BackgroundIntegrated reminders within clinical systems have become more prevalent due to the use of electronic health records and evidence demonstrating an increase in compliance within practice. Clinical reminders are assessed for effectiveness on an individual basis, rather than in combination with existing prompts for other conditions. The growing number of prompts may be counter-productive as healthcare professionals are increasingly suffering from “reminder fatigue” meaning many reminders are ignored. This work will review the qualitative evidence to identify barriers and enablers of existing prompts found within computerised decision support systems. Our focus will be on primary care where clinicians have to negotiate a plethora of reminders as they deal with increasingly complex patients and sophisticated treatment regimes. The review will provide a greater understanding of existing systems and the way clinicians interact with them to inform the development of more effective and targeted clinical reminders.MethodsA comprehensive search using piloted terms will be used to identify relevant literature from 1960 (or commencement of database) to 2017. MEDLINE, MEDLINE In Process, EMBASE, HMIC, PsycINFO, CDSR DARE, HTA, CINAHL and CPCI, will be searched, as well as grey literature and references and citations of included papers. Manuscripts will be assessed for eligibility, bias and quality using the CASP tool with narrative data being included and questionnaire based studies excluded. Inductive thematic analysis will be performed in order to produce a conceptual framework defining the key barriers around integrated clinical reminders.DiscussionIndications of alert and reminder fatigue are found throughout the current literature. However, this has not been fully investigated using a robust qualitative approach, particularly in a rapidly growing body of evidence. This review will aid people forming new clinical systems so that alerts can be incorporated appropriately.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO: CRD42016029418 Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-017-0627-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

This randomized, double-blind, crossover study in two parts compared tolerability to high doses of formoterol (Oxis Turbuhaler) with that of high doses of terbutaline (Bricanyl Turbuhaler). After Holter monitoring at home, 12 patients were treated with 4+4+4 doses of formoterol Turbuhaler, 6 microg x dose(-1), (total daily metered dose 72 microg) or 4+4+4 doses of terbutaline Turbuhaler, 0.5 mg x dose(-1) (daily dose 6 mg) given in the morning, after lunch and in the evening, for 3 consecutive days. After a one week washout period at home, patients received the alternative treatment. Thereafter, 15 other patients received 8+6+6 doses of formoterol Turbuhaler (total daily metered dose 120 microg) or 8+6+6 doses of terbutaline Turbuhaler (daily dose 10 mg). Pulse, cardiac frequency, blood pressure, serum potassium, electrocardiogram and forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) were registered at regular intervals and Holter monitoring was applied during all 4 treatment days. Terbutaline 6 mg showed significantly greater systemic effects than formoterol 72 microg on pulse, blood pressure, cardiac frequency and QTc (QT interval corrected for heart rate). Terbutaline 10 mg had significantly greater effects than formoterol 120 microg on serum potassium levels, pulse, cardiac frequency and QTc. No differences in FEV1 levels were found. Both drugs were safe and generally well tolerated on both dose levels. In conclusion, high doses of formoterol Turbuhaler over 3 days were generally safe and well tolerated. Daily doses of 6 mg and 10 mg terbutaline Turbuhaler were systemically more potent than 72 microg and 120 microg formoterol, respectively. The safety margin thus appears to be wide if patients happen to use extra doses of formoterol in addition to those prescribed for regular use.

BackgroundCentral nervous system infections can have devastating clinical outcomes if not diagnosed and treated promptly. There is a documented gap between recommended and actual practice and a limited understanding of its causes. We identified and explored the reasons for this gap, focusing on points in the patient pathway most amenable to change and the development of a tailored intervention strategy to improve diagnosis and treatment.MethodsUsing theoretically-informed semi-structured interviews, we explored barriers and enablers to diagnosing and managing patients with suspected encephalitis, specifically performing lumbar punctures and initiating antiviral therapy within 6 h. We purposively sampled hospitals and hospital staff in the UK. We audio recorded and transcribed all interviews prior to a framework analysis. We mapped identified barriers and enablers to the patient pathway. We matched behaviour change techniques targeting clinicians to the most salient barriers and enablers and embedded them within an intervention package.ResultsWe interviewed 43 staff in six hospitals. Clinical staff expressed uncertainty when and how to perform lumbar punctures and highlighted practical difficulties in undertaking them within busy clinical settings. Once treatment need was triggered, clinicians generally felt able to take appropriate therapeutic action, albeit within organisational and resource constraints. Matched behaviour change techniques largely targeted antecedents of treatment. These included decision support to prompt recognition, highlighting the consequences of missed diagnoses for clinicians and patients, and practical support for lumbar punctures. We subsequently devised an evidence-informed package comprising ‘core’ interventions and, to allow for local flexibility, ‘optional’ interventions.ConclusionsWe identified several points in the patient pathway where practice could improve, the most critical being around clinical suspicion and initial investigation. Interventions targeting professional beliefs and behaviours whilst optimising their clinical environment were amongst the most promising approaches to improve the care of suspected encephalitis.Trial registrationRandomised trial registered with Controlled Trials ISRCTN06886935.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0224-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Local side-effects, such as hoarseness and oropharyngeal candidiasis, are often seen during treatment of patients with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). We investigated whether changing from pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDI) to Turbuhaler influenced the type and frequency of local side-effects. Local side-effects were recorded for a 2-year period in which 154 patients used ICS pMDI with a spacer device. They were followed for an equally long period of time (26.2 +/- 5.7 months) while using Turbuhaler, as were 90 patients who received Turbuhaler as their first ICS preparation. After inhalation, all patients rinsed out their mouths with water. In experienced pMDI-users, the frequency of local side-effects decreased from 21% to 6%. The reduction was due to a lower incidence of hoarseness. Candidiasis or hoarseness was not seen in patients given Turbuhaler as their first ICS device. Our fear of an increased incidence of local side-effects when giving ICS in Turbuhaler was unwarranted.

IntroductionIn the UK, primary care is seen as the optimal context for delivering care to an ageing population with a growing number of long-term conditions. However, if it is to meet these demands effectively and efficiently, a more precise understanding of existing care processes is required to ensure their configuration is based on robust evidence. This need to understand and optimise organisational performance is not unique to healthcare, and in industries such as telecommunications or finance, a methodology known as ‘process mining’ has become an established and successful method to identify how an organisation can best deploy resources to meet the needs of its clients and customers. Here and for the first time in the UK, we will apply it to primary care settings to gain a greater understanding of how patients with two of the most common chronic conditions are managed.Methods and analysisThe study will be conducted in three phases; first, we will apply process mining algorithms to the data held on the clinical management system of four practices of varying characteristics in the West Midlands to determine how each interacts with patients with hypertension or type 2 diabetes. Second, we will use traditional process mapping exercises at each practice to manually produce maps of care processes for the selected condition. Third, with the aid of staff and patients at each practice, we will compare and contrast the process models produced by process mining with the process maps produced via manual techniques, review differences and similarities between them and the relative importance of each. The first pilot study will be on hypertension and the second for patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been provided by East Midlands–Leicester South Regional Ethics Committee (REC reference 18/EM/0284). Having refined the automated production of maps of care processes, we can explore pinch points and bottlenecks, process variants and unexpected behaviour, and make informed recommendations to improve the quality and efficiency of care. The results of this study will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.