MulTI-domain self-management in older People wiTh OstEoarthritis and multi-morbidities: protocol for the TIPTOE randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Four out of five people living with osteoarthritis (OA) also suffer with at least one other long-term health condition. The complex interaction between OA and multiple long-term conditions (MLTCs) can result in difficulties with self-care, restricted mobility, pain, anxiety, depression and reduced quality of life. The aim of the MulTI-domain Self-management in Older People wiTh OstEoarthritis and Multi-Morbidities (TIPTOE) trial is to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the Living Well self-management support intervention, co-designed with people living with OA, integrated into usual care, in comparison to usual care alone. METHODS: TIPTOE is a multi-centre, two-arm, individually randomised controlled trial where 824 individuals over 65 years old with knee and/or hip joint pain from their OA affected joint and at least one other long-term health condition will be randomised to receive either the Living Well Self-Management support intervention or usual care. Eligible participants can self-refer onto the trial via a website or be referred via NHS services across Wales and England. Those randomised to receive the Living Well support intervention will be offered up to six one-to-one coaching sessions with a TIPTOE-trained healthcare practitioner and a co-designed book. Participants will be encouraged to nominate a support person to assist them throughout the study. All participants will complete a series of self-reported outcome measures at baseline and 6- and 12-month follow-up. The primary outcome is symptoms and quality of life as assessed by the Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire (MSK-HQ). Routine data will be used to evaluate health resource use. A mixed methods process evaluation will be conducted alongside the trial to inform future implementation should the TIPTOE intervention be found both clinically and cost-effective. An embedded 'Study Within A Project' (SWAP) will explore and address barriers to the inclusion of under-served patient groups (e.g. oldest old, low socioeconomic groups, ethnic groups). DISCUSSION: TIPTOE will evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a co-designed, living well personalised self-management support intervention for older individuals with knee and/or hip OA and MLTCs. The trial has been designed to maximise inclusivity and access. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 16024745 . Registered on October 16, 2023.

Long-term risk prediction after major lower limb amputation: 1-year results of the PERCEIVE study.

BACKGROUND: Decision-making when considering major lower limb amputation is complex and requires individualized outcome estimation. It is unknown how accurate healthcare professionals or relevant outcome prediction tools are at predicting outcomes at 1-year after major lower limb amputation. METHODS: An international, multicentre prospective observational study evaluating healthcare professional accuracy in predicting outcomes 1 year after major lower limb amputation and evaluation of relevant outcome prediction tools identified in a systematic search of the literature was undertaken. Observed outcomes at 1 year were compared with: healthcare professionals' preoperative predictions of death (surgeons and anaesthetists), major lower limb amputation revision (surgeons) and ambulation (surgeons, specialist physiotherapists and vascular nurse practitioners); and probabilities calculated from relevant outcome prediction tools. RESULTS: A total of 537 patients and 2244 healthcare professional predictions of outcomes were included. Surgeons and anaesthetists had acceptable discrimination (C-statistic = 0.715), calibration and overall performance (Brier score = 0.200) when predicting 1-year death, but performed worse when predicting major lower limb amputation revision and ambulation (C-statistics = 0.627 and 0.662 respectively). Healthcare professionals overestimated the death and major lower limb amputation revision risks. Consultants outperformed trainees, especially when predicting ambulation. Allied healthcare professionals marginally outperformed surgeons in predicting ambulation. Two outcome prediction tools (C-statistics = 0.755 and 0.717, Brier scores = 0.158 and 0.178) outperformed healthcare professionals' discrimination, calibration and overall performance in predicting death. Two outcome prediction tools for ambulation (C-statistics = 0.688 and 0.667) marginally outperformed healthcare professionals. CONCLUSION: There is uncertainty in predicting 1-year outcomes following major lower limb amputation. Different professional groups performed comparably in this study. Two outcome prediction tools for death and two for ambulation outperformed healthcare professionals and may support shared decision-making.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on domiciliary care workers in Wales, UK: a data linkage cohort study using the SAIL Databank.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify population health risks for domiciliary care workers (DCWs) in Wales, UK, working during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: A population-level retrospective study linking occupational registration data to anonymised electronic health records maintained by the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank in a privacy-protecting trusted research environment. SETTING: Registered DCW population in Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Records for all linked DCWs from 1 March 2020 to 30 November 2021. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Our primary outcome was confirmed COVID-19 infection; secondary outcomes included contacts for suspected COVID-19, mental health including self-harm, fit notes, respiratory infections not necessarily recorded as COVID-19, deaths involving COVID-19 and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Confirmed and suspected COVID-19 infection rates increased over the study period to 24% by 30 November 2021. Confirmed COVID-19 varied by sex (males: 19% vs females: 24%) and age (>55 years: 19% vs <35 years: 26%) and were higher for care workers employed by local authority social services departments compared with the private sector (27% and 23%, respectively). 34% of DCWs required support for a mental health condition, with mental health-related prescribing increasing in frequency when compared with the prepandemic period. Events for self-harm increased from 0.2% to 0.4% over the study period as did the issuing of fit notes. There was no evidence to suggest a miscoding of COVID-19 infection with non-COVID-19 respiratory conditions. COVID-19-related and all-cause mortality were no greater than for the general population aged 15-64 years in Wales (0.1% and 0.034%, respectively). A comparable DCW workforce in Scotland and England would result in a comparable rate of COVID-19 infection, while the younger workforce in Northern Ireland may result in a greater infection rate. CONCLUSIONS: While initial concerns about excess mortality are alleviated, the substantial pre-existing and increased mental health burden for DCWs will require investment to provide long-term support to the sector's workforce.

"I don't mean to be rude, but could you put a mask on while I'm here?" A qualitative study of risks experienced by domiciliary care workers in Wales during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Domiciliary care workers (DCWs) continued to provide care to adults in their own homes throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. The evidence of the impact of COVID-19 on health outcomes of DCWs is currently mixed. The OSCAR study will quantify the impact of COVID-19 upon health outcomes of DCWs in Wales, explore causes of variation and extrapolate to the rest of the UK DCW population. An embedded qualitative study aimed to explore DCW experiences during the pandemic, including factors that may have varied risk of exposure to COVID-19 and adverse health and wellbeing outcomes. Registered DCWs working throughout Wales were invited to participate in a semi-structured telephone interview. 24 DCWs were interviewed between February and July 2021. Themes were identified through inductive analysis using thematic coding. Several themes emerged relating to risk of exposure to COVID-19. First, general changes to the role of the DCW during the pandemic were identified. Second, practical challenges for DCWs in the workplace were reported, including staff shortages, clients and families not following safety procedures, initial shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE), DCW criticism of standard use PPE, client difficulty with PPE and management of rapid antigen testing. Third, lack of government/employer preparation for a pandemic was described, including the reorganisation of staff clients and services, inadequate or confusing information for many DCWs, COVID-19 training and the need for improved practical instruction and limited official standard risk assessments for DCWs. Pressure to attend work and perceptions of COVID-19 risk and vaccination was also reported. In summary, this paper describes the risk factors associated with working during the pandemic. We have mapped recommendations for each problem using these qualitative findings including tailored training and better support for isolated team members and identified the required changes at several socio-ecological levels.

Maximising recruitment of research participants into a general practice based randomised controlled trial concerning lung diagnosis-staff insights from an embedded qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The ELCID Trial was a feasibility randomised controlled trial examining the effect on lung cancer diagnosis of lowering the threshold for referral for urgent chest X-ray for smokers and recent ex-smokers, aged over 60 with new chest symptoms. The qualitative component aimed to explore the feasibility of individually randomising patients to an urgent chest X-ray or not and to investigate any barriers to patient recruitment and participation. This would inform the design of any future definitive trial. This paper explores general practice staff insights into participating in and recruiting to diagnostic trials for possible/suspected lung cancer. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted with 11 general practice staff which included general practitioners, a nurse practitioner, research nurses and practice managers. Interviews were analysed using a framework approach. RESULTS: Findings highlight general practice staff motivators to participate in the trial as recruiters, practice staff interactions with patients recruited onto the study, methods of organisation staff used to undertake the trial, the general impact of the trial on practice staff, how the trial research team supported the practices and lastly practice staff suggestions for trial delivery improvement. CONCLUSIONS: The integration of a qualitative component focused on staff experiences participating in a lung diagnostic trial has demonstrated the feasibility to recruit for similar future studies within general practice. Although recruitment into trials can be difficult, results from our study offer suggestions on maximising patient recruitment not just to trials in general but also specifically for a lung diagnosis study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01344005. Registered on 27 April 2011.

Nobody ever questions-Polypharmacy in care homes: A mixed methods evaluation of a multidisciplinary medicines optimisation initiative.

BACKGROUND: Nurse-led monitoring of patients for signs and symptoms associated with documented 'undesirable effects' of medicines has potential to prevent avoidable harm, and optimise prescribing. INTERVENTION: The Adverse Drug Reaction Profile for polypharmacy (ADRe-p) identifies and documents putative adverse effects of medicines commonly prescribed in primary care. Nurses address some problems, before passing ADRe-p to pharmacists and prescribers for review, in conjunction with prescriptions. OBJECTIVES: We investigated changes in: the number and nature of residents' problems as recorded on ADRe-p; prescription regimens; medicines optimisation: and healthcare costs. We explored aetiologies of problems identified and stakeholders' perspectives. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: In three UK care homes, 19 residents completed the study, December 2018 to May 2019. Two service users, three pharmacists, six nurses gave interviews. METHODS: This mixed-method process evaluation integrated data from residents' ADRe-ps and medicines charts, at the study's start and 5-10 weeks later. RESULTS: We recruited three of 27 homes approached and 26 of 45 eligible residents; 19 completed ADRe-p at least twice. Clinical gains were identified for 17/19 residents (mean number of symptoms 3 SD 1.67, range 0-7). Examples included management of: pain (six residents), seizures (three), dyspnoea (one), diarrhoea (laxatives reduced, two), falls (two of five able to stand). One or more medicine was de-prescribed or dose reduced for 12/19 residents. ADRe administration and review cost ~£30 in staff time. ADRe-p helped carers and nurses bring residents' problems to the attention of prescribers. IMPLICATIONS: ADRe-p relieved unnecessary suffering. It supported carers and nurses by providing a tool to engage with pharmacists and prescribers, and was the only observable strategy for multidisciplinary team working around medicines optimisation. ADRe-p improved care by: a) regular systematic checks and problem documentation; b) information transfer from care home staff to prescribers and pharmacists; c) recording changes. REGISTRATION: NLM Identifier NCT03955133; ClinicalTrials.gov.

Establishing the impact of COVID-19 on the health outcomes of domiciliary care workers in Wales using routine data: a protocol for the OSCAR study.

INTRODUCTION: Domiciliary care workers (DCWs) continued providing social care to adults in their own homes throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Evidence of the impact of COVID-19 on health outcomes of DCWs is currently mixed, probably reflecting methodological limitations of existing studies. The risk of COVID-19 to workers providing care in people's homes remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the impact of COVID-19 upon health outcomes of DCWs in Wales, to explore causes of variation, and to extrapolate to the rest of the UK DCW population. METHODS: Mixed methods design comprising cohort study of DCWs and exploratory qualitative interviews. Data for all registered DCWs in Wales is available via the SAIL Databank using a secured, privacy-protecting encrypted anonymisation process. Occupational registration data for DCWs working during the pandemic will be combined with EHR outcome data within the SAIL Databank including clinical codes that identify suspected and confirmed COVID-19 cases. We will report rates of suspected and confirmed COVID-19 infections and key health outcomes including mortality and explore variation (by factors such as age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation quintile, rurality, employer, comorbidities) using regression modelling, adjusting for clustering of outcome within Health Board, region and employer. A maximum variation sample of Welsh DCWs will be approached for qualitative interview using a strategy to include participants that vary across factors such as sex, age, ethnicity and employer. The interviews will inform the quantitative analysis modelling. We will generalise the quantitative findings to other UK nations. DISCUSSION: Using anonymised linked occupational and EHR data and qualitative interviews, the OSCAR study will quantify the risk of COVID-19 on DCWs' health and explore sources of variation. This will provide a secure base for informing public health policy and occupational guidance.

Considerations and recommendations for conducting qualitative research interviews with palliative and end-of-life care patients in the home setting: a consensus paper.

OBJECTIVES: To present and discuss the views of researchers at an academic palliative care research centre on research encounters with terminally ill patients in the home setting and to generate a list of recommendations for qualitative researchers working in palliative and end-of-life care. METHODS: Eight researchers took part in a consensus meeting to discuss their experiences of undertaking qualitative interviews. The researchers were of varying backgrounds and all reported having experience in interviewing terminally ill patients, and all but one had experience of interviewing patients in their home environment. RESULTS: The main areas discussed by researchers included: whether participation in end-of-life research unintentionally becomes a therapeutic experience or an ethical concern; power relationships between terminally ill patients and researchers; researcher reflexivity and reciprocity; researchers' training needs. Qualitative methods can complement the home environment; however, it can raise ethical and practical challenges, which can be more acute in the case of research undertaken with palliative and patients at the end-of-life. CONCLUSIONS: The ethical and practical challenges researchers face in this context has the potential to place both participant and researcher at risk for their physical and psychological well-being. We present a set of recommendations for researchers to consider prior to embarking on qualitative research in this context and advocate researchers in this field carefully consider the issues presented on a study-by-study basis.

Palliative care research centre's move into social media: constructing a framework for ethical research, a consensus paper.

BACKGROUND: Social media (SM) have altered the way we live and, for many, the way we die. The information available on even the rarest conditions is vast. Free from restrictions of mobility, time and distance, SM provides a space for people to share experiences of illness, death and dying, and potentially benefit from the emotional and practical support of others n similar positions. The communications that take place in these spaces also create large amounts of 'data' which, for any research centre, cannot be ignored. However, for a palliative care research centre the use of this 'data' comes with specific ethical dilemmas. METHODS: This paper details the process that we, as a research, went through in constructing a set of ethical guidelines by which to work. This involved conducting two consensus days; one with researchers from within the centre, and one with the inclusion of external researchers with a specific interest in SM. RESULTS: The primary themes that emerged from the consensus meetings includes; SM as a public or private space; the status of open and closed groups; the use of historical data; recruiting participants and obtaining informed consent and problems of anonymity associated with dissemination. CONCLUSIONS: These are the themes that this paper will focus on prior to setting out the guidelines that we subsequently constructed.

Patient understanding and acceptability of an early lung cancer diagnosis trial: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The ELCID (Early Lung Cancer Investigation and Diagnosis) trial was a feasibility randomised controlled trial examining the effect on lung cancer diagnosis of lowering the threshold for referral for urgent chest x-ray for smokers and recent ex-smokers, aged over 60 years with new chest symptoms. The qualitative component aimed to explore the feasibility of individually randomising patients to an urgent chest x-ray or not and to investigate any barriers to patient recruitment and participation. We integrated this within the feasibility trial to inform the design of any future definitive trial, particularly in view of the lack of research exploring symptomatic patients' experiences of participating in diagnostic trials for possible/suspected lung cancer. Although previous studies contributed valuable information concerning screening for lung cancer and patient participation in trials, this paper is the first to explore issues relating to this specific patient group. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted with 21 patients, comprising 9 who had been randomised to receive an immediate chest x-ray, 10 who were randomised to receive the standard treatment according to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, and 2 who chose not to participate in the trial. Interviews were analysed using a framework approach. RESULTS: The findings of this analysis showed that altruism, personal benefit and the reassurance of not having lung cancer were important factors in patient participation. However, patients largely believed that being in the intervention arm was more beneficial, highlighting a lack of understanding of clinical equipoise. Disincentives to participation in the trial included the stigmatisation of patients who smoked (given the inclusion criteria). Although the majority of patients reported that they were happy with the trial design, there was evidence of poor understanding. Last, for several patients, placing trust in health professionals was preferred to understanding the trial processes. CONCLUSIONS: The integration of a qualitative study focusing on participant experience as a secondary outcome of a feasibility trial enabled exploration of patient response to participation and recruitment. The study demonstrated that although it is feasible to recruit patients to the ELCID trial, more work needs to be done to ensure an understanding of study principles and also of smoking stigmatisation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01344005 . Registered on 27 April 2011.