No abstract

Background Alternative models of cancer follow-up care are needed to ameliorate pressure on services and better meet survivors’ long-term needs. This paper reports an evaluation of a service improvement initiative for the follow-up care of prostate cancer patients based on remote monitoring and supported self-management. Methods This multi-centred, historically controlled study compared patient reported outcomes of men experiencing the new Programme with men experiencing a traditional clinic appointment model of follow-up care, who were recruited in the period immediately prior to the introduction of the Programme. Data were collected by self-completed questionnaires, with follow up measurement at four and eight months post-baseline. The primary outcome was men’s unmet survivorship needs, measured by the Cancer Survivors’ Unmet Needs Survey. Secondary outcomes included cancer specific quality of life, psychological wellbeing and satisfaction with care. The analysis was intention to treat. Regression analyses were conducted for outcomes at each time point separately, controlling for pre-defined clinical and demographic variables. All outcome analyses are presented in the paper. Costs were compared between the two groups. Results Six hundred and twenty-seven men (61%) were consented to take part in the study (293 in the Programme and 334 in the comparator group.) Regarding the primary measure of unmet survivorship needs, 25 of 26 comparisons favoured the Programme, of which 4 were statistically significant. For the secondary measures of activation for self-management, quality of life, psychological well-being and lifestyle, 20 of 32 comparisons favoured the Programme and 3 were statistically significant. There were 22 items on the satisfaction with care questionnaire and 13 were statistically significant. Per participant costs (British pounds, 2015) in the 8 month follow up period were slightly lower in the programme than in the comparator group (£289 versus £327). The Programme was acceptable to patients. Conclusion The Programme is shown to be broadly comparable to traditional follow-up care in all respects, adding to evidence of the viability of such models. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-019-5561-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundDrug-resistant tuberculosis (TB), especially multidrug-resistant (MDR, resistance to rifampicin and isoniazid) disease, is associated with a worse patient outcome. Drug resistance diagnosed using microbiological culture takes days to weeks, as TB bacteria grow slowly. Rapid molecular tests for drug resistance detection (1 day) are commercially available and may promote faster initiation of appropriate treatment.ObjectivesTo (1) conduct a systematic review of evidence regarding diagnostic accuracy of molecular genetic tests for drug resistance, (2) conduct a health-economic evaluation of screening and diagnostic strategies, including comparison of alternative models of service provision and assessment of the value of targeting rapid testing at high-risk subgroups, and (3) construct a transmission-dynamic mathematical model that translates the estimates of diagnostic accuracy into estimates of clinical impact.Review methods and data sourcesA standardised search strategy identified relevant studies from EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, Bioscience Information Service (BIOSIS), System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe Social Policy & Practice (SIGLE) and Web of Science, published between 1 January 2000 and 15 August 2013. Additional ‘grey’ sources were included. Quality was assessed using quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies version 2 (QUADAS-2). For each diagnostic strategy and population subgroup, a care pathway was constructed to specify which medical treatments and health services that individuals would receive from presentation to the point where they either did or did not complete TB treatment successfully. A total cost was estimated from a health service perspective for each care pathway, and the health impact was estimated in terms of the mean discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) lost as a result of disease and treatment. Costs and QALYs were both discounted at 3.5% per year. An integrated transmission-dynamic and economic model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of introducing rapid molecular testing (in addition to culture and drug sensitivity testing). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the impact on cost-effectiveness of diagnostic and treatment time delays, diagnosis and treatment costs, and associated QALYs.ResultsA total of 8922 titles and abstracts were identified, with 557 papers being potentially eligible. Of these, 56 studies contained sufficient test information for analysis. All three commercial tests performed well when detecting drug resistance in clinical samples, although with evidence of heterogeneity between studies. Pooled sensitivity for GenoType®MTBDRplus (Hain Lifescience, Nehren, Germany) (isoniazid and rifampicin resistance), INNO-LiPA Rif.TB®(Fujirebio Europe, Ghent, Belgium) (rifampicin resistance) and Xpert®MTB/RIF (Cepheid Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA) (rifampicin resistance) was 83.4%, 94.6%, 95.4% and 96.8%, respectively; equivalent pooled specificity was 99.6%, 98.2%, 99.7% and 98.4%, respectively. Results of the transmission model suggest that all of the rapid assays considered here, if added to the current diagnostic pathway, would be cost-saving and achieve a reduction in expected QALY loss compared with current practice. GenoType MTBDRplus appeared to be the most cost-effective of the rapid tests in the South Asian population, although results were similar for GeneXpert. In all other scenarios GeneXpert appeared to be the most cost-effective strategy.ConclusionsRapid molecular tests for rifampicin and isoniazid resistance were sensitive and specific. They may also be cost-effective when added to culture drug susceptibility testing in the UK. There is global interest in point-of-care testing and further work is needed to review the performance of emerging tests and the wider health-economic impact of decentralised testing in clinics and primary care, as well as non-health-care settings, such as shelters and prisons.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42011001537.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Background: Care homes are the institutional providers of long-term care for older people. The OPTIMAL\ud study argued that it is probable that there are key activities within different models of health-care provision\ud that are important for residents’ health care.

Objectives: To understand ‘what works, for whom, why and in what circumstances?’. Study questions\ud focused on how different mechanisms within the various models of service delivery act as the ‘active\ud ingredients’ associated with positive health-related outcomes for care home residents.

Methods: Using realist methods we focused on five outcomes: (1) medication use and review; (2) use of\ud out-of-hours services; (3) hospital admissions, including emergency department attendances and length of\ud hospital stay; (4) resource use; and (5) user satisfaction. Phase 1: interviewed stakeholders and reviewed\ud the evidence to develop an explanatory theory of what supported good health-care provision for further\ud testing in phase 2. Phase 2 developed a minimum data set of resident characteristics and tracked their care\ud for 12 months. We also interviewed residents, family and staff receiving and providing health care to residents.\ud The 12 study care homes were located on the south coast, the Midlands and the east of England. Health-care\ud provision to care homes was distinctive in each site.

Findings: Phase 1 found that health-care provision to care homes is reactive and inequitable. The realist\ud review argued that incentives or sanctions, agreed protocols, clinical expertise and structured approaches to\ud assessment and care planning could support improved health-related outcomes; however, to achieve change NHS professionals and care home staff needed to work together from the outset to identify, co-design and\ud implement agreed approaches to health care. Phase 2 tested this further and found that, although there\ud were few differences between the sites in residents’ use of resources, the differences in service integration\ud between the NHS and care homes did reflect how these institutions approached activities that supported\ud relational working. Key to this was how much time NHS staff and care home staff had had to learn how to\ud work together and if the work was seen as legitimate, requiring ongoing investment by commissioners\ud and engagement from practitioners. Residents appreciated the general practitioner (GP) input and, when\ud supported by other care home-specific NHS services, GPs reported that it was sustainable and valued work.\ud Access to dementia expertise, ongoing training and support was essential to ensure that both NHS and care\ud home staff were equipped to provide appropriate care.

Limitations: Findings were constrained by the numbers of residents recruited and retained in phase 2 for\ud the 12 months of data collection.

Conclusions: NHS services work well with care homes when payments and role specification endorse the\ud im...

Introductioncare home residents have high healthcare needs not fully met by prevailing healthcare models. This study explored how healthcare configuration influences resource use.Methodsa realist evaluation using qualitative and quantitative data from case studies of three UK health and social care economies selected for differing patterns of healthcare delivery to care homes. Four homes per area (12 in total) were recruited. A total of 239 residents were followed for 12 months to record resource-use. Overall, 181 participants completed 116 interviews and 13 focus groups including residents, relatives, care home staff, community nurses, allied health professionals and General Practitioners.Resultscontext-mechanism-outcome configurations were identified explaining what supported effective working between healthcare services and care home staff: (i) investment in care home-specific work that legitimises and values work with care homes; (ii) relational working which over time builds trust between practitioners; (iii) care which ‘wraps around’ care homes; and (iv) access to specialist care for older people with dementia. Resource use was similar between sites despite differing approaches to healthcare. There was greater utilisation of GP resource where this was specifically commissioned but no difference in costs between sites.Conclusionactivities generating opportunities and an interest in healthcare and care home staff working together are integral to optimal healthcare provision in care homes. Outcomes are likely to be better where: focus and activities legitimise ongoing contact between healthcare staff and care homes at an institutional level; link with a wider system of healthcare; and provide access to dementia-specific expertise.