A blended model to support brief interventions in primary care: A qualitative study of usability and acceptability of HealthEir in community pharmacy.

BACKGROUND: Brief interventions for lifestyle behaviour change are effective health promotion interventions. Primary care settings, including pharmacies, are the most frequently visited healthcare facilities and are well placed to provide brief health interventions. However, despite the evidence-based and policy guidance, barriers to brief interventions have limited their implementation. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore the usability and acceptability of HealthEir, a blended model with digital, print, and communication elements designed to support the delivery of brief health-promoting interventions in pharmacy practice. METHODS: Usability tests using a think aloud protocol and set tasks (to assess usability) and semi-structured interviews (to assess acceptability) were conducted with fifteen patients and twelve pharmacists. Usability data were analysed deductively using Nielsen's five quality components of usability as a framework. Acceptability data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. FINDINGS: All participants found HealthEir straightforward to use and completed the required tasks without assistance. A small number of patient and pharmacist participants identified opportunity for improvement of the digital element. Acceptability was also high, with individual comments from participants identifying opportunity for improvements to HealthEir, and two patients identifying privacy or safety concerns. The majority of comments regarding acceptability reflected wider social and cultural challenges such as perceptions of the roles of pharmacists and pharmacies and the low priority of preventative health interventions. CONCLUSION: HealthEir has been demonstrated to be a usable and acceptable support that has the potential to overcome barriers to delivery of brief interventions in pharmacies. Usability and acceptability testing identified minor changes that may further improve its design prior to piloting and implementation.

Generalist vs specialist acute medical admissions - What is the impact of moving towards acute medical subspecialty admissions on efficacy of care provision?

INTRODUCTION: The discussion surrounding generalist versus specialist acute medical admissions continues to stimulate debate and patients with certain conditions benefit from specialist care. AIM: To determine whether a specialty medical admission program would reduce inpatient length of stay (LOS), mortality and readmission rates. DESIGN/METHODS: A prospective cohort study of inpatients admitted under a general internal medicine (GIM) service before and after introduction of a specialty-directing programme. We hypothesized that early transfer of patient care to a specialty suited to their presenting complaint would reduce LOS and a specialty-directing early redistribution of care programme was introduced. Seven of the ten clinical teams participating in the GIM roster adopted the programme. On the morning following a specialty-directing team being on call for all new GIM admissions during a 24-hour period, specialty-directing teams were allocated one patient appropriate to their specialty. RESULTS: 5,144 patient-care episodes were analysed over the two-year study period. LOS increased by greater than 15%, one year after introducing the specialty-directing programme (8.5±8.4 vs 7.3±7.5 days, p < 0.001). LOS did not differ between teams that participated and those who did not (8.4±8.1 vs 8.1±7.9 days, p = 0.298). No differences were found in the proportion of patients who were discharged home, died while an inpatient or re-admitted within 30 days of discharge. The proportion of patients aged greater than 80 years increased significantly also - from 24.7% in 2017 to 27.9% in 2019(p == 0.009). CONCLUSION: Widespread adoption of specialist care may not be beneficial for all medical inpatients and physicians should continue to undergo dual specialist and GIM training.