'Maze' not pathway: focus group exploration of patients' and public experiences of the UK NHS elective total joint arthroplasty pathway.

OBJECTIVE: To explore patient and public perceptions of planned improvements to the National Health Service (NHS) total joint arthroplasty (TJA) pathway. DESIGN: Three qualitative focus groups undertaken March-May 2018, as part of a mixed-methods evaluation of Getting It Right First Time. Transcripts were subject to framework analysis to identify thematic content between October 2018 and October 2021. SETTING: Elective TJA surgery in the English NHS. PARTICIPANTS: Two focus groups including patients who had undergone TJA in the previous 2 years (group 1: n=5; group 2: n=4) and the other individuals who had not but were aged 60+ (group 3: n=5). Participants were recruited via community groups and patient panels. RESULTS: Fourteen individuals took part in the focus groups; all were aged over 60; seven (50%) were female and nine (64%) had undergone TJA surgery. Participants' perspectives were categorised into themes and mapped onto stages of the TJA pathway. Although perioperative care is often the focus of improvement efforts, participants argued that the patient journey begins before individuals present to primary care. Participants had concerns about other aspects of the pathway, such as obtaining a surgical referral, with prereferral interventions aimed at potentially avoiding the need for surgery (ie, physiotherapy) being perceived as a mechanism to restrict access to secondary care. Patient experience was also conceptualised as a 'maze', rather than the logical, sequential process set out in clinical guidelines; exacerbated by a lack of information, knowledge and power imbalances. CONCLUSION: The linear conceptualisation of the TJA pathway is at odds with patient experience. Improvement programmes focused on perioperative care fail to consider patient concerns and priorities. Patients should be directly involved in improvement programmes, to ensure that patient experience is optimised, as well as informing related processes and important outcomes of care.

Implementation of the national Getting it Right First Time orthopaedic programme in England: a qualitative case study analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the implementation and impact of the Getting it Right First Time (GIRFT) national orthopaedic improvement programme at the level of individual National Health Service (NHS) Trusts. DESIGN: Qualitative case studies conducted at six NHS Trusts, as part of a mixed-methods evaluation of GIRFT. SETTING: NHS elective orthopaedic surgery in England. PARTICIPANTS: 59 NHS staff. INTERVENTION: Improvement bundle, including bespoke routine performance data and improvement recommendations for each organisation, delivered via 'deep-dive' visits to NHS Trusts by a senior orthopaedic clinician. RESULTS: Although all case study sites had made improvements to care, very few of these were reportedly a direct consequence of GIRFT. A range of factors, operating at three different levels, influenced their ability to implement GIRFT recommendations: at the level of the orthopaedic team (micro-eg, how individuals perceived the intervention); the wider Trust (meso-eg, competition for theatre/bed space) and the health economy more broadly (macro-eg, requirements to form local networks). Some sites used GIRFT evidence to support arguments for change which helped cement and formalise existing plans. However, where GIRFT measures were not a Trust priority because of more immediate demands-for example, financial and bed pressures-it was less likely to influence change. CONCLUSION: Dynamic relationships between the different contextual factors, within and between the three levels, can impact the effectiveness of a large-scale improvement intervention and may account for variations in implementation outcomes in different settings. When designing an intervention, those leading future improvement programmes should consider how it sits in relation to these three contextual levels and the interactions that may occur between them.

Tackling barriers to COVID-19 vaccine uptake in London: a mixed-methods evaluation.

BACKGROUND: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the first vaccine was administered in December 2020 in England. However, vaccination uptake has historically been lower in London than in other English regions. METHODS: Mixed-methods: This comprised an analysis of cumulative percentage uptake across London between 8 December 2020 and 6 June 2021 by vaccine priority cohorts and ethnicity. We also undertook thematic analyses of uptake barriers, interventions to tackle these and key learning from a qualitative survey of 27 London local authority representatives, vaccine plans from London's five Integrated Care Systems and interviews with 38 London system representatives. RESULTS: Vaccine uptake was lower in Black ethnic (57-65% uptake) compared with the White British group (90% uptake). Trust was a critical issue, including mistrust in the vaccine itself and in authorities administering or promoting it. The balance between putative costs and benefits of vaccination created uptake barriers for zero-hour and shift workers. Intensive, targeted and 'hyper-local' initiatives, which sustained community relationships and were not constrained by administrative boundaries, helped tackle these barriers. CONCLUSIONS: The success of the national vaccination programme depended on conceding local autonomy, investing in responsive and long-term partnerships to engender trust through in-depth understanding of communities' beliefs.

Mixed methods evaluation of the Getting it Right First Time programme in elective orthopaedic surgery in England: an analysis from the National Joint Registry and Hospital Episode Statistics.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of the 'Getting it Right First Time' (GIRFT) national improvement programme in orthopaedics, which started in 2012. DESIGN: Mixed-methods study comprising statistical analysis of linked national datasets (National Joint Registry; Hospital Episode Statistics; Patient-Reported Outcomes); economic analysis and qualitative case studies in six National Health Service (NHS) Trusts. SETTING: NHS elective orthopaedic surgery in England. PARTICIPANTS: 736 088 patients who underwent primary hip or knee replacement at 126 NHS Trusts between 1 April 2009 and 31 March 2018, plus 50 NHS staff. INTERVENTION: Improvement bundle including 'deep dive' visits by senior clinician to NHS Trusts, informed by bespoke set of routine performance data, to discuss how improvements could be made locally. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of procedures conducted by low volume surgeons; use of uncemented hip implants in patients >65; arthroscopy in year prior to knee replacement; hospital length of stay; emergency readmissions within 30 days; revision surgery within 1 year; health-related quality of life and functional status. RESULTS: National trends demonstrated substantial improvements beginning prior to GIRFT. Between 2012 and 2018, there were reductions in procedures by low volume surgeons (ORs (95% CI) hips 0.58 (0.53 to 0.63), knees 0.77 (0.72 to 0.83)); uncemented hip prostheses in >65 s (OR 0.56 (0.51 to 0.61)); knee arthroscopies before surgery (OR 0.48 (0.41 to 0.56)) and mean length of stay (hips -0.90 (-1.00 to -0.81), knees -0.74 days (-0.82 to -0.66)). The additional impact of visits was mixed and comprised an overall economic saving of £431 848 between 2012 and 2018, but this was offset by the costs of the visits. Staff reported that GIRFT's influence ranged from procurement changes to improved regional collaboration. CONCLUSION: Nationally, we found substantial improvements in care, but the specific contribution of GIRFT cannot be reliably estimated due to other concurrent initiatives. Our approach enabled additional analysis of the discrete impact of GIRFT visits.

Health system influences on potentially avoidable hospital admissions by secondary mental health service use: A national ecological study.

OBJECTIVES: Potentially avoidable hospital admissions (PAAs) are costly to health services and potentially harmful for patients. This study aimed to compare area-level PAA rates among people using and not using secondary mental health services in England and to identify health system features that may influence between-area PAA variation. METHODS: National ecological study using linked English hospital admissions and secondary mental health services data (2016-2018). We calculated two-year average age-sex standardised area-level PAA rates according to primary admission diagnoses for 12 physical conditions, among, first, secondary mental health service users with any non-organic diagnosis, and, second, people not in contact with secondary mental health services. We used penalised regression analyses to identify predictors of area-level variation in PAA rates. RESULTS: Area-level PAA rates were over four times greater in the mental health group, at 7,594 per 100,000 population compared to 1,819 per 100,000 in the comparator group. Common predictors of variation were greater density of older age groups (lower PAA rates), higher underlying population morbidity of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and, to a lesser extent, urbanity (higher PAA rates). For both groups, health system factors such as the number of general practitioners per capita or ambulance despatch rates were significant but weak predictors of variation. Mental health diagnosis data were available for half of secondary mental health care records only and sensitivity analyses found that urbanity remained the sole significant predictor for PAAs in this group. CONCLUSIONS: Findings support the need for improved management of physical conditions for secondary mental health service users. Understanding and predicting variation in PAAs among mental health service users is constrained by availability of data on mental health diagnosis, physical health care and needs.

Mental health in hospital emergency departments: cross-sectional analysis of attendances in England 2013/2014.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the population of patients who attend emergency departments (ED) in England for mental health reasons. METHODS: Cross-sectional observational study of 6 262 602 ED attendances at NHS (National Health Service) hospitals in England between 1 April 2013 and 31 March 2014. We assessed the proportion of attendances due to psychiatric conditions. We compared patient sociodemographic and attendance characteristics for mental health and non-mental health attendances using logistic regression. RESULTS: 4.2% of ED attendances were attributable to mental health conditions (median 3.2%, IQR 2.6% to 4.1%). Those attending for mental health reasons were typically younger (76.3% were aged less than 50 years), of White British ethnicity (73.2% White British), and resident in more deprived areas (59.9% from the two most deprived Index of Multiple Deprivation quintiles (4 and 5)). Mental health attendances were more likely to occur 'out of hours' (68.0%) and at the weekend (31.3%). Almost two-thirds were brought in by ambulance. A third required admission, but around a half were discharged home. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first national study of mental health attendances at EDs in England. We provide information for those planning and providing care, to ensure that clinical resources meet the needs of this patient group, who comprise 4.2% of attendances. In particular, we highlight the need to strengthen the availability of hospital and community care 'out of hours.'

SIP SMART: a parallel group randomised feasibility trial of a tailored pre-treatment swallowing intervention package compared with usual care for patients with head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND: Dysphagia or difficulty in swallowing affects quality of life for most patients with head and neck cancer. SIP SMART - [Swallowing Intervention Package: Self-Monitoring, Assessment, Rehabilitation Training] aims to improve post-treatment swallowing outcomes through a targeted and tailored pre-treatment intervention. This feasibility study assessed 1) recruitment and retention, 2) patient acceptability of randomisation and participation, 3) patient adherence, and 4) sought to identify a suitable primary outcome for a definitive trial, including sample size estimation. METHODS: This two-arm parallel group non-blinded randomised feasibility trial took place within a head and neck centre at a teaching hospital in London, UK. Patients newly diagnosed with stage III/IV head and neck cancer were recruited and underwent 6-month follow-up. Patients were randomised to SIP-SMART or usual care via an online web-based system. SIP SMART comprised two 45-min consultations including a baseline clinical and instrumental swallowing assessment, relevant educational information, targeted swallowing exercises, and specific behaviour change strategies to increase exercise adherence. Usual care comprised a single session including a baseline clinical assessment and generic information about the likely impact of treatment on swallowing. RESULTS: A total of 106 patients were identified at pre-screening, 70 were assessed for eligibility. Twenty-six patients did not meet eligibility criteria [0.37, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.49]. Five of 44 [0.11, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.24] eligible patients were not approached by researchers during clinic. Seven [0.18, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.33] of the 39 approached declined participation. Target recruitment (32 consented patients) was achieved within the timeframe. At 6-months 29/32 [0.91, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.97] patients remained in the trial. Acceptability of randomisation and participation in the intervention was favourable, and adherence to the exercises exceeded the pre-defined 35% minimum criterion. The MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory swallow related quality of life measure was selected as the most suitable primary outcome for sample size estimation. No adverse effects arose from the intervention, or study participation. CONCLUSIONS: A definitive trial of the SIP SMART intervention compared to usual care is feasible and can be undertaken with patients with head and neck cancer treated within the NHS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN40215425, registered retrospectively.

The impact of Clinical Nurse Specialists on the decision making process in cancer multidisciplinary team meetings: A qualitative study.

PURPOSE: There are well-documented barriers to nurse participation in cancer multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings. This paper aims to identify the approaches used by Clinical Nurse Specialists (CNSs) in this setting to contribute during discussion, and to consider the impact of these approaches on the decision making process. In doing so it aims to highlight ways that CNSs can increase their influence, and enhance multidisciplinary engagement. METHODS: This study is based on analysis of observation data from 122 MDT meetings in gynaecology, haematology and skin cancer MDTs. Field notes were reviewed, identifying 58 cases where CNSs contributed to MDT discussion. Audio recordings of the relevant sections were then transcribed and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Five approaches were used by CNSs to contribute in MDT meetings: sharing information, asking questions, providing practical suggestions, framing and using humour. These approaches influenced three key intermediary processes identified during the analysis ('successful contributions'): prompting discussion, influencing a treatment plan and facilitating teamwork. CNSs contributed successfully in cases where medical factors (such as relapsed disease or complex comorbidities) or non-medical factors (such as strong patient preference), had the potential to impact on the ability of teams to deliver treatment. CONCLUSIONS: CNSs have an important role in cancer MDT meetings. By focusing on a subset of cases where CNSs contributed during MDT discussion, this study has provided an insight into approaches that can be adopted by CNSs to increase their influence on the decision making process, enabling teams to capitalise on their knowledge and expertise in MDT meetings.

Involving the public in decision-making about large-scale changes to health services: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Public involvement in large-scale changes (LSC) to health services is strongly promoted - and even mandated - in several health systems. This scoping review aimed to describe the evidence about how public involvement is conceptualised and conducted in LSC, with what impact, and how different stakeholders perceived this process. METHODS: After searching eight databases, 34 publications were included. Data were extracted and charted using a standardised form. Findings from the literature were discussed with frontline stakeholders. RESULTS: Public involvement remains poorly defined and its aims lack clarity in LSC. Public meetings are most often used to gather public views but raise the issue of representativeness. However, evidence in the literature is scarce about which involvement methods - informative and deliberative - are appropriate for the different stages of the LSC and with what impact. In several cases, the involved public felt they had no influence on decision-making regarding LSC proposals, sometimes leading to an environment of mistrust. In those instances, the public understood the technical arguments for change and actively questioned them, opposed LSC plans and sought alternative routes to voice their views. CONCLUSION: More research and consideration are needed regarding who should be involved, with what purpose and how. We argue that in practice two models of involvement, invited and uninvited participation, coexist and therefore interactions between the two should be given further consideration in LSC.

A Qualitative Study of the Influences on Clinical Academic Physicians' Postdoctoral Career Decision Making.

PURPOSE: To describe the influences on clinical academic physicians' postdoctoral career decision making. METHOD: Thirty-five doctoral trainee physicians from University College London took part in semistructured interviews in 2015 and 2016. Participants were asked open-ended questions about their career to date, their experiences undertaking a PhD, and their career plans post PhD. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Thematic analysis was used to generate, review, and define themes from the transcripts. Emerging differences and similarities in participants' reasons for pursuing a PhD were then grouped to produce typologies to explore how their experiences influenced their career decision making. RESULTS: Participants described four key reasons for undertaking a PhD, which formed the basis of the four typologies identified. These reasons included the following: to pursue a clinical academic career; to complete an extensive period of research to understand whether a clinical academic career was the desired path forward; to improve clinical career prospects; and to take a break from clinical training. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the need to target efforts at retaining clinical academic physicians according to their reasons for pursuing a PhD and their subsequent experiences with the process. Those responsible for overseeing clinical training must be well informed of the long-term benefits of training academically qualified physicians. In light of current political uncertainty, universities, hospitals, and external agencies alike must increase their efforts to inspire and assuage early-career clinical academic physicians' fears regarding their academic future.

Health services research: building capacity to meet the needs of the health care system.

Health services researchers have an important role to play in helping health care systems around the world provide high quality, affordable services. However, gaps between the best evidence and current practice suggest that researchers need to work in new ways. The production of research that meets the needs and priorities of the health system requires researchers to work in partnership with decision-makers to conduct research and then mobilize the findings. To do this effectively, researchers require a new set of skills that are not conventionally taught as part of doctoral research programmes. In addition to wider contextual changes, researchers need to understand better the needs of decision-makers, for example through short placements in health system decision-making settings. Second, researchers need to learn to accommodate those needs throughout the research process, including identifying research needs; conducting research collaboratively with decision-makers and producing effective research products.

The clinical academic workforce of the future: a cross-sectional study of factors influencing career decision-making among clinical PhD students at two research-intensive UK universities.

OBJECTIVES: To examine clinical doctoral students' demographic and training characteristics, career intentions, career preparedness and what influences them as they plan their future careers. DESIGN AND SETTING: Online cross-sectional census surveys at two research-intensive medical schools in England in 2015-2016. PARTICIPANTS: All medically qualified PhD students (N=523) enrolled at the University of Oxford and University College London were invited to participate. We report on data from 320 participants (54% male and 44% female), who were representative by gender of the invited population. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Career intentions. RESULTS: Respondents were mainly in specialty training, including close to training completion (25%, n=80), and 18% (n=57) had completed training. Half (50%, n=159) intended to pursue a clinical academic career (CAC) and 62% (n=198) were at least moderately likely to seek a clinical lectureship (CL). However, 51% (n=163) had little or no knowledge about CL posts. Those wanting a CAC tended to have the most predoctoral medical research experience (χ2 (2, N=305)=22.19, p=0.0005). Key reasons cited for not pursuing a CAC were the small number of senior academic appointments available, the difficulty of obtaining research grants and work-life balance. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that urging predoctoral clinicians to gain varied research experience while ensuring availability of opportunities, and introducing more flexible recruitment criteria for CL appointments, would foster CACs. As CL posts are often only open to those still in training, the many postdoctoral clinicians who have completed training, or nearly done so, do not currently gain the opportunity the post offers to develop as independent researchers. Better opportunities should be accompanied by enhanced career support for clinical doctoral students (eg, to increase knowledge of CLs). Finally, ways to increase the number of senior clinical academic appointments should be explored since their lack seems to significantly influence career decisions.

Are some areas more equal than others? Socioeconomic inequality in potentially avoidable emergency hospital admissions within English local authority areas.

Objectives Reducing health inequalities is an explicit goal of England's health system. Our aim was to compare the performance of English local administrative areas in reducing socioeconomic inequality in emergency hospital admissions for ambulatory care sensitive chronic conditions. Methods We used local authority area as a stable proxy for health and long-term care administrative geography between 2004/5 and 2011/12. We linked inpatient hospital activity, deprivation, primary care, and population data to small area neighbourhoods (typical population 1500) within administrative areas (typical population 250,000). We measured absolute inequality gradients nationally and within each administrative area using neighbourhood-level linear models of the relationship between national deprivation and age-sex-adjusted emergency admission rates. We assessed local equity performance by comparing local inequality against national inequality to identify areas significantly more or less equal than expected; evaluated stability over time; and identified where equity performance was steadily improving or worsening. We then examined associations between change in socioeconomic inequalities and change in within-area deprivation (gentrification). Finally, we used administrative area-level random and fixed effects models to examine the contribution of primary care to inequalities in admissions. Results Data on 316 administrative areas were included in the analysis. Local inequalities were fairly stable between consecutive years, but 32 areas (10%) showed steadily improving or worsening equity. In the 21 improving areas, the gap between most and least deprived fell by 3.9 admissions per 1000 (six times the fall nationally) between 2004/5 and 2011/12, while in the 11 areas worsening, the gap widened by 2.4. There was no indication that measured improvements in local equity were an artefact of gentrification or that changes in primary care supply or quality contributed to changes in inequality. Conclusions Local equity performance in reducing inequality in emergency admissions varies both geographically and over time. Identifying this variation could provide insights into which local delivery strategies are most effective in reducing such inequalities.

Dying in hospital: socioeconomic inequality trends in England.

OBJECTIVE: To describe trends in socioeconomic inequality in the proportion of deaths occurring in hospital, during a period of sustained effort by the NHS in England to improve end of life care. METHODS: Whole-population, small area longitudinal study involving 5,260,871 patients of all ages who died in England from 2001/2002 to 2011/2012. Our primary measure of inequality was the slope index of inequality. This represents the estimated gap between the most and least deprived neighbourhood in England, allowing for the gradient in between. Neighbourhoods were geographic Lower Layer Super Output Areas containing about 1500 people each. RESULTS: The overall proportion of patients dying in hospital decreased from 49.5% to 43.6% during the study period, after initially increasing to 52.0% in 2004/2005. There was substantial 'pro-rich' inequality, with an estimated difference of 5.95 percentage points in the proportion of people dying in hospital (confidence interval 5.26 to 6.63), comparing the most and least deprived neighbourhoods in 2011/2012. There was no significant reduction in this gap over time, either in absolute terms or relative to the mean, despite the overall reduction in the proportion of patients dying in hospital. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to reduce the proportion of patients dying in hospital in England have been successful overall but did not reduce inequality. Greater understanding of the reasons for such inequality is required before policy changes can be determined.

Patient Experiences of Swallowing Exercises After Head and Neck Cancer: A Qualitative Study Examining Barriers and Facilitators Using Behaviour Change Theory.

Poor patient adherence to swallowing exercises is commonly reported in the dysphagia literature on patients treated for head and neck cancer. Establishing the effectiveness of exercise interventions for this population may be undermined by patient non-adherence. The purpose of this study was to explore the barriers and facilitators to exercise adherence from a patient perspective, and to determine the best strategies to reduce the barriers and enhance the facilitators. In-depth interviews were conducted on thirteen patients. We used a behaviour change framework and model [Theoretical domains framework and COM-B (Capability-opportunity-motivation-behaviour) model] to inform our interview schedule and structure our results, using a content analysis approach. The most frequent barrier identified was psychological capability. This was highlighted by patient reports of not clearly understanding reasons for the exercises, forgetting to do the exercises and not having a system to keep track. Other barriers included feeling overwhelmed by information at a difficult time (lack of automatic motivation) and pain and fatigue (lack of physical capability). Main facilitators included having social support from family and friends, the desire to prevent negative consequences such as long-term tube feeding (reflective motivation), having the skills to do the exercises (physical capability), having a routine or trigger and receiving feedback on the outcome of doing exercises (automatic motivation). Linking these findings back to the theoretical model allows for a more systematic selection of theory-based strategies that may enhance the design of future swallowing exercise interventions for patients with head and neck cancer.

Improving swallowing outcomes in patients with head and neck cancer using a theory-based pretreatment swallowing intervention package: protocol for a randomised feasibility study.

INTRODUCTION: The incidence of head and neck cancer (HNC) in the UK is rising, with an average of 31 people diagnosed daily. Patients affected by HNC suffer significant short-term and long-term post-treatment morbidity as a result of dysphagia, which affects daily functioning and quality of life (QOL). Pretreatment swallowing exercises may provide additional benefit over standard rehabilitation in managing dysphagia after primary HNC treatments, but uncertainty about their effectiveness persists. This study was preceded by an intervention development phase to produce an optimised swallowing intervention package (SIP). The aim of the current study is to assess the feasibility of this new intervention and research processes within a National Health Service (NHS) setting. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: A two-arm non-blinded randomised controlled feasibility study will be carried out at one tertiary referral NHS centre providing specialist services in HNC. Patients newly diagnosed with stage III and IV disease undergoing planned surgery and/or chemoradiation treatments will be eligible. The SIP will be delivered pre treatment, and a range of swallowing-related and QOL measures will be collected at baseline, 1, 3 and 6 months post-treatment. Outcomes will test the feasibility of a future randomised controlled trial (RCT), detailing rate of recruitment and patient acceptance to participation and randomisation. Salient information relating to protocol implementation will be collated and study material such as the case report form will be tested. A range of candidate outcome measures will be examined for suitability in a larger RCT. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from an NHS Research Ethics Committee. Findings will be published open access in a peer-reviewed journal, and presented at relevant conferences and research meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN40215425; Pre-results.

Swallowing interventions for the treatment of dysphagia after head and neck cancer: a systematic review of behavioural strategies used to promote patient adherence to swallowing exercises.

BACKGROUND: Dysphagia is a significant side-effect following treatment for head and neck cancers, yet poor adherence to swallowing exercises is frequently reported in intervention studies. Behaviour change techniques (BCTs) can be used to improve adherence, but no review to date has described the techniques or indicated which may be more associated with improved swallowing outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to identify behavioural strategies in swallowing interventions, and to explore any relationships between these strategies and intervention effects. Randomised and quasi-randomised studies of head and neck cancer patients were included. Behavioural interventions to improve swallowing were eligible provided a valid measure of swallowing function was reported. A validated and comprehensive list of 93 discrete BCTs was used to code interventions. Analysis was conducted via a structured synthesis approach. RESULTS: Fifteen studies (8 randomised) were included, and 20 different BCTs were each identified in at least one intervention. The BCTs identified in almost all interventions were: instruction on how to perform the behavior, setting behavioural goals and action planning. The BCTs that occurred more frequently in effective interventions, were: practical social support, behavioural practice, self-monitoring of behaviour and credible source for example a skilled clinician delivering the intervention. The presence of identical BCTs in comparator groups may diminish effects. CONCLUSIONS: Swallowing interventions feature multiple components that may potentially impact outcomes. This review maps the behavioural components of reported interventions and provides a method to consistently describe these components going forward. Future work may seek to test the most effective BCTs, to inform optimisation of swallowing interventions.

Mixed methods evaluation of the Getting it Right First Time programme - improvements to NHS orthopaedic care in England: study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Orthopaedic procedures, such as total hip replacement and total knee replacement, are among the commonest surgical procedures in England. The Getting it Right First Time project (GIRFT) aims to deliver improvements in quality and reductions in the cost of NHS orthopaedic care across the country. We will examine whether the planned changes have delivered improvements in the quality of care and patient outcomes. We will also study the processes involved in developing and implementing changes to care, and professional and organisational factors influencing these processes. In doing so, we will identify lessons to guide future improvement work in other services. METHODS/DESIGN: We will evaluate the implementation of the GIRFT programme, and its impact on outcomes and cost, using a mixed methods design. Qualitative methods will be used to understand the programme theory underlying the approach and study the effect of the intervention on practice, using a case study approach. This will include an analysis of the central GIRFT programme and local provider responses. Data will be collected via semi-structured interviews, non-participant observation, and documentary analysis. Quantitative methods will be used to examine 'what works and at what cost?' We will also conduct focus groups with patients and members of the public to explore their perceptions of the GIRFT programme. The research will draw on theories of adoption, diffusion, and sustainability of innovation; its characteristics; and contextual factors at provider-level that influence implementation. DISCUSSION: We will identify generalisable lessons to inform the organisation and delivery of future improvement programmes, to optimise their implementation and impact, both within the UK and internationally. Potential challenges involved in conducting the evaluation include the phased implementation of the intervention in different provider organisations; the inclusion of both retrospective and prospective components; and the effects of ongoing organisational turbulence in the English NHS. However, these issues reflect the realities of service change and its evaluation.

Building capacity to use and undertake research in health organisations: a survey of training needs and priorities among staff.

OBJECTIVES: Efforts to improve healthcare and population health depend partly on the ability of health organisations to use research knowledge and participate in its production. We report the findings of a survey conducted to prioritise training needs among healthcare and public health staff, in relation to the production and implementation of research, across an applied health research collaboration. DESIGN: A questionnaire survey using a validated tool, the Hennessy-Hicks Training Needs Assessment Questionnaire. Participants rated 25 tasks on a five-point scale with regard to both their confidence in performing the task, and its importance to their role. SETTING: A questionnaire weblink was distributed to a convenience sample of 35 healthcare and public health organisations in London and South East England, with a request that they cascade the information to relevant staff. PARTICIPANTS: 203 individuals responded, from 20 healthcare and public health organisations. INTERVENTIONS: None. OUTCOME MEASURES: Training needs were identified by comparing median importance and performance scores for each task. Individuals were also invited to describe up to three priority areas in which they require training. RESULTS: Across the study sample, evaluation; teaching; making do with limited resources; coping with change and managing competing demands were identified as key tasks. Assessing the relevance of research and learning about new developments were the most relevant research-related tasks. Participants' training priorities included evaluation; finding, appraising and applying research evidence; and data analysis. Key barriers to involvement included time and resources, as well as a lack of institutional support for undertaking research. CONCLUSIONS: We identify areas in which healthcare and public health professionals may benefit from support to facilitate their involvement in and use of applied health research. We also describe barriers to participation and differing perceptions of research between professional groups.