43 primary care doctors and colleagues from 32 general practices. All were recorded and transcribed. Analysis focussed in particular on the construct of ‘coherence’ within NPT, which examines how people understand an innovation and its purpose. Results Respondents were in agreement that Prism was a technological formalisation of existing practice, and that it would function as a support to clinical judgment, rather than replacing it. There was broad consensus about the role it might have in delivering new models of care based on active management, but there were doubts about the scope for making a difference to some patients and about whether Prism could identify at-risk patients not already known to the clinical team. Respondents did not expect using the tool to be onerous, but were concerned about the work which might follow in delivering care. Any potential value would not be of the tool in isolation, but would depend on the availability of support services. Conclusions Policy imperatives and the pressure of rising demand meant respondents were open to trying out Prism, despite underlying uncertainty about what difference it could make. Trial registration Controlled Clinical Trials no. ISRCTN55538212.

INTRODUCTION:A predictive risk stratification tool (PRISM) to estimate a patient's risk of an emergency hospital admission in the following year was trialled in general practice in an area of the United Kingdom. PRISM's introduction coincided with a new incentive payment (‘QOF’) in the regional contract for family doctors to identify and manage the care of people at high risk of emergency hospital admission.METHODS:Alongside the trial, we carried out a complementary qualitative study of processes of change associated with PRISM's implementation. We aimed to describe how PRISM was understood, communicated, adopted, and used by practitioners, managers, local commissioners and policy makers. We gathered data through focus groups, interviews and questionnaires at three time points (baseline, mid-trial and end-trial). We analyzed data thematically, informed by Normalisation Process Theory (1).RESULTS:All groups showed high awareness of PRISM, but raised concerns about whether it could identify patients not yet known, and about whether there were sufficient community-based services to respond to care needs identified. All practices reported using PRISM to fulfil their QOF targets, but after the QOF reporting period ended, only two practices continued to use it. Family doctors said PRISM changed their awareness of patients and focused them on targeting the highest-risk patients, though they were uncertain about the potential for positive impact on this group.CONCLUSIONS:Though external factors supported its uptake in the short term, with a focus on the highest risk patients, PRISM did not become a sustained part of normal practice for primary care practitioners.

INTRODUCTION:Emergency admissions to hospital are a major financial burden on health services. In one area of the United Kingdom (UK), we evaluated a predictive risk stratification tool (PRISM) designed to support primary care practitioners to identify and manage patients at high risk of admission. We assessed the costs of implementing PRISM and its impact on health services costs. At the same time as the study, but independent of it, an incentive payment (‘QOF’) was introduced to encourage primary care practitioners to identify high risk patients and manage their care.METHODS:We conducted a randomized stepped wedge trial in thirty-two practices, with cluster-defined control and intervention phases, and participant-level anonymized linked outcomes. We analysed routine linked data on patient outcomes for 18 months (February 2013 – September 2014). We assigned standard unit costs in pound sterling to the resources utilized by each patient. Cost differences between the two study phases were used in conjunction with differences in the primary outcome (emergency admissions) to undertake a cost-effectiveness analysis.RESULTS:We included outcomes for 230,099 registered patients. We estimated a PRISM implementation cost of GBP0.12 per patient per year.Costs of emergency department attendances, outpatient visits, emergency and elective admissions to hospital, and general practice activity were higher per patient per year in the intervention phase than control phase (adjusted δ = GBP76, 95 percent Confidence Interval, CI GBP46, GBP106), an effect that was consistent and generally increased with risk level.CONCLUSIONS:Despite low reported use of PRISM, it was associated with increased healthcare expenditure. This effect was unexpected and in the opposite direction to that intended. We cannot disentangle the effects of introducing the PRISM tool from those of imposing the QOF targets; however, since across the UK predictive risk stratification tools for emergency admissions have been introduced alongside incentives to focus on patients at risk, we believe that our findings are generalizable.

INTRODUCTION:New approaches are needed to safely reduce emergency admissions to hospital by targeting interventions effectively in primary care. A predictive risk stratification tool (PRISM) identifies each registered patient's risk of an emergency admission in the following year, allowing practitioners to identify and manage those at higher risk. We evaluated the introduction of PRISM in primary care in one area of the United Kingdom, assessing its impact on emergency admissions and other service use.METHODS:We conducted a randomized stepped wedge trial with cluster-defined control and intervention phases, and participant-level anonymized linked outcomes. PRISM was implemented in eleven primary care practice clusters (total thirty-two practices) over a year from March 2013. We analyzed routine linked data outcomes for 18 months.RESULTS:We included outcomes for 230,099 registered patients, assigned to ranked risk groups.Overall, the rate of emergency admissions was higher in the intervention phase than in the control phase: adjusted difference in number of emergency admissions per participant per year at risk, delta = .011 (95 percent Confidence Interval, CI .010, .013). Patients in the intervention phase spent more days in hospital per year: adjusted delta = .029 (95 percent CI .026, .031). Both effects were consistent across risk groups.Primary care activity increased in the intervention phase overall delta = .011 (95 percent CI .007, .014), except for the two highest risk groups which showed a decrease in the number of days with recorded activity.CONCLUSIONS:Introduction of a predictive risk model in primary care was associated with increased emergency episodes across the general practice population and at each risk level, in contrast to the intended purpose of the model. Future evaluation work could assess the impact of targeting of different services to patients across different levels of risk, rather than the current policy focus on those at highest risk.

The use of music as enrichment has rarely been explored in zoos, despite evidence that music has a positive effect on a range of laboratory housed animals. In this study of moloch gibbons, Hylobates moloch, at Howletts Wild Animal Park (Kent, England), instrumental classical music was played to eight individuals in two family groups. Music was played 7 hr a day during three of six study weeks for each group, alternating with control weeks in which no music was played. In focal watches, data were recorded on a measure of activity, brachiation, and on two rates of affiliative behavior, giving and receiving grooming. In addition, to assess potential impacts on emotional state, data were recorded on self-scratching and self-grooming, two widely used indices of anxiety or stress. Analyses were carried out for each individual separately, as previous studies of primates indicate animals may differ in their response to enrichment. Results revealed little evidence for effects of music on gibbons' behavior. During the music compared to control weeks, the adult male from one group showed higher rates of self-scratching and higher durations of both self-grooming and grooming others. The adult female from the same group was groomed more during the music weeks than control weeks. For the six other animals, no significant differences in behaviors were seen between music and control conditions. Our findings suggest music may not be an effective enrichment for captive gibbons, and further highlight the importance of considering individual differences when assessing the effects of potential enrichment.

Single-source marine acquisition is considered superior from a geophysical point of view to dual-source marine acquisition. The main benefits of single-source acquisition are related to a better wavefield sampling and higher fold in the CMP domain. The marine processing sequence, based on CMP staking followed by zero-offset poststack migration, could produce superior results if the seismic data were acquired with a single source. At this time, seismic data is exclusively processed with full prestack time or prestack depth migration and 3D SRME is becoming part of the regular processing sequence. In this paper, we introduce the concept of prestack migration fold – PSMF and we show how this could affect the marine survey design.