Collaboration between primary care and a voluntary, community sector organisation: Practical guidance from the parkrun practice initiative.

Voluntary and community sector organisations are increasing their role in supporting primary care services through 'social prescribing'. parkrun is a charity that delivers free, weekly 5 km events, on a Saturday morning in areas of open space across the UK and globally. In June 2018, parkrun and the Royal College of General Practitioners launched an initiative to encourage the linking of general practitioner practices and local parkrun events. This study investigates the interaction between parkrun events and practices in order to understand why and how parkrun events' promote such linkage, and their experiences of doing so. Its purpose was to provide practical recommendations for developing the parkrun practice initiative and similar collaborations between primary care and voluntary and community sector organisations. An online survey, which included both tick box questions and free text comments was sent to Event Directors for all UK parkrun events and completed by half (322/634, 50.8%). Over two-thirds (225/322; 69.6%) of the event teams were knowingly linked with one or more general practices; and this was generally viewed as having been a positive experience and was motivated by wanting to positively impact on the health and well-being of their community. Challenges centred on the process of initiating contact between parkrun events and practices; the lack of time among parkrun event volunteers to promote the scheme; and the difficulty of clarifying parkrun event and practice responsibilities, including who takes the lead. Practical recommendations include: ensuring clear pathways of communication between event teams and practices (e.g. via a Link Worker or designated person within the practice and/or parkrun event); minimising resource implications and ensuring mutual understanding from practices and parkrun event teams as to expected roles and involvement. Our findings, while focused on the parkrun practice initiative, are likely to have relevance to other collaborations between primary care and voluntary and community sector organisations.

The impact of Covid-19 pandemic on hospices: A systematic integrated review and synthesis of recommendations for policy and practice.

Background: The Covid-19 pandemic resulted in the development of numerous recommendations for practice and policy for specialist palliative care provided by hospices in United Kingdom (UK), as hospices were significantly affected by the pandemic and protections put in place.The aim of this review is to identify and synthesise recommendations or implications for policy and practice that have been generated for adult hospice specialist palliative care during the first 24 months of the Covid-19 pandemic. Methods: AMED, BNI, CINAHL, EMBASE, EMCARE, HMIC, Medline, PsycINFO, PubMed databases were searched for peer-reviewed papers, as well as hand searchers for grey literature. Literature relating to hospices and Covid-19 in the UK were included and a thematic synthesis of recommendations for hospice policy and practice was undertaken. Results: 858 articles were identified with 12 meeting the inclusion criteria. Fifty-eight recommendations or implications were identified: 31 for policy, 27 for practice, and 10 covering both. Recommendations were organised under ten themes. There were several recommendations seeking to secure hospice resources to mitigate the short-term impact of the pandemic, as well as those focused on longer-term implications such as core funding. The impact of the pandemic on the quality of hospice care was the focus for numerous recommendations around improving integration of hospice care in the community, provision of bereavement support and better use of Advance Care Plans (ACP). However, there were significant gaps related to carer visitation in hospices, inequities of palliative care, or hospice-at-home services. Conclusion: The Covid-19 pandemic and protections exposed several ongoing policy and practice needs, especially around hospice resources, while generating novel issues for hospices to address. Significant policy gaps remain to be addressed to mitigate the impact of the pandemic on the quality of hospice specialist palliative care.

Hospices in the UK faced many challenges during the first two-years of the Covid-19 pandemic. In this time several research studies and reviews took place that provided hospices with recommendations for how to adapt their policies and clinical practices. In this review we identified 12 documents that contained 58 recommendations for hospices' policy and practice. We grouped these recommendations together under ten key themes. We found that there were several recommendations aiming to secure hospice resources to mitigate the short and longer-term impacts upon hospice funding. The impact of the pandemic on the quality of hospice care was the focus for numerous recommendations around improving integration of hospice care in the community, provision of bereavement support and better use of Advance Care Plans (ACP). However, there were significant gaps related to carer visitation in hospices, inequities of palliative care, or hospice-at-home services.

Promoting parkrun to patients using the general practice website: a qualitative exploration of 'parkrun practice' websites.

BACKGROUND: The parkrun practice initiative is a widely accessible and low-cost approach in primary care, which promotes patient and staff health and wellbeing through increased physical activity and volunteering opportunities. The parkrun practice Toolkit offers guidance to practices on how to promote parkrun. One recommendation is to include a parkrun page on the practice website, or a link to the parkrun website. How practices are presenting this information is unknown. AIM: To explore how parkrun practices are using their websites to promote parkrun, including the content and format of information presented and variety of promotion methods used, in order to provide recommendations for inclusion in the Toolkit. DESIGN & SETTING: Qualitative content analysis of a sample of parkrun practice websites. METHOD: The websites of 114 practices that reported using their websites for parkrun promotion were systematically searched and the content analysed. RESULTS: Five main types of content were identified, namely: what parkrun or parkrun practice is; activities and events; addressing patients' concerns; benefits of parkrun; and practical information. While there were similarities in the information provided, there were variations in presentation. Websites ranged from being extensive and highly informative, to minimal amounts of text or solely images. CONCLUSION: Findings highlight the variability that currently exists across parkrun practice websites. Including a link on the homepage would assist patients to find information on parkrun and clarify the information that can be found. Suggestions are made on the type of information and how it could be presented to be further developed for inclusion in the Toolkit.

What do we know about the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on hospices? A collaborative multi-stakeholder knowledge synthesis.

Background: Prior to undertaking a study looking at the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic upon lived experiences of hospice services in the West Midlands, we sought to identify the range of issues that hospice service users and providers faced between March 2020 and July 2021, and to provide a report that can be accessed and understood by all interested stakeholders. Methods: We undertook a collaborative multi-stakeholder approach for scoping the range of potential issues and synthesising knowledge. This involved a review of available literature; a focus group with hospice stakeholders; and a collaborative knowledge exchange panel. Results: The literature on the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on hospices remains limited, but it is developing a picture of a service that has had to rapidly adapt the way it provides care and support to its service users, during a period when it faced many fundamental challenges to established ways of providing these services. Results: The impacts of many of the changes on hospices have not been fully assessed. It is also not known what the effects upon the quality of care and support are for those with life-limiting conditions and those that care for them. We found that the pandemic has presented a new normative and service context in which quality of care and life itself was valued that is, as yet, poorly understood.

Email Consultations Between Patients and Doctors in Primary Care: Content Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Increasingly, consultations in health care settings are conducted remotely using a range of communication technologies. Email allows for 2-way text-based communication, occurring asynchronously. Studies have explored the content and nature of email consultations to understand the use, structure, and function of email consultations. Most previous content analyses of email consultations in primary care settings have been conducted in North America, and these have shown that concerns and assumptions about how email consultations work have not been realized. There has not been a UK-based content analysis of email consultations. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore and delineate the content of consultations conducted via email in English general practice by conducting a content analysis of email consultations between general practitioners (GPs) and patients. METHODS: We conducted a content analysis of anonymized email consultations between GPs and patients in 2 general practices in the United Kingdom. We examined the descriptive elements of the correspondence to ascertain when the emails were sent, the number of emails in an email consultation, and the nature of the content. We used a normative approach to analyze the content of the email consultations to explore the use and function of email consultation. RESULTS: We obtained 100 email consultations from 85 patients, which totaled 262 individual emails. Most email users were older than 40 years, and over half of the users were male. The email consultations were mostly short and completed in a few days. Emails were mostly sent and received during the day. The emails were mostly clinical in content rather than administrative and covered a wide range of clinical presentations. There were 3 key themes to the use and function of the email consultations: the role of the GP and email consultation, the transactional nature of an email consultation, and the operationalization of an email consultation. CONCLUSIONS: Most cases where emails are used to have a consultation with a patient in general practice have a shorter consultation, are clinical in nature, and are resolved quickly. GPs approach email consultations using key elements similar to that of the face-to-face consultation; however, using email consultations has the potential to alter the role of the GP, leading them to engage in more administrative tasks than usual. Email consultations were not a replacement for face-to-face consultations.

Engagement with and delivery of the 'parkrun practice initiative' in general practice: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: The parkrun practice initiative, a joint collaboration between parkrun and the Royal College of General Practitioners, was launched to encourage general practices to improve the health and wellbeing of patients and staff through participating in local 5 km parkrun events. Why and how practices engage with the initiative is unknown. AIM: To investigate engagement with and delivery of the parkrun practice initiative in general practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: Mixed methods study conducted from April-July 2019 comprising an online survey of all registered parkrun practices, and interviews and a focus group with practice staff in the West Midlands. METHOD: The designated contacts at 780 registered parkrun practices were invited to complete an online survey. A purposive sample of parkrun practice staff and non-registered practice staff took part either in semi-structured interviews or a focus group, with transcripts analysed thematically. RESULTS: Of the total number of parkrun practices, 306 (39.2%) completed the survey. Sixteen practice staff (from nine parkrun practices and four non-registered practices) took part in either semi-structured interviews (n = 12) or a focus group (n = 4). Key motivators for becoming a parkrun practice were: to improve patient and staff health and wellbeing, and to become more engaged with the community and enhance practice image. Practices most commonly encouraged patients, carers, and staff to take part in parkrun and displayed parkrun flyers and posters. Challenges in implementing activities included lack of time (both personal and during consultations) and getting staff involved. Where staff did engage there were positive effects on morale and participation. Non-registered practices were receptive to the initiative, but had apprehensions about the commitment involved. CONCLUSION: Practices were keen to improve patient and staff health. Addressing time constraints and staff support needs to be considered when implementing the initiative.

Exploring UK doctors' attitudes towards online patient feedback: Thematic analysis of survey data.

INTRODUCTION: Patients are increasingly using online platforms to give feedback about their health-care experiences. Online feedback has been proposed as a way to drive transformative change in the health service through informing choice and improving quality. Attitudes held by health-care professionals influence the uptake of new technologies. Understanding these attitudes is essential in exploring the potential of online patient feedback as a standard feedback mechanism. This study explores the content of free-text comments left by doctors responding to a survey with the aim of understanding their attitudes towards online feedback. METHODS: A cross-sectional online questionnaire was completed by 1001 UK primary and secondary-care doctors. Doctors were given the opportunity to leave a free-text comment about online patient feedback. Doctors' attitudes towards online patient feedback were identified and explored using thematic analysis. Descriptive statistics and chi-square tests were used to examine demographic differences between those doctors who left a comment and those who did not. RESULTS: Thematic analysis identified five key interrelated themes: anonymity, confidentiality, representativeness, moderation/regulation of online feedback and platform type. The characteristics of those leaving a comment very closely matched those of the entire survey sample. CONCLUSION: Across the comments, the most prominent finding was a general scepticism and caution towards online feedback, with most of the key themes relating to the perceived limitations and challenges. Further work exploring ways of addressing and verifying online comments without breaching confidentiality could provide valuable information to health systems seeking to drive improvement through patient online feedback.

Effectiveness of physical activity promotion and exercise referral in primary care: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Physical inactivity is the fourth leading risk factor for global mortality. Reducing sedentary behaviour and increasing physical activity are efficacious for improving many physical and mental health conditions including cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and depression. Reducing sedentary behaviour and increasing physical activity can also be effective at reducing obesity; however, sedentary behaviour and reduced physical activity are also associated with mortality independently. Despite this, most adults in the UK do not currently meet the UK Chief Medical Officers' guidelines for weekly physical activity. As most adults visit their general practitioner at least once a year, the primary care consultation provides a unique opportunity to deliver exercise referral or physical activity promotion interventions. This is a protocol for a systematic review of randomised controlled trials for the effectiveness of physical activity promotion and referral in primary care. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of Embase, MEDLINE (Ovid), Web of Science (Core Collection), Scopus, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and The Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) will be conducted for studies with a minimum follow-up of 12 months that report physical activity as an outcome measure (by either self-report or objective measures) including an intention to treat analysis. The authors will screen papers, first by title and abstract and then by full text, independently assess studies for inclusion, appraise risk of bias and extract data. The quality of the evidence will be assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations) approach. The primary outcome will be participation in physical activity at 12 months. Pooled effects will be calculated using random effects models. Results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and for presentation at UK national primary care conferences. DISCUSSION: This systematic review and meta-analyses will summarise the evidence for the effectiveness of physical activity promotion and referral as interventions for improving physical activity, as well as whether studies using objective measures of physical activity have similar effects to those studies using self-report measures. This knowledge has importance for primary care clinicians, patients and, given the focus of the recent NHS long-term plan on preventive medicine, those making policy decisions. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: The protocol is registered with PROSPERO the international prospective register of systematic reviews, ID CRD42019130831.

Implementing change in primary care practice: lessons from a mixed-methods evaluation of a frailty initiative.

BACKGROUND: The NHS is facing increasing needs from an aging population, which is acutely visible in the emerging problem of frailty. There is growing evidence describing new models of care for people living with frailty, but a lack of evidence on successful implementation of these complex interventions at the practice level. AIM: This study aimed to determine what factors enable or prevent implementation of a whole-system, complex intervention for managing frailty (the PACT initiative) in the UK primary care setting. DESIGN & SETTING: A mixed-methods evaluation study undertaken within a large clinical commissioning group (CCG). Design and analysis was informed by normalisation process theory (NPT). METHOD: Data collection from six sites included: observation of delivery, interviews with staff, and an online survey. NPT-informed analysis sought to identify enablers and barriers to implementation of change. RESULTS: Seven themes were identified. PACT was valued by professionals and patients but a lack of clarity on its aims was identified as a barrier to implementation. Successful implementation relied on champions pushing the work forward, and dealing with unanticipated resistance. Contracts focused on delivery of service outcomes, but these were sometimes at odds with professional priorities. Implementation followed evidence-informed rather than evidence-based practice, requiring redesign of the intervention and potentially created a new body of knowledge on managing frailty. CONCLUSION: Successful implementation of complex interventions in primary care need inbuilt capacity for flexibility and adaptability, requiring expertise as well as evidence. Professionals need to be supported to translate innovative practice into practice-based evidence.

Randomised controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 'Families for Health', a family-based childhood obesity treatment intervention delivered in a community setting for ages 6 to 11 years.

BACKGROUND: Effective programmes to help children manage their weight are required. 'Families for Health' focuses on a parenting approach, designed to help parents develop their parenting skills to support lifestyle change within the family. Families for Health version 1 showed sustained reductions in mean body mass index (BMI) z-score after 2 years in a pilot project. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to evaluate its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). DESIGN: The trial was a multicentre, investigator-blind RCT, with a parallel economic and process evaluation, with follow-up at 3 and 12 months. Randomisation was by family unit, using a 1 : 1 allocation by telephone registration, stratified by three sites, with a target of 120 families. SETTING: Three sites in the West Midlands, England, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Children aged 6-11 years who were overweight (≥ 91st centile BMI) or obese (≥ 98th centile BMI), and their parents/carers. Recruitment was via referral or self-referral. INTERVENTIONS: Families for Health version 2 is a 10-week, family-based community programme with parallel groups for parents and children, addressing parenting, lifestyle, social and emotional development. Usual care was the treatment for childhood obesity provided within each locality. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Joint primary outcome measures were change in children's BMI z-score and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained at 12 months' follow-up (QALYs were calculated using the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions Youth version). Secondary outcome measures included changes in children's waist circumference, percentage body fat, physical activity, fruit/vegetable consumption and quality of life. Parents' BMI and mental well-being, family eating/activity, parent-child relationships and parenting style were also assessed. The process evaluation documented recruitment, reach, dose delivered, dose received and fidelity, using mixed methods. RESULTS: The study recruited 115 families (128 children; 63 boys and 65 girls), with 56 families randomised to the Families for Health arm and 59 to the 'usual-care' control arm. There was 80% retention of families at 3 months (Families for Health, 46 families; usual care, 46 families) and 72% retention at 12 months (Families for Health, 44 families; usual care, 39 families). The change in BMI z-score at 12 months was not significantly different in the Families for Health arm and the usual-care arm [0.114, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.001 to 0.229; p = 0.053]. However, within-group analysis showed that the BMI z-score was significantly reduced in the usual-care arm (-0.118, 95% CI -0.203 to -0.034; p = 0.007), but not in the Families for Health arm (-0.005, 95% CI -0.085 to 0.078; p = 0.907). There was only one significant difference between groups for secondary outcomes. The economic evaluation, taking a NHS and Personal Social Services perspective, showed that mean costs 12 months post randomisation were significantly higher for Families for Health than for usual care (£998 vs. £548; p < 0.001). The mean incremental cost-effectiveness of Families for Health was estimated at £552,175 per QALY gained. The probability that the Families for Health programme is cost-effective did not exceed 40% across a range of thresholds. The process evaluation demonstrated that the programme was implemented, as planned, to the intended population and any adjustments did not deviate widely from the handbook. Many families waited more than 3 months to receive the intervention. Facilitators', parents' and children's experiences of Families for Health were largely positive and there were no adverse events. Further analysis could explore why some children show a clinically significant benefit while others have a worse outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Families for Health was neither effective nor cost-effective for the management of obesity in children aged 6-11 years, in comparison with usual care. Further exploration of the wide range of responses in BMI z-score in children following the Families for Health and usual-care interventions is warranted, focusing on children who had a clinically significant benefit and those who showed a worse outcome with treatment. Further research could focus on the role of parents in the prevention of obesity, rather than treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN45032201. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 1. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of the 'Families for Health' programme to reduce obesity in children.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluating effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 'Families for Health V2' (FFH) compared with usual care (UC). DESIGN: Multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) (investigators blinded, families unblinded) and economic evaluation. Stratified randomisation by family; target of 120 families. SETTING: Three National Health Service Primary Care Trusts in West Midlands, England. PARTICIPANTS: Overweight or obese (≥91st or ≥98th centile body mass index (BMI)) children aged 6-11 years and their parents/carers, recruited March 2012-February 2014. INTERVENTIONS: FFH; a 10-week community-based family programme addressing parenting, lifestyle change and social and emotional development. UC; usual support for childhood obesity at each site. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were 12-months change in children's BMI z-score and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained (QALY). Secondary outcomes included changes in children's physical activity, fruit and vegetable consumption and quality of life, parents' BMI and mental well-being, family eating/activity, parent-child relationships and parenting style. RESULTS: 115 families (128 children) were randomised to FFH (n=56) or UC (n=59). There was no significant difference in BMI z-score 12-months change (0.114, 95% CI -0.001 to 0.229, p=0.053; p=0.026 in favour of UC with missing value multiple imputation). One secondary outcome, change in children's waist z-score, was significantly different between groups in favour of UC (0.15, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.29). Economic evaluation showed that mean costs were significantly higher for FFH than UC (£998 vs £548, p<0.001). Mean incremental cost-effectiveness of FFH was estimated at £552 175 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: FFH was neither effective nor cost-effective for the management of obesity compared with UC. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN45032201.

Profound expressive language impairment in low functioning children with autism: an investigation of syntactic awareness using a computerised learning task.

Nine low-functioning children with profound expressive language impairment and autism were studied in terms of their responsiveness to a computer-based learning program designed to assess syntactic awareness. The children learned to touch words on a screen in the correct sequence in order to see a corresponding animation, such as 'monkey flies'. The game progressed in levels from 2 to 4 word sequences, contingent upon success at each stage. Although performance was highly variable across participants, a detailed review of their learning profiles suggested that no child lacked syntactic awareness and that elementary syntactic control in a non-speech domain was superior to that manifest in their spoken language. The reasons for production failures at the level of speech in children with autism are discussed.