Search

Abstract Background The National Health Service (NHS) and general practice are increasingly adopting digital services. These services can impact both positively and negatively upon patient experiences, and access to digital services is not equal amongst all groups. Within a wider project examining digital facilitation (the Di-Facto study) our team conducted a patient survey amongst English primary care practices aiming to investigate patient views of what supports uptake and use of web-based services. This paper reports on the analysis of the free-text responses from the patient survey. Methods The Di-Facto patient survey was distributed to practices in eight clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) in England between 2021–2022. We examined free-text responses to two questions relating to access to primary care web-based and support for web-based services. We used qualitative reflexive thematic analysis based on a six-stage process to analyse responses. Results Of the 3051 patients who responded to the Di-Facto survey, 2246 provided a free-text response. We present our findings in two major themes: systems and structures and their impact on use of web-based services, and ‘what works for me’, a description of how respondents described what worked, or did not work in terms of their interactions with web-based services. Respondents described how the technology, such as poor practice website design, confusion over multiple digital apps, data security and concerns about eConsultation offerings impacted on use of web-based services. Respondents described practice level barriers, such as a lack of or inconsistent provision, which prevented optimal use of web-based services. Respondents described personal and technical barriers that impacted on their use of digital services, and described which web-based services worked well for them. Respondents felt that web-based services were not a replacement for face-to-face interactions with a doctor. Conclusions This analysis of free-text responses from a large patient survey highlights the system, practice, and person level barriers and facilitators to use of digital services in primary care. With an increasing push towards digital solutions in NHS primary care, practices should consider the design, rollout and communication of their web-based services to support patient access.

Abstract Background The HemiSPAIRE trial is being conducted to determine whether a modified muscle sparing technique (SPAIRE-“Save Piriformis and Internus, Repairing Externus”) in hip hemiarthroplasty brings clinical benefits compared to the standard lateral technique in adults aged 60 years or older, with a displaced intracapsular hip fracture. This article describes the detailed statistical analysis plan for the trial. Methods and design HemiSPAIRE is a definitive, pragmatic, superiority, multicentre, randomised controlled trial (with internal pilot) with two parallel groups. Participants, ward staff and all research staff involved in post-operative assessments are blinded to allocation. This article describes in detail (1) the primary and secondary outcomes; (2) the statistical analysis principles, including a survivor average causal effect (SACE) method chosen specifically to address the issue of potential bias from differential survival between trial arms, which was seen from data review by the Trial Steering Committee, the participants that will be included in each analysis, the covariates that will be included in each analysis, and how the results will be presented; (3) planned main analysis of the primary outcome; (4) planned analyses of the secondary outcomes; and (5) planned additional analyses of the primary and secondary outcomes. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04095611. Registered on 19 September 2019.

Abstract Background Older people with multimorbidity often experience polypharmacy. Taking multiple medicines can be beneficial; however, some older adults are prescribed multiple medicines when they are unlikely to improve clinical outcomes and may lead to harm. Deprescribing means reducing or stopping prescription medicines which may no longer be providing benefit. While appropriate deprescribing may usually be safely undertaken, there is a lack of guidance about how to implement it in practice settings such as care homes. Implementing deprescribing in care homes is often challenging, due to differing concerns of residents, staff, clinicians, friends/family members and carers along with differences in care home structures. The STOPPING study will support the development of better deprescribing practice in care homes, considering different views and environments. This paper aims to introduce the research protocol. Methods We will use qualitative approaches informed by the widely accepted Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to aid analysis. To understand the barriers, facilitators, and contextual factors influencing deprescribing in care homes, we will employ individual interviews with care home residents and family members, focus groups with care home staff and healthcare professionals, and observations from care homes. Then, we will examine acceptability, feasibility, and suitability of existing deprescribing approaches using cognitive interviews with care home staff and healthcare professionals. Lastly, we will use narrative synthesis to integrate findings and develop guidance for implementing a deprescribing approach for care homes. Discussion This research will support the development of implementable approaches to deprescribing in care homes. The insights from this project will be shared with various stakeholders: care home residents, staff, pharmacists, general practitioners, nurses, and other health professionals, carers, researchers, and the public. This work will support deprescribing to be implemented effectively in care homes to benefit residents and the wider health economy.

Abstract For patients and the public to work collaboratively with researchers, they need support and opportunities to engage in learning that builds on their skills and grows their confidence. In this article, we argue for a different approach to this learning, which starts with the expertise patients/ the public arrive with, and helps them identify and develop the soft skills required to influence researchers effectively. Much of the current training for patients and the public focuses on addressing the gaps in their knowledge and awareness about how research works and how public involvement adds value. Our training complements this by exploring the concept of ‘experiential knowledge’ in more depth. Patients and the public possess experiential knowledge (knowledge gained through lived experience) that researchers may not have. In the training we explore the nature of this expertise and other skills that patients/ the public bring, as well as how to identify who has the most relevant experiential knowledge in any given situation, and how best to share experiential knowledge to benefit researchers and maximise the impact of involvement. We co-produced this training with a patient member of the project team, and through feedback from patients and carers in an initial pilot. Our approach adds another dimension to preparing people for involvement and in particular for taking part in conversations with researchers that support mutual learning. We suggest this approach should be supported by separate, mirror training for researchers, that also develops their soft skills in preparation for learning from involvement.