validated risk stratification tools are quick, simple, easy to use and 75% of staff would use the tools again in the future.

No abstract

BackgroundVentilatory support has benefits including prolonging survival for respiratory failure in motor neurone disease (MND). At some point some patients may wish to stop the intervention. The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance recommends research is needed on ventilation withdrawal. There is little literature focusing on the issues doctors encounter when withdrawing ventilation at the request of a patient.AimTo identify and explore with doctors the ethical and legal issues that they had encountered in the withdrawal of ventilation at the request of a patient with MND.MethodA retrospective thematic analysis of interviews of 24 doctors (including palliative care, respiratory, neurology and general practice) regarding their experiences with withdrawal of ventilation support from patients with MND.ResultsRespondents found withdrawal of ventilation at the request of patients with MND to pose legal, ethical and moral challenges in five themes: ethical and legal rights to withdrawal from treatment; discussions with family; discussions with colleagues; experiences of legal advice; issues contributing to ethical complexity. Though clear about the legality of withdrawal of treatment in theory, the practice led to ethical and moral uncertainty and mixed feelings. Many respondents had experienced negative reactions from other healthcare professionals when these colleagues were unclear of the distinction between palliation of symptoms, withdrawal of treatment and assisted death.ConclusionsLegal, ethical and practical guidance is needed for professionals who support a patient with MND who wishes to withdraw from ventilation. Open discussion of the ethical challenges is needed as well as education and support for professionals.

The authors explore the views of practitioners and managers on the implementation of intermediate care for elderly people across England, including their perceptions of the challenges involved in its implementation, and their assessment of the main benefits and weaknesses of provision. Qualitative data were collected in five case study sites (English primary care trusts) via semistructured interviews (n = 61) and focus group discussions (n = 21) during 2003 to 2004. Interviewees included senior managers, intermediate care service managers, clinicians and health and social care staff involved in the delivery of intermediate care. The data were analysed thematically using an approach based on the ‘framework’ method. Workforce and funding shortages, poor joint working between health and social care agencies and lack of support/involvement on the part of the medical profession were identified as the main challenges to developing intermediate care. The perceived benefits of intermediate care for service‐users included flexibility, patient centredness and the promotion of independence. The ‘home‐like’ environment in which services were delivered was contrasted favourably with hospitals. Multidisciplinary teamworking and opportunities for role flexibility were identified as key benefits by staff. Insufficient capacity, problems of access and awareness at the interface between intermediate care and ‘mainstream’ services combined with poor co‐ordination between intermediate care services emerged as the main weaknesses in current provision. Despite reported benefits for service‐users and staff, the study indicates that intermediate care does not appear to be achieving its full potential for alleviating pressure within health and social care systems. The strengthening of capacity and workforce, improvements to whole systems working and the promotion of intermediate care among doctors and other referrers were identified as key future priorities.

No abstract

Introduction the aim of this study was to design an approach to improving care for frail older patients in hospital services where comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) was not part of the clinical tradition. Methods the intervention was based on the principles of CGA, using quality improvement methodology to embed care processes. Qualitative methods and coproduction were used to inform development of the intervention, which was directed towards the health care professionals involved in peri-operative/surgical cancer care pathways in two large UK teaching hospitals. A formative, qualitative evaluation was undertaken; data collection and analysis were guided by normalisation process theory. Results the clinicians involved agreed to use the toolkit, identifying potential benefits including improved surgical decision making and delivery of interventions pre-operatively. However, sites concluded that pre-operative assessment was not the best place for CGA, and at the end of the 12-month trial, implementation was still nascent. Efforts competed against the dominance of national time-limited targets, and concerns relating to patients’ immediate treatment and recovery. Some participants involved in the peri-operative pathway felt that CGA required ongoing specialist input from geriatricians, but it was not clear that this was sustainable. Conclusions clinical toolkits designed to empower non-geriatric teams to deliver CGA were received with initial enthusiasm, but did not fully achieve their stated aims due to the need for an extended period of service development with geriatrician support, competing priorities, and divergent views about appropriate professional domains.

Background The aim of this study was to provide high-quality evidence on delivering hospital-wide Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA). Objective(s) (1) To define CGA, its processes, outcomes and costs in the published literature, (2) to identify the processes, outcomes and costs of CGA in existing hospital settings in the UK, (3) to identify the characteristics of the recipients and beneficiaries of CGA in existing hospital settings in the UK and (4) to develop tools that will assist in the implementation of hospital-wide CGA. Design Mixed-methods study combining a mapping review, national survey, large data analysis and qualitative methods. Participants People aged ≥ 65 years in acute hospital settings. Data sources Literature review – Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, MEDLINE and EMBASE. Survey – acute hospital trusts. Large data analyses – (1) people aged ≥ 75 years in 2008 living in Leicester, Nottingham or Southampton (development cohort, n = 22,139); (2) older people admitted for short stay (Nottingham/Leicester, n = 825) to a geriatric ward (Southampton, n = 246) or based in the community (Newcastle, n = 754); (3) people aged ≥ 75 years admitted to acute hospitals in England in 2014–15 (validation study, n = 1,013,590). Toolkit development – multidisciplinary national stakeholder group (co-production); field-testing with cancer/surgical teams in Newcastle/Leicester. Results Literature search – common outcomes included clinical, operational and destinational, but not patient-reported, outcome measures. Survey – highly variable provision of multidisciplinary assessment and care across hospitals. Quantitative analyses – in the development cohort, older people with frailty diagnoses formed a distinct group and had higher non-elective hospital use than older people without a frailty diagnosis. Patients with the highest 20% of hospital frailty risk scores had increased odds of 30-day mortality [odds ratio (OR) 1.7], long length of stay (OR 6.0) and 30-day re-admission (OR 1.5). The score had moderate agreement with the Fried and Rockwood scales. Pilot toolkit evaluation – participants across sites were still at the beginning of their work to identify patients and plan change. In particular, competing definitions of the role of geriatricians were evident. Limitations The survey was limited by an incomplete response rate but it still provides the largest description of acute hospital care for older people to date. The risk stratification tool is not contemporaneous, although it remains a powerful predictor of patient harms. The toolkit evaluation is still rather nascent and could have meaningfully continued for another year or more. Conclusions CGA remains the gold standard approach to improving a range of outcomes for older people in acute hospitals. Older people at risk can be identified using routine hospital data. Toolkits aimed at enhancing the delivery of CGA by non-specialists can be useful but require prolonged geriatrician support and implementation phases. Future work could involve comparing the hospital-based frailty index with the electronic Frailty Index and further testing of the clinical toolkits in specialist services. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

No abstract