Chronic bronchitis (a form of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or COPD) is a common cause of morbidity and mortality resulting in around 5% of deaths in the UK. Over recent years, there has been an increased emphasis on patient-based evaluation of health and social care, which has led to a rapid growth in quality of life measures and an increase in measuring quality of life for COPD patients. However, less attention has been paid to patients' perceptions and experiences of everyday life, specifically their active engagement in the psychological, emotional and social aspects of adjustment and adaptation to living with chronic bronchitis. This study employs a series of four focus groups (N = 20) to identify key experiences of living with chronic bronchitis. The results, obtained through using both thematic and conceptual qualitative analysis, within a broadly symbolic interactionist framework, describe the subjective and sometimes contradictory ways in which the disease leads to psychological distress, dependency on medication, and disruption to social and family relationships, and has a negative impact on self-esteem. The study further argues for greater awareness of qualitative approaches to the broad view of quality of life as complementary to quality of life assessments.

ObjectivesWorldwide, emergency healthcare systems are under intense pressure from ever-increasing demand and evidence is urgently needed to understand how this can be safely managed. An estimated 10%–43% of emergency department patients could be treated by primary care services. In England, this has led to a policy proposal and £100 million of funding (US$130 million), for emergency departments to stream appropriate patients to a co-located primary care facility so they are ‘free to care for the sickest patients’. However, the research evidence to support this initiative is weak.DesignRapid realist literature review.SettingEmergency departments.Inclusion criteriaArticles describing general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments.AimTo develop context-specific theories that explain how and why general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments affect: patient flow; patient experience; patient safety and the wider healthcare system.ResultsNinety-six articles contributed data to theory development sourced from earlier systematic reviews, updated database searches (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane DSR & CRCT, DARE, HTA Database, BSC, PsycINFO and SCOPUS) and citation tracking. We developed theories to explain: how staff interpret the streaming system; different roles general practitioners adopt in the emergency department setting (traditional, extended, gatekeeper or emergency clinician) and how these factors influence patient (experience and safety) and organisational (demand and cost-effectiveness) outcomes.ConclusionsMultiple factors influence the effectiveness of emergency department streaming to general practitioners; caution is needed in embedding the policy until further research and evaluation are available. Service models that encourage the traditional general practitioner approach may have shorter process times for non-urgent patients; however, there is little evidence that this frees up emergency department staff to care for the sickest patients. Distinct primary care services offering increased patient choice may result in provider-induced demand. Economic evaluation and safety requires further research.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017069741.

BackgroundPoor-quality housing adversely affects residents’ health but there is a paucity of high-quality evidence to support this.ObjectiveThis research investigated the health impact of bringing housing to a national quality standard.DesignA natural experiment of improvements to housing quality analysed using repeated measures of health-care utilisation and economic outcomes at an individual person level.SettingCarmarthenshire, UK.ParticipantsA total of 32,009 residents registered for a minimum of 60 days at 8558 social homes that received housing improvements between January 2005 and March 2015.InterventionsMultiple internal and external housing improvements, including wall and loft insulation, windows and doors, heating system upgrades, new kitchens and bathrooms, garden path safety improvements and electrical system upgrades (adding power sockets, and extractor fans in kitchens and bathrooms).Main outcome measuresEmergency hospital admissions for cardiorespiratory conditions and injuries. Primary health-care utilisation for respiratory and common mental health disorders, emergency department injury attendances and health-care utilisation costs.Data sourcesCarmarthenshire County Council home address and intervention records were anonymously linked within the Secure Anonymous Information Linkage databank to demographic information from the Welsh Demographic Service data set; hospital admission data from the Patient Episode Dataset for Wales; primary care contacts and prescribed medications from general practice data; emergency department attendances from the Emergency Department Data Set; and deaths from the Office for National Statistics mortality register.MethodsThe study used a longitudinal panel design to examine changes in standard of eight housing cointervention from intervention records, and linked to individuals registered at intervention homes. Health outcomes were obtained retrospectively for each individual in a dynamic cohort and were captured for up to 123 consecutive months. An additional local authority region could not be utilised as a comparator owing to different reporting pressures resulting in the recording of a different intervention. The exposure group for each cointervention was compared with an internal reference group of people living in homes that did not receive the cointervention during their tenancy. A multilevel modelling approach was used to account for repeated observations for individuals living in intervention homes. Counts of health outcomes were analysed using negative binomial regression models to determine the effect of each cointervention that reached housing quality standards during an individual’s period of tenancy, compared with those living in properties that did not. We adjusted for potential confounding factors and for background trends in the regional general population. A cost–consequences analysis was conducted as part of the health economic evaluation.ResultsResidents aged ≥ 60 years living in homes in which electrical systems were upgraded were associated with 39% fewer admissions than those living in homes in which they were not [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.72;p < 0.01]. Reduced admissions were also associated with windows and doors (IRR 0.71, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.81;p < 0.01), wall insulation (IRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.84;p < 0.01) and gardens and estates (IRR 0.73, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.83;p < 0.01) for those living in homes in which these cointervention were upgraded. There were no associations of change in emergency admissions with upgrading heating (IRR 0.91, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.01;p = 0.072), loft insulation (IRR 0.98, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.11;p = 0.695), kitchens (IRR 0.98, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.17;p = 0.843) or bathrooms (IRR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.06;p = 0.287).LimitationsThere was no randomisation, there were incomplete data on the scale of the intervention for individual households and there were no estimates for the impact of the whole programme.ConclusionsThis complex interdisciplinary study found that hospital admissions could be avoided through improving housing quality standards.Future workAt their initiation, future non-health projects should have a built-in evaluation to allow intervention exposures to be randomly allocated to residents, with the simultaneous analysis of multiple health outcomes in one statistical model.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research programme.

BackgroundCold homes and fuel poverty contribute to health inequalities in ways that could be addressed through energy efficiency interventions.ObjectivesTo determine the health and psychosocial impacts of energy performance investments in low-income areas, particularly hospital admissions for cardiorespiratory conditions, prevalence of respiratory symptoms and mental health status, hydrothermal conditions and household energy use, psychosocial outcomes, cost consequences to the health system and the cost utility of these investments.DesignA mixed-methods study comprising data linkage (25,908 individuals living in 4968 intervention homes), a field study with a controlled pre-/post-test design (intervention,n = 418; control,n = 418), a controlled multilevel interrupted time series analysis of internal hydrothermal conditions (intervention,n = 48; control,n = 40) and a health economic assessment.SettingLow-income areas across Wales.ParticipantsResidents who received energy efficiency measures through the intervention programme and matched control groups.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcomes – emergency hospital admissions for cardiorespiratory conditions, self-reported respiratory symptoms, mental health status, indoor air temperature and indoor relative humidity. Secondary outcomes – emergency hospital admissions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease-related cardiorespiratory conditions, excess winter admissions, health-related quality of life, subjective well-being, self-reported fuel poverty, financial stress and difficulties, food security, social interaction, thermal satisfaction and self-reported housing conditions.MethodsAnonymously linked individual health records for emergency hospital admissions were analysed using mixed multilevel linear models. A quasi-experimental controlled field study used a multilevel repeated measures approach. Controlled multilevel interrupted time series analyses were conducted to estimate changes in internal hydrothermal conditions following the intervention. The economic evaluation comprised cost–consequence and cost–utility analyses.Data sourcesThe Patient Episode Database for Wales 2005–14, intervention records from 28 local authorities and housing associations, and scheme managers who delivered the programme.ResultsThe study found no evidence of changes in physical health. However, there were improvements in subjective well-being and a number of psychosocial outcomes. The household monitoring study found that the intervention raised indoor temperature and helped reduce energy use. No evidence was found of substantial increases in indoor humidity levels. The health economic assessment found no explicit cost reductions to the health service as a result of non-significant changes in emergency admissions for cardiorespiratory conditions.LimitationsThis was a non-randomised intervention study with household monitoring and field studies that relied on self-response. Data linkage focused on emergency admissions only.ConclusionAlthough there was no evidence that energy performance investments provide physical health benefits or reduce health service usage, there was evidence that they improve social and economic conditions that are conducive to better health and improved subjective well-being. The intervention has been successful in reducing energy use and improving the living conditions of households in low-income areas. The lack of association of emergency hospital admissions with energy performance investments means that we were unable to evidence cost saving to health-service providers.Future workOur research suggests the importance of incorporating evaluations with follow-up into intervention research from the start.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research programme.

Failing to achieve BP targets contributes substantially to healthcare system costs and preventable events in the countries studies.