Community nursing quality indicators for end-of-life care in England: identification, preparation, and coordination.

High-quality community nursing is essential to ensure that end-of-life care can be provided in community settings in line with patient preferences. This article examines the quality priorities commissioners sought to incentivise in end-of-life care, by reviewing a survey of Commissioning for Quality and Innovation (CQUIN) indicators for community nursing conducted in England in 2014-2015. Findings from the survey suggest that end-of-life care was not given a high priority with the CQUIN indicators for community nursing. Vigorous quality standards, including training and development, need to be in place to make sure that the potential of community nursing is being used to sensitively engage with people nearing the end of their lives and support them to plan their future care, if they so wish.

How commissioning affects community nursing.

Community nurses have direct experience of how changes in the local health economy affect the quality of care patients receive, so it is important that they engage with commissioning to influence decisions made about the quality and direction of their service. This article seeks to demystify commissioning priorities by drawing on findings from a survey of Commissioning for Quality and Innovation indicators for community nursing conducted in England, 2014-15. The article focuses specifically on organisational goals, highlighting the impact of the Francis report and other NHS priorities on quality assessment in community nursing.

Medication decision making and patient outcomes in GP, nurse and pharmacist prescriber consultations.

UNLABELLED: Aim The aims of this study were twofold: (a) to explore whether specific components of shared decision making were present in consultations involving nurse prescribers (NPs), pharmacist prescribers (PPs) and general practitioners (GPs) and (b) to relate these to self-reported patient outcomes including satisfaction, adherence and patient perceptions of practitioner empathy. BACKGROUND: There are a range of ways for defining and measuring the process of concordance, or shared decision making as it relates to decisions about medicines. As a result, demonstrating a convincing link between shared decision making and patient benefit is challenging. In the United Kingdom, nurses and pharmacists can now take on a prescribing role, engaging in shared decision making. Given the different professional backgrounds of GPs, NPs and PPs, this study sought to explore the process of shared decision making across these three prescriber groups. METHODS: Analysis of audio-recordings of consultations in primary care in South England between patients and GPs, NPs and PPs. Analysis of patient questionnaires completed post consultation. Findings A total of 532 consultations were audio-recorded with 20 GPs, 19 NPs and 12 PPs. Prescribing decisions occurred in 421 (79%). Patients were given treatment options in 21% (102/482) of decisions, the prescriber elicited the patient's treatment preference in 18% (88/482) and the patient expressed a treatment preference in 24% (118/482) of decisions. PPs were more likely to ask for the patient's preference about their treatment regimen (χ 2=6.6, P=0.036, Cramer's V=0.12) than either NPs or GPs. Of the 275 patient questionnaires, 192(70%) could be matched with a prescribing decision. NP patients had higher satisfaction levels than patients of GPs or PPs. More time describing treatment options was associated with increased satisfaction, adherence and greater perceived practitioner empathy. While defining, measuring and enabling the process of shared decision making remains challenging, it may have patient benefit.

Solicitations in GP, nurse and pharmacist prescriber consultations: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: The opening solicitation is a key element of the primary care consultation as it enables patients to express their ideas, concerns and expectations that can lead to improved patient outcomes. However, in practice, this may not always occur. With nurses and pharmacists now able to prescribe, this research explored the opening solicitation in a multi-professional context. OBJECTIVE: To compare the nature, frequency and response to opening solicitations used in consultations with nurse prescribers (NPs), pharmacist prescribers (PPs) and GPs. METHODS: An observational study using audio-recordings of NP, PP and GP patient consultations in 36 primary care practices in southern England. Between 7-13 prescriber-patient consultations were recorded per prescriber. A standardized pro forma based upon previous research was used to assess recordings. RESULTS: Five hundred and thirty-three patient consultations (213 GPs, 209 NPs, 111 PPs) were audio-recorded with 51 prescribers. Across the prescribing groups, pharmacists asked fewer opening solicitations, while GPs used more open questions than NPs and PPs. The mean number of patient agenda items was 1.3 with more items in GP consultations. Patients completed their opening agenda in 20% of consultations, which was unaffected by professional seen. Redirection of the patient's agenda occurred at 24 seconds (mean). CONCLUSION: All prescribers should be encouraged to use more open questions and ask multiple solicitations throughout the consultation. This is likely to result in greater expression of patients' concerns and improved patient outcomes.

A comparison of GP, pharmacist and nurse prescriber responses to patients' emotional cues and concerns in primary care consultations.

OBJECTIVE: Recognising patients' cues and concerns is an important part of patient centred care. With nurses and pharmacists now able to prescribe in the UK, this study compared the frequency, nature, and professionals' responses to patient cues and concerns in consultations with GPs, nurse prescribers and pharmacist prescribers. METHODS: Audio-recording and analysis of primary care consultations in England between patients and nurse prescribers, pharmacist prescribers and GPs. Recordings were coded for the number of cues and concerns raised, cue or concern type and whether responded to positively or missed. RESULTS: A total of 528 consultations were audio-recorded with 51 professionals: 20 GPs, 19 nurse prescribers and 12 pharmacist prescribers. Overall there were 3.5 cues or concerns per consultation, with no difference between prescriber groups. Pharmacist prescribers responded positively to 81% of patient's cues and concerns with nurse prescribers responding positively to 72% and GPs 53% (PhP v NP: U = 7453, z = -2.1, p = 0.04; PhP v GP: U = 5463, z = -5.9, p < 0.0001; NP v GP: U = 12,070, z = -4.9, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: This evidence suggests that pharmacists and nurses are responding supportively to patients' cues and concerns. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The findings support the importance of patient-centredness in training new prescribers and their potential in providing public health roles.

Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations.

Attribute generation for discrete choice experiments (DCEs) is often poorly reported, and it is unclear whether this element of research is conducted rigorously. This paper explores issues associated with developing attributes for DCEs and contrasts different qualitative approaches. The paper draws on eight studies, four developed attributes for measures, and four developed attributes for more ad hoc policy questions. Issues that have become apparent through these studies include the following: the theoretical framework for random utility theory and the need for attributes that are neither too close to the latent construct nor too intrinsic to people's personality; the need to think about attribute development as a two-stage process involving conceptual development followed by refinement of language to convey the intended meaning; and the difficulty in resolving tensions inherent in the reductiveness of condensing complex and nuanced qualitative findings into precise terms. The comparison of alternative qualitative approaches suggests that the nature of data collection will depend both on the characteristics of the question (its sensitivity, for example) and the availability of existing qualitative information. An iterative, constant comparative approach to analysis is recommended. Finally, the paper provides a series of recommendations for improving the reporting of this element of DCE studies.