Dataset Information

Lessons learnt from the implementation of new care models in the NHS: a qualitative study of the North East Vanguards programme.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To examine lessons learnt from the implementation of five Vanguard initiatives in the North East of England. DESIGN:Data collection comprised semistructured interviews with key informants at each site. SETTING:The study took place across six local authority areas in the North East of England and within six clinical commissioning groups responsible for the delivery of each Vanguard's aims and objectives. PARTICIPANTS:Sixty-six interviewees with participants from five Vanguard initiatives in the North East of England, including senior clinicians, project leads and directors, commissioners, and healthcare managers. RESULTS:While the context for each Vanguard is separate and distinct, there also exists a set of common issues which have a regional dimension. Participants felt that the national programme helped to raise the profile of local change initiatives and also contributed to the wider understanding of regional service integration issues. At the same time our findings demonstrate that all five sites experienced, and were subject to, unrealistic pressure placed on them to deliver outcomes. Of particular concern among all sites was the sheer scale and pace of change occurring at the same time as the National Health Service was being tasked with making significant, if unrealistic, efficiency savings. CONCLUSIONS:It is too early to conclude with any confidence that a successful outcome for the new care models programme will be forthcoming. While early indications show some encouraging signs of promise, the overall context in which the complex and ambitious changes are being implemented remains both fragile and fluid.

SUBMITTER: Maniatopoulos G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6858185 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Lessons learnt from the implementation of new care models in the NHS: a qualitative study of the North East Vanguards programme.

Maniatopoulos Gregory G Hunter David J DJ Erskine Jonathan J Hudson Bob B

BMJ open 20191103 11

<h4>Objective</h4>To examine lessons learnt from the implementation of five Vanguard initiatives in the North East of England.<h4>Design</h4>Data collection comprised semistructured interviews with key informants at each site.<h4>Setting</h4>The study took place across six local authority areas in the North East of England and within six clinical commissioning groups responsible for the delivery of each Vanguard's aims and objectives.<h4>Participants</h4>Sixty-six interviewees with participants ...[more]

PMID: 31685511

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundClinically integrated teaching and learning are regarded as the best options for improving evidence-based healthcare (EBHC) knowledge, skills and attitudes. To inform implementation of such strategies, we assessed experiences and opinions on lessons learnt of those involved in such programmes.Methods and findingsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with 24 EBHC programme coordinators from around the world, selected through purposive sampling. Following data transcription, a multidisciplinary group of investigators carried out analysis and data interpretation, using thematic content analysis. Successful implementation of clinically integrated teaching and learning of EBHC takes much time. Student learning needs to start in pre-clinical years with consolidation, application and assessment following in clinical years. Learning is supported through partnerships between various types of staff including the core EBHC team, clinical lecturers and clinicians working in the clinical setting. While full integration of EBHC learning into all clinical rotations is considered necessary, this was not always achieved. Critical success factors were pragmatism and readiness to use opportunities for engagement and including EBHC learning in the curriculum; patience; and a critical mass of the right teachers who have EBHC knowledge and skills and are confident in facilitating learning. Role modelling of EBHC within the clinical setting emerged as an important facilitator. The institutional context exerts an important influence; with faculty buy-in, endorsement by institutional leaders, and an EBHC-friendly culture, together with a supportive community of practice, all acting as key enablers. The most common challenges identified were lack of teaching time within the clinical curriculum, misconceptions about EBHC, resistance of staff, lack of confidence of tutors, lack of time, and negative role modelling.ConclusionsImplementing clinically integrated EBHC curricula requires institutional support, a critical mass of the right teachers and role models in the clinical setting combined with patience, persistence and pragmatism on the part of teachers.

Project description:BackgroundCombined lifestyle interventions (CLIs) are designed to help people who are overweight or obese maintain a healthy new lifestyle. The CooL intervention is a CLI in the Netherlands, in which lifestyle coaches counsel adults and children (and/or their parents) who are obese or at high risk of obesity to achieve a sustained healthier lifestyle. The intervention consists of coaching on lifestyle in group and individual sessions, addressing the topics of physical activity, dietary behaviours, sleep, stress management and behavioural change. The aim of this study was to evaluate the implementation process of the Coaching on Lifestyle (CooL) intervention and its facilitating and impeding factors.MethodsMixed methods were used in this action-oriented study. Both quantitative (number of referrals, attendance lists of participants and questionnaires) and qualitative (group and individual interviews, observations, minutes and open questions) data were collected among participants, lifestyle coaches, project group members and other stakeholders. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to analyse the data.ResultsCooL was evaluated by stakeholders and participants as an accessible and useful programme, because of its design and content and the lifestyle coaches' approach. However, stakeholders indicated that the lifestyle coaches need to become more familiar in the health care network and public sectors in the Netherlands. Lifestyle coaching is a novel profession and the added value of the lifestyle coach is not always acknowledged by all health care providers. Lifestyle coaches play a crucial role in ensuring the impact of CooL by actively networking, using clear communication materials and creating stakeholders' support and understanding.ConclusionThe implementation process needs to be strengthened in terms of creating support for and providing clear information about lifestyle coaching. The CooL intervention was implemented in multiple regions, thanks to the efforts of many stakeholders. Lifestyle coaches should engage in networking activities and entrepreneurship to boost the implementation process. It takes considerable time for a lifestyle coach to become fully incorporated in primary care.Trial registrationNTR6208 ; date registered: 13-01-2017; retrospectively registered; Netherlands Trial Register.

Project description:ObjectivesScreening for symptoms of postintensive care syndrome is based on a long list of questionnaires, filled out by the intensive care unit (ICU) survivor and manually reviewed by the health professional. This is an inefficient and time-consuming process. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a web-based triage tool and to compare the outcomes from web-based questionnaires to those from paper-based questionnaires.DesignA mixed-methods study.SettingNine Dutch ICU follow-up clinics.Participants221 ICU survivors and 14 health professionals.InterventionsA web-based triage tool was implemented by nine ICU follow-up clinics. End users, that is, health professionals were interviewed in order to evaluate the feasibility of the triage tool. ICU survivors were invited to fill out web-based questionnaires 3 months after hospital discharge.Primary outcomesOutcomes of the questionnaires were merged with clinical data from a national quality registry to assess the differences in outcomes between paper-based and web-based questionnaires.Results221 ICU survivors received an invitation to fill out questionnaires, 93 (42.1%) survivors did not respond to the invitation. Respondents to the web-based questionnaires (n=54) were significantly younger and had a significantly longer ICU stay than those who preferred the paper-based questionnaires (n=74). The prevalence of mental, physical and nutritional problems was high, although comparable between the groups. Health professionals' interviews revealed that the software was complex to use (n=8) and although emailing survivors is very convenient, not all survivors have an email address (n=7).ConclusionsWeb-based screening software has major benefits compared with paper-based screening. However, implementation has shown to be rather difficult and there are important barriers to consider. Although different in age, the health status is comparable between the users of the web-based questionnaire and paper-based questionnaire.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Evaluation of the demonstrator phase and first wave roll-out of the National Health Service (NHS) Diabetes Prevention Programme (DPP) in England. To examine: (1) intervention design, provision and fidelity assessment procedures; (2) risk assessment and recruitment pathways and (3) data collection for monitoring and evaluation. To provide recommendations informing decision makers on programme quality, improvements and future evaluation. DESIGN:We reviewed programme documents, mapping against the NHS DPP specification and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) public health guideline: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) prevention in people at high risk (PH38), conducted qualitative research using individual interviews and focus group discussions with stakeholders and examined recruitment, fidelity and data collection procedures. SETTING:Seven NHS DPP demonstrator sites and, subsequently, 27 first wave areas across England. INTERVENTIONS:Intensive behavioural intervention with weight loss, diet and physical activity goals. The national programme specifies at least 13 sessions over 9?months, delivered face to face to groups of 15-20 adults with non-diabetic hyperglycaemia, mainly recruited from primary care and NHS Health Checks. PARTICIPANTS:Participants for qualitative research were purposively sampled to provide a spread of stakeholder experience. Documents for review were provided via the NHS DPP Management Group. FINDINGS:The NHS DPP specification reflected current evidence with a clear framework for service provision. Providers, with national capacity to deliver, supplied intervention plans compliant with this framework. Stakeholders highlighted limitations in fidelity assessment and recruitment and retention challenges, especially in reach and equity, that could adversely impact on implementation. Risk assessment for first wave eligibility differed from NICE guidance. CONCLUSIONS:The NHS DPP provides an evidence-based behavioural intervention for prevention of T2D in adults at high risk, with capacity to deliver nationally. Framework specification allows for balance between consistency and contextual variation in intervention delivery, with session details devolved to providers. Limitations in fidelity assurance, data collection procedures and recruitment issues could adversely impact on intervention effectiveness and restrict evaluation.

Project description:IntroductionThis paper examines one of the NHS England Pioneers programmes of Integrated Care, which was implemented in three localities in East London, covering the area served by one of the largest hospital groups in the UK and bringing together commissioners, providers and local authorities. The partners agreed to build a model of integrated care that focused on the whole person. This qualitative and participatory evaluation looked at how an ambitious vision translated into the delivery of integrated care on the ground. The study explored the micro-mechanisms of integrated care relationships based on the experience of health and social care professionals working in acute and community care settings.MethodsWe employed a participatory approach, the Researcher in Residence model, whereby the researcher was embedded in the organisations she evaluated and worked alongside managers and clinicians to build collaboration across the full range of stakeholders, develop shared learning, and find common ground through competing interests, while trying to address power imbalances. A number of complementary qualitative methods of data generation were used, including documentary analysis, participant observations, semi-structured interviews, and coproduction workshops with frontline health and social care professionals to interpret the data and develop recommendations.ResultsOur fieldwork exposed persistent organisational fragmentation, despite the dominant rhetoric of integration and efforts to build a shared vision at senior governance levels. The evaluation identified several important themes, including: a growing barrier between acute and community services; a persisting difficulty experienced by health and social care staff in working together because of professional and cultural differences, as well as conflicting organisational priorities and guidelines; and a lack of capacity and support to deliver a genuine multidisciplinary approach in practice, despite the ethos of multiagency being embraced widely.DiscussionBy focusing on professionals' working routines, we detailed how and why action taken by organisational leaders failed to have tangible impact. The inability to align organisational priorities and guidelines on the ground, as well as a failure to acknowledge the impact of structural incentives for organisations to compete at the expense of cooperation, in a context of limited financial and human resources, acted as barriers to more coordinated working. Within an environment of continuous reconfigurations, staff were often confused about the functions of new services and did not feel they had influence on change processes. Investing in a genuine bottom-up approach could ensure that the range of activities needed to generate system-wide cultural transformation reflect the capacity of the organisations and systems and address genuine local needs.LimitationsThe authors acknowledge several limitations of this study, including the focus on one geographical area, East London, and the timing of the evaluation, with several new interventions and programmes introduced more or less simultaneously. Some of the intermediate care services under evaluation were still at pilot stage and some teams were undergoing new reconfigurations, reflecting the fast-pace of change of the past decade. This created confusion at times, for instance when discussing specific roles and activities with participants. We tried to address some of these challenges by organising several workshops with different teams to co-interpret and discuss the findings.

Project description:Background/aimsSerious adverse event reporting guidelines have largely been developed for pharmaceutical trials. There is evidence that serious adverse events, such as psychological distress, can also occur in non-pharmaceutical trials. Managing serious adverse event reporting and monitoring in palliative care non-pharmaceutical trials can be particularly challenging. This is because patients living with advanced malignant or non-malignant disease have a high risk of hospitalisation and/or death as a result of progression of their disease rather than due to the trial intervention or procedures. This paper presents a number of recommendations for managing serious adverse event reporting that are drawn from two palliative care non-pharmacological trials.MethodsThe recommendations were iteratively developed across a number of exemplar trials. This included examining national and international safety reporting guidance, reviewing serious adverse event reporting procedures from other pharmacological and non-pharmacological trials, a review of the literature and collaboration between the ACTION study team and Data Safety Monitoring Committee. These two groups included expertise in oncology, palliative care, statistics and medical ethics and this collaboration led to the development of serious adverse event reporting procedures.ResultsThe recommendations included; allowing adequate time at the study planning stage to develop serious adverse event reporting procedures, especially in multi-national studies or research naïve settings; reviewing the level of trial oversight required; defining what a serious adverse event is in your trial based on your study population; development and implementation of standard operating procedures and training; refining the reporting procedures during the trial if necessary and publishing serious adverse events in findings papers.ConclusionsThere is a need for researchers to share their experiences of managing this challenging aspect of trial conduct. This will ensure that the processes for managing serious adverse event reporting are continually refined and improved so optimising patient safety.Trial registrationACTION trial registration number: ISRCTN63110516 (date of registration 03/10/2014). Namaste trial registration number: ISRCTN14948133 (date of registration 04/10/2017).

Dataset Information

Lessons learnt from the implementation of new care models in the NHS: a qualitative study of the North East Vanguards programme.

Publications

Lessons learnt from the implementation of new care models in the NHS: a qualitative study of the North East Vanguards programme.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure