Room for improvement? Leadership, innovation culture and uptake of quality improvement methods in general practice.

BACKGROUND: Leadership and innovation are currently seen as essential elements for the development and maintenance of high-quality care. Little is known about the relationship between leadership and culture of innovation and the extent to which quality improvement methods are used in general practice. This study aimed to assess the relationship between leadership behaviour, culture of innovation and adoption of quality improvement methods in general practice. METHOD: Self-administered postal questionnaires were sent to general practitioner quality improvement leads in one county in the UK between June and December 2007. The questionnaire consisted of background information, a 12-item scale to assess leadership behaviour, a seven-dimension self-rating scale for culture of innovation and questions on current use of quality improvement tools and techniques. RESULTS: Sixty-three completed questionnaires (62%) were returned. Leadership behaviours were not commonly reported. Most practices reported a positive culture of innovation, featuring relationship most strongly, followed by targets and information but rated lower on other dimensions of rewards, risk and resources. There was a significant positive correlation between leadership behaviour and the culture of innovation (r = 0.57; P < 0.001). Apart from clinical audit and significant event analysis, quality improvement methods were not adopted by most participating practices. CONCLUSIONS: Leadership behaviours were infrequently reported and this was associated with a limited culture of innovation in participating general practices. There was little use of quality improvement methods beyond clinical and significant event audit. Practices need support to enhance leadership skills, encourage innovation and develop quality improvement skills if improvements in health care are to accelerate.

General practitioners' preferences for managing insomnia and opportunities for reducing hypnotic prescribing.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Insomnia and sleep problems are common with many sufferers seeking medical help from general practitioners (GPs) whose clinical response is limited, often involving prescription of hypnotic drugs. The case for improving the quality of care for patients with insomnia is compelling but there is little evidence about how better care could be achieved in a primary care setting. The aim of this study was to investigate GPs' management preferences for sleep problems and their awareness and perception of opportunities for improving care as well as reducing the use of benzodiazepines and Z drugs. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of GPs using a self-administered postal questionnaire in 2005 to all GPs in West Lincolnshire Primary Care Trust Lincolnshire, UK. RESULTS: A total of 84 of 107 (78.5%) questionnaires sent to GP principals were returned after one reminder. Respondents favoured Z drugs over benzodiazepines for the majority of indications. Respondent attitudes to benzodiazepines and Z drugs were generally negative whereas they were positive towards initiatives to reduce hypnotic prescribing through personal guidance, awareness-raising strategies and organizational interventions. CONCLUSIONS: GPs were negative in attitude towards hypnotics and positive towards reducing prescribing for sleep problems. They need to develop resources and better strategies for assessment and non-pharmacological management of patients presenting with insomnia for the first time as well as those on long-term hypnotics. The feasibility and effectiveness of psychosocial interventions tailored to patient and service needs in primary care setting should be evaluated systematically seeking to understand potential clinical benefits as well as potential undesirable effects of service changes.

Patients' and clinicians' experiences of consultations in primary care for sleep problems and insomnia: a focus group study.

BACKGROUND: Insomnia affects around one-third of adults in the UK. Many sufferers seek help from primary care. AIM: To explore patients' and primary care practitioners' expectations, experiences, and outcomes of consultations for sleep difficulties, as a basis for improving the treatment of insomnia in primary care. DESIGN OF STUDY: A qualitative phenomenological approach. METHOD: Separate focus groups for GPs and nurse prescribers and patients recruited from eight general practices that were in a quality improvement collaborative. Constant comparative analysis was used. RESULTS: Emergent themes from 14 focus groups comparing participating patients (n = 30) and practitioners (n = 15), provided insights on presentation, beliefs, expectations, and management of sleep problems. Patients initially tried to resolve insomnia themselves; consulting was often a last resort. Patients felt they needed to convince practitioners that their sleep difficulties were serious. They described insomnia in terms of the impact it was having on their life, whereas clinicians tended to focus on underlying causes. By the time patients consulted, many expected a prescription. Clinicians often assumed this was what patients wanted, and felt this would hamper patients' ability to take non-drug treatments seriously. Clinicians expected patients who were already on sleeping tablets to be resistant to stopping them, whereas patients were often open to alternatives. CONCLUSION: Better management of insomnia should take into account the perceptions and interactions of patients and practitioners. Practitioners need to empathise, listen, elicit patients' beliefs and expectations, assess sleep better, and offer a range of treatments, including cognitive and behavioural therapies, tailored to individual needs. Practitioner education should incorporate understanding of patients' decision-making processes, the clinicians' role during the consultation, and how to negotiate and deliver strategies for resolving sleep problems.

Strategies for improving patient recruitment to focus groups in primary care: a case study reflective paper using an analytical framework.

BACKGROUND: Recruiting to primary care studies is complex. With the current drive to increase numbers of patients involved in primary care studies, we need to know more about successful recruitment approaches. There is limited evidence on recruitment to focus group studies, particularly when no natural grouping exists and where participants do not regularly meet. The aim of this paper is to reflect on recruitment to a focus group study comparing the methods used with existing evidence using a resource for research recruitment, PROSPeR (Planning Recruitment Options: Strategies for Primary Care). METHODS: The focus group formed part of modelling a complex intervention in primary care in the Resources for Effective Sleep Treatment (REST) study. Despite a considered approach at the design stage, there were a number of difficulties with recruitment. The recruitment strategy and subsequent revisions are detailed. RESULTS: The researchers' modifications to recruitment, justifications and evidence from the literature in support of them are presented. Contrary evidence is used to analyse why some aspects were unsuccessful and evidence is used to suggest improvements. Recruitment to focus group studies should be considered in two distinct phases; getting potential participants to contact the researcher, and converting those contacts into attendance. The difficulty of recruitment in primary care is underemphasised in the literature especially where people do not regularly come together, typified by this case study of patients with sleep problems. CONCLUSION: We recommend training GPs and nurses to recruit patients during consultations. Multiple recruitment methods should be employed from the outset and the need to build topic related non-financial incentives into the group meeting should be considered. Recruitment should be monitored regularly with barriers addressed iteratively as a study progresses.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an educational intervention for practice teams to deliver problem focused therapy for insomnia: rationale and design of a pilot cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Sleep problems are common, affecting over a third of adults in the United Kingdom and leading to reduced productivity and impaired health-related quality of life. Many of those whose lives are affected seek medical help from primary care. Drug treatment is ineffective long term. Psychological methods for managing sleep problems, including cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia (CBTi) have been shown to be effective and cost effective but have not been widely implemented or evaluated in a general practice setting where they are most likely to be needed and most appropriately delivered. This paper outlines the protocol for a pilot study designed to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an educational intervention for general practitioners, primary care nurses and other members of the primary care team to deliver problem focused therapy to adult patients presenting with sleep problems due to lifestyle causes, pain or mild to moderate depression or anxiety. METHODS AND DESIGN: This will be a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention. General practices will be randomised to an educational intervention for problem focused therapy which includes a consultation approach comprising careful assessment (using assessment of secondary causes, sleep diaries and severity) and use of modified CBTi for insomnia in the consultation compared with usual care (general advice on sleep hygiene and pharmacotherapy with hypnotic drugs). Clinicians randomised to the intervention will receive an educational intervention (2 x 2 hours) to implement a complex intervention of problem focused therapy. Clinicians randomised to the control group will receive reinforcement of usual care with sleep hygiene advice. Outcomes will be assessed via self-completion questionnaires and telephone interviews of patients and staff as well as clinical records for interventions and prescribing. DISCUSSION: Previous studies in adults have shown that psychological treatments for insomnia administered by specialist nurses to groups of patients can be effective within a primary care setting. This will be a pilot study to determine whether an educational intervention aimed at primary care teams to deliver problem focused therapy for insomnia can improve sleep management and outcomes for individual adult patients presenting to general practice. The study will also test procedures and collect information in preparation for a larger definitive cluster-randomised trial. The study is funded by The Health Foundation.