BackgroundThis study aimed to explore the challenges and barriers faced by staff involved in the delivery of the National Health Service (NHS) Health Check, a systematic cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment and management program in primary care.MethodsData have been derived from three qualitative evaluations that were conducted in 25 General Practices and involved in depth interviews with 58 staff involved all levels of the delivery of the Health Checks. Analysis of the data was undertaken using the framework approach and findings are reported within the context of research and practice considerations.ResultsFindings indicated that there is no ‘one size fits all’ blueprint for maximising uptake although success factors were identified: evolution of the programme over time in response to local needs to suit the particular characteristics of the patient population; individual staff characteristics such as being proactive, enthusiastic and having specific responsibility; a supportive team. Training was clearly identified as an area that needed addressing and practitioners would benefit from CVD specific baseline training and refresher courses to keep them up to date with recent developments in the area. However there were other external factors that impinged on an individual’s ability to provide an effective service, some of these were outside the control of individuals and included cutbacks in referral services, insufficient space to run clinics or general awareness of the Health Checks amongst patients.ConclusionsThe everyday experiences of practitioners who participated in this study suggest that overall, Health Check is perceived as a worthwhile exercise. But, organisational and structural barriers need to be addressed. We also recommend that clear referral pathways be in place so staff can refer patients to appropriate services (healthy eating sessions, smoking cessation, and exercise referrals). Local authorities need to support initiatives that enable data sharing and linkage so that GP Practices are informed when patients take up services such as smoking cessation or alcohol harm reduction programmes run by social services.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12875-015-0365-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

IntroductionPoor medicines management places patients at risk, particularly during care transitions. For patients with heart failure (HF), optimal medicines management is crucial to control symptoms and prevent hospital readmission. This study explored the concept of resilience using HF as an example condition to understand how the system compensates for known and unknown weaknesses.MethodsWe explored resilience using a mixed-methods approach in four healthcare economies in the north of England. Data from hospital site observations, healthcare staff and patient interviews, and documentary analysis were collected between June 2016 and March 2017. Data were synthesised and analysed using framework analysis.ResultsInterviews were conducted with 45 healthcare professionals, with 20 patients at three time points and 189 hours of observation were undertaken. We identified four primary inter-related themes concerning organisational resilience. These were named as gaps, traps, bridges and props. Gaps were discontinuities in processes that had the potential to result in poorly optimised medicines. Traps were features of the system that could produce errors or unintended adverse medication events. Bridges were features of the medicines management system that promoted safety and continuity which ensured that, despite varying conditions, care could be delivered successfully. Props were informal, temporary or impromptu actions taken by patients or healthcare staff to avoid potential adverse events.ConclusionThe numerous opportunities for HF patient safety to be compromised and for suboptimal medicines management during this common care transition are mitigated by system resilience. Cross-organisational bridges and temporary fixes or ‘props’ put in place by patients and carers, healthcare teams and organisations are critical for safe and optimal care to be delivered in the face of continued system pressures.

BackgroundExperience‐based co‐design (EBCD) brings patients and staff together to co‐design services. It is normally conducted in one organization which initiates and implements the process. We used the traditional EBCD method with a number of adaptations as part of a larger research study in the British National Health Service.MethodsThe primary aim was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of conducting research‐initiated EBCD, to enhance intervention development prior to testing. As well as embedding the method in a research study, there were 3 further key adaptations: (a) working across primary and secondary care sectors, (b) working on multiple sites and (c) incorporating theory‐informed analysis.ResultsWe recruited four sites (covering both primary and secondary care) and, on each site, conducted the initial traditional EBCD meetings, with separate staff and patient groups—followed by a single joint patient‐staff event, where four priority areas for co‐design were agreed. This event was driven by theory‐informed analysis, as well as the traditional trigger film of patient experiences. Each site worked on one priority area, and the four co‐design groups met over 2‐3 months to design prototype tools. A second joint event was held (not usually undertaken in single‐site EBCD) where they shared and compared outputs. The research team combined elements of these outputs to create an intervention, now being tested in a cluster randomized controlled trial.ConclusionsEBCD can be successfully adapted for use across an entire patient pathway with multiple organizations and as part of a research process to identify an intervention for subsequent testing in a randomized trial. Our pragmatic approach used the patient experience to identify areas for improvement and co‐designed an intervention which directly reflected patient priorities.

Bradford Scholars -how to deposit your paper Overview Copyright check• Check if your publisher allows submission to a repository.• Use the Sherpa RoMEO database if you are not sure about your publisher's position or email openaccess@bradford.ac.uk.