ObjectiveTo identify measures used within Denmark evaluating any type of intervention designed to facilitate patient involvement in healthcare.DesignEnvironmental scan employing rapid review methods.Data sourcesMEDLINE, PsycInfo and CINAHL were searched from 6–9 April 2021 from database inception up to the date of the search.Eligibility criteriaQuantitative, observational and mixed methods studies with empirical data on outcomes used to assess any type of intervention aiming to increase patient involvement with their healthcare. Language limitations were Danish and English.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers extracted data from 10% of the included studies and, due to their agreement, the data from the rest were extracted by first author. Data were analysed with reference to existing categories of measuring person-centred care; findings were synthesised using narrative summaries. Adapted Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 guidelines were used to guide reporting.ResultsAmong 3767 records, 43 studies met the inclusion criteria, including 74 different measures used to evaluate interventions aimed at increasing patient involvement within healthcare in Danish hospital and community settings. Generic measures assessed: patient engagement (n=3); supporting self-management (n=8); supporting shared decision-making (n=9); patient satisfaction and experiences of care (n=11); health-related patient-reported outcome (n=20).ConclusionsAcross Denmark, complex interventions designed to improve patient involvement with healthcare vary in their goals and content. Some targeting healthcare professionals, some patient health literacy and some service infrastructure. A plethora of measures assess the impact of these interventions on patient, professional and service delivery outcomes. Few measures assessed patient involvement directly, and it is unclear which proxy measures capture indicators of perceived involvement. Lack of conceptual clarity between intervention goals, the components of change and measures makes it difficult to see what types of intervention can best support change in services to ensure patients are more effectively involved in their healthcare.

Objective The Scottish Care Information -Diabetes Collaboration (SCI-DC) developed a computer-based information system to create a shared electronic record for use by all involved in the care of patients with diabetes mellitus. The objectives of this study were to understand primary care practitioners' views towards screening for diabetic foot disease and their experience of the SCI-DC system. Method We conducted an exploratory study using qualitative methods. Semi-structured interviews were audiotape-recorded, transcribed and subjected to thematic analysis. Seven practice nurses and six general practitioners (GPs) with special responsibility for diabetes care in NHS Lothian participated. Results Primary care clinicians reported good systems in place to screen for diabetes-related complications and to refer their patients to specialist care. Foot ulceration was rarely observed; other diabetesrelated conditions were seen as a higher priority. Most had heard of the SCI-DC foot assessment tool, but its failure to integrate with other primary care information technology (IT) systems meant it was not used in these general practices. Conclusions Adoption of the SCI-DC foot assessment tool in primary care is not perceived as clinically necessary. Although information recorded by specialist services on SCI-DC is helpful, important structural barriers to its implementation mean the potential benefits associated with its use are unlikely to be realised; greater engagement with primary care priorities for diabetes management is needed to assist its successful implementation and adoption.

No abstract

This is a repository copy of Dialysis vs conservative management decision aid: a study protocol.

Background MDT discussion is the gold standard for cancer care in the UK. With the incidence of cancer on the rise, demand for MDT discussion is increasing. The need for efficiency, whilst maintaining high standards, is therefore clear. Paper-based MDT quality assessment tools and discussion checklists may represent a practical method of monitoring and improving MDT practice. This reviews aims to describe and appraise these tools, as well as consider their value to quality improvement. Methods Medline, EMBASE and PsycInfo were searched using pre-defined terms. The PRISMA model was followed throughout. Studies were included if they described the development of a relevant tool, or if an element of the methodology further informed tool quality assessment. To investigate efficacy, studies using a tool as a method of quality improvement in MDT practice were also included. Study quality was appraised using the COSMIN risk of bias checklist or the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, depending on study type. Results The search returned 7930 results. 18 studies were included. In total 7 tools were identified. Overall, methodological quality in tool development was adequate to very good for assessed aspects of validity and reliability. Clinician feedback was positive. In one study, the introduction of a discussion checklist improved MDT ability to reach a decision from 82.2 to 92.7%. Improvement was also noted in the quality of information presented and the quality of teamwork. Conclusions Several tools for assessment and guidance of MDTs are available. Although limited, current evidence indicates sufficient rigour in their development and their potential for quality improvement. Trial registration PROSPERO ID: CRD42021234326.