ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To develop and test training to improve practitioners' confidence and perceived understanding when communicating cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk using novel tools and metrics. METHODS: A CVD risk communication training workshop was developed through interviews with patients and practitioners delivering Health Checks, a literature review, NICE guidance and the UK Health Check competency framework. It was pilot-tested with practitioners delivering Health Checks in the UK. Perceived practitioner understanding and confidence were measured before and up to 10 weeks after the workshop, and changes were compared with those in a control group (who received no intervention). Perceived impact was also explored through semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: Sixty-two practitioners (34 intervention, 28 control) took part. Perceived practitioner understanding (p = .030) and perceived patient understanding (p = .007) improved significantly for those delivering Health Checks in the training group compared with controls. Practitioner confidence also improved significantly more in practitioners who attended the training (p = .001). Findings were supported by interviews with a sub-sample of practitioners (n = 13). CONCLUSION: The training workshop improved practitioners' confidence and perceived understanding of CVD risk in Health Checks. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The training is an important step to improving practitioner understanding of CVD risk in Health Checks and should be implemented on a wider scale.
Subject(s)
Attitude of Health Personnel , Cardiovascular Diseases/prevention & control , Communication , Inservice Training , Patient Education as Topic , Adult , Female , Humans , Male , Physician-Patient Relations , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , State Medicine , United KingdomABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: We present findings from a national online survey of uptake and implementation of the National Health Service Health Check (NHSHC) programme. The research aimed to understand national variation in implementation of NHSHCs and to explore the relationship between uptake and different components of implementation. STUDY DESIGN: The study design was a descriptive online survey. METHODS: Data were collected via an online survey between November 2015 and August 2016. The survey was distributed nationally to practice managers in the Midlands and East of England, South of England, North of England and London via local NHSHC leads with the help of the national programme manager. RESULTS: Responses were received from 153 participants, half of who were practice managers (49.7%). Common components of implementation included using postal invitations accompanied by the national leaflet, delivering NHSHCs routinely with other appointments, offering NHSHC outside of working hours and taking blood samples during the consultation. Meaningful exploration of the relationship between uptake and components of implementation was not possible given the inaccuracy of self-reported uptake data, which was confirmed by comparison with public health data in a subsample (n = 18). The comparison also found that a number of practices were reporting more completed health checks than the total number of patients invited, which again indicates problems that may have implications for uptake figures locally and nationally. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our findings showed considerable variation in the implementation of NHSHCs on a national scale and issues with quality of programme uptake data, which has implications for national reporting for NHSHC.
