Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
1.
Health & Social Care in the Community ; 2023, 2023.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-20238765

ABSTRACT

Digital technology is expected to improve care and address significant service pressures within the National Health Service and social care though evidence on how their implementation might be optimised is lacking. This study explores how one such example, home-based sensors with artificial intelligence capabilities, was implemented in English social care to identify changes in behaviour that indicate the onset of potentially more serious issues. Its focus was staff perspectives on decision-making processes and implementation, to inform recommendations for others exploring the potential of new and emerging technology. Qualitative data were collected from 18 semistructured interviews conducted across three sites delivering social care, with senior decision makers, operational leads, and care staff. We identified several issues with the selection process and implementation of AI-based technology in social care, including a lack of consensus around what success would look like, problems identifying and evaluating alternatives, and technical challenges to implementation, as well as obstacles to developing a longer-term, more preventative approach in a system experienced as focused on responding to acute needs. Ultimately, the research confirmed a number of recognised implementation challenges associated with training, resource, and acceptability to staff and patients. It added particular insights around the anxieties experienced by frontline staff and the cultural shift required of preventative interventions in a system geared to meeting acute crises. That many barriers are familiar suggests a particular need to focus on helping policymakers/local leaders avoid similar pitfalls in the future.

2.
National Institute for Health and Care Research, Southampton (UK) ; 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-2169790

ABSTRACT

BackgroundPrimary care networks are groups of general practices brought together in July 2019 to hold shared budgets and develop new services in response to NHS England (now NHS England and Improvement) policy. This study examined the early implementation of primary care networks, especially what has helped or hindered progress, how they operate in relation to pre-existing collaborations and issues for rural networks.ObjectiveTo produce early evidence about the development of primary care networks to inform policy for their future development. Our research questions were to investigate (1) the contextual background of primary care networks;(2) the rationale for general practices to enter into collaborations;(3) the early learning from establishing primary care networks;(4) barriers to and facilitators of effective collaboration across general practices;and (5) the likely future progress of primary care networks in the English NHS, including in the light of COVID-19.DesignA qualitative cross-comparative case study evaluation comprised four work packages: (1) a rapid evidence assessment;(2) a workshop with academics, policy experts and patient/public representatives;(3) interviews with stakeholders, observations of meetings, a survey and documentary analysis across four case study sites;and (4) analysis and synthesis of findings to develop recommendations for the next stage of the development of primary care networks.ResultsPrimary care networks have been implemented in a timely manner and have established a range of new local health services. Previous general practice collaborations provide much-needed support in terms of management, leadership and infrastructure, although they can be a source of tension within networks where interests, goals and ways of working do not align. Reasons for collaborative working typically focus on the sustainability of primary care and a desire for better-integrated services, although those cited as the basis for joining primary care networks were mostly related to policy and financial incentives. Early evidence reveals operational success in establishing organisational structures, recruiting to new roles and providing services as required by the national specification. Effective management and leadership, particularly with respect to having a committed clinical director, and constructive relationships between primary care networks and clinical commissioning groups, are important in ensuring success. In rural areas there was some perceived lack of fit with aspects of the primary care network specification, alongside existing challenges of providing primary care to rural populations.LimitationsArranging and carrying out interviews proved difficult given the workload associated with implementing networks and wider time pressures. Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the team was unable to undertake planned face-to-face workshops to explore findings. Given that primary care networks were in their first year of operation at the time of this evaluation, we were cautious in drawing definitive conclusions.ConclusionsKey lessons focus on increasing the engagement of general practices and wider primary care teams with networks;building leadership and management capacity to support networks in fulfilling their contractual obligations and meeting local health needs;and clarifying how primary care networks will operate in the post-COVID-19 health and social care system.Future workFuture work could involve evaluating the impact and effectiveness of primary care networks using quantitative and qualitative measures;undertaking research in both rural and urban areas, exploring the extent to which this context is significant;examining the cost and effectiveness of sustaining and extending leadership and management support within primary care networks;and understanding the relationships between primary care networks and the wider health and care system.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42 18110790.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research;Vol. 10, No. 27. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

3.
J Med Internet Res ; 24(7): e33911, 2022 07 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1974485

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The use of web-based services within primary care (PC) in the National Health Service in England is increasing, with medically underserved populations being less likely to engage with web-based services than other patient groups. Digital facilitation-referring to a range of processes, procedures, and personnel that seek to support patients in the uptake and use of web-based services-may be a way of addressing these challenges. However, the models and impact of digital facilitation currently in use are unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify, characterize, and differentiate between different approaches to digital facilitation in PC; establish what is known about the effectiveness of different approaches; and understand the enablers of digital facilitation. METHODS: Adopting scoping review methodology, we searched academic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) and gray literature published between 2015 and 2020. We conducted snowball searches of reference lists of included articles and articles identified during screening as relevant to digital facilitation, but which did not meet the inclusion criteria because of article type restrictions. Titles and abstracts were independently screened by 2 reviewers. Data from eligible studies were analyzed using a narrative synthesis approach. RESULTS: A total of 85 publications were included. Most (71/85, 84%) were concerned with digital facilitation approaches targeted at patients (promotion of services, training patients to improve their technical skills, or other guidance and support). Further identified approaches targeted PC staff to help patients (eg, improving staff knowledge of web-based services and enhancing their technical or communication skills). Qualitative evidence suggests that some digital facilitation may be effective in promoting the uptake and use of web-based services by patients (eg, recommendation of web-based services by practice staff and coaching). We found little evidence that providing patients with initial assistance in registering for or accessing web-based services leads to increased long-term use. Few studies have addressed the effects of digital facilitation on health care inequalities. Those that addressed this suggested that providing technical training for patients could be effective, at least in part, in reducing inequalities, although not entirely. Factors affecting the success of digital facilitation include perceptions of the usefulness of the web-based service, trust in the service, patients' trust in providers, the capacity of PC staff, guidelines or regulations supporting facilitation efforts, and staff buy-in and motivation. CONCLUSIONS: Digital facilitation has the potential to increase the uptake and use of web-based services by PC patients. Understanding the approaches that are most effective and cost-effective, for whom, and under what circumstances requires further research, including rigorous evaluations of longer-term impacts. As efforts continue to increase the use of web-based services in PC in England and elsewhere, we offer an early typology to inform conceptual development and evaluations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020189019; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=189019.


Subject(s)
Delivery of Health Care , State Medicine , Humans , Internet , Primary Health Care , Systematic Reviews as Topic
4.
Rand Health Q ; 9(3): 25, 2022 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1929450

ABSTRACT

Boards in health and care organisations in England play a key role in the governance, strategy, direction and culture of an organisation. It is therefore important to ensure that board decisions are informed by the best available evidence from a range of sources, including service evaluations, organisational performance data, research and evidence-based guidelines. However, there is a scarcity of evidence about how boards use research evidence, defined as evidence stemming from generalisable empirical research, to carry out their roles. THIS Institute commissioned RAND Europe and the Health Services Management Centre (HSMC) at the University of Birmingham to conduct a scoping study on how health and care boards use research evidence. The focus was on NHS Trust boards and the boards of Sustainability and Transformation Partnerships (STPs) or Integrated Care Systems (ICSs). The principal data collection method was qualitative interviews with diverse members of health and care boards to obtain insights into the perceptions and experiences of board members in a range of roles and circumstances. The findings are predominantly based on evidence from 17 interviews. Given the importance of the COVID-19 pandemic at the time of this research, we were also asked to consider whether and how research evidence was used by boards in shaping their response to COVID-19. We focused on two areas specifically: (i) personal protective equipment (PPE) and (ii) the use of remote consultations and remote patient monitoring.

5.
Bioethics ; 36(4): 434-444, 2022 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1714133

ABSTRACT

Asymptomatic COVID-19 testing programmes are being introduced in higher education institutions, but stakeholder views regarding the acceptability of mandating or incentivizing participation remain little understood. A mixed-method study (semi-structured interviews and a survey including open and closed questions) was undertaken in a case study university with a student testing programme. Survey data were analysed descriptively; analysis for interviews was based on the framework method. Two hundred and thirty-nine people participated in the study: 213 in the survey (189 students, 24 staff), and 26 in interviews (19 students, 7 staff). There was majority (62%) but not universal support for voluntary participation, with a range of concerns expressed about the potentially negative effects of mandating testing. Those who supported mandatory testing tended to do so on the grounds that it would protect others. There was also majority (64%) opposition to penalties for refusing to test. Views on restricting access to face-to-face teaching for non-participants were polarized. Three-quarters (75%) supported incentives, though there were some concerns about effectiveness and unintended consequences. Participants emphasized the importance of communication about the potential benefits of testing. Preserving the voluntariness of participation in student asymptomatic testing programmes is likely to be the most ethically sound policy unless circumstances change.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing , COVID-19 , COVID-19/diagnosis , Humans , Motivation , Students , Universities
6.
BMJ Open ; 11(12), 2021.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-1596799

ABSTRACT

ObjectivesPrimary care networks (PCNs) were introduced in the National Health Service (NHS) in England in 2019 to improve integrated care for patients and help address financial and workforce sustainability issues in general practice. The purpose of this study was to collect early evidence on their implementation and development, including motivations to participate and what enables or inhibits progress. This paper considers the core characteristics of PCNs, and how this informs their management.DesignA qualitative mixed-methods rapid evaluation was conducted across four case study sites in England, informed by a literature review and stakeholder workshop. Data collection comprised interviews, non-participant observation of meetings, an online survey and documentary review.ResultsGeneral practitioners (GPs) are motivated to participate in PCNs for their potential to improve patient care, enable better coordinated services and enhance financial and workforce sustainability within primary care. However, PCNs also have an almost mandatory feel, based on the national policy context and significant financial incentives associated with joining them. PCNs offer potential to bring GPs together to work towards common goals, deliver national priorities and respond rapidly to local needs.ConclusionsPCNs face similar challenges to other meso-level primary care organisations internationally, as they respond to local and national priorities and operate in a context of multiple goals and interests. In managing these organisations, it is important to find a balance between local and national autonomy, decision making and control.

7.
Br J Gen Pract ; 71(704): 106-107, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1119573
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL