Search

Objective: To conduct a systematic review of the evidence for when a hospital admission for an older person can be avoided in subacute settings. We examined the definition of admission avoidance and the evidence for the factors that are required to avoid admission to hospital in this setting. Methods: Using defined PICOD criteria, we conducted searches in three databases (Medline, Embase and Cinahl) from January 2006 to February 2018. References were screened by title and abstract followed by full paper screening by two reviewers. Additional studies were searched from the grey literature, experts in the field and forward and backward referencing. Data were narratively described, and concept analysis was used to investigate the definition of admission avoidance. Results: A total of 17 studies were considered eligible for review; eight provided a definition of admission avoidance and 10 described admission avoidance criteria. We identified three factors which play a key role in admission avoidance in the subacute setting: (1) ambulatory care sensitive conditions and common medical scenarios for the older person, which included respiratory infections or pneumonia, urinary tract infections and catheter care, dehydration and associated symptoms, falls and behavioural management, and managing ongoing chronic conditions; (2) criteria/tools, referring to interventions that have used clinical expertise in conjunction with a range of general and geriatric triage tools; in condition-specific interventions, the decision whether to admit or not was based on level of risk determined by defined clinical tools; and (3) personnel and resources, referring to the need for experts to make the initial decision to avoid an admission. Supervision by nurses or physicians was still needed at subacute level, requiring resources such as short-stay beds, intravenous antibiotic treatment or fluids for rehydration and rapid access to laboratory tests. Conclusion: The review identified a set of criteria for ambulatory care sensitive conditions and common medical scenarios for the older person that can be treated in the subacute setting with appropriate tools and resources. This information can help commissioners and care providers to take on these important elements and deliver them in a locally designed way. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: While the presence of publication bias in clinical research is well documented, little is known about its role in the reporting of health services research. This paper explores stakeholder perceptions and experiences with regard to the role of publication and related biases in quantitative research relating to the quality, accessibility and organization of health services. Methods: We present findings from semi-structured interviews with those responsible for the funding, publishing and/or conduct of quantitative health services research, primarily in the UK. Additional data collection includes interviews with health care decision makers as 'end users' of health services research, and a focus group with patient and service user representatives. The final sample comprised 24 interviews and eight focus group participants. Results: Many study participants felt unable to say with any degree of certainty whether publication bias represents a significant problem in quantitative health services research. Participants drew broad contrasts between externally funded and peer reviewed research on the one hand, and end user funded quality improvement projects on the other, with the latter perceived as more vulnerable to selective publication and author over-claiming. Multiple study objectives, and a general acceptance of 'mess and noise' in the data and its interpretation was seen to reduce the importance attached to replicable estimates of effect sizes in health services research. The relative absence of external scrutiny, either from manufacturers of interventions or health system decision makers, added to this general sense of 'low stakes' of health services research. As a result, while many participants advocated study pre-registration and using protocols to pre-identify outcomes, others saw this as an unwarranted imposition. Conclusions: This study finds that incentives towards publication and related bias are likely to be present, but not to the same degree as in clinical research. In health services research, these were seen as being offset by other forms of 'novelty' bias in the reporting and publishing of research findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The paper reports on an empirical study of Health and Wellbeing Boards (HWBs) in England. Established by the Health and Social Care Act 2012, HWBs act as place-based hubs for leaders in health, social care, local government and other sectors to come together to address health improvement and the wider determinants of health. Methods: We conducted a three-year study of HWBs (2015–2017) in five localities across England. This involved collecting qualitative data from semi-structured interviews with key actors in the HWBs at strategic and operational levels, and focus group sessions with voluntary-sector participants at each HWB. Results: HWBs have largely followed the path of previous partnerships in terms of a lack of clear aims and objectives, lack of ownership and accountability by partners, and an absence of any significant impact on health outcomes. Conclusions: Many of the features of unsuccessful partnership working were largely displayed by HWBs. Boards require more executive power and ownership from the bottom up if they are to have any real impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: People with cirrhosis are encouraged to participate in shared decision-making with their doctors, but studies suggest that doctors limit the amount of information that is shared. In this study we explore the presence of medical power in clinical encounters in 2015 from a patient perspective and highlight its effects on healthcare interactions. Methods: Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with ten people with cirrhosis attending a tertiary liver transplant centre in southern England. We explored their understanding of their disease and prognosis, and their participation in decision-making. Using the lens of medical power as a framework, we analysed findings into thematic sentences to summarise key ideas whilst preserving the complexity of identified concepts. Results: Three key concepts explained patient perspectives of their communication with doctors: (1) portraying a positive image to doctors, (2) avoiding confrontation with doctors, (3) feeling powerless in the face of doctors' medical knowledge. These concepts show deeper dynamic issues of power during healthcare encounters, illustrated by participants' reluctance to voice their concerns and express themselves, challenge decisions, or seek information. Conclusion: People with cirrhosis struggle to articulate their concerns or challenge decisions on their care and treatment and may worry about potential consequences. Our findings demonstrate the continuing persistence of issues of power at play in contemporary health care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study on the organizational factors affecting the quality of handover in the emergency care pathway and provides a qualitative account of how practitioners try to align their various personal and organizational priorities and backgrounds when handing over patients through care boundaries. Topics discussed include a qualitative account on how organizational priorities like the management of patient flows can affect the quality of handover in emergency care.

The article presents a study which assessed the cost-effectiveness of conducting a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of medical screening for glaucoma within the framework of the National Health Service (NHS) in Great Britain. The researchers revised the Glaucoma Screening Model, conducted sensitivity analyses and calculated quality adjusted life years (QALY). The test paradigms for glaucoma were either optic nerve photography (ONP) or screening mode perimetry.

Objectives: To identify how decision-makers in the NHS perceive and manage interventional procedures guidance and to determine whether additional information would be useful. Methods: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with seven providers, six commissioners and one policy-maker. The framework approach was used to analyse transcribed data, and emergent themes coded. Data were analysed separately for providers and commissioner organizations. Results: Perceptions about how guidance is managed in provider organizations varied. Some decision-makers considered that guidance is handled very well whereas others think it is suboptimal and haphazard. It is unclear whether clinicians follow procedure for cautionary guidance. In commissioner organizations, guidance is not seen as a priority by most and is not considered an area that will soon enter routine clinical practice. Moreover, commissioners felt that guidance lacked relevance as there is no consideration of whether procedures are cost-effective or affordable. Despite this, respondents perceived that the content and quality of guidance is satisfactory. Useful additional information for inclusion in guidance would be: prevalence, incidence, cost, patients' views, consequences of using the new intervention, comparative information, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Conclusions: Management of interventional procedures guidance in the NHS can be improved. It is important to understand the ways in which guidance meets and fails to meet decision-makers' needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]