Making a success of providing NHS Health Checks in community pharmacies across the Tees Valley: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: In England and Wales, the Department of Health introduced a primary prevention programme, NHS Health Checks, to provide screening for cardiovascular risk amongst people aged 40-74. The aim of this programme is to offer treatment and advice to those identified with an increased risk of cardiovascular diseases (CVD).The North East of England has some of the highest rates of CVD in the UK and prevention is therefore a priority. NHS Tees funded this programme of work under the local branding of Healthy Heart Checks (HHC). These were initially implemented principally through GP practices from October 2008 but, in order to mitigate the possibility that some hard to reach communities would be reluctant to engage with some primary care settings, plans were also developed to deliver the programme through workplace settings and through community pharmacies. This paper reports specifically on the findings from the evaluation in respect of the setting up of HHCs in community pharmacies and aims to offer some lessons for other service settings where this option is seen as a way of providing low threshold services which will minimise inequalities in intervention uptake. METHODS: In assessing the community pharmacy component of HHCs, a selection of staff having direct involvement in the process was invited to take part in the evaluation. Interviews were carried out with representatives from community pharmacy, staff members from the commissioning Primary Care Trusts and with Local Pharmaceutical Committee members. RESULTS: Evaluation and analysis identified challenges which should be anticipated and addressed in initiating HHC in community pharmacies. These have been categorised into four main themes for discussion in this paper: (1) establishing and maintaining pharmacy Healthy Heart Checks, (2) overcoming IT barriers, (3) developing confident, competent staff and (4) ensuring volume and through flow in pharmacy. CONCLUSIONS: Delivering NHS health checks through community pharmacies can be a complex process, requiring meticulous planning, and may incur higher than expected costs. Findings from our evaluation provide insight into possible barriers to setting up services in pharmacies which may help other commissioning bodies when considering community pharmacy as a location for primary prevention interventions in future.

The '2-week rule' for suspected breast carcinoma: a qualitative study of the views of patients and professionals.

BACKGROUND: The '2-week rule' for the referral of patients with potential cancers is an important but controversial development. AIMS: To investigate the 2-week rule for women with breast problems from the perspective of the patients and of healthcare professionals. DESIGN OF STUDY: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. SETTING: Patients referred to two breast care units and professionals from primary and secondary care in Teesside and Hartlepool. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of 12 patients referred under the 2-week rule and 20 professionals. RESULTS: All women experienced considerable worries in the time leading up to diagnosis. This affected relationships with others, and they used selective telling to help maintain control over their own anxiety and prevent anxiety in others. They were not aware of the 2-week rule as a new initiative, but wanted quick referral to assure them that they did not have cancer. Patients felt they needed more information about breast symptoms and the referral process. Comments about communication with professionals, both good and poor, were frequent in their accounts, which contrasted with the absence of such concerns in the accounts of the professionals. The professionals thought that the 2-week rule was advantageous in reducing anxiety, but thought that disadvantages included longer waits for patients referred outside the rule and increased pressure on hospital services. Cultural changes, including increased patient assertiveness and 'breast awareness', were considered important contextual factors. General practitioners (GPs) were concerned about missing diagnoses in patients statistically unlikely to have carcinomas. CONCLUSION: Differences in emphasis were apparent, with patients wanting to be assured that they did not have cancer, specialists concerned both about increased workload and the impact on patients with cancers, and GPs anxious about missing diagnoses. The 2-week rule compromises professional autonomy, which partially accounts for the anger directed against it. There is a need for patients to have more information, and they place great value on good communication. All patient responders experienced significant distress while waiting to be seen.

The 2-week rule for patients with suspected breast cancer: what can be learnt by analysing policy documents?

The '2-week rule', introduced in the UK during 1999, represents a significant organisational change for referral of patients with suspected breast cancer. From an analysis of policy documents, a mixture of influences and agendas from different interest groups are apparent in the current working of the policy. These include political/modernisation agendas with a variety of aims including: reducing variation in care, efficient administration, reassuring patients, improving public confidence, earlier referral and lowering the threshold for referral to improve mortality figures. Specialist agendas, exemplified by the guidelines for referral under the policy but apparent in preceding specialist literature, represent an attempt to modify the working of the policy to ensure that high proportions of those women referred have breast cancer. The agendas of these interest groups are in conflict and have implications for the future development of this particular policy. Similar considerations are likely to apply more widely to other controversial health policy developments. It may be of value to identify the agendas of the groups responsible for the introduction of such policies, as well as the agendas of groups with influence on how the policy is actually implemented, and assess the areas of conflict.