No abstract

Background: Randomised controlled trials of interventions in critical situations are necessary to establish safety and evaluate outcomes. Pregnant women have been identified as a potentially vulnerable population. Objective: To explore women's experiences of being recruited to ORACLE, a randomised controlled trial of antibiotics in pre-term labour. Methods: Twenty qualitative interviews were conducted with women who had participated in ORACLE. Analysis was based on the constant comparative method. Results: Women gave prominence to the socioemotional aspects of their interactions with healthcare professionals in making decisions on trial participation. Comments on the quality of written and spoken information were generally favourable, but women's accounts suggest that the stressful nature of the situation affected their ability to absorb the information. Women generally had poor understanding of trial design and practices. The main motivation for trial participation was the possibility of an improved outcome for the baby. The second and less prominent motivation was the opportunity to help others, but this was conditional on there being no risks associated with trial participation. In judging the risks of participation, women seemed to draw on ''common sense'' understandings including a perception that antibiotics were risk free. Discussion: Recruitment to trials in critical situations raises important questions. Future studies should explore how rigorous governance arrangements for trials, particularly in critical situations, can protect participants rather than relying on ideals of informed consent that may be impossible to achieve. Future research should include a focus on interactions between research candidates and professionals involved in recruitment.

Background: Cross-cultural and international research are important components of public health research, but the challenges of language barriers and working with interpreters are often overlooked, particularly in the case of qualitative research.

Objective To explore women's preferences for, and trade-offs between, key attributes of intrapartum care models.Design Mixed-methods study using discrete choice experiments (DCEs) and focus groups.Setting The North of Scotland.Population Women from the catchment areas of eight rural maternity units in the North of Scotland.Methods Based on current policy, 'model of care' and 'time travelled' were selected as key attributes of intrapartum care in remote and rural settings. A DCE questionnaire explored women's preferences for and trade-offs between these attributes. Focus groups validated the DCE attributes and provided valuable information about the drivers of women's preferences for place of delivery.Main outcome measures Preferences for attributes of intrapartum care.Results Eight focus groups were conducted, and 877 eligible women completed the questionnaire. Overall, the DCE results found women preferred delivery in a unit to home birth and consultant-led care (CLC) to midwife-managed care (MMC). Women preferring CLC associated it with covering every eventuality and increased safety. Although women preferred shorter travel times, trade-offs indicated a willingness to travel for approximately 2 hours to get one's preferred choice. Focus group findings and subgroup DCE analysis showed heterogeneity of preferences related to experience, risk status, geographic location, perception of care and family circumstances.Conclusions In contrast to service redesign offering local midwifemanaged intrapartum care, most rural women in our study expressed a preference to give birth in hospital and have CLC because they felt safer. Women were willing to travel for this but within limits. Qualitative results showed that women's preferences were influenced by their home and family context, beliefs and previous pregnancy experiences. Challenges for service redesign are to provide comprehensive obstetric services within acceptable travel time, while responding to the heterogeneity of women's preferences.Keywords Discrete choice experiments, intrapartum, mixedmethods, preferences, remote and rural.Please cite this paper as: Pitchforth E, Watson V, Tucker J, Ryan M, van Teijlingen E, Farmer J, Ireland J, Thomson E, Kiger A, Bryers H. Models of intrapartum care and women's trade-offs in remote and rural Scotland: a mixed-methods study . BJOG 2008;115:560-569.

In many ways, nut allergy may be considered a form of disability, because it imposes social barriers on participating fully in society.

AimThis study updates a previous scoping review published by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) in 2006 (Roland M, McDonald R, Sibbald B.Outpatient Services and Primary Care: A Scoping Review of Research Into Strategies For Improving Outpatient Effectiveness and Efficiency. Southampton: NIHR Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre; 2006) and focuses on strategies to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of outpatient services.Findings from the scoping reviewEvidence from the scoping review suggests that, with appropriate safeguards, training and support, substantial parts of care given in outpatient clinics can be transferred to primary care. This includes additional evidence since our 2006 review which supports general practitioner (GP) follow-up as an alternative to outpatient follow-up appointments, primary medical care of chronic conditions and minor surgery in primary care. Relocating specialists to primary care settings is popular with patients, and increased joint working between specialists and GPs, as suggested in the NHS Five Year Forward View, can be of substantial educational value. However, for these approaches there is very limited information on cost-effectiveness; we do not know whether they increase or reduce overall demand and whether the new models cost more or less than traditional approaches. One promising development is the increasing use of e-mail between GPs and specialists, with some studies suggesting that better communication (including the transmission of results and images) could substantially reduce the need for some referrals.Findings from the substudiesBecause of the limited literature on some areas, we conducted a number of substudies in England. The first was of referral management centres, which have been established to triage and, potentially, divert referrals away from hospitals. These centres encounter practical and administrative challenges and have difficulty getting buy-in from local clinicians. Their effectiveness is uncertain, as is the effect of schemes which provide systematic review of referrals within GP practices. However, the latter appear to have more positive educational value, as shown in our second substudy. We also studied consultants who held contracts with community-based organisations rather than with hospital trusts. Although these posts offer opportunities in terms of breaking down artificial and unhelpful primary–secondary care barriers, they may be constrained by their idiosyncratic nature, a lack of clarity around roles, challenges to professional identity and a lack of opportunities for professional development. Finally, we examined the work done by other countries to reform activity at the primary–secondary care interface. Common approaches included the use of financial mechanisms and incentives, the transfer of work to primary care, the relocation of specialists and the use of guidelines and protocols. With the possible exception of financial incentives, the lack of robust evidence on the effect of these approaches and the contexts in which they were introduced limits the lessons that can be drawn for the English NHS.ConclusionsFor many conditions, high-quality care in the community can be provided and is popular with patients. There is little conclusive evidence on the cost-effectiveness of the provision of more care in the community. In developing new models of care for the NHS, it should not be assumed that community-based care will be cheaper than conventional hospital-based care. Possible reasons care in the community may be more expensive include supply-induced demand and addressing unmet need through new forms of care and through loss of efficiency gained from concentrating services in hospitals. Evidence from this study suggests that further shifts of care into the community can be justified only if (a) high value is given to patient convenience in relation to NHS costs or (b) community care can be provided in a way that reduces overall health-care costs. However, reconfigurations of services are often introduced without adequate evaluation and it is important that new NHS initiatives should collect data to show whether or not they have added value, and improved quality and patient and staff experience.FundingThe NIHR Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

No abstract

ObjectivesVariation in patterns of referral from primary care can lead to inappropriate overuse or underuse of specialist resources. Our aim was to review the literature on strategies involving primary care that are designed to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of outpatient services.MethodsA scoping review to update a review published in 2006. We conducted a systematic literature search and qualitative evidence synthesis of studies across five intervention domains: transfer of services from hospital to primary care; relocation of hospital services to primary care; joint working between primary care practitioners and specialists; interventions to change the referral behaviour of primary care practitioners and interventions to change patient behaviour.ResultsThe 183 studies published since 2005, taken with the findings of the previous review, suggest that transfer of services from secondary to primary care and strategies aimed at changing referral behaviour of primary care clinicians can be effective in reducing outpatient referrals and in increasing the appropriateness of referrals. Availability of specialist advice to primary care practitioners by email or phone and use of store-and-forward telemedicine also show potential for reducing outpatient referrals and hence reducing costs. There was little evidence of a beneficial effect of relocation of specialists to primary care, or joint primary/secondary care management of patients on outpatient referrals. Across all intervention categories there was little evidence available on cost-effectiveness.ConclusionsThere are a number of promising interventions which may improve the effectiveness and efficiency of outpatient services, including making it easier for primary care clinicians and specialists to discuss patients by email or phone. There remain substantial gaps in the evidence, particularly on cost-effectiveness, and new interventions should continue to be evaluated as they are implemented more widely. A move for specialists to work in the community is unlikely to be cost-effective without enhancing primary care clinicians’ skills through education or joint consultations with complex patients.