Search

Rationale, aims and objective: Substituting outpatient hospital care with primary care is seen as a solution to decrease unnecessary referrals to outpatient hospital care and decrease rising healthcare costs. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effects on quality of care, health and costs outcomes of substituting outpatient hospital care with primary care-based interventions, which are performed by medical specialists in face-to-face consultations in a primary care setting. Method: The systematic review was performed using the PICO framework. Original papers in which the premise of the intervention was to substitute outpatient hospital care with primary care through the involvement of a medical specialist in a primary care setting were eligible. Results: A total of 14 papers were included. A substitution intervention in general practitioner (GP) practices was described in 11 papers, three described a joint consultation intervention in which GPs see patients together with a medical specialist. This study showed that substitution initiatives result mostly in favourable outcomes compared to outpatient hospital care. The initiatives resulted mostly in shorter waiting lists, shorter clinic waiting times and higher patient satisfaction. Costs for treating one extra patient seemed to be higher in the intervention settings. This was mainly caused by inefficient planning of consultation hours and lower patient numbers. Conclusions: Despite the fact that internationally a lot has been written about the importance of performing substitution interventions in which preventing unnecessary referrals to outpatient hospital care was the aim, only 14 papers were included. Future systematic reviews should focus on the effects on the Triple Aim of substitution initiatives in which other healthcare professions than medical specialists are involved along with new technologies, such as e-consults. Additionally, to gain more insight into the effects of substitution initiatives operating in a dynamic healthcare context, it is important to keep evaluating the interventions in a longitudinal study design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Non-medical prescribing was introduced into the United Kingdom (UK) to improve patient care, through extending healthcare professionals’ roles. More recent government health service policy focuses on the increased demand and the need for efficiency. This systematic policy review aimed to describe any changes in government policy position and the role that non-medical prescribing plays in healthcare provision. Method: The systematic policy review included policy and consultation documents that describe independent non-medical prescribing. A pre-defined protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42015019786). Professional body websites, other relevant websites and the following databases were searched to identify relevant documents: HMIC, Lexis Nexis, UK Government Web Archive, UKOP, UK Parliamentary Papers and Web of Science. Documents published between 2006 and February 2018 were included. Results and discussion: Following exclusions, 45 documents were selected for review; 23 relating to policy or strategy and 22 to consultations. Of the former, 13/23 were published 2006–2010 and the remainder since 2013. Two main themes were identified: chronological aspects and healthcare provision. In the former, a publication gap for policy documents resulted from a change in government and associated major healthcare service reorganisation. In the later, the role of non-medical prescribing was found to have evolved to support efficient service delivery, and cost reduction. For many professions, prescribing appears embedded into practice; however, the pharmacy profession continues to produce policy documents, suggesting that prescribing is not yet perceived as normal practice. Conclusion: Prescribing appears to be more easily adopted into practice where it can form part of the overall care of the patient. Where new roles are required to be established, then prescribing takes longer to be universally adopted. While this review concerns policy and practice in the UK, the aspect of role adoption has wider potential implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is a requirement for UK health and social care research funding. Evidence for how best to implement PPI in research programmes, such as National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaborations for Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs), remains limited. This paper reports findings from an action research (AR) project called IMPRESS, which aims to strengthen PPI within CLAHRC East of England (EoE). IMPRESS combines AR with Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) to explore PPI within diverse case study projects, identifying actions to implement, test and refine to further embed PPI. Methods: We purposively selected CLAHRC EoE case study projects for in-depth analysis of PPI using NPT. Data were generated from project PPI documentation, semi-structured qualitative interviews with researchers and PPI contributors and focus groups. Transcripts and documents were subjected to abductive thematic analysis and triangulation within case. Systematic across case comparison of themes was undertaken with findings and implications refined through stakeholder consultation. Results: We interviewed 24 researchers and 13 PPI contributors and analysed 28 documents from 10 case studies. Three focus groups were held: two with researchers (n = 4 and n = 6) and one with PPI contributors (n = 5). Findings detail to what extent projects made sense of PPI, bought in to PPI, operationalised PPI and appraised it, thus identifying barriers and enablers to fully embedded PPI. Conclusion: Combining NPT with AR allows us to assess the embeddedness of PPI within projects and programme, to inform specific local action and report broader conceptual lessons for PPI knowledge and practice informing the development of an action framework for embedding PPI in research programmes. To embed PPI within similar programmes teams, professionals, disciplines and institutions should be recognised as variably networked into existing PPI support. Further focus and research is needed on sharing PPI learning and supporting innovation in PPI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]