Dataset Information

The English national health service diabetes prevention programme (NHS DPP): A scoping review of existing evidence.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

The English National Health Service Diabetes Prevention Programme (NHS DPP) is commissioned by NHS England and has been rolled out across England to adults identified as being at high risk of type 2 diabetes. The present scoping review aimed to identify the extent and nature of evidence to date on the NHS DPP and describe what the evidence has reported.

Methods

A scoping review involving searches of various sources (including MEDLINE, CINAHL, MediArXiv, Google Scholar and GreyLit) was conducted on 31 August 2021 and repeated on 09 February 2022. Only articles reporting on the NHS DPP made available since 2015 were eligible for inclusion.

Results

65 articles were included. Of these, 37 were journal publications. Most articles were made available in 2018 and 2020 (total n = 25). The majority of articles reported on uptake and retention (n = 27) whilst others reported on implementation considerations (n = 24), programme outcomes (n = 21), stakeholder experience (n = 8) and screening and referral processes (n = 3). Various research methods were reported and included qualitative (n = 9) and document analysis (n = 8). Articles revealed preliminary evidence on service user characteristics, rates of referral, uptake and retention as well as how far the NHS DPP is being delivered in line with its evidence base and service specification.

Conclusions

The evidence is accumulating on NHS DPP uptake and retention most, with emerging evidence on programme outcomes (such as weight loss and HbA1c). More evidence is warranted on stakeholder experience to decipher how to overcome low initial and long-term engagement reported by the current evidence base.

SUBMITTER: Whelan M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9321029 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme (NHS-DPP) is a nine-month, group-based behavioural intervention for adults in England at risk of developing Type 2 diabetes. Four independent providers were commissioned to deliver versions of the NHS-DPP, in line with NHS England specifications. This observational study maps NHS-DPP delivery in routine practice against the NHS specification, and compares service delivery with observed patient experiences. METHODS:Researchers observed service delivery across eight complete NHS-DPP courses (118 sessions, median 14 sessions per course), consenting 455 participants (36 staff, 398 patients, 21 accompanying persons). Key features of NHS-DPP delivery were described using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) framework. Researchers wrote detailed field notes during each session, including observations of patient experience. Field notes were content analysed; instances of positive and negative experiences were labelled and grouped into categories. Researchers used a novel method of comparing observed patient experiences to variations in programme delivery. RESULTS:Delivery broadly followed NHS England's specification and the plans set out by providers. Deviations included the scheduling and larger group sizes in some sessions. There was variation in the type and format of activities delivered by providers. Positive patient experiences included engagement, satisfaction with the programme, good within-group relationships and reported behavioural changes. Negative experiences included poor scheduling, large groups, and dissatisfaction with the venue. Where more interactive and visual activities were delivered in smaller groups of 10-15 people with good rapport, there were generally more instances of positive patient experiences, and where there were structural issues such as problems with the scheduling of sessions, poor venues and inadequate resources, there tended to be more negative patient experiences. CONCLUSIONS:Addressing issues that we have identified as being linked to negative experiences with the NHS-DPP could increase uptake, reduce patient drop-out and increase the overall effectiveness of the programme. In particular, modifying structural aspects of the NHS-DPP (e.g. reliable session scheduling, reducing group sizes, enough session resources) and increasing interaction appear particularly promising for improving these outcomes.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To investigate the national distribution of prolonged waiting for elective day case and inpatient surgery, and to examine associations of prolonged waiting with markers of NHS capacity, activity in the independent sector, and need. SETTING:NHS hospital trusts in England. POPULATION:People waiting for elective treatment in the specialties of general surgery; ear, nose and throat surgery; ophthalmic surgery; and trauma and orthopaedic surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE:Numbers of people waiting six months or longer (prolonged waiting). Characteristics of trusts with large numbers waiting six months or longer were examined by using logistic regression. RESULTS:The distribution of numbers of people waiting for day case or elective surgery in all the specialties examined was highly positively skewed. Between 52% and 83% of patients waiting longer than six months in the specialties studied were found in one quarter of trusts, which in turn contributed 23-45% of the national throughput specific to the specialty. In general, there was little evidence to show that capacity (measured by numbers of operating theatres, dedicated day case theatres, available beds, and bed occupancy rate) or independent sector activity were associated with prolonged waiting, although exceptions were noted for individual specialties. There was consistent evidence showing an increase in prolonged waiting, with increased numbers of anaesthetists across all specialties and with increased bed occupancy rates for ear, nose and throat surgery. Markers of greater need for health care, such as deprivation score and rate of limiting long term illness, were inversely associated with prolonged waiting. CONCLUSION:In most instances, substantial numbers of patients waiting unacceptably long periods for elective surgery were limited to a small number of hospitals. Little and inconsistent support was found for associations of prolonged waiting with markers of capacity, independent sector activity, or need in the surgical specialties examined.

Project description:Systems and processes for prescribing, supplying and administering inpatient medications can have substantial impact on medication administration errors (MAEs). However, little is known about the medication systems and processes currently used within the English National Health Service (NHS). This presents a challenge for developing NHS-wide interventions to increase medication safety. We therefore conducted a cross-sectional postal census of medication systems and processes in English NHS hospitals to address this knowledge gap.The chief pharmacist at each of all 165 acute NHS trusts was invited to complete a questionnaire for medical and surgical wards in their main hospital (July 2011). We report here the findings relating to medication systems and processes, based on 18 closed questions plus one open question about local medication safety initiatives. Non-respondents were posted another questionnaire (August 2011), and then emailed (October 2011).One hundred (61% of NHS trusts) questionnaires were returned. Most hospitals used paper-based prescribing on the majority of medical and surgical inpatient wards (87% of hospitals), patient bedside medication lockers (92%), patients' own drugs (89%) and 'one-stop dispensing' medication labelled with administration instructions for use at discharge as well as during the inpatient stay (85%). Less prevalent were the use of ward pharmacy technicians (62% of hospitals) or pharmacists (58%) to order medications on the majority of wards. Only 65% of hospitals used drug trolleys; 50% used patient-specific inpatient supplies on the majority of wards. Only one hospital had a pharmacy open 24 hours, but all had access to an on-call pharmacist. None reported use of unit-dose dispensing; 7% used an electronic drug cabinet in some ward areas. Overall, 85% of hospitals had a double-checking policy for intravenous medication and 58% for other specified drugs. "Do not disturb" tabards/overalls were routinely used during nurses' drug rounds on at least one ward in 59% of hospitals.Inter- and intra-hospital variations in medication systems and processes exist, even within the English NHS; future research should focus on investigating their potential effects on nurses' workflow and MAEs, and developing NHS-wide interventions to reduce MAEs.

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:OBJECTIVE:To investigate documentation of antimicrobial allergy and to determine prescribing adherence to local antibiotic guidelines for inpatients with and without reported penicillin allergy treated for infection in a National Health Service (NHS) context. SETTING:Data were collected at two English hospital NHS trusts over two time-periods: June 2016 and February 2017. DESIGN:Cohort study. Trust 1 data were sourced from prospective point prevalence surveys. Trust 2 data were extracted retrospectively from an electronic report. PARTICIPANTS:Inpatients treated for urinary tract infection (UTI), community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and skin and soft tissue infection (SSTI). Data on allergy were collected, and antibiotic selection assessed for adherence to trust guidelines with differences between groups presented as adjusted ORs. RESULTS:A total of 1497 patients were included, with 2645 antibiotics orders. Patients were treated for CAP (n=495; 33.1%), UTI (407; 27.2%), HAP (330; 22%) and SSTI (265; 17.7%). There were 240 (16%) patients with penicillin allergy. Penicillin allergy was recorded as allergy (n=52; 21.7%), side effect (27; 11.3%) and no documentation (161; 67.1%). Overall, 2184 (82.6%) antibiotic orders were guideline-adherent. Adherence was greatest for those labelled penicillin allergy (453 of 517; 87.6%) versus no allergy (1731 of 2128; 81.3%) (OR 0.52 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.73)?p<0.001). Guideline-adherence for CAP was higher if penicillin allergy (151 of 163; 92.6%) versus no allergy (582 of 810; 71.9%) (OR 0.20 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.37)?p<0.001). There was no difference in adherence between those with and without penicillin allergy for UTI, HAP or SSTI treatment. CONCLUSIONS:A relatively high proportion of patients had a penicillin allergy and two thirds of these had no description of their allergy, which has important implications for patient safety. Patients with penicillin allergy treated for CAP, received more guideline adherent antibiotics than those without allergy. Future studies investigating the clinical impact of penicillin allergy should include data on adherence to antibiotic guidelines.