Qualitative interview study exploring frontline managers' contributions to hand hygiene standards and audit: Local knowledge can inform practice.

BACKGROUND: Frontline managers promote hand hygiene standards and adherence to hand hygiene protocols. Little is known about this aspect of their role. METHODS: Qualitative interview study with frontline managers on 2 acute admission wards in a large National Health Service Trust in the United Kingdom. RESULTS: Managers reported that hand hygiene standards and audit were modeled on World Health Organization guidelines. Hand hygiene outside the immediate patient zone was not documented but managers could identify when additional indications for hand hygiene presented. They considered that audit was worthwhile to remind staff that hand hygiene is important but did not regard audit findings as a valid indicator of practice. Managers identified differences in the working patterns of nurses and doctors that affect the number and types of hand hygiene opportunities and barriers to hand hygiene. Ward managers were accepted as the custodians of hand-hygiene standards. CONCLUSIONS: Frontline managers identified many of the issues currently emerging as important in contemporary infection prevention practice and research and could apply them locally. Their views should be represented when hand hygiene guidelines are reviewed and updated.

Barriers to accessing cancer services for adults with physical disabilities in England and Wales: an interview-based study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to explore the barriers to accessing cancer services faced by adults with pre-existing physical disabilities. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, exploratory qualitative study. Data were collected by semistructured interviews and analysed thematically. SETTING: Participants were recruited through statutory and third sector organisations in England and Wales between October 2017 and October 2018. PARTICIPANTS: 18 people with a diagnosis of cancer and a pre-existing physical disability. RESULTS: The findings illustrate that people with physical disabilities in England and Wales face a variety of barriers to accessing cancer services. The overall theme that emerged was that participants experienced a lack of attitudinal and institutional preparation both from healthcare professionals and healthcare facilities. This overall theme is illustrated through three subthemes: lack of acknowledgment of disability, unseeing disability and physical inaccessibility. CONCLUSIONS: As the population ages and increasing numbers of people live with cancer and disability, it is important to develop knowledge to respond to the needs of this population. The mere existence of services does not guarantee their usability. Services need to be relevant, flexible, and accessible and offered in a respectful manner. It is important that healthcare professionals work towards inclusive healthcare provision, enabling the utilisation of services by all. Necessary steps to be taken include better communication between the various professionals and across the different teams involved in patients' care, raising awareness of how physical disability can affect or interact with cancer-related treatment and creating more accessible physical environments.

Survey to explore understanding of the principles of aseptic technique: Qualitative content analysis with descriptive analysis of confidence and training.

BACKGROUND: In many countries, aseptic procedures are undertaken by nurses in the general ward setting, but variation in practice has been reported, and evidence indicates that the principles underpinning aseptic technique are not well understood. METHODS: A survey was conducted, employing a brief, purpose-designed, self-reported questionnaire. RESULTS: The response rate was 72%. Of those responding, 65% of nurses described aseptic technique in terms of the procedure used to undertake it, and 46% understood the principles of asepsis. The related concepts of cleanliness and sterilization were frequently confused with one another. Additionally, 72% reported that they not had received training for at least 5 years; 92% were confident of their ability to apply aseptic technique; and 90% reported that they had not been reassessed since their initial training. Qualitative analysis confirmed a lack of clarity about the meaning of aseptic technique. CONCLUSION: Nurses' understanding of aseptic technique and the concepts of sterility and cleanliness is inadequate, a finding in line with results of previous studies. This knowledge gap potentially places patients at risk. Nurses' understanding of the principles of asepsis could be improved. Further studies should establish the generalizability of the study findings. Possible improvements include renewed emphasis during initial nurse education, greater opportunity for updating knowledge and skills post-qualification, and audit of practice.

Implementing clinical guidelines to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infections and improve catheter care in nursing homes: Systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Catheter-associated urinary tract infection is the most common health care-associated infection, is considered avoidable, and has cost implications for health services. Prevalence is high in nursing homes, but little research has been undertaken to establish whether implementing clinical guidelines can reduce infection rates in long-term care or improve quality of urinary catheter care. METHODS: Systematic search and critical appraisal of the literature. RESULTS: Three studies evaluated the impact of implementing a complete clinical guideline. Five additional studies evaluated the impact of implementing individual elements of a clinical guideline. CONCLUSIONS: Prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infection in nursing homes has received little clinical or research attention. Studies concerned with whole guideline implementation emerged as methodologically poor using recognized criteria for critically appraising epidemiologic studies concerned with infection prevention. Research evaluating the impact of single elements of clinical guidelines is more robust, and their findings could be implemented to prevent urinary infections in nursing homes.

Support and Assessment for Fall Emergency Referrals (SAFER) 2: a cluster randomised trial and systematic review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of new protocols for emergency ambulance paramedics to assess older people following a fall with referral to community-based care when appropriate.

BACKGROUND: Emergency calls are frequently made to ambulance services for older people who have fallen, but ambulance crews often leave patients at the scene without any ongoing care. We evaluated a new clinical protocol which allowed paramedics to assess older people who had fallen and, if appropriate, refer them to community-based falls services. OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes, processes and costs of care between intervention and control groups; and to understand factors which facilitate or hinder use. DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Participating paramedics at three ambulance services in England and Wales were based at stations randomised to intervention or control arms. Participants were aged 65 years and over, attended by a study paramedic for a fall-related emergency service call, and resident in the trial catchment areas. INTERVENTIONS: Intervention paramedics received a clinical protocol with referral pathway, training and support to change practice. Control paramedics continued practice as normal. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome comprised subsequent emergency health-care contacts (emergency admissions, emergency department attendances, emergency service calls) or death at 1 month and 6 months. Secondary outcomes included pathway of care, ambulance service operational indicators, self-reported outcomes and costs of care. Those assessing outcomes remained blinded to group allocation. RESULTS: Across sites, 3073 eligible patients attended by 105 paramedics from 14 ambulance stations were randomly allocated to the intervention group, and 2841 eligible patients attended by 110 paramedics from 11 stations were randomly allocated to the control group. After excluding dissenting and unmatched patients, 2391 intervention group patients and 2264 control group patients were included in primary outcome analyses. We did not find an effect on our overall primary outcome at 1 month or 6 months. However, further emergency service calls were reduced at both 1 month and 6 months; a smaller proportion of patients had made further emergency service calls at 1 month (18.5% vs. 21.8%) and the rate per patient-day at risk at 6 months was lower in the intervention group (0.013 vs. 0.017). Rate of conveyance to emergency department at index incident was similar between groups. Eight per cent of trial eligible patients in the intervention arm were referred to falls services by attending paramedics, compared with 1% in the control arm. The proportion of patients left at scene without further care was lower in the intervention group than in the control group (22.6% vs. 30.3%). We found no differences in duration of episode of care or job cycle. No adverse events were reported. Mean cost of the intervention was £17.30 per patient. There were no significant differences in mean resource utilisation, utilities at 1 month or 6 months or quality-adjusted life-years. In total, 58 patients, 25 paramedics and 31 stakeholders participated in focus groups or interviews. Patients were very satisfied with assessments carried out by paramedics. Paramedics reported that the intervention had increased their confidence to leave patients at home, but barriers to referral included patients' social situations and autonomy. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that this new pathway may be introduced by ambulance services at modest cost, without risk of harm and with some reductions in further emergency calls. However, we did not find evidence of improved health outcomes or reductions in overall NHS emergency workload. Further research is necessary to understand issues in implementation, the costs and benefits of e-trials and the performance of the modified Falls Efficacy Scale. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN60481756 and PROSPERO CRD42013006418. 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. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Paramedic Assessment of Older Adults After Falls, Including Community Care Referral Pathway: Cluster Randomized Trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We aim to determine clinical and cost-effectiveness of a paramedic protocol for the care of older people who fall. METHODS: We undertook a cluster randomized trial in 3 UK ambulance services between March 2011 and June 2012. We included patients aged 65 years or older after an emergency call for a fall, attended by paramedics based at trial stations. Intervention paramedics could refer the patient to a community-based falls service instead of transporting the patient to the emergency department. Control paramedics provided care as usual. The primary outcome was subsequent emergency contacts or death. RESULTS: One hundred five paramedics based at 14 intervention stations attended 3,073 eligible patients; 110 paramedics based at 11 control stations attended 2,841 eligible patients. We analyzed primary outcomes for 2,391 intervention and 2,264 control patients. One third of patients made further emergency contacts or died within 1 month, and two thirds within 6 months, with no difference between groups. Subsequent 999 call rates within 6 months were lower in the intervention arm (0.0125 versus 0.0172; adjusted difference -0.0045; 95% confidence interval -0.0073 to -0.0017). Intervention paramedics referred 8% of patients (204/2,420) to falls services and left fewer patients at the scene without any ongoing care. Intervention patients reported higher satisfaction with interpersonal aspects of care. There were no other differences between groups. Mean intervention cost was $23 per patient, with no difference in overall resource use between groups at 1 or 6 months. CONCLUSION: A clinical protocol for paramedics reduced emergency ambulance calls for patients attended for a fall safely and at modest cost.

The social and community opportunities profile social inclusion measure: Structural equivalence and differential item functioning in community mental health residents in Hong Kong and the United Kingdom.

INTRODUCTION: China's future major health problem will be the management of chronic diseases - of which mental health is a major one. An instrument is needed to measure mental health inclusion outcomes for mental health services in Hong Kong and mainland China as they strive to promote a more inclusive society for their citizens and particular disadvantaged groups. AIM: To report on the analysis of structural equivalence and item differentiation in two mentally unhealthy and one healthy sample in the United Kingdom and Hong Kong. METHOD: The mental health sample in Hong Kong was made up of non-governmental organisation (NGO) referrals meeting the selection/exclusion criteria (being well enough to be interviewed, having a formal psychiatric diagnosis and living in the community). A similar sample in the United Kingdom meeting the same selection criteria was obtained from a community mental health organisation, equivalent to the NGOs in Hong Kong. Exploratory factor analysis and logistic regression were conducted. RESULTS: The single-variable, self-rated 'overall social inclusion' differs significantly between all of the samples, in the way we would expect from previous research, with the healthy population feeling more included than the serious mental illness (SMI) groups. In the exploratory factor analysis, the first two factors explain between a third and half of the variance, and the single variable which enters into all the analyses in the first factor is having friends to visit the home. All the regression models were significant; however, in Hong Kong sample, only one-fifth of the total variance is explained. CONCLUSION: The structural findings imply that the social and community opportunities profile-Chinese version (SCOPE-C) gives similar results when applied to another culture. As only one-fifth of the variance of 'overall inclusion' was explained in the Hong Kong sample, it may be that the instrument needs to be refined using different or additional items within the structural domains of inclusion.

Involving older people in a multi-centre randomised trial of a complex intervention in pre-hospital emergency care: implementation of a collaborative model.

BACKGROUND: Health services research is expected to involve service users as active partners in the research process, but few examples report how this has been achieved in practice in trials. We implemented a model to involve service users in a multi-centre randomised controlled trial in pre-hospital emergency care. We used the generic Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) from our Clinical Trials Unit (CTU) as the basis for creating a model to fit the context and population of the SAFER 2 trial. METHODS: In our model, we planned to involve service users at all stages in the trial through decision-making forums at 3 levels: 1) strategic; 2) site (e.g. Wales; London; East Midlands); 3) local. We linked with charities and community groups to recruit people with experience of our study population. We collected notes of meetings alongside other documentary evidence such as attendance records and study documentation to track how we implemented our model. RESULTS: We involved service users at strategic, site and local level. We also added additional strategic level forums (Task and Finish Groups and Writing Days) where we included service users. Service user involvement varied in frequency and type across meetings, research stages and locations but stabilised and increased as the trial progressed. CONCLUSION: Involving service users in the SAFER 2 trial showed how it is feasible and achievable for patients, carers and potential patients sharing the demographic characteristics of our study population to collaborate in a multi-centre trial at the level which suited their health, location, skills and expertise. A standard model of involvement can be tailored by adopting a flexible approach to take account of the context and complexities of a multi-site trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN60481756. Registered: 13 March 2009.

Support and assessment for fall emergency referrals (SAFER 2) research protocol: cluster randomised trial of the clinical and cost effectiveness of new protocols for emergency ambulance paramedics to assess and refer to appropriate community-based care.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency calls to ambulance services are frequent for older people who have fallen, but ambulance crews often leave patients at the scene without ongoing care. Evidence shows that when left at home with no further support older people often experience subsequent falls which result in injury and emergency-department attendances. SAFER 2 is an evaluation of a new clinical protocol which allows paramedics to assess and refer older people who have fallen, and do not need hospital care, to community-based falls services. In this protocol paper, we report methods and progress during trial implementation. SAFER 2 is recruiting patients through three ambulance services. A successful trial will provide robust evidence about the value of this new model of care, and enable ambulance services to use resources efficiently. DESIGN: Pragmatic cluster randomised trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We randomly allocated 25 participating ambulance stations (clusters) in three services to intervention or control group. Intervention paramedics received training and clinical protocols for assessing and referring older people who have fallen to community-based falls services when appropriate, while control paramedics deliver care as usual. Patients are eligible for the trial if they are aged 65 or over; resident in a participating falls service catchment area; and attended by a trial paramedic following an emergency call coded as a fall without priority symptoms. The principal outcome is the rate of further emergency contacts (or death), for any cause and for falls. Secondary outcomes include further falls, health-related quality of life, 'fear of falling', patient satisfaction reported by participants through postal questionnaires at 1 and 6 months, and quality and pathways of care at the index incident. We shall compare National Health Service (NHS) and patient/carer costs between intervention and control groups and estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained from the intervention and thus incremental cost per QALY. We shall estimate wider system effects on key-performance indicators. We shall interview 60 intervention patients, and conduct focus groups with contributing NHS staff to explore their experiences of the assessment and referral service. We shall analyse quantitative trial data by 'treatment allocated'; and qualitative data using content analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Research Ethics Committee for Wales gave ethical approval and each participating centre gave NHS Research and Development approval. We shall disseminate study findings through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 60481756.

Support and Assessment for Fall Emergency Referrals (SAFER 1) trial protocol. Computerised on-scene decision support for emergency ambulance staff to assess and plan care for older people who have fallen: evaluation of costs and benefits using a pragmatic cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Many emergency ambulance calls are for older people who have fallen. As half of them are left at home, a community-based response may often be more appropriate than hospital attendance. The SAFER 1 trial will assess the costs and benefits of a new healthcare technology--hand-held computers with computerised clinical decision support (CCDS) software--to help paramedics decide who needs hospital attendance, and who can be safely left at home with referral to community falls services. METHODS/DESIGN: Pragmatic cluster randomised trial with a qualitative component. We shall allocate 72 paramedics ('clusters') at random between receiving the intervention and a control group delivering care as usual, of whom we expect 60 to complete the trial.Patients are eligible if they are aged 65 or older, live in the study area but not in residential care, and are attended by a study paramedic following an emergency call for a fall. Seven to 10 days after the index fall we shall offer patients the opportunity to opt out of further follow up. Continuing participants will receive questionnaires after one and 6 months, and we shall monitor their routine clinical data for 6 months. We shall interview 20 of these patients in depth. We shall conduct focus groups or semi-structured interviews with paramedics and other stakeholders.The primary outcome is the interval to the first subsequent reported fall (or death). We shall analyse this and other measures of outcome, process and cost by 'intention to treat'. We shall analyse qualitative data thematically. DISCUSSION: Since the SAFER 1 trial received funding in August 2006, implementation has come to terms with ambulance service reorganisation and a new national electronic patient record in England. In response to these hurdles the research team has adapted the research design, including aspects of the intervention, to meet the needs of the ambulance services.In conclusion this complex emergency care trial will provide rigorous evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of CCDS for paramedics in the care of older people who have fallen. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN10538608.

'Should I stay or should I go?' Deciding whether to go to hospital after a 999 call.

OBJECTIVE: In most UK ambulance services, crews attending someone who has phoned the emergency services on '999' will take the patient to hospital, unless the patient makes the decision to stay at home (or wherever they happen to be when the ambulance arrives). Safety concerns have been raised about non-conveyance decisions. We undertook a study of one UK Ambulance Service to examine ambulance crew members' views on how decision-making about non-conveyance works in practice in relation to non-urgent calls. METHODS: A total of 25 paramedics took part in three focus groups. Focus groups were transcribed and analysed thematically. RESULTS: The ambulance service's apparently straightforward guidance on decision-making about non-conveyance proved tricky in the messiness of the real world, for two reasons. The first was to do with the notion of the patient's capacity to make decisions and how this was interpreted. The second was to do with the complexity of the decision-making process, in which the patient, the crew and, in many cases, family or carers often take part in negotiation and de facto joint decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: There is a mismatch between policy and practice in relation to non-conveyance decisions. Findings should be built into research and service development in this rapidly changing field of practice in emergency and/or unscheduled care. The commonly accepted perspective on shared decision-making should be extended to include the context of '999' ambulance calls.