Can implementation failure or intervention failure explain the result of the 3D multimorbidity trial in general practice: mixed-methods process evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: During a cluster randomised trial, (the 3D study) of an intervention enacting recommended care for people with multimorbidity, including continuity of care and comprehensive biennial reviews, we examined implementation fidelity to interpret the trial outcome and inform future implementation decisions. DESIGN: Mixed-methods process evaluation using cross-trial data and a sample of practices, clinicians, administrators and patients. Interviews, focus groups and review observations were analysed thematically and integrated with quantitative data about implementation. Analysis was blind to trial outcomes and examined context, intervention adoption, reach and maintenance, and delivery of reviews to patients. SETTING: Thirty-three UK general practices in three areas. PARTICIPANTS: The trial included 1546 people with multimorbidity. 11 general practitioners, 14 nurses, 7 administrators and 38 patients from 9 of 16 intervention practices were sampled for an interview. RESULTS: Staff loss, practice size and different administrative strategies influenced implementation fidelity. Practices with whole administrative team involvement and good alignment between the intervention and usual care generally implemented better. Fewer reviews than intended were delivered (49% of patients receiving both intended reviews, 30% partially reviewed). In completed reviews >90% of intended components were delivered, but review observations and interviews with patients and clinicians found variation in style of component delivery, from 'tick-box' to patient-centred approaches. Implementation barriers included inadequate skills training to implement patient-centred care planning, but patients reported increased patient-centredness due to comprehensive reviews, extra time and being asked about their health concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation failure contributed to lack of impact of the 3D intervention on the trial primary outcome (quality of life), but so did intervention failure since modifiable elements of intervention design were partially responsible. When a decisive distinction between implementation failure and intervention failure cannot be made, identifying potentially modifiable reasons for suboptimal implementation is important to enhance potential for impact and effectiveness of a redesigned intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN06180958.

Ambulance use for 'primary care' problems: an ethnographic study of seeking and providing help in a UK ambulance service.

OBJECTIVES: To explore what factors shape a service user's decision to call an emergency ambulance for a 'primary care sensitive' condition (PCSC), including contextual factors. Additionally, to understand the function and purpose of ambulance care from the perspective of service users, and the role health professionals may play in influencing demand for ambulances in PCSCs. DESIGN: An ethnographic study set in one UK ambulance service. Patient cases were recruited upon receipt of ambulance treatment for a situation potentially manageable in primary care, as determined by a primary care clinician accompanying emergency medical services (EMS) crews. Methods used included: structured observations of treatment episodes; in-depth interviews with patients, relatives and carers and their GPs; purposeful conversations with ambulance clinicians; analysis of routine healthcare records; analysis of the original EMS 'emergency' telephone call recording. RESULTS: We analysed 170 qualitative data items across 50 cases. Three cross-cutting concepts emerged as central to EMS use for a PCSC: (1) There exists a typology of nine 'triggers', which we categorise as either 'internal' or 'external', depending on how much control the caller feels they have of the situation; (2) Calling an ambulance on behalf of someone else creates a specific anxiety about urgency; (3) Healthcare professionals experience conflict around fuelling demand for ambulances. CONCLUSIONS: Previous work suggests a range of sociodemographic factors that may be associated with choosing ambulance care in preference to alternatives. Building on established sociological models, this work helps understand how candidacy is displayed during the negotiation of eligibility for ambulance care. Seeking urgent assistance on behalf of another often requires specific support and different strategies. Use of EMS for such problems-although inefficient-is often conceptualised as 'rational' by service users. Public health strategies that seek to advise the public about appropriate use of EMS need to consider how individuals conceptualise an 'emergency' situation.

'Primary care sensitive' situations that result in an ambulance attendance: a conversation analytic study of UK emergency '999' call recordings.

OBJECTIVES: To explore common features of conversations occurring in a sample of emergency calls that result in an ambulance dispatch for a 'primary care sensitive' situation, and better understand the challenges of triaging this cohort. DESIGN: A qualitative study, applying conversation analytic methods to routinely recorded telephone calls made through the '999' system for an emergency ambulance. Cases were identified by a primary care clinician, observing front-line UK ambulance service shifts. A sample of 48 '999' recordings were analysed, corresponding to situations potentially amenable to primary care management. RESULTS: The analysis focuses on four recurring ways that speakers use talk in these calls. Progress can be impeded when call-taker's questions appear to require callers to have access to knowledge that is not available to them. Accordingly, callers often provide personal accounts of observed events, which may be troublesome for call-takers to 'code' and triage. Certain question formats-notably 'alternative question' formats-appear particularly problematic. Callers deploy specific lexical, grammatical and prosodic resources to legitimise the contact as 'urgent', and ensure that their perception of risk is conveyed. Difficulties encountered in the triage exchange may be evidence of misalignment between organisational and caller perceptions of the 'purpose' of the questions. CONCLUSIONS: Previous work has focused on exploring the presentation and triage of life-threatening medical emergencies. Meaningful insights into the challenges of EMS triage can also be gained by exploring calls for 'primary care sensitive' situations. The highly scripted triage process requires precise, 'codeable' responses to questions, which can create challenges when the exact urgency of the problem is unclear to both caller and call-taker. Calling on behalf of someone else may compound this complexity. The aetiology of some common interactional challenges may offer a useful frame for future comparison between calls for 'primary care sensitive' situations and life-threatening emergencies.

A systematic review to identify and assess the effectiveness of alternatives for people over the age of 65 who are at risk of potentially avoidable hospital admission.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: There are some older patients who are 'at the decision margin' of admission. This systematic review sought to explore this issue with the following objective: what admission alternatives are there for older patients and are they safe, effective and cost-effective? A secondary objective was to identify the characteristics of those older patients for whom the decision to admit to hospital may be unclear. DESIGN: Systematic review of controlled studies (April 2005-December 2016) with searches in Medline, Embase, Cinahl and CENTRAL databases. The protocol is registered at PROSPERO (CRD42015020371). Studies were assessed using Cochrane risk of bias criteria, and relevant reviews were assessed with the AMSTAR tool. The results are presented narratively and discussed. SETTING: Primary and secondary healthcare interface. PARTICIPANTS: People aged over 65 years at risk of an unplanned admission. INTERVENTIONS: Any community-based intervention offered as an alternative to admission to an acute hospital. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES MEASURES: Reduction in secondary care use, patient-related outcomes, safety and costs. RESULTS: Nineteen studies and seven systematic reviews were identified. These recruited patients with both specific conditions and mixed chronic and acute conditions. The interventions involved paramedic/emergency care practitioners (n=3), emergency department-based interventions (n=3), community hospitals (n=2) and hospital-at-home services (n=11). Data suggest that alternatives to admission appear safe with potential to reduce secondary care use and length of time receiving care. There is a lack of patient-related outcomes and cost data. The important features of older patients for whom the decision to admit is uncertain are: age over 75 years, comorbidities/multi-morbidities, dementia, home situation, social support and individual coping abilities. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review describes and assesses evidence on alternatives to acute care for older patients and shows that many of the options available are safe and appear to reduce resource use. However, cost analyses and patient preference data are lacking.

Why do patients with 'primary care sensitive' problems access ambulance services? A systematic mapping review of the literature.

OBJECTIVE: Emergency ambulance use for problems that could be managed in primary care continues to rise owing to complex reasons that are poorly understood. The objective of this systematic review is to draw together published evidence across a variety of study methodologies and settings to gain a better understanding of why patients seek help from ambulance services for these problems. DESIGN: Systematic searches were undertaken across the MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL, Health Management Information Consortium and Health Management Information Service publication databases. Google Scholar, Web of Science, OpenSigle, EThOS and DART databases were also systematically searched for reports, proceedings, book chapters and theses, along with hand-searching of grey literature sources. Studies were included if they reported on findings examining patient, carer, health professional or service management interactions with ambulance services for primary care problems. All study methodologies and perspectives were of interest. Data were extracted, quality assessed and systematically mapped according to key findings through generation of an iterative framework. RESULTS: A total of 31 studies met inclusion criteria. Findings were summarised across 5 broad categories: factors associated with individual patients; actions of care-givers and bystanders; population-level factors; health infrastructure factors; challenges faced by health professionals. A number of subcategories were developed to explore these factors in more detail. CONCLUSIONS: This review reports important factors that may impact on ambulance use for primary care problems across a global setting, including demographic measures associated with deprivation, minority status and individual social circumstances. Categorising ambulance calls for primary care problems as 'inappropriate' is context dependant and may be unhelpful. Potential implications for triage and risk management strategies are discussed.