Participants' experiences of care during a randomized controlled trial comparing a lay-facilitated angina management programme with usual care: a qualitative study using focus groups.

AIM: This paper is a report of a qualitative study conducted as part of a randomized controlled trial comparing a lay-facilitated angina management programme with usual care. Its aim was to explore participants' beliefs, experiences, and attitudes to the care they had received during the trial, particularly those who had received the angina management intervention. BACKGROUND: Angina affects over 50 million people worldwide. Over half of these people have symptoms that restrict their daily life and would benefit from knowing how to manage their condition. DESIGN: A nested qualitative study within a randomized controlled trial of lay-facilitated angina management. METHOD: We conducted four participant focus groups during 2008; three were with people randomized to the intervention and one with those randomized to control. We recruited a total of 14 participants to the focus groups, 10 intervention, and 4 control. FINDINGS: Although recruitment to the focus groups was relatively low by comparison to conventional standards, each generated lively discussions and a rich data set. Data analysis demonstrated both similarities and differences between control and intervention groups. Similarities included low levels of prior knowledge about angina, whereas differences included a perception among intervention participants that lifestyle changes were more easily facilitated with the help and support of a lay-worker. CONCLUSION: Lay facilitation with the Angina Plan is perceived by the participants to be beneficial in supporting self-management. However, clinical expertise is still required to meet the more complex information and care needs of people with stable angina.

Randomized controlled trial of a lay-facilitated angina management programme.

AIMS: This article reports a randomized controlled trial of lay-facilitated angina management (registered trial acronym: LAMP). BACKGROUND: Previously, a nurse-facilitated angina programme was shown to reduce angina while increasing physical activity, however most people with angina do not receive a cardiac rehabilitation or self-management programme. Lay people are increasingly being trained to facilitate self-management programmes. DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial comparing a lay-facilitated angina management programme with routine care from an angina nurse specialist. METHODS: Participants with new stable angina were randomized to the angina management programme (intervention: 70 participants) or advice from an angina nurse specialist (control: 72 participants). Primary outcome was angina frequency at 6 months; secondary outcomes at 3 and 6 months included: risk factors, physical functioning, anxiety, depression, angina misconceptions and cost utility. Follow-up was complete in March 2009. Analysis was by intention-to-treat; blind to group allocation. RESULTS: There was no important difference in angina frequency at 6 months. Secondary outcomes, assessed by either linear or logistic regression models, demonstrated important differences favouring the intervention group, at 3 months for: Anxiety, angina misconceptions and for exercise report; and at 6 months for: anxiety; depression; and angina misconceptions. The intervention was considered cost-effective. CONCLUSION: The angina management programme produced some superior benefits when compared to advice from a specialist nurse.

Evolution of a model for the thrombolysis of acute stroke patients.

The National Audit Office (NAO, 2005) has reported that the priority afforded to stroke care should be increased, given its impact on health and cost to the NHS. It recommends improvements in preventing, treating and managing stroke patients in line with recent evidence. Thrombolysis for acute ischaemic stroke is a proven treatment that produces good results in significant numbers of patients (Mar et al, 2005). However, owing to various barriers, many hospitals in the UK have failed to implement effective systems to facilitate the delivery of this treatment to acute stroke patients. These barriers include a lack of skill, nursing knowledge, and 'fast-track' organization relating to thrombolysis as a treatment for acute stroke. Fears of intracranial bleeding and lack of appropriate stroke unit beds and issues of consent have also been identified as further problems (Innes and International Stroke Trial (IST-3), 2003). Taking these concerns into consideration, Scarborough District General Hospital has developed a multidisciplinary model with the Coronary Care Unit (CCU), integral to the delivery of treatment. Between 2003 and 2005, 24 stroke patients have received thrombolysis treatment and have been cared for in CCU. Outcome results have been positive, with 51% of patients demonstrating a significant benefit at 7 days post-stroke. This model has broken traditional professional and speciality boundaries to allow patients to receive treatments they otherwise would not have received. Moreover, it provides the potential for further exploration into the wider implementation of thrombolysis for acute stroke patients in the UK.