Cargando…

A consultation-level intervention to improve care of frequently attending patients: a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial

BACKGROUND: Frequent attenders (FAs) to primary care receive considerable NHS resources without necessarily gaining benefit, and may even be harmed. AIM: To assess the feasibility of a consultation-level intervention to improve care and address service use of FAs. DESIGN & SETTING: A cluster ran...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Barnes, Rebecca K, Cramer, Helen, Thomas, Clare, Sanderson, Emily, Hollinghurst, Sandra, Metcalfe, Chris, Jackson, Sue, Record, Charlie, Thorley, Helen, Kessler, David
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Royal College of General Practitioners 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6480855/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31049406
http://dx.doi.org/10.3399/bjgpopen18X101623
_version_ 1783413661543432192
author Barnes, Rebecca K
Cramer, Helen
Thomas, Clare
Sanderson, Emily
Hollinghurst, Sandra
Metcalfe, Chris
Jackson, Sue
Record, Charlie
Thorley, Helen
Kessler, David
author_facet Barnes, Rebecca K
Cramer, Helen
Thomas, Clare
Sanderson, Emily
Hollinghurst, Sandra
Metcalfe, Chris
Jackson, Sue
Record, Charlie
Thorley, Helen
Kessler, David
author_sort Barnes, Rebecca K
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Frequent attenders (FAs) to primary care receive considerable NHS resources without necessarily gaining benefit, and may even be harmed. AIM: To assess the feasibility of a consultation-level intervention to improve care and address service use of FAs. DESIGN & SETTING: A cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial was undertaken. The study used a mixed-methods process evaluation and took place in six practices in England. METHOD: All practices screened the top 3% of all attending patients over the previous 12 months for eligibility. Following randomisation, intervention patients were matched with named GPs, trained to use the Background, Affect, Trouble, Handling, Empathy (BATHE) technique during consultations. Telephone consultations were encouraged. Feasibility outcomes assessed were recruitment, retention, data collection and completeness, implementation fidelity, and acceptability RESULTS: A total of 599/1328 (45.1%) FAs were eligible. Four practices were randomised to the intervention (n = 451) and two to usual care (n = 148). A total of 96 (23.7%) patients were recruited to complete questionnaires. Retention and completeness of data were good; for example, 76% of those agreeing to complete questionnaires did so at the 12-month assessment point. Thirty-four GPs were trained and delivered BATHE ≥1 times to 50.1% of patients (n = 577 consultations). There were minimal increases in continuity and telephone consultations. Patients were positive about the intervention, but noticed little change in their care. Despite valuing BATHE, low adherence to training was indicated and GPs used it less than anticipated. CONCLUSION: It was feasible to identify FAs and collect trial data. GPs were keen to engage and there was evidence that the BATHE technique was taken into practice. Optimising training is likely to improve fidelity. The intervention was low cost and low risk.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6480855
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Royal College of General Practitioners
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64808552019-05-02 A consultation-level intervention to improve care of frequently attending patients: a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial Barnes, Rebecca K Cramer, Helen Thomas, Clare Sanderson, Emily Hollinghurst, Sandra Metcalfe, Chris Jackson, Sue Record, Charlie Thorley, Helen Kessler, David BJGP Open Research BACKGROUND: Frequent attenders (FAs) to primary care receive considerable NHS resources without necessarily gaining benefit, and may even be harmed. AIM: To assess the feasibility of a consultation-level intervention to improve care and address service use of FAs. DESIGN & SETTING: A cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial was undertaken. The study used a mixed-methods process evaluation and took place in six practices in England. METHOD: All practices screened the top 3% of all attending patients over the previous 12 months for eligibility. Following randomisation, intervention patients were matched with named GPs, trained to use the Background, Affect, Trouble, Handling, Empathy (BATHE) technique during consultations. Telephone consultations were encouraged. Feasibility outcomes assessed were recruitment, retention, data collection and completeness, implementation fidelity, and acceptability RESULTS: A total of 599/1328 (45.1%) FAs were eligible. Four practices were randomised to the intervention (n = 451) and two to usual care (n = 148). A total of 96 (23.7%) patients were recruited to complete questionnaires. Retention and completeness of data were good; for example, 76% of those agreeing to complete questionnaires did so at the 12-month assessment point. Thirty-four GPs were trained and delivered BATHE ≥1 times to 50.1% of patients (n = 577 consultations). There were minimal increases in continuity and telephone consultations. Patients were positive about the intervention, but noticed little change in their care. Despite valuing BATHE, low adherence to training was indicated and GPs used it less than anticipated. CONCLUSION: It was feasible to identify FAs and collect trial data. GPs were keen to engage and there was evidence that the BATHE technique was taken into practice. Optimising training is likely to improve fidelity. The intervention was low cost and low risk. Royal College of General Practitioners 2019-01-09 /pmc/articles/PMC6480855/ /pubmed/31049406 http://dx.doi.org/10.3399/bjgpopen18X101623 Text en Copyright © The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This article is Open Access: CC BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
spellingShingle Research
Barnes, Rebecca K
Cramer, Helen
Thomas, Clare
Sanderson, Emily
Hollinghurst, Sandra
Metcalfe, Chris
Jackson, Sue
Record, Charlie
Thorley, Helen
Kessler, David
A consultation-level intervention to improve care of frequently attending patients: a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial
title A consultation-level intervention to improve care of frequently attending patients: a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial
title_full A consultation-level intervention to improve care of frequently attending patients: a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial
title_fullStr A consultation-level intervention to improve care of frequently attending patients: a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial
title_full_unstemmed A consultation-level intervention to improve care of frequently attending patients: a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial
title_short A consultation-level intervention to improve care of frequently attending patients: a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial
title_sort consultation-level intervention to improve care of frequently attending patients: a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6480855/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31049406
http://dx.doi.org/10.3399/bjgpopen18X101623
work_keys_str_mv AT barnesrebeccak aconsultationlevelinterventiontoimprovecareoffrequentlyattendingpatientsaclusterrandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrial
AT cramerhelen aconsultationlevelinterventiontoimprovecareoffrequentlyattendingpatientsaclusterrandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrial
AT thomasclare aconsultationlevelinterventiontoimprovecareoffrequentlyattendingpatientsaclusterrandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrial
AT sandersonemily aconsultationlevelinterventiontoimprovecareoffrequentlyattendingpatientsaclusterrandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrial
AT hollinghurstsandra aconsultationlevelinterventiontoimprovecareoffrequentlyattendingpatientsaclusterrandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrial
AT metcalfechris aconsultationlevelinterventiontoimprovecareoffrequentlyattendingpatientsaclusterrandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrial
AT jacksonsue aconsultationlevelinterventiontoimprovecareoffrequentlyattendingpatientsaclusterrandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrial
AT recordcharlie aconsultationlevelinterventiontoimprovecareoffrequentlyattendingpatientsaclusterrandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrial
AT thorleyhelen aconsultationlevelinterventiontoimprovecareoffrequentlyattendingpatientsaclusterrandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrial
AT kesslerdavid aconsultationlevelinterventiontoimprovecareoffrequentlyattendingpatientsaclusterrandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrial
AT barnesrebeccak consultationlevelinterventiontoimprovecareoffrequentlyattendingpatientsaclusterrandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrial
AT cramerhelen consultationlevelinterventiontoimprovecareoffrequentlyattendingpatientsaclusterrandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrial
AT thomasclare consultationlevelinterventiontoimprovecareoffrequentlyattendingpatientsaclusterrandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrial
AT sandersonemily consultationlevelinterventiontoimprovecareoffrequentlyattendingpatientsaclusterrandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrial
AT hollinghurstsandra consultationlevelinterventiontoimprovecareoffrequentlyattendingpatientsaclusterrandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrial
AT metcalfechris consultationlevelinterventiontoimprovecareoffrequentlyattendingpatientsaclusterrandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrial
AT jacksonsue consultationlevelinterventiontoimprovecareoffrequentlyattendingpatientsaclusterrandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrial
AT recordcharlie consultationlevelinterventiontoimprovecareoffrequentlyattendingpatientsaclusterrandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrial
AT thorleyhelen consultationlevelinterventiontoimprovecareoffrequentlyattendingpatientsaclusterrandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrial
AT kesslerdavid consultationlevelinterventiontoimprovecareoffrequentlyattendingpatientsaclusterrandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrial