scholarly journals General practice responses to opioid prescribing feedback: a qualitative process evaluation

2021 ◽  
pp. BJGP.2020.1117
Author(s):  
Su Wood ◽  
Robbie Foy ◽  
T. A. Willis ◽  
Paul Carder ◽  
Stella Johnson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Process Evaluation ◽  
High Achievers ◽  
Normalisation Process Theory ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Feedback Intervention ◽  
Practice Staff ◽  
Opioid Prescribing ◽  
Qualitative Process Evaluation

Background: The rise in opioid prescribing in primary care represents a significant public health challenge, associated with increased psychosocial problems, hospitalisations and mortality. We developed and implemented an evidence-based bi-monthly feedback intervention to reduce opioid prescribing targeting 316 general practices in West Yorkshire over one year. Aim: To understand how general practice staff received and responded to the feedback intervention. Design and Setting: Qualitative process evaluation involving semi-structured interviews, guided by Normalisation Process Theory (NPT), of primary care healthcare professionals targeted by feedback. Method: We purposively recruited participants according to baseline opioid prescribing levels and degree of change following feedback. Interview data were coded to NPT constructs, and thematically analysed. Results: We interviewed 21 staff from 20 practices. Reducing opioid prescribing was recognised as a priority. Whilst high achievers had clear structures for quality improvement, feedback encouraged some less structured practices to embed changes. The non-prescriptive nature of the feedback reports allowed practices to develop strategies consistent with their own ways of working and existing resources. Practice concerns were allayed by the credibility of the reports and positive experiences of reducing opioid prescribing. The scale, frequency and duration of feedback may have ensured a good overall level of practice population reach. Conclusion: The intervention engaged general practice staff in change by targeting an issue of emerging concern and allowing adaption to different ways of working. Practice efforts to reduce opioid prescribing were reinforced by regular feedback, credible comparative data showing progress, and shared experiences of patient benefit.

Learning from the introduction of ‘skill-mix’ changes in general practice: a qualitative process evaluation

2018 ◽  
Vol 68 (suppl 1) ◽  
pp. bjgp18X696701
Author(s):  
Pauline Nelson ◽  
Anne-Marie Martindale ◽  
Anne McBride ◽  
Damian Hodgson
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Process Evaluation ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
Active Management ◽  
Early Adopter ◽  
Snowball Sampling ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Skill Mix ◽  
Qualitative Process Evaluation

Background‘Skill-mix’ change (changing mix of staff roles or introducing new ways of working) is increasingly promoted to relieve pressure in general practice teams. As part of a primary care workforce strategy, one locality in Greater Manchester is seeking to integrate three ‘non-medical’ roles – Advanced Practitioners (APs), Physician Associates (PAs) and Clinical Pharmacists (CPs) – to work alongside practice staff.AimA qualitative process evaluation studied the integration of these roles to: establish the aims and priorities of the new services; understand and compare the ways in which the roles are being established with identification of measurable impacts and unintended consequences.MethodA rapid scoping review of the primary care skill-mix literature was conducted to inform the evaluation. Purposive and ‘snowball’ sampling enabled semi-structured interviews (12) and focus groups (2) to be conducted with 27 key individuals (workforce/training leads for the new services; APs/PAs/CPs; GPs/practice managers), before being transcribed, anonymised and analysed thematically with a combination of a priori and grounded codes. Analysis of relevant service/training plans supplemented interview/focus group data.ResultsA number of organisational and operational factors affecting implementation success in early adopter sites were identified including: the intended scope and function of new roles with corresponding implications for measuring impacts; leadership/active management of workforce changes; appropriate training and education; inter-professional tensions; regulatory provisions, and sustainability.ConclusionThere is variation in how the three skill-mix initiatives are being implemented in early adopter sites, with implications for success. Key considerations for introducing skill-mix changes in general practice are being identified.

Pharmacists in general practice: a qualitative process evaluation of the General Practice Pharmacist (GPP) study

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (5) ◽  
pp. 711-718
Author(s):  
Oscar James ◽  
Karen Cardwell ◽  
Frank Moriarty ◽  
Susan M Smith ◽  
Barbara Clyne
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
Process Evaluation ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Qualitative Approach ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Practice Staff ◽  
Practice Nurses ◽  
Practice Team ◽  
Prescribing Quality ◽  
Descriptive Qualitative

Abstract Background There is some evidence to suggest that pharmacists integrated into primary care improves patient outcomes and prescribing quality. Despite this growing evidence, there is a lack of detail about the context of the role. Objective To explore the implementation of The General Practice Pharmacist (GPP) intervention (pharmacists integrating into general practice within a non-randomized pilot study in Ireland), the experiences of study participants and lessons for future implementation. Design and setting Process evaluation with a descriptive qualitative approach conducted in four purposively selected GP practices. Methods A process evaluation with a descriptive qualitative approach was conducted in four purposively selected GP practices. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, transcribed verbatim and analysed using a thematic analysis. Results Twenty-three participants (three pharmacists, four GPs, four patients, four practice nurses, four practice managers and four practice administrators) were interviewed. Themes reported include day-to-day practicalities (incorporating location and space, systems and procedures and pharmacists’ tasks), relationships and communication (incorporating GP/pharmacist mode of communication, mutual trust and respect, relationship with other practice staff and with patients) and role perception (incorporating shared goals, professional rewards, scope of practice and logistics). Conclusions Pharmacists working within the general practice team have potential to improve prescribing quality. This process evaluation found that a pharmacist joining the general practice team was well accepted by the GP and practice staff and effective interprofessional relationships were described. Patients were less clear of the overall benefits. Important barriers (such as funding, infrastructure and workload) and facilitators (such as teamwork and integration) to the intervention were identified which will be incorporated into a pilot cluster randomized controlled trial.

scholarly journals Development of the Prototype Concise Safe Systems Checklist Tool for General Practice

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian J Litchfield ◽  
Rachel Spencer ◽  
Brian Bell ◽  
Anthony Avery ◽  
Katherine Perryman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Patient Safety ◽  
Primary Care Patient ◽  
Safety Information ◽  
Care Patient ◽  
Ease Of Use ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Practice Staff ◽  
Safety Issues

Abstract Background In the course of producing a patient safety toolkit for primary care, we identified the need for a concise safe-systems checklist designed to address areas of patient safety which are under-represented in mandatory requirements and existing tools. This paper describes the development of a prototype checklist designed to be used in busy general practice environments to provide an overview of key patient safety related processes and prompt practice wide-discussion. Methods An extensive narrative review and a survey of world-wide general practice organisations were used to identify existing primary care patient safety issues and tools. A RAND panel of international experts rated the results, summarising the findings for importance and relevance. The checklist was created to include areas that are not part of established patient safety tools or mandatory and legal requirements. Four main themes were identified: information flow, practice safety information, prescribing, and use of IT systems from which a 13 item checklist was trialled in 16 practices resulting in a nine item prototype checklist, which was tested in eight practices. Qualitative data on the utility and usability of the prototype was collected through a series of semi-structured interviews.Results In testing the prototype four of nine items on the checklist were achieved by all eight practices. Three items were achieved by seven of eight practices and two items by six of eight practices. Participants welcomed the brevity and ease of use of the prototype, that it might be used within time scales at their discretion and its ability to engage a range of practice staff in relevant discussions on the safety of existing processes. The items relating to prescribing safety were considered particularly useful. Conclusions As a result of this work the concise patient safety checklist tool, specifically designed for general practice, has now been made available as part of an online Patient Safety Toolkit hosted by the Royal College of General Practitioners. Senior practice staff such as practice managers and GP partners should find it a useful tool to understand the safety of less explored yet important safety processes within the practice.

scholarly journals Development of the Prototype Concise Safe Systems Checklist Tool for General Practice

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian J Litchfield ◽  
Rachel Spencer ◽  
Brian Bell ◽  
Anthony Avery ◽  
Katherine Perryman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Patient Safety ◽  
Primary Care Patient ◽  
Safety Information ◽  
Care Patient ◽  
Ease Of Use ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Practice Staff ◽  
Safety Issues

Abstract Background In the course of producing a patient safety toolkit for primary care, we identified the need for a concise safe-systems checklist designed to address areas of patient safety which are under-represented in mandatory requirements and existing tools. This paper describes the development of a prototype checklist designed to be used in busy general practice environments to provide an overview of key patient safety related processes and prompt practice wide-discussion. Methods An extensive narrative review and a survey of world-wide general practice organisations were used to identify existing primary care patient safety issues and tools. A RAND panel of international experts rated the results, summarising the findings for importance and relevance. The checklist was created to include areas that are not part of established patient safety tools or mandatory and legal requirements. Four main themes were identified: information flow, practice safety information, prescribing, and use of IT systems from which a 13 item checklist was trialled in 16 practices resulting in a nine item prototype checklist, which was tested in eight practices. Qualitative data on the utility and usability of the prototype was collected through a series of semi-structured interviews.Results In testing the prototype four of nine items on the checklist were achieved by all eight practices. Three items were achieved by seven of eight practices and two items by six of eight practices. Participants welcomed the brevity and ease of use of the prototype, that it might be used within time scales at their discretion and its ability to engage a range of practice staff in relevant discussions on the safety of existing processes. The items relating to prescribing safety were considered particularly useful. Conclusions As a result of this work the concise patient safety checklist tool, specifically designed for general practice, has now been made available as part of an online Patient Safety Toolkit hosted by the Royal College of General Practitioners. Senior practice staff such as practice managers and GP partners should find it a useful tool to understand the safety of less explored yet important safety processes within the practice.

scholarly journals The challenges of integrating signposting into general practice: qualitative stakeholder perspectives on care navigation and social prescribing in primary care

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Brunton ◽  
Abigail Tazzyman ◽  
Jane Ferguson ◽  
Damian Hodgson ◽  
Pauline A Nelson
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
General Practice ◽  
National Policy ◽  
Professional Services ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Practice Staff ◽  
Social Prescribing ◽  
Stakeholder Perspectives ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The Right

Abstract Background A national policy focus in England to address general practice workforce issues has led to a commitment to employ significant numbers of non-GP roles to redistribute workload. This paper focuses on two such roles: the care navigation (CN) and social prescribing link worker (SPLW) roles, which both aim to introduce ‘active signposting’ into primary care, to direct patients to the right professional/services at the right time and free up GP time. There is a lack of research exploring staff views of how these roles are being planned and operationalised into general practice and how signposting is being integrated into primary care. Methods The design uses in-depth qualitative methods to explore a wide range of stakeholder staff views. We generated a purposive sample of 34 respondents who took part in 17 semi-structured interviews and one focus group (service leads, role holders and host general practice staff). We analysed data using a Template Analysis approach. Results Three key themes highlight the challenges of operationalising signposting into general practice: 1) Role perception – signposting was made challenging by the way both roles were perceived by others (e.g. among the public, patients and general practice staff) and highlighted inherent tensions in the expressed aims of the policy of active signposting.; 2) Role preparedness – a lack of training meant that some receptionist staff felt unprepared to take on the CN role as expected and raised patient safety issues; for SPLW staff, training affected the consistency of service offer across an area; 3) Integration and co-ordination of roles – a lack of planning and co-ordination across components of the health and care system challenged the success of integrating signposting into general practice. Conclusions This study provides new insights from staff stakeholder perspectives into the challenges of integrating signposting into general practice, and highlights key factors affecting the success of signposting in practice. Clarity of role purpose and remit (including resolving tensions inherent the dual aims of ‘active signposting’), appropriate training and skill development for role holders and adequate communication and engagement between stakeholders/partnership working across services, are required to enable successful integration of signposting into general practice.

scholarly journals Increasing uptake of hepatitis C virus infection case-finding, testing, and treatment in primary care: evaluation of the HepCATT (Hepatitis C Assessment Through to Treatment) trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 70 (697) ◽  
pp. e581-e588 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeremy Horwood ◽  
Clare Clement ◽  
Kirsty Roberts ◽  
Cherry-Ann Waldron ◽  
William L Irving ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Hepatitis C Virus ◽  
Hepatitis C ◽  
Complex Intervention ◽  
Case Finding ◽  
Hcv Infection ◽  
Normalisation Process Theory ◽  
Care Practice ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Practice Staff

BackgroundHepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is a key cause of liver disease but can be cured in more than 95% of patients. Around 70 000 people in England may have undiagnosed HCV infection and many more will not have been treated. Interventions to increase case-finding in primary care are likely to be cost-effective; however, evidence of effective interventions is lacking. The Hepatitis C Assessment Through to Treatment (HepCATT) trial assessed whether a complex intervention in primary care could increase case-finding, testing, and treatment of HCV.AimTo investigate the feasibility and acceptability of the HepCATT intervention.Design and settingA qualitative study with primary care practice staff from practices in the south west of England taking part in the HepCATT trial.MethodSemi-structured interviews were carried out with GPs, nurses, and practice staff to ascertain their views of the HepCATT intervention at least 1 month after implementing the intervention in their practice. Normalisation process theory, which outlines the social processes involved in intervention implementation, informed thematic data analysis.ResultsParticipants appreciated the HepCATT intervention for increasing knowledge and awareness of HCV. Although some initial technical difficulties were reported, participants saw the benefits of using the audit tool to systematically identify patients with HCV infection risk factors and found it straightforward to use. Participants valued the opportunity to discuss HCV testing with patients, especially those who may not have been previously aware of HCV risk. Future implementation should consider fully integrating software systems and additional resources to screen patient lists and conduct tests.ConclusionWhen supported by a complex intervention, primary care can play a crucial role in identifying and caring for patients with HCV infection, to help stem the HCV epidemic, and prevent HCV-related illness.

scholarly journals Development of the Prototype Concise Safe Systems Checklist Tool for General Practice

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian J Litchfield ◽  
Rachel Spencer ◽  
Brian Bell ◽  
Anthony Avery ◽  
Katherine Perryman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Patient Safety ◽  
Primary Care Patient ◽  
Safety Information ◽  
Care Patient ◽  
Ease Of Use ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Practice Staff ◽  
Safety Issues

Abstract Background In the course of producing a patient safety toolkit for primary care, we identified the need for a concise safe-systems checklist designed to address areas of patient safety which are under-represented in mandatory requirements and existing tools. This paper describes the development of a prototype checklist designed to be used in busy general practice environments to provide an overview of key patient safety related processes and prompt practice wide-discussion. Methods An extensive narrative review and a survey of world-wide general practice organisations were used to identify existing primary care patient safety issues and tools. A RAND panel of international experts rated the results, summarising the findings for importance and relevance. The checklist was created to include areas that are not part of established patient safety tools or mandatory and legal requirements. Four main themes were identified: information flow, practice safety information, prescribing, and use of IT systems from which a 13 item checklist was trialled in 16 practices resulting in a nine item prototype checklist, which was tested in eight practices. Qualitative data on the utility and usability of the prototype was collected through a series of semi-structured interviews.Results In testing the prototype four of nine items on the checklist were achieved by all eight practices. Three items were achieved by seven of eight practices and two items by six of eight practices. Participants welcomed the brevity and ease of use of the prototype, that it might be used within time scales at their discretion and its ability to engage a range of practice staff in relevant discussions on the safety of existing processes. The items relating to prescribing safety were considered particularly useful. Conclusions As a result of this work the concise patient safety checklist tool, specifically designed for general practice, has now been made available as part of an online Patient Safety Toolkit hosted by the Royal College of General Practitioners. Senior practice staff such as practice managers and GP partners should find it a useful tool to understand the safety of less explored yet important safety processes within the practice.

scholarly journals The psychosocial response to a terrorist attack at Manchester Arena, 2017: a process evaluation

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Hind ◽  
Kate Allsopp ◽  
Prathiba Chitsabesan ◽  
Paul French
Keyword(s):  
Young People ◽  
Process Evaluation ◽  
Terrorist Attack ◽  
Health Sector ◽  
Routine Data ◽  
Recovery Phase ◽  
Normalisation Process Theory ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Framework Analysis ◽  
Response Phase

Abstract Background A 2017 terrorist attack in Manchester, UK, affected large numbers of adults and young people. During the response phase (first seven weeks), a multi-sector collaborative co-ordinated a decentralised response. In the subsequent recovery phase they implemented a centralised assertive outreach programme, ‘The Resilience Hub’, to screen and refer those affected. We present a process evaluation conducted after 1 year. Methods Case study, involving a logic modelling approach, aggregate routine data, and semi-structured interviews topic guides based on the Inter-Agency Collaboration Framework and May’s Normalisation Process Theory. Leaders from health, education and voluntary sectors (n = 21) and frontline Resilience Hub workers (n = 6) were sampled for maximum variation or theoretically, then consented and interviewed. Framework analysis of transcripts was undertaken by two researchers. Results Devolved government, a collaborative culture, and existing clinical networks meant that, in the response phase, a collaboration was quickly established between health and education. All but one leader evaluated the response positively, although they were not involved in pre-disaster statutory planning. However, despite overwhelming positive feedback there were clear difficulties. (1) Some voluntary sector colleagues felt that it took some time for them to be involved. (2) Other VCSE organisations were accused of inappropriate, harmful use of early intervention. (3) The health sector were accused of overlooking those below the threshold for clinical treatment. (4) There was a perception that there were barriers to information sharing across organisations, which was particularly evident in relation to attempts to outreach to first responders and other professionals who may have been affected by the incident. (5) Hub workers encountered barriers to referring people who live outside of Greater Manchester. After 1 year of the recovery phase, 877 children and young people and 2375 adults had completed screening via the Resilience Hub, 79% of whom lived outside Greater Manchester. Conclusions The psychosocial response to terrorist attacks and other contingencies should be planned and practiced before the event, including reviews of communications, protocols, data sharing procedures and workforce capacity. Further research is needed to understand how the health and voluntary sectors can best collaborate in the wake of future incidents.

scholarly journals Engagement with and delivery of the ‘parkrun practice initiative’ in general practice: a mixed methods study

2020 ◽  
Vol 70 (697) ◽  
pp. e573-e580
Author(s):  
Joanna Fleming ◽  
Carol Bryce ◽  
Joanne Parsons ◽  
Chrissie Wellington ◽  
Jeremy Dale
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Practice Staff ◽  
Health And Wellbeing ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Improve Patient

BackgroundThe parkrun practice initiative, a joint collaboration between parkrun and the Royal College of General Practitioners, was launched to encourage general practices to improve the health and wellbeing of patients and staff through participating in local 5 km parkrun events. Why and how practices engage with the initiative is unknown.AimTo investigate engagement with and delivery of the parkrun practice initiative in general practice.Design and settingMixed methods study conducted from April–July 2019 comprising an online survey of all registered parkrun practices, and interviews and a focus group with practice staff in the West Midlands.MethodThe designated contacts at 780 registered parkrun practices were invited to complete an online survey. A purposive sample of parkrun practice staff and non-registered practice staff took part either in semi-structured interviews or a focus group, with transcripts analysed thematically.ResultsOf the total number of parkrun practices, 306 (39.2%) completed the survey. Sixteen practice staff (from nine parkrun practices and four non-registered practices) took part in either semi-structured interviews (n = 12) or a focus group (n = 4). Key motivators for becoming a parkrun practice were: to improve patient and staff health and wellbeing, and to become more engaged with the community and enhance practice image. Practices most commonly encouraged patients, carers, and staff to take part in parkrun and displayed parkrun flyers and posters. Challenges in implementing activities included lack of time (both personal and during consultations) and getting staff involved. Where staff did engage there were positive effects on morale and participation. Non-registered practices were receptive to the initiative, but had apprehensions about the commitment involved.ConclusionPractices were keen to improve patient and staff health. Addressing time constraints and staff support needs to be considered when implementing the initiative.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document