Navigating challenges and workarounds: A qualitative study of healthcare and support workers' perceptions on providing care to people seeking sanctuary.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare and support workers play a pivotal role in delivering quality services and support to people seeking sanctuary who have experienced poor physical and mental health linked to previous trauma, relocation and loss of freedoms. However, they often encounter various challenges in their daily work, ranging from communication barriers to resource constraints. This qualitative study seeks to delve into the perspectives of healthcare and support workers' experience of workarounds, employed to overcome barriers to providing care. AIM: This study aims to describe healthcare providers', practitioners' and health and third sector support workers' views on barriers and workarounds to providing care for people seeking sanctuary, to inform policy and practice. DESIGN: A qualitative study was carried out using semi-structured telephone interviews. SETTING: This study focused on primary, secondary, community and specialist National Health Service (NHS) support services for people seeking sanctuary in Wales, United Kingdom (2018). METHOD: We interviewed 32 healthcare providers, practitioners and support workers employed by primary care and third sector organisations. Our approach involved obtaining verbal informed consent before digitally recording and transcribing all interviews. To analyse the data, we used the Four Levels of Change for Improving Quality model as a guiding framework for interpretation. RESULTS: Our study findings reveal that certain respondents expressed challenges in meeting the needs of people seeking sanctuary; notably, their experience of delivering care differed by care settings. Specifically, those involved in providing specialist NHS care believed that there was room for improvement. Mainstream primary, secondary and community health practitioners faced limitations due to resource constraints and lacked tailored information to address the unique circumstances and needs of sanctuary seekers. To address these gaps, workarounds emerged at both individual and local levels (team/departmental and organisational level). These included establishing informal communication channels between providers, fostering cross service collaboration to fill gaps and adapting existing services to enhance accessibility. CONCLUSION: Understanding healthcare providers', practitioners' and support workers' perspectives offers invaluable insights into ways to enhance healthcare delivery to sanctuary seekers. Acknowledging challenges and harnessing innovative workarounds can foster a more effective and compassionate service for this vulnerable population. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The HEAR study actively involved public contributors in the design, delivery and dissemination of the research. Two public contributors (S. M. and G. R.) who had personal experience of seeking asylum served as study co-applicants. They played pivotal roles in shaping the research by participating in its development and securing funding. Alongside other co-applicants, S. M. and G. R. formed the Research Management Group, overseeing study delivery. Their contributions extended to strategic decision-making and specific feedback at critical junctures, including participant recruitment, data collection, analysis and reporting. Additionally, S. M. and G. R. were instrumental in recruiting and supporting a team of peer researchers, enhancing respondent participation among people seeking sanctuary. To facilitate effective public involvement, we provided named contacts for support (A. K. and R. F.), research training, honoraria, reimbursement of expenses and accessible information in line with best practice.

The cost of implementing the COVID-19 shielding policy in Wales.

BACKGROUND: The EVITE Immunity study investigated the effects of shielding Clinically Extremely Vulnerable (CEV) people during the COVID-19 pandemic on health outcomes and healthcare costs in Wales, United Kingdom, to help prepare for future pandemics. Shielding was intended to protect those at highest risk of serious harm from COVID-19. We report the cost of implementing shielding in Wales. METHODS: The number of people shielding was extracted from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank. Resources supporting shielding between March and June 2020 were mapped using published reports, web pages, freedom of information requests to Welsh Government and personal communications (e.g. with the office of the Chief Medical Officer for Wales). RESULTS: At the beginning of shielding, 117,415 people were on the shielding list. The total additional cost to support those advised to stay home during the initial 14 weeks of the pandemic was £13,307,654 (£113 per person shielded). This included the new resources required to compile the shielding list, inform CEV people of the shielding intervention and provide medicine and food deliveries. The list was adjusted weekly over the 3-month period (130,000 people identified by June 2020). Therefore the cost per person shielded lies between £102 and £113 per person. CONCLUSION: This is the first evaluation of the cost of the measures put in place to support those identified to shield in Wales. However, no data on opportunity cost was available. The true costs of shielding including its budget impact and opportunity costs need to be investigated to decide whether shielding is a worthwhile policy for future health emergencies.

Rationale for the shielding policy for clinically vulnerable people in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Shielding aimed to protect those predicted to be at highest risk from COVID-19 and was uniquely implemented in the UK during the first year of the pandemic from March 2020. As the first stage in the EVITE Immunity evaluation (Effects of shielding for vulnerable people during COVID-19 pandemic on health outcomes, costs and immunity, including those with cancer:quasi-experimental evaluation), we generated a logic model to describe the programme theory underlying the shielding intervention. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: We reviewed published documentation on shielding to develop an initial draft of the logic model. We then discussed this draft during interviews with 13 key stakeholders involved in putting shielding into effect in Wales and England. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically to inform a final draft of the logic model. RESULTS: The shielding intervention was a complex one, introduced at pace by multiple agencies working together. We identified three core components: agreement on clinical criteria; development of the list of people appropriate for shielding; and communication of shielding advice. In addition, there was a support programme, available as required to shielding people, including food parcels, financial support and social support. The predicted mechanism of change was that people would isolate themselves and so avoid infection, with the primary intended outcome being reduction in mortality in the shielding group. Unintended impacts included negative impact on mental and physical health and well-being. Details of the intervention varied slightly across the home nations of the UK and were subject to minor revisions during the time the intervention was in place. CONCLUSIONS: Shielding was a largely untested strategy, aiming to mitigate risk by placing a responsibility on individuals to protect themselves. The model of its rationale, components and outcomes (intended and unintended) will inform evaluation of the impact of shielding and help us to understand its effect and limitations.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of paramedic administered fascia iliaca compartment block for emergency hip fracture (RAPID 2)-protocol for an individually randomised parallel-group trial.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 75,000 people fracture a hip each year in the UK. This painful injury can be devastating-with a high associated mortality rate-and survivors likely to be more dependent and less mobile. Pain relief at the scene of injury is known to be inadequate. Intravenous morphine is usually given by paramedics, but opioids are less effective for dynamic pain and can cause serious side effects, including nausea, constipation, delirium and respiratory depression. These may delay surgery, require further treatment and worsen patient outcomes. We completed a feasibility study of paramedic-provided fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB), testing the intervention, trial methods and data collection. The study (RAPID) demonstrated that a full trial was feasible. In this subsequent study, we aim to test safety, clinical and cost-effectiveness of paramedic-provided FICB as pain relief to patients with suspected hip fracture in the prehospital environment. METHODS: We will conduct a pragmatic multi-centre individually randomised parallel-group trial, with a 1:1 allocation between usual care (control) and FICB (intervention). Hospital clinicians in five sites (paired ambulance services and receiving hospitals) in England and Wales will train 220 paramedics to administer FICB. The primary outcome is change in pain score from pre-randomisation to arrival at the emergency department. One thousand four hundred patients are required to find a clinically important difference between trial arms in the primary outcome (standardised statistical effect ~ 0.2; 90% power, 5% significance). We will use NHS Digital (England) and the SAIL (Secure Anonymised Information Linkage) databank (Wales) to follow up patient outcomes using routine anonymised linked data in an efficient study design, and questionnaires to capture patient-reported outcomes at 1 and 4 months. Secondary outcomes include mortality, length of hospital stay, job cycle time, prehospital medications including morphine, presence of hip fracture, satisfaction, mobility, and NHS costs. We will assess safety by monitoring serious adverse events (SAEs). DISCUSSION: The trial will help to determine whether paramedic administered FICB is a safe, clinically and cost-effective treatment for suspected hip fracture in the pre-hospital setting. Impact will be shown if and when clinical guidelines either recommend or reject the use of FICB in routine practice in this context. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN15831813 . Registered on 22 September 2021.

Implementing emergency admission risk prediction in general practice: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Using computer software in general practice to predict patient risk of emergency hospital admission has been widely advocated, despite limited evidence about effects. In a trial evaluating the introduction of a Predictive Risk Stratification Model (PRISM), statistically significant increases in emergency hospital admissions and use of other NHS services were reported without evidence of benefits to patients or the NHS. AIM: To explore GPs' and practice managers' experiences of incorporating PRISM into routine practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: Semi-structured interviews were carried out with GPs and practice managers in 18 practices in rural, urban, and suburban areas of south Wales. METHOD: Interviews (30-90 min) were conducted at 3-6 months after gaining PRISM access, and ∼18 months later. Data were analysed thematically using Normalisation Process Theory. RESULTS: Responders (n = 22) reported that the decision to use PRISM was based mainly on fulfilling Quality and Outcomes Framework incentives. Most applied it to <0.5% practice patients over a few weeks. Using PRISM entailed undertaking technical tasks, sharing information in practice meetings, and making small-scale changes to patient care. Use was inhibited by the model not being integrated with practice systems. Most participants doubted any large-scale impact, but did cite examples of the impact on individual patient care and reported increased awareness of patients at high risk of emergency admission to hospital. CONCLUSION: Qualitative results suggest mixed views of predictive risk stratification in general practice and raised awareness of highest-risk patients potentially affecting rates of unplanned hospital attendance and admissions. To inform future policy, decision makers need more information about implementation and effects of emergency admission risk stratification tools in primary and community settings.

Evaluation of the shielding initiative in Wales (EVITE Immunity): protocol for a quasiexperimental study.

INTRODUCTION: Shielding aimed to protect those predicted to be at highest risk from COVID-19 and was uniquely implemented in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic. Clinically extremely vulnerable people identified through algorithms and screening of routine National Health Service (NHS) data were individually and strongly advised to stay at home and strictly self-isolate even from others in their household. This study will generate a logic model of the intervention and evaluate the effects and costs of shielding to inform policy development and delivery during future pandemics. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a quasiexperimental study undertaken in Wales where records for people who were identified for shielding were already anonymously linked into integrated data systems for public health decision-making. We will: interview policy-makers to understand rationale for shielding advice to inform analysis and interpretation of results; use anonymised individual-level data to select people identified for shielding advice in March 2020 and a matched cohort, from routine electronic health data sources, to compare outcomes; survey a stratified random sample of each group about activities and quality of life at 12 months; use routine and newly collected blood data to assess immunity; interview people who were identified for shielding and their carers and NHS staff who delivered healthcare during shielding, to explore compliance and experiences; collect healthcare resource use data to calculate implementation costs and cost-consequences. Our team includes people who were shielding, who used their experience to help design and deliver this study. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received approval from the Newcastle North Tyneside 2 Research Ethics Committee (IRAS 295050). We will disseminate results directly to UK government policy-makers, publish in peer-reviewed journals, present at scientific and policy conferences and share accessible summaries of results online and through public and patient networks.

Call volume, triage outcomes, and protocols during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom: Results of a national survey.

OBJECTIVES: During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom (UK), to describe volume and pattern of calls to emergency ambulance services, proportion of calls where an ambulance was dispatched, proportion conveyed to hospital, and features of triage used. METHODS: Semistructured electronic survey of all UK ambulance services (n = 13) and a request for routine service data on weekly call volumes for 22 weeks (February 1-July 3, 2020). Questionnaires and data request were emailed to chief executives and research leads followed by email and telephone reminders. The routine data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and questionnaire data using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Completed questionnaires were received from 12 services. Call volume varied widely between services, with a UK peak at week 7 at 13.1% above baseline (service range -0.5% to +31.4%). All services ended the study period with a lower call volume than at baseline (service range -3.7% to -25.5%). Suspected COVID-19 calls across the UK totaled 604,146 (13.5% of all calls), with wide variation between services (service range 3.7% to 25.7%), and in service peaks of 11.4% to 44.5%. Ambulances were dispatched to 478,638 (79.2%) of these calls (service range 59.0% to 100.0%), with 262,547 (43.5%) resulting in conveyance to hospital (service range 32.0% to 53.9%). Triage models varied between services and over time. Two primary call triage systems were in use across the UK. There were a large number of products and arrangements used for secondary triage, with services using paramedics, nurses, and doctors to support decision making in the call center and on scene. Frequent changes to triage processes took place. CONCLUSIONS: Call volumes were highly variable. Case mix and workload changed significantly as COVID-19 calls displaced other calls. Triage models and prehospital outcomes varied between services. We urgently need to understand safety and effectiveness of triage models to inform care during further waves and pandemics.

Asylum seekers' and refugees' experiences of accessing health care: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Asylum seekers and refugees (ASRs) often experience poor health in host countries. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) requires hosts to ensure these sanctuary seekers have access to basic health care. AIM: To identify barriers and facilitators that affect access to health care by ASRs in Wales. DESIGN & SETTING: Participatory research approach using qualitative focus groups across Wales, which hosts 10 000 refugees. METHOD: Eight focus groups were undertaken with ASRs, support workers, and volunteers (n = 57). RESULTS: Specialist NHS-funded services and grant-aided non-governmental organisations (NGOs) facilitated access to health care, including primary care. Most ASRs understood the role of general practice in providing and coordinating care, but were unaware of out-of-hours services. Reported barriers included: language difficulties, health literacy, unrecognised needs, and the cost of travel to appointments. Participants recognised the importance of mental health, but were disappointed by the state of mental health care. Some feared seeking support for mental health from their GP, and few were aware they had the right to move practice if they were unhappy. Written information about health care was not as accessible to refugees as to asylum seekers (ASs). While some participants read such material before consulting, others struggled to access information when in need. Few participants were aware of health prevention services. Even when they knew about services, such as smoking cessation, these services' difficulty in accommodating ASRs was a barrier. CONCLUSION: The main barriers identified were: availability of interpreters; knowledge about entitlements; and access to specialist services.

Emergency admission risk stratification tools in UK primary care: a cross-sectional survey of availability and use.

BACKGROUND: Stratifying patient populations by risk of adverse events was believed to support preventive care for those identified, but recent evidence does not support this. Emergency admission risk stratification (EARS) tools have been widely promoted in UK policy and GP contracts. AIM: To describe availability and use of EARS tools across the UK, and identify factors perceived to influence implementation. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional survey in UK. METHOD: Online survey of 235 organisations responsible for UK primary care: 209 clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) in England; 14 health boards in Scotland; seven health boards in Wales; and five local commissioning groups (LCGs) in Northern Ireland. Analysis results are presented using descriptive statistics for closed questions and by theme for open questions. RESULTS: Responses were analysed from 171 (72.8%) organisations, of which 148 (86.5%) reported that risk tools were available in their areas. Organisations identified 39 different EARS tools in use. Promotion by NHS commissioners, involvement of clinical leaders, and engagement of practice managers were identified as the most important factors in encouraging use of tools by general practices. High staff workloads and information governance were identified as important barriers. Tools were most frequently used to identify individual patients, but also for service planning. Nearly 40% of areas using EARS tools reported introducing or realigning services as a result, but relatively few reported use for service evaluation. CONCLUSION: EARS tools are widely available across the UK, although there is variation by region. There remains a need to align policy and practice with research evidence.

Emergency Admission Risk Prediction (EARP) tools in primary care to reduce emergency admissions to hospital: clash of evidence and practice.

BACKGROUND: Policy initiatives have incentivised use of EARP tools in primary care to reduce emergency admissions. A recently published trial in South Wales found that EARP increased emergency admissions and emergency department attendances without clear benefits. This cost the NHS an additional £76 per patient per year. But the use of EARP in primary care across the UK was unknown. AIM: To assess implementation and facilitators use of EARP tools in primary care across the UK. METHOD: Structured email survey of 235 UK primary care commissioners across the UK. RESULTS: There were 148 (87%) of 171 responders (73%) who reported that EARP tools were available in their areas. We identified 39 different EARP tools in use. Access to EARP tools varied widely by country: Northern Ireland (100%), Scotland (91%), England (76%) and Wales (14%). Promotion by NHS commissioners, and engagement of clinical leaders and practice managers were identified as the most important factors in encouraging use of EARP tools. Research evidence was seen as less important. Nearly 40% of areas using EARP reported that they had revised services as a result, but few reported use of EARP for service evaluation. CONCLUSION: Though EARP tools are widely available in primary care, new evidence shows that they are counter-productive. We estimate that by delaying the dissemination of EARP for evaluation NHS Wales saved >£200 million per year. We encourage further research and discussion about next steps in use of EARP tools in emergency admission prevention in the UK.

Therapeutic relationships: Making space to practice in chaotic institutional environments.

WHAT IS KNOWN ABOUT THE SUBJECT?: While therapeutic relationships remain core to mental health nursing practice and patient recovery, increased managerialism and focus on risk has impacted nurses' therapeutic practice with patients. While there is anecdotal evidence of the impact there has been little research that demonstrates nurses experience of therapeutic engagement within the current context. WHAT THE PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: The paper reports on qualitative research that highlights nurses' strong attempts to create the space for therapeutic engagement with clients. This research provides evidence of the constraints on practice imposed by new managerial processes and suggests potential means of responding to them. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: Mental health nurses are committed to working therapeutically but struggle to balance this against new managerial demands imposed across many OECD countries. The New Zealand government has recently reported on positive changes to mental health provision but does not suggest changes to the structures that impede good practice. This research indicates that structural change is essential to therapeutic engagement. ABSTRACT: Introduction Increasing managerialism, driven in part by notions of risk, compromises the mental health nurses therapeutic engagement with clients potentially impacting their recovery. While the importance of therapeutic relationships in mental health recovery is acknowledged, there is little evidence about how managerial processes encroach on this relationship. Aim To explore mental health nurses experience of engaging in therapeutic relationships within the current practice environment. Method This paper utilized an interpretive phenomenological approach, using interviews with mental health nurses. Results Managerial processes significantly impacted the practice of nurses who struggled to make space for therapeutic relationships within a chaotic milieu. The chaos is associated with increasing austerity within the health system; this has resulted in high staff turnover and staff shortages. Discussion Managerial demands dominate the practice field at the expense of therapeutic engagement between nurses and clients ultimately affecting client recovery. While nurses' integrity means they desperately try to make space for the therapeutic work, they often become burnt out and disheartened. Implications for practice While nurses are often blamed for failures in the system, the structures that disable nurses in their attempts to practice therapeutically require urgent responses, strengthening professional organizations and engaging in democratic partnerships with consumer groups.

Effects and costs of implementing predictive risk stratification in primary care: a randomised stepped wedge trial.

AIM: We evaluated the introduction of a predictive risk stratification model (PRISM) into primary care. Contemporaneously National Health Service (NHS) Wales introduced Quality and Outcomes Framework payments to general practices to focus care on those at highest risk of emergency admission to hospital. The aim of this study was to evaluate the costs and effects of introducing PRISM into primary care. METHODS: Randomised stepped wedge trial with 32 general practices in one Welsh health board. The intervention comprised: PRISM software; practice-based training; clinical support through two 'general practitioner (GP) champions' and technical support. The primary outcome was emergency hospital admissions. RESULTS: Across 230 099 participants, PRISM implementation increased use of health services: emergency hospital admission rates by 1 % when untransformed (while change in log-transformed rate ΔL=0.011, 95% CI 0.010 to 0.013); emergency department (ED) attendance rates by untransformed 3 % (while ΔL=0.030, 95% CI 0.028 to 0.032); outpatient visit rates by untransformed 5 % (while ΔL=0.055, 95% CI 0.051 to 0.058); the proportion of days with recorded GP activity by untransformed 1 % (while ΔL=0.011, 95% CI 0.007 to 0.014) and time in hospital by untransformed 3 % (while ΔL=0.029, 95% CI 0.026 to 0.031). Thus NHS costs per participant increased by £76 (95% CI £46 to £106). CONCLUSIONS: Introduction of PRISM resulted in a statistically significant increase in emergency hospital admissions and use of other NHS services without evidence of benefits to patients or the NHS.

Costs, effects and implementation of routine data emergency admission risk prediction models in primary care for patients with, or at risk of, chronic conditions: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency admission risk prediction models are increasingly used to identify patients, typically with one or more chronic conditions, for proactive management in primary care to avoid admissions, save costs and improve patient experience. AIM: To identify and review the published evidence on the costs, effects and implementation of emergency admission risk prediction models in primary care for patients with, or at risk of, chronic conditions. METHODS: We shall search for studies of healthcare interventions using routine data-generated emergency admission risk models. We shall report: the effects on emergency admissions and health costs; clinician and patient views; and implementation findings. We shall search ASSIA, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, HMIC, ISI Web of Science, MEDLINE and Scopus from 2005, review references in and citations of included articles, search key journals and contact experts. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment will be performed by two independent reviewers. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical permissions are required for this study using published data. Findings will be disseminated widely, including publication in a peer-reviewed journal and through conferences in primary and emergency care and chronic conditions. We judge our results will help a wide audience including primary care practitioners and commissioners, and policymakers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42015016874; Pre-results.

It could be a 'Golden Goose': a qualitative study of views in primary care on an emergency admission risk prediction tool prior to implementation.

BACKGROUND: Rising demand for health care has prompted interest in new technologies to support a shift of care from hospital to community and primary care, which may require clinicians to undertake new working practices. A predictive risk stratification tool (Prism) was developed for use in primary care to estimate patients' risk of an emergency hospital admission. As part of an evaluation of Prism, we aimed to understand what might be needed to bring Prism into effective use by exploring clinicians and practice managers' attitudes and expectations about using it. We were informed by Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) which examines the work needed to bring an innovation into use. METHODS: We conducted 4 focus groups and 10 interviews with a total of 43 primary care doctors and colleagues from 32 general practices. All were recorded and transcribed. Analysis focussed in particular on the construct of 'coherence' within NPT, which examines how people understand an innovation and its purpose. RESULTS: Respondents were in agreement that Prism was a technological formalisation of existing practice, and that it would function as a support to clinical judgment, rather than replacing it. There was broad consensus about the role it might have in delivering new models of care based on active management, but there were doubts about the scope for making a difference to some patients and about whether Prism could identify at-risk patients not already known to the clinical team. Respondents did not expect using the tool to be onerous, but were concerned about the work which might follow in delivering care. Any potential value would not be of the tool in isolation, but would depend on the availability of support services. CONCLUSIONS: Policy imperatives and the pressure of rising demand meant respondents were open to trying out Prism, despite underlying uncertainty about what difference it could make. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Controlled Clinical Trials no. ISRCTN55538212 .

Predictive risk stratification model: a progressive cluster-randomised trial in chronic conditions management (PRISMATIC) research protocol.

BACKGROUND: An ageing population increases demand on health and social care. New approaches are needed to shift care from hospital to community and general practice. A predictive risk stratification tool (Prism) has been developed for general practice that estimates risk of an emergency hospital admission in the following year. We present a protocol for the evaluation of Prism. METHODS/DESIGN: We will undertake a mixed methods progressive cluster-randomised trial. Practices begin as controls, delivering usual care without Prism. Practices will receive Prism and training randomly, and thereafter be able to use Prism with clinical and technical support. We will compare costs, processes of care, satisfaction and patient outcomes at baseline, 6 and 18 months, using routine data and postal questionnaires. We will assess technical performance by comparing predicted against actual emergency admissions. Focus groups and interviews will be undertaken to understand how Prism is perceived and adopted by practitioners and policy makers. We will model data using generalised linear models and survival analysis techniques to determine whether any differences exist between intervention and control groups. We will take account of covariates and explanatory factors. In the economic evaluation we will carry out a cost-effectiveness analysis to examine incremental cost per emergency admission to hospital avoided and will examine costs versus changes in primary and secondary outcomes in a cost-consequence analysis. We will also examine changes in quality of life of patients across the risk spectrum. We will record and transcribe focus groups and interviews and analyse them thematically. We have received full ethical and R and D approvals for the study and Information Governance Review Panel (IGRP) permission for the use of routine data. We will comply with the CONSORT guidelines and will disseminate the findings at national and international conferences and in peer-reviewed journals. DISCUSSION: The proposed study will provide information on costs and effects of Prism; how it is used in practice, barriers and facilitators to its implementation; and its perceived value in supporting the management of patients with and at risk of developing chronic conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Controlled Clinical Trials ISRCTN no. ISRCTN55538212.

New models of emergency prehospital care that avoid unnecessary conveyance to emergency department: translation of research evidence into practice?

BACKGROUND: Achieving knowledge translation in healthcare is growing in importance but methods to capture impact of research are not well developed. We present an attempt to capture impact of a programme of research in prehospital emergency care, aiming to inform the development of EMS models of care that avoid, when appropriate, conveyance of patients to hospital for immediate care. METHODS: We describe the programme and its dissemination, present examples of its influence on policy and practice, internationally, and analyse routine UK statistics to determine whether conveyance practice has changed. RESULTS: The programme comprises eight research studies, to a value of > £4 m. Findings have been disseminated through 18 published papers, cited 274 times in academic journals. We describe examples of how evidence has been put into practice, including new models of care in Canada and Australia. Routine statistics in England show that, alongside rising demand, conveyance rates have fallen from 90% to 58% over a 12-year period, 2,721 million fewer journeys, with publication of key studies 2003-2008. COMMENT: We have set out the rationale, key features, and impact on practice of a programme of publicly funded research. We describe evidence of knowledge translation, whilst recognising limitations in methods for capturing impact.