No abstract

Aim s: To explore ways of measuring addiction recovery and the extent of agreement/disagreement between diverse service providers on potential recovery indicators. Methods: Separate online Delphi groups with (i) addiction psychiatrists (n = 10); (ii) senior resi dential rehabilitation staff (n = 9); and (iii) senior inpatient detoxification unit staff (n = 6). Each group was conducted by email and followed the same structured format involving three iterative rounds of data collection. Content analyses were undertaken and the results from each group were compared and contrasted. Findings: Indicators of recovery spanned 15 broad domains: substance use, treatment/support, psycho logical health, physical health, use of time, education/training/employment, income, housing, relationships, social functioning, offending/antisocial behaviour, well-being, identity/self-awareness, goals/aspirations, and spirituality. Identification of domains was very consistent across the three groups, but there was some disparity between, and consid erable disparity within, groups on the relative importance of specific indicators. Conclusions: Whilst there is general consensus that recovery involves making changes in a number of broad life areas and not just substance use, there is substantial disagreement on particular measures of progress. Further studies involving other stakeholder groups, particularly people who have personally experienced drug or alcohol dependence, are needed to assess how transferable the 15 identified domains of recovery are. BACKGROUND

ObjectivesTo investigate the deployment of physician associates (PAs); the factors supporting and inhibiting their employment and their contribution and impact on patients’ experience and outcomes and the organisation of services.DesignMixed methods within a case study design, using interviews, observations, work diaries and documentary analysis.SettingSix acute care hospitals in three regions of England in 2016–2017.Participants43 PAs, 77 other health professionals, 28 managers, 28 patients and relatives.ResultsA key influencing factor supporting the employment of PAs in all settings was a shortage of doctors. PAs were found to be acceptable, appropriate and safe members of the medical/surgical teams by the majority of doctors, managers and nurses. They were mainly deployed to undertake inpatient ward work in the medical/surgical team during core weekday hours. They were reported to positively contribute to: continuity within their medical/surgical team, patient experience and flow, inducting new junior doctors, supporting the medical/surgical teams’ workload, which released doctors for more complex patients and their training. The lack of regulation and attendant lack of authority to prescribe was seen as a problem in many but not all specialties. The contribution of PAs to productivity and patient outcomes was not quantifiable separately from other members of the team and wider service organisation. Patients and relatives described PAs positively but most did not understand who and what a PA was, often mistaking them for doctors.ConclusionsThis study offers new insights concerning the deployment and contribution of PAs in medical and surgical specialties in English hospitals. PAs provided a flexible addition to the secondary care workforce without drawing from existing professions. Their utility in the hospital setting is unlikely to be completely realised without the appropriate level of regulation and authority to prescribe medicines and order ionising radiation within their scope of practice.

ObjectiveTo appraise and synthesise research on the impact of physician assistants/associates (PA) in secondary care, specifically acute internal medicine, care of the elderly, emergency medicine, trauma and orthopaedics, and mental health.DesignSystematic review.SettingElectronic databases (Medline, Embase, ASSIA, CINAHL, SCOPUS, PsycINFO, Social Policy and Practice, EconLit and Cochrane), reference lists and related articles.Included articlesPeer-reviewed articles of any study design, published in English, 1995–2017.InterventionsBlinded parallel processes were used to screen abstracts and full text, data extractions and quality assessments against published guidelines. A narrative synthesis was undertaken.Outcome measuresImpact on: patients’ experiences and outcomes, service organisation, working practices, other professional groups and costs.Results5472 references were identified and 161 read in full; 16 were included—emergency medicine (7), trauma and orthopaedics (6), acute internal medicine (2), mental health (1) and care of the elderly (0). All studies were observational, with variable methodological quality. In emergency medicine and in trauma and orthopaedics, when PAs are added to teams, reduced waiting and process times, lower charges, equivalent readmission rate and good acceptability to staff and patients are reported. Analgesia prescribing, operative complications and mortality outcomes were variable. In internal medicine outcomes of care provided by PAs and doctors were equivalent.ConclusionsPAs have been deployed to increase the capacity of a team, enabling gains in waiting time, throughput, continuity and medical cover. When PAs were compared with medical staff, reassuringly there was little or no negative effect on health outcomes or cost. The difficulty of attributing cause and effect in complex systems where work is organised in teams is highlighted. Further rigorous evaluation is required to address the complexity of the PA role, reporting on more than one setting, and including comparison between PAs and roles for which they are substituting.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42016032895.