<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>

<rdf:RDF
 xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
 xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
 xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/"
 xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
 xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
 xmlns:prism="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/prism/"
 xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
>

<channel rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com">
<title>Journal of Health Services Research &amp; Policy recent issues</title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com</link>
<description>Journal of Health Services Research &amp; Policy RSS feed -- recent issues</description>
<prism:publicationName>Journal of Health Services Research &amp; Policy</prism:publicationName>
<prism:issn>1355-8196</prism:issn>
<items>
 <rdf:Seq>
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/4/193?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/4/195?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/4/202?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/4/209?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/4/215?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/4/222?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/4/227?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/4/233?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/4/240?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/4/249?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/4/251?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/4/255?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/3/129?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/3/131?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/3/133?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/3/140?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/3/146?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/3/152?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/3/158?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/3/167?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/3/174?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/3/178?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/3/185?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/3/188?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/3/191?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/2/57?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/2/59?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/2/61?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/2/67?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/2/73?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/2/79?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/2/85?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/2/92?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/2/99?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/2/103?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/2/109?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/2/116?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/2/122?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/2/124?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/2/127?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/suppl_2/1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/suppl_2/3?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/suppl_2/11?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/suppl_2/19?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/suppl_2/26?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/suppl_2/32?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/suppl_2/40?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/suppl_2/45?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/suppl_2/52?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/suppl_2/58?rss=1" />
 </rdf:Seq>
</items>
</channel>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/4/193?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Fundamental similarities between tort and administrative systems for managing health care accidents]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/4/193?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Croxson, B.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-09-19</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008060</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Fundamental similarities between tort and administrative systems for managing health care accidents]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>4</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>194</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-10-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>193</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Editorial</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/4/195?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA['They're more like ordinary stroppy British women': attitudes and expectations of maternity care professionals to UK-born ethnic minority women]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/4/195?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objective</st>
<p>To explore the attitudes and expectations of maternity care professionals to UK-born ethnic minority mothers.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>Qualitative in-depth interviews with 30 professionals from eight NHS maternity units in England that provide services for large proportions of women of black Caribbean, black African, Indian, Pakistani and Irish descent.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>All the professionals reported providing care to both UK-born and migrant mothers from ethnic minorities. Most of them felt that they could differentiate between UK-born and migrant mothers based mainly on language fluency and accent. &lsquo;Westernized dress&rsquo; and &lsquo;freedom&rsquo; were also cited as indicators. Overall, professionals found it easier to provide services to UK-born mothers and felt that their needs were more like those of white English mothers than those of migrant mothers. UK-born mothers were generally thought to be assertive and expressive, and in control of care-related decision-making whereas some South Asian Muslim women were thought to be constrained by family influences. Preconceived ideas about ethnic minority mothers' tolerance of pain in labour, use of pharmacological pain relief measures and mode of delivery were recurring themes. Women's education and social class were felt to be major influences on the uptake of maternity care, regardless of ethnicity.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>Professionals appeared to equate the needs of UK-born ethnic minority women with those of white English women. Overall, this has positive implications for care provision. Despite this, specific behavioural expectations and unconscious stereotypical views were evident and have the potential to affect clinical practice.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Puthussery, S., Twamley, K., Harding, S., Mirsky, J., Baron, M., Macfarlane, A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-09-19</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.007153</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA['They're more like ordinary stroppy British women': attitudes and expectations of maternity care professionals to UK-born ethnic minority women]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>4</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>201</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-10-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>195</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/4/202?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Increasing appropriateness of hospital admissions in the Emilia-Romagna region of Italy]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/4/202?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>The Emilia-Romagna region of Italy has reduced the number of available hospital beds and introduced financial incentives to curb hospital use. The goal of this study was to assess the impact of these policies on changes over time in the number of acute hospital admissions classified in diagnosis related groups (DRGs) that could be treated safely and effectively in alternative, less costly settings.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>The assessment of the appropriate site of care was based on analysis of hospital discharge data for all hospitals for the selected diagnosis related groups in the Emilia-Romagna region for 2001 to 2005. The necessity for acute hospital admission was based on the severity of a patient's principal diagnosis, co-morbid diseases and, for surgical admissions, procedure performed.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>From 2001 to 2005, potentially inappropriate medical admissions of more than one day decreased from 20,076 to 11,580, a 42% decrease. Inappropriate admissions decreased in both public and private hospitals but there remained a higher rate of inappropriate admissions to private hospitals. Potentially inappropriate medical admissions accounted for 128,319 bed-days in 2001 and 68,968 bed-days in 2005, a reduction of 59,351 bed-days. Potentially inappropriate surgical admissions decreased from 7383 in 2001 to 4349 in 2005, a 41% decrease. Bed-days consumed by inappropriate surgical admissions decreased from 23,181 in 2001 to 13,660 in 2005.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>The Emilia-Romagna region has succeeded in reducing the use of acute hospital beds for patients in selected diagnosis related groups. However, there are still substantial numbers of admissions that could potentially be treated in less costly settings.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Louis, D., Taroni, F., Melotti, R., Rabinowitz, C., Vizioli, M., Fiorini, M., Gonnella, J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-09-19</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.007157</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Increasing appropriateness of hospital admissions in the Emilia-Romagna region of Italy]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>4</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>208</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-10-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>202</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/4/209?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Policy-makers' attitudes to decision support models for coronary heart disease: a qualitative study]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/4/209?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>To explore attitudes to the use of models for coronary heart disease to support decision-making for policy and service planning.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with 33 policy- and decision-makers purposively sampled from the UK National Health Service (NHS) (national, regional and local levels), academia and voluntary organizations. Interviews were transcribed, coded and emergent themes identified using framework analysis aided by NVivo software.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Policy-makers and planners were generally enthusiastic about models to assist in decision-making through: predicting trends; assessing the effect of interventions on health inequalities; quantifying the impact of population level and targeted interventions, and facilitating economic evaluation. The perceived advantages of using models included: more rational commissioning; the facility for scenario testing; advocacy for population level interventions and off-the-shelf synthesis to aid real time decision-making. However, although participants were aware of models to support decision-making, these were not being used routinely. Some participants felt that models oversimplify complex situations and that there is a lack of shared understanding as to how models work. Factors that increase confidence in decision support models included: rigorous validation and peer review, the availability of user-support and increased transparency.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusion</st>
<p>Policy-makers and planners were generally enthusiastic about the use of models to support decision-making, illustrating the potential uses for models and the factors that improve confidence in them. However, existing models are often not being used in practice. So new models that are fit for practice need to be developed.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Taylor-Robinson, D., Milton, B., Lloyd-Williams, F., O'Flaherty, M., Capewell, S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-09-19</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008045</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Policy-makers' attitudes to decision support models for coronary heart disease: a qualitative study]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>4</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>214</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-10-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>209</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/4/215?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Stakeholders' views of UK nurse and pharmacist supplementary prescribing]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/4/215?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>Supplementary prescribing (SP) by pharmacists and nurses in the UK represents a unique approach to improving patients' access to medicines and better utilizing health care professionals' skills. Study aims were to explore the views of stakeholders involved in SP policy, training and practice, focusing upon issues such as SP benefits, facilitators, challenges, safety and costs, thereby informing future practice and policy.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Method</st>
<p>Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 43 purposively sampled UK stakeholders, including pharmacist and nurse supplementary prescribers, doctors, patient groups representatives, academics and policy developers. Analysis of transcribed interviews was undertaken using a process of constant comparison and framework analysis, with coding of emergent themes.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Stakeholders generally viewed SP positively and perceived benefits in terms of improved access to medicines and fewer delays, along with a range of facilitators and barriers to the implementation of this form of non-medical prescribing. Stakeholders' views on the economic impact of SP varied, but safety concerns were not considered significant. Future challenges and implications for policy included SP being potentially superseded by independent nurse and pharmacist prescribing, and the need to improve awareness of SP. Several potential tensions emerged including nurses' versus pharmacists' existing skills and training needs, supplementary versus independent prescribing, SP theory versus practice and prescribers versus non-prescribing peers.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusion</st>
<p>SP appeared to be broadly welcomed by stakeholders and was perceived to offer patient benefits. Several years after its introduction in the UK, stakeholders still perceived several implementation barriers and challenges and these, together with various tensions identified, might affect the success of supplementary and other forms of non-medical prescribing.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Cooper, R., Anderson, C., Avery, T., Bissell, P., Guillaume, L., Hutchinson, A., Lymn, J., Murphy, E., Ratcliffe, J., Ward, P.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-09-19</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008004</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Stakeholders' views of UK nurse and pharmacist supplementary prescribing]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>4</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>221</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-10-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>215</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/4/222?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The impact of income on private patients' access to GP services in Ireland]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/4/222?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>To examine the extent to which proximity to the income threshold for free GP care results in significant differences in GP visiting. Approximately 30% of the Irish population receives free GP care (medical card patients), while the remaining 70% pays in full (private patients). Medical card eligibility exerts a significant influence on GP visiting, but how do GP visiting rates differ among private patients on differing incomes, and has the differential in visiting among private patients changed over time?</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>Using micro-data from three nationally representative surveys of the Irish population undertaken in 1987, 1995 and 2001, multivariate models of GP utilization are estimated.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>There is little evidence that proximity to the income threshold results in significant differences in GP visiting. The most significant difference is between medical card and private patients, rather than between private patients on differing incomes. There is also little evidence that the differential in GP visiting between private patients on different incomes changed over time.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>While recent commentary has focused on the plight of individuals just above the income threshold for free GP care, these results suggest that the key difference in GP visiting is between those with, and without, eligibility for free care. If private patients are prevented from accessing GP care due to cost, this is as much an issue for those at the top of the income distribution as for those at the bottom.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Nolan, A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-09-19</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008048</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The impact of income on private patients' access to GP services in Ireland]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>4</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>226</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-10-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>222</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/4/227?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Health care professionals' views of implementing a policy of open disclosure of errors]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/4/227?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>To understand the views of doctors, nurses, allied health professionals and health managers of open disclosure of medical errors.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 131 health professionals to understand their experiences of implementing open disclosure in 21 providers in Australia.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Health professionals are positive about open disclosure and are applying the model to patient&ndash;clinician communication encounters more generally. Workforce and systems competencies enable clinicians and health service managers to implement open disclosure principles and practices, although a propensity to hide errors, wavering commitment and to exacerbate the problem inhibits implementation as policy intends. The gap between policy objectives and their implementation limits the benefits to health professionals.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusion</st>
<p>Health services must develop organizing capabilities if open disclosure is to be implemented as intended. Activities should identify and address factors that impede implementation and enable workforce and system competencies to develop. These activities will allow health services to adapt central open disclosure policy to local conditions and to embed its principles and practices organization-wide.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sorensen, R., Iedema, R., Piper, D., Manias, E., Williams, A., Tuckett, A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-09-19</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008062</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Health care professionals' views of implementing a policy of open disclosure of errors]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>4</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>232</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-10-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>227</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/4/233?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Moving specialist care into the community: an initial evaluation]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/4/233?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>To assess the likely impact on patients and local health economies of shifting specialist care from hospitals to the community in 30 demonstration sites in England.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>The evaluation comprised: interviews with service providers at 30 sites, supplemented by interviews with commissioners, GPs and hospital doctors at 12 sites; economic case studies in six sites; and patient surveys at 30 sites plus at nine conventional outpatient services. Outcomes comprised: staff views of service organization and development, impact on primary and secondary care, and benefits for patients; cost per consultation and cost per patient in new services compared to estimates of the price of services if undertaken by hospitals; patients' views of waiting time, access, quality (technical and interpersonal), coordination and satisfaction.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>New services required high initial investment in staff, premises and equipment, and the support of hospital consultants. Most new services were added to existing hospital services so expanded capacity. Patient reported waiting times (6.7 versus 10.1 weeks; p = 0.001); technical quality of care (96.2 versus 94.5; p &lt; 0.001), overall satisfaction (88.2 versus 85.4; p = 0.04); and access (72.2 versus 65.8; p = 0.001) were significantly better for new compared to conventional services but there was no significant difference in coordination or interpersonal quality of care. Some service providers expressed concerns about service quality. New services dealt with less complex conditions and undercut the price tariff applied to hospitals thus providing a cost saving to commissioners. There was some concern that expansion of new services might destabilize hospitals.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>Moving specialist care into the community can improve patient access, particularly when new services are added to existing hospital services. Wider impacts on health care quality, capacity and cost merit closer scrutiny before rollout.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sibbald, B., Pickard, S., McLeod, H., Reeves, D., Mead, N., Gemmell, I., Coast, J., Roland, M., Leese, B.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-09-19</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008049</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Moving specialist care into the community: an initial evaluation]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>4</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>239</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-10-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>233</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/4/240?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Factors contributing to nursing leadership: a systematic review]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/4/240?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>Leadership practices of health care managers can positively or negatively influence outcomes for organizations, providers and, ultimately, patients. Understanding the factors that contribute to nursing leadership is fundamental to ensuring a future supply of nursing leaders who can positively influence outcomes for health care providers and patients. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the multidisciplinary literature to examine the factors that contribute to nursing leadership and the effectiveness of educational interventions in developing leadership behaviours among nurses.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>The search strategy began with 10 electronic databases (e.g. CINAHL, Medline). Published quantitative studies were included that examined the factors that contribute to leadership or the development of leadership behaviours in nurse leaders. Quality assessments, data extraction and analysis were completed on all included studies.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>A total of 27,717 titles/abstracts were screened resulting in 26 included manuscripts reporting on 24 studies. Twenty leadership factors were examined and categorized into four groups &ndash; <I>behaviours and practices</I> of individual leaders, <I>traits and characteristics</I> of individual leaders, influences of <I>context and practice settings</I>, and <I>leader participation in educational activities</I>. Specific behaviours and practices of individual leaders, such as taking on or practising leadership styles, skills and roles, were reported as significantly influencing leadership in eight studies. Traits and characteristics of individual leaders were examined in six studies with previous leadership experience (three studies) and education levels (two of three studies) having positive effects on observed leadership. Context and practice settings had a moderate influence on leadership effectiveness (three of five studies). Nine studies that examined participation in leadership development programs all reported significant positive influences on observed leadership.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusion</st>
<p>These findings suggest that leadership can be developed through specific educational activities, and by modelling and practising leadership competencies. However, the relatively weak study designs provide limited evidence for specific factors that could increase the effectiveness of current nursing leadership or guide the identification of future nurse leaders. Robust theory and research on interventions to develop and promote viable nursing leadership for the future are needed to achieve the goal of developing healthy work environments for health care providers and optimizing care for patients.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Cummings, G., Lee, H., MacGregor, T., Davey, M., Wong, C., Paul, L., Stafford, E.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-09-19</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.007154</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Factors contributing to nursing leadership: a systematic review]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>4</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>248</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-10-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>240</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Review</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/4/249?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Everything you wanted to know about anxiety but were afraid to ask]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/4/249?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[McDonald, R.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-09-19</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008067</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Everything you wanted to know about anxiety but were afraid to ask]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>4</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>250</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-10-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>249</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Worth a second look</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/4/251?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[What leads to better health care innovation? Arguments for an integrated policy-oriented research agenda]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/4/251?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>This essay is based on the recognition that the current &lsquo;downstream&rsquo; health services research and policy approach to innovation misses the mark on one crucial point. It has not addressed how to promote the design of innovations that are likely to be more valuable than others. Re-visiting the ways in which health services research could inform innovation processes, this paper suggests that three attributes make innovations especially compelling from a health care system perspective: relevance; usability; and sustainability. These could be used as a starting point for outlining a policy-oriented research agenda that could bridge upstream design processes, and downstream needs and priorities. Given the pace at which innovations come about and the complexity of health care systems, we believe that both research and policy should be able to contribute significantly to the shaping of socially valuable technological change in health care. Recognizing that such a long-term goal cannot be reached through a linear, rationalistic process, our paper offers preliminary arguments to start to reconcile the health policy and innovation agendas.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lehoux, P., Williams-Jones, B., Miller, F., Urbach, D., Tailliez, S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-09-19</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.007173</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[What leads to better health care innovation? Arguments for an integrated policy-oriented research agenda]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>4</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>254</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-10-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>251</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Perspective</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/4/255?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Unsafe science]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/4/255?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Light, K., Stirk, L., Wright, K.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-09-19</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008092</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Unsafe science]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>4</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>256</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-10-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>255</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>What's on the web?</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/3/129?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Tracking disability disparities: the data dilemma]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/3/129?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Iezzoni, L. I]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-06-20</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008034</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Tracking disability disparities: the data dilemma]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>130</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>129</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Editorials</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/3/131?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[US health care reform and the Presidential candidates]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/3/131?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Fein, O., Rodberg, L.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-06-20</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008072</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[US health care reform and the Presidential candidates]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>132</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>131</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Editorials</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/3/133?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Effects of payment for performance in primary care: qualitative interview study]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/3/133?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>To understand the effects of a large scale &lsquo;payment for performance&rsquo; scheme (the Quality and Outcomes Framework [QOF]) on professional roles and the delivery of primary care in the English National Health Service.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>Qualitative semi-structured interview study. Twenty-four clinicians were interviewed during 2006: one general practitioner and one practice nurse in 12 general practices in eastern England with a broad range of sociodemographic and organizational characteristics.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Participants reported substantial improvements in teamwork and in the organization, consistency and recording of care for conditions incentivized in the scheme, but not for non-incentivized conditions. The need to carry out and record specific clinical activities was felt to have changed the emphasis from &lsquo;patient led&rsquo; consultations and listening to patients' concerns. Loss of continuity of care and of patient choice were described. Nurses experienced increased workload but enjoyed more autonomy and job satisfaction. Doctors acknowledged improved disease management and teamwork but expressed unease about &lsquo;box-ticking&rsquo; and increased demands of team supervision, despite better terms and conditions. Doctors were less motivated to achieve performance indicators where they disputed the evidence on which they were based. Participants expressed little engagement with results of patient surveys or patient involvement initiatives. Some participants described data manipulation to maximize practice income. Many felt overwhelmed by the flow of policy initiatives.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>Payment for performance is driving major changes in the roles and organization of English primary health care teams. Non-incentivized activities and patients' concerns may receive less clinical attention. Practitioners would benefit from improved dissemination of the evidence justifying the inclusion of new performance indicators in the QOF.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Maisey, S., Steel, N., Marsh, R., Gillam, S., Fleetcroft, R., Howe, A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-06-20</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.007118</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Effects of payment for performance in primary care: qualitative interview study]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>139</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>133</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/3/140?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Whose interest? British newspaper reporting of use of medical records for research]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/3/140?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objective</st>
<p>There is increasing debate about the ethics of using medical records for research. We aimed to characterize newspaper reporting in this area.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Method</st>
<p>We searched Lexis-Nexis to find newspaper reports about the use of medical records for research from 1 June 2005 to 30 November 2006. Following screening for relevance, we generated a coding scheme and classified articles using this, assisted by QSR N6 software.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Our analysis shows that much newspaper coverage portrays the use of medical records as uncontentious, but also presents ethical arguments for and against such research. Arguments in favour of access to medical records emphasize the public interest and patients' legitimate expectations that research will be carried out. Arguments against such use emphasize the importance of confidentiality and the violation of rights of privacy. Our findings highlight that there is no single dominant position on the rights and wrongs of access to medical records by researchers. Within newspaper reporting in this area, patient voices are currently noticeable by their absence.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>Use of medical records for research raises important ethical questions, in particular regarding the balance between the rights and interests of the individual and the public interest benefits of the research. Understanding how these positions are represented within the mass media is important because the media can inform and influence the public's views and public policy. Empirical research into patient views is needed.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brown, L., Parker, M., Dixon-Woods, M.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-06-20</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.007126</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Whose interest? British newspaper reporting of use of medical records for research]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>145</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>140</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/3/146?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Improving the appropriateness of referrals and waiting times for endoscopic procedures]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/3/146?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objective</st>
<p>There is a lack of standard methods for determining the clinical priority of patients referred by general practitioners (GPs) for specialist outpatient consultations. We introduced a system of progressive involvement by general practitioners and specialists with 80 diagnostic procedures. The aim of this study was to evaluate this new method of prioritization of patients suffering from significant gastroenterological disorders needing rapid access to diagnostic procedures.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>The study included 438 outpatients who were referred for and underwent a gastroscopy or colonoscopy. GPs used a ranking of waiting times for different levels of clinical priority, called &lsquo;homogeneous waiting groups&rsquo;. Specialists also assigned a priority level for each patient as well as evaluating the appropriateness of the referral and the presence of significant endoscopic disorders. Agreement between GPs' and specialists' priority assessments was evaluated by the kappa statistic.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Most referrals (74.4%) were deemed low priority by GPs, with no maximum waiting time assigned. The level of agreement between GPs and specialists as regards patients' priorities was poor or moderate: for gastroscopy the kappa was 0.31 (weighted kappa 0.47) and for colonoscopy 0.44 (weighted kappa 0.46). There was an association between the proportion of significant disorders identified with endoscopy and the priority assigned to the referral (2 = 18.9, 1 df, p &lt; 0.001). The overall proportion of referrals deemed inappropriate by specialists was 22.1%.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>There is value in liaison between GPs and specialists for achieving timely referrals and avoiding delayed diagnosis though higher levels of agreement need to be achieved.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mariotti, G., Meggio, A., de Pretis, G., Gentilini, M.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-06-20</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.007170</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Improving the appropriateness of referrals and waiting times for endoscopic procedures]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>151</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>146</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/3/152?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Impact of critical care outreach services on the delivery and organization of hospital care]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/3/152?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>To evaluate the impact of critical care outreach services on the delivery and organization of hospital care from the perspective of staff working in acute hospitals.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>One hundred semi-structured interviews were undertaken with hospital staff who were either members of, or who came into contact with, the outreach service in eight hospitals in England.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Outreach services had two main impacts on the delivery and organization of hospital care, reflecting the organizational and educational aims of the policy. First, on the organization of patient care: it was suggested that care was more timely, there were fewer referrals to the intensive care unit (ICU) and ICUs felt more able to discharge patients to hospital wards. There were also perceived to be improved links between ward nurses and medical teams and improved morale among ICU nurses. Second, on the confidence and skills of ward staff (nurses and junior doctors): increased contact on the wards resulted in more opportunities to share critical care skills. However, there remained concerns about the sustainability of improved skills and some respondents felt that junior doctors were becoming de-skilled.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusion</st>
<p>Critical care outreach services have had a positive impact on the delivery and organization of hospital care. In attempting to share critical care skills, however, these services can experience a tension between the aims of service delivery and education &ndash; a tension which is partly resolved by sharing skills in the clinical and organizational context of direct patient care.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Baker-McClearn, D., Carmel, S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-06-20</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008003</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Impact of critical care outreach services on the delivery and organization of hospital care]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>157</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>152</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/3/158?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Influence of body mass index on prescribing costs and potential cost savings of a weight management programme in primary care]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/3/158?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>Prescribed medications represent a high and increasing proportion of UK health care funds. Our aim was to quantify the influence of body mass index (BMI) on prescribing costs, and then the potential savings attached to implementing a weight management intervention.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>Paper and computer-based medical records were reviewed for all drug prescriptions over an 18-month period for 3400 randomly selected adult patients (18&ndash;75 years) stratified by BMI, from 23 primary care practices in seven UK regions. Drug costs from the British National Formulary at the time of the review were used. Multivariate regression analysis was applied to estimate the cost for all drugs and the &lsquo;top ten&rsquo; drugs at each BMI point. This allowed the total and attributable prescribing costs to be estimated at any BMI. Weight loss outcomes achieved in a weight management programme (Counterweight) were used to model potential effects of weight change on drug costs. Anticipated savings were then compared with the cost programme delivery. Analysis was carried out on patients with follow-up data at 12 and 24 months as well as on an intention-to-treat basis. Outcomes from Counterweight were based on the observed lost to follow-up rate of 50%, and the assumption that those patients would continue a generally observed weight gain of 1 kg per year from baseline.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>The minimum annual cost of all drug prescriptions at BMI 20 kg/m<sup>2</sup> was &pound;50.71 for men and &pound;62.59 for women. Costs were greater by &pound;5.27 (men) and &pound;4.20 (women) for each unit increase in BMI, to a BMI of 25 (men &pound;77.04, women &pound;78.91), then by &pound;7.78 and &pound;5.53, respectively, to BMI 30 (men &pound;115.93 women &pound;111.23), then by &pound;8.27 and &pound;4.95 to BMI 40 (men &pound;198.66, women &pound;160.73). The relationship between increasing BMI and costs for the top ten drugs was more pronounced. Minimum costs were at a BMI of 20 (men &pound;8.45, women &pound;7.80), substantially greater at BMI 30 (men &pound;23.98, women &pound;16.72) and highest at BMI 40 (men &pound;63.59, women &pound;27.16). Attributable cost of overweight and obesity accounted for 23% of spending on all drugs with 16% attributable to obesity. The cost of the programme was estimated to be approximately &pound;60 per patient entered. Modelling weight reductions achieved by the Counterweight weight management programme would potentially reduce prescribing costs by &pound;6.35 (men) and &pound;3.75 (women) or around 8% of programme costs at one year, and by &pound;12.58 and &pound;8.70, respectively, or 18% of programme costs after two years of intervention. Potential savings would be increased to around 22% of the cost of the programme at year one with full patient retention and follow-up.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusion</st>
<p>Drug prescriptions rise from a minimum at BMI of 20 kg/m<sup>2</sup> and steeply above BMI 30 kg/m<sup>2</sup>. An effective weight management programme in primary care could potentially reduce prescription costs and lead to substantial cost avoidance, such that at least 8% of the programme delivery cost would be recouped from prescribing savings alone in the first year.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Counterweight Project Team]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-06-20</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.007140</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Influence of body mass index on prescribing costs and potential cost savings of a weight management programme in primary care]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>166</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>158</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/3/167?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Evidence-informed evidence-making]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/3/167?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>The extent to which clinical and public health guidance developed by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) can effectively serve the public by improving quality and efficiency across the National Health Service (NHS) and the broader public sector depends largely on the quality and relevance of the available evidence which informs its decisions. There are well-established organizational and procedural links between NICE and academic and professional organizations that undertake evidence synthesis. However, there are fewer means for evidence gaps identified during the development of NICE guidance to lead to the commissioning of new prospective studies. In this paper, we discuss the importance of a publicly funded clinical and public health research agenda that includes new prospective studies aimed at addressing knowledge gaps identified by NICE. We describe the early experience of NICE and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) working together to articulate and commission research to inform best practice recommendations. We propose ways in which NICE can collaborate more effectively with research funders to improve the evidence base upon which it bases its recommendations.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chalkidou, K., Walley, T., Culyer, A., Littlejohns, P., Hoy, A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-06-20</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008027</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Evidence-informed evidence-making]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>173</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>167</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Essay</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/3/174?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Pay for performance in Australia: Queensland's new Clinical Practice Improvement Payment]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/3/174?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Following a high profile scandal relating to quality and safety of care, the health authority in the Australian state of Queensland introduced a pay for performance (P4P) component into its new hospital prospective payment system. The Clinical Practice Improvement Payment system pays hospitals for achievement of clinical process indicators. Initially the focus is on the quality of clinical processes and outcomes. Using a consensus approach involving consultation with clinicians, seven clinical indicators were adopted for 2007&ndash;2008. The first payments using pay for performance were made for work carried out up until June 2008. Although no data exist yet as to the impact of the new system, pay for performance appears to be gaining widespread, if somewhat reluctant, acceptance.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Duckett, S., Daniels, S., Kamp, M., Stockwell, A., Walker, G., Ward, M.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-06-20</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.007178</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Pay for performance in Australia: Queensland's new Clinical Practice Improvement Payment]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>177</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>174</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Essay</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/3/178?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[What benefits will choice bring to patients? Literature review and assessment of implications]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/3/178?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>To assess the demand for, and likely impact of, increasing patient choice in health care. The study examined whether patients would like to exercise choice of hospital, primary care provider and treatment, and investigated the likely impact of policies designed to increase choice on equity of access, and on the efficiency and quality of service delivery.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Method</st>
<p>Theory-based literature review including an analysis of the intended and unintended impact of choice-related policies in health care in the UK, European Union and USA. Selected papers focused not only on offering choice to individual patients but also evidence of the impact of choice by patients' agents such as GPs, and on the impact of introducing choice in education and social services.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Choosing between hospitals or primary care providers is not currently a high priority for the public, except where local services are poor, e.g. they have long waiting times and where individual patients' circumstances do not limit their ability to travel. When patients become ill, they are increasingly likely to wish to rely on a trusted health practitioner to choose their treatment. Better educated populations make greater use of information and are more likely to exercise choice in health care. The increase in inequality which this could produce might be reduced by specific provision of information and help, enabling less advantaged populations to make choices about health care. There was little evidence in the literature that providing greater choice will in itself improve efficiency or quality of care.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusion</st>
<p>Although patients may themselves make limited use of choices, the existence of choice may, in theory, stimulate providers to improve quality of care. Patients do, however, want to be more involved in individual decisions about their own treatment, and generally participate much less in these decisions than they would wish.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Fotaki, M., Roland, M., Boyd, A., McDonald, R., Scheaff, R., Smith, L.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-06-20</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.007163</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[What benefits will choice bring to patients? Literature review and assessment of implications]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>184</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>178</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Review</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/3/185?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The central role of nursing in health care]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/3/185?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sampson, D.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-06-20</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008050</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The central role of nursing in health care]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>187</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>185</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Worth a second look</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/3/188?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Why 'knowledge transfer' is misconceived for applied social research]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/3/188?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>&lsquo;Knowledge transfer&rsquo; has become established as shorthand for a wide variety of activities linking the production of academic knowledge to the potential use of such knowledge in non-academic environments. While welcoming the attention now being paid to non-academic applications of social research, we contend that terms such as knowledge transfer (and its subordinate sibling, knowledge translation) misrepresent the tasks that they seek to support. By articulating the complex and contested nature of applied social research, and then highlighting the social and contextual complexities of its use, we can see that other terms may serve us better. Following from this analysis, we suggest that &lsquo;knowledge interaction&rsquo; might more appropriately describe the messy engagement of multiple players with diverse sources of knowledge, and that &lsquo;knowledge intermediation&rsquo; might begin to articulate some of the managed processes by which knowledge interaction can be promoted. While it might be hard to shift the terminology of knowledge transfer in the short term, awareness of its shortcomings can enhance understanding about how social research can have wider impacts.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Davies, H., Nutley, S., Walter, I.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-06-20</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008055</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Why 'knowledge transfer' is misconceived for applied social research]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>190</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>188</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Perspective</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/3/191?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Open access training material]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/3/191?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p><I>One of the main challenges of providing training is producing the content. Even if the subject is the trainer's own area of expertise, distilling years of knowledge and experience into an effective training package is often a daunting and time consuming task. Sourcing content from the Internet can be fraught with difficulties relating to copyright. Luckily there are now many sites that provide open access training materials.</I></p>
<p><I>If you would like to alert readers to useful web pages or suggest topics for this column, please send details to:</I></p>
<p><b>Kate Light</b></p>
<p>Information Officer</p>
<p>Centre for Reviews and Dissemination</p>
<p>University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK</p>
<p>Email: KL9@york.ac.uk</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Light, K., Stirk, L.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-06-20</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008044</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Open access training material]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>192</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>191</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>What's on the web?</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/2/57?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Barriers to eliminating waste in US health care]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/2/57?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mechanic, D.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-01</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.007165</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Barriers to eliminating waste in US health care]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>58</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>57</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Editorials</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/2/59?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Are networks the answer to achieving integrated care?]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/2/59?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Goodwin, N.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-01</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008001</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Are networks the answer to achieving integrated care?]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>60</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>59</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Editorials</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/2/61?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Do clinicians always maximize patient outcomes? A conjoint analysis of preferences for carotid artery testing]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/2/61?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>The value clinicians place on diagnostic information is subject to psychological influences and systematic biases, but there is limited evidence of how these factors may affect patients' health outcomes. We assessed the relative value attached by experienced clinicians to different diagnostic test characteristics and how their preferences relate to patient outcomes, focusing on strategies for testing symptomatic patients for carotid artery stenosis.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>Using conjoint analysis, experienced neurologists and vascular surgeons ranked 10 diagnostic strategies defined in terms of four characteristics. Clinicians' preferences were analysed using an ordered probit model and compared with those obtained using a risk neutral expected value (EV) model developed to predict the consequences of each strategy as if the clinicians' sole goal were to optimize patient outcome. Results were tested for internal consistency and robustness to key model assumptions.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Preferences for positive predictive value (PPV), relative to negative predictive value (NPV), elicited from the clinicians diverged substantially from those estimated by the EV model based on 5-year stroke-free survival (ratios of &ndash;0.8 and &ndash;32.8, respectively). Conversely, preferences for NPV, relative to test morbidity, from the two models matched closely.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>Clinicians attached substantially more importance to the PPV of carotid artery tests than would be justified by ther impact on patient outcomes. Cognitive errors and attitudes to risk are likely to play an important role in explaining this finding. This study casts doubts on the validity of common assumptions made in the evaluation of health interventions, and in clinical and policy decisions.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sassi, F., McKee, M.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-01</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2007.006031</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Do clinicians always maximize patient outcomes? A conjoint analysis of preferences for carotid artery testing]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>66</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>61</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/2/67?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Patient choice in general practice: the implications of patient satisfaction surveys]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/2/67?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>To identify factors that explain patient satisfaction with general practice physicians and hence that may drive patients' choice of practice.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>Logistic regression analysis of English National Health Service national patient survey data is used to identify the aspects of general practice care that are associated with high levels of overall satisfaction among patients.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Confidence and trust in the doctor is the most important factor in explaining the variation in overall patient satisfaction (predicting 82% of satisfaction levels accurately). The seven variables relating to the relationship between patient and doctor have stronger explanatory power than other aspects of the general practitioner (GP) experience. The variables with the lowest overall predictive power are whether the patient was told how long they would have to wait in the surgery (72%), the length of time they had to wait after their appointment time (74%) and ability to get through to the surgery on the phone (74%).</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>Patients value the quality of their relationship with their doctor more than the appearance of the surgery, accessibility of appointments and their experience in the waiting room. This suggests that, if current restrictions on choice of GP were removed, we would in theory expect a patient's choice to be driven by the quality of the doctor&ndash;patient relationship. Once a patient establishes a good relationship with a GP, however, we might expect them to be loyal and therefore unlikely to change practice unless the relationship with the doctor breaks down. Although relationship factors are important to the satisfaction of patients, it is not clear that they will lead large numbers of people to change their GP.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Robertson, R., Dixon, A., Le Grand, J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-01</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2007.007055</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Patient choice in general practice: the implications of patient satisfaction surveys]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>72</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>67</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/2/73?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Hospital clinicians' attitudes towards a statutory advocacy service for patients lacking mental capacity: implications for implementation]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/2/73?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>To examine attitudes to the Mental Capacity Act's new statutory Independent Mental Capacity Advocate (IMCA) service in England and Wales and consider the implications for its delivery.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>Quantitative data describing all referrals to the seven pilot IMCA services (January 2006&ndash;March 2007) and qualitative data from semi-structured interviews with 18 doctors, 21 senior nurses and one discharge planning manager in four general hospitals in England.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Of 127 hospital-based referrals to the seven pilot IMCA services, 29 (23%) were for patients facing serious medical treatments, 52% of whom were judged to lack decision-making capacity due to a learning disability; ninety-eight (77%) were for patients facing a change of accommodation upon hospital discharge, 62% of whom were elderly and lacked capacity due to dementia. While aware of the potential benefits of the IMCA service, clinicians were generally negative about the contribution advocates could make to patients' medical care and thought they could only contribute usefully in a minority of ethically complicated decisions. In contrast, they were more positive about the involvement of advocates in hospital discharge decisions and hoped that they would improve current discharge practice.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>Clinicians held ambivalent attitudes towards the involvement of a statutory IMCA service in medical decisions, reflecting beliefs that the service was largely impractical and unnecessary given current procedures for making medical decisions in patients' &lsquo;best interests&rsquo;. Conversely, clinicians were more likely to support advocacy in discharge decisions because they believed that non-medically qualified advocates could make a valuable contribution to decisions that were seen as predominantly social and where practice was frequently considered deficient. By holding these beliefs, clinicians are failing to have due regard for the IMCA service as a statutory measure for safeguarding patients' interests.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Luke, L., Redley, M., Clare, I., Holland, A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-01</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2007.007084</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Hospital clinicians' attitudes towards a statutory advocacy service for patients lacking mental capacity: implications for implementation]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>78</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>73</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/2/79?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Competing norms: Canadian rural family physicians' perceptions of clinical practice guidelines and shared decision-making]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/2/79?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>Implementation of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and shared decision-making are both advocated in primary care. Some authors argue that CPGs can enhance informed decisions by patients and physicians, while others warn that a standardized implementation of CPGs could hinder patients' involvement in decision-making. Our objective was to explore rural family physicians' perception of the interaction between clinical practice guidelines and shared decision-making in medical practice.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>A qualitative study using a semi-structured focus group interview: with 17 family physicians and residents, in a Canadian rural town. Interviews were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim. Thematic content analysis was performed and validated by the constant comparative method, member checking and group debriefing.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Two distinct conceptions of how clinical practice guidelines should assist decision-making emerged. On the one hand, guidelines were seen as helping clinicians to make decisions on behalf of their patient about the best course of action. For interventions with uncertain benefit or that carried significant trade-off for patients, guidelines were seen as a tool that should inform decision-making between physicians and patients, providing them with details about risks, benefits, costs and alternative treatments. The pressure to apply guideline recommendations was perceived as a potential barrier to patient participation in decision-making.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusion</st>
<p>In circumstances where physicians judge patient participation in decision-making to be important, physicians perceive a tension between the need to respect patients' preferences and the pressure to apply guidelines. CPGs should include information that supports shared decision-making, besides their current focus on influencing prescription patterns, costs and health outcomes.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Boivin, A., Legare, F., Gagnon, M.-P.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-01</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2007.007052</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Competing norms: Canadian rural family physicians' perceptions of clinical practice guidelines and shared decision-making]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>84</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>79</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/2/85?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Modelling the expected net benefits of interventions to reduce the burden of medication errors]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/2/85?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>The aim of this study is to estimate the potential costs and benefits of three key interventions (computerized physician order entry [CPOE], additional ward pharmacists and bar coding) to help prioritize research to reduce medication errors.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>A generic model structure was developed to describe the incidence and impacts of medication errors in hospitals. The model follows pathways from medication error points at alternative stages of the medication pathway through to the outcomes of undetected errors. The model was populated from a systematic review of the medication errors literature combined with novel probabilistic calibration methods. Cost ranges were applied to the interventions, the treatment of preventable adverse drug events (pADEs), and the value of the health lost as a result of an ADE.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>The model predicts annual health service costs of between &pound;0.3 million and &pound;1 million for the treatment of pADEs in a 400-bed acute hospital in the UK. Including only health service costs, it is uncertain whether any of the three interventions will produce positive net benefits, particularly if high intervention costs are assumed. When the monetary value of lost health is included, all three interventions have a high probability of producing positive net benefits with a mean estimate of around &pound;31.5 million for CPOE over a five-year time horizon.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>The results identify the potential cost-effectiveness of interventions aimed at medication errors, as well as identifying key drivers of cost-effectiveness that should be specifically addressed in the design of primary evaluations of medication error interventions.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Karnon, J., McIntosh, A., Dean, J., Bath, P., Hutchinson, A., Oakley, J., Thomas, N., Pratt, P., Freeman-Parry, L., Karsh, B.-T., Gandhi, T., Tappenden, P.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-01</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2007.007011</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Modelling the expected net benefits of interventions to reduce the burden of medication errors]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>91</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>85</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/2/92?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/2/92?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>To assess the quality of mixed methods studies in health services research (HSR).</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>We identified 118 mixed methods studies funded by the Department of Health in England between 1994 and 2004, and obtained proposals and/or final reports for 75. We applied a set of quality questions to both the proposal and report of each study, addressing the success of the study, the mixed methods design, the individual qualitative and quantitative components, the integration between methods and the inferences drawn from completed studies.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Most studies were completed successfully. Researchers mainly ignored the mixed methods design and described only the separate components of a study. There was a lack of justification for, and transparency of, the mixed methods design in both proposals and reports, and this had implications for making judgements about the quality of individual components in the context of the design used. There was also a lack of transparency of the individual methods in terms of clear exposition of data collection and analysis, and this was more a problem for the qualitative than the quantitative component: 42% (19/45) versus 18% (8/45) of proposals (p = 0.011). Judgements about integration could rarely be made due to the absence of an attempt at integration of data and findings from different components within a study.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>The HSR community could improve mixed methods studies by giving more consideration to describing and justifying the design, being transparent about the qualitative component, and attempting to integrate data and findings from the individual components.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[O'Cathain, A., Murphy, E., Nicholl, J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-01</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2007.007074</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>98</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>92</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/2/99?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Can cheap generic statins achieve national cholesterol lowering targets?]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/2/99?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>The Department of Health in England recommend that simvastatin and pravastatin should be prescribed in at least 69% of statin prescriptions in primary care on the assumption that these drugs (and at doses prescribed) are as effective as alternatives. We aimed to identify whether primary care trusts (PCTs) that used a high proportion of simvastatin and pravastatin performed as well on the Quality and Outcome Framework (QOF) targets related to cholesterol as those PCTs that used less.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>QOF data were obtained for all PCTs for 2005&ndash;2006. National prescribing data for statins was analysed for the same time period. The square of the Pearson correlation was used to assess the association between the two.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>The average PCT values for the three QOF indicators for CHD, stroke and diabetes were 78% (range 66&ndash;88%), 72% (58&ndash;82%) and 79% (67&ndash;88%), respectively. The percentage use of simvastatin and pravastatin by PCTs varied from 18&ndash;84%, with a mean of 57%. There was no evidence of any association between the use of simvastatin and pravastatin as a percentage of all statin items and success in achieving the QOF targets.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>PCTs that had a high proportion of simvastatin and pravastatin use were just as successful achieving cholesterol targets for patients with coronary heart disease, diabetes and stroke as those that used more atorvastatin, rosuvastatin or fluvastatin. This supports the policy to use the less expensive generic statins.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Petty, D., Lloyd, D.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-01</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2007.007076</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Can cheap generic statins achieve national cholesterol lowering targets?]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>102</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>99</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/2/103?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Evidence-based medicine and patient choice: the case of heart failure care]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/2/103?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>The implementation of evidence-based medicine and policies aimed at increasing user involvement in health care decisions are central planks of contemporary English health policy. Yet they are potentially in conflict. Our aim was to explore how clinicians working in the field of heart failure resolve this conflict.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>Qualitative semi-structured interviews were carried out with health professionals who were currently caring for patients with heart failure, and observations were conducted at one dedicated heart failure clinic in northern England.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>While clinicians acknowledged that patients' ideas and preferences should be an important part of treatment decisions, the widespread acceptance of an evidence-based clinical protocol for heart failure among the clinic doctors significantly influenced the content and style of the consultation.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusion</st>
<p>Evidence-based medicine was used to buttress professional authority and seemed to provide an additional barrier to the adoption of patient-centred clinical practice.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sanders, T., Harrison, S., Checkland, K.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-01</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.007130</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Evidence-based medicine and patient choice: the case of heart failure care]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>108</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>103</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/2/109?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Decentralizing resource allocation: early experiences with District Health Boards in New Zealand]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/2/109?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>In New Zealand in 2001, a system of purchasing health services by a centralized purchasing agency was replaced by 21 district health boards (DHBs) which are responsible for both providing health services directly and for purchasing services from non-government providers. This paper describes the processes associated with the allocation of health resources in the decentralized system and considers the extent to which four of the government's stated objectives are likely to be achieved.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>Two rounds of interviews with national stakeholders and senior DHB personnel plus case studies in five districts which included key informant interviews, observation at board meetings and document analysis.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>The re-structuring of the health sector in New Zealand appears to have simultaneously enhanced and inhibited the achievement of government objectives. Local decision-making has encouraged greater local responsiveness and new funding arrangements have allayed concerns about inter-regional equity. The system is less commercially oriented than it was during the 1990s and collaboration between DHBs is improving. However, the combination of increased integration of purchasing and provision within DHBs and the focus on financial deficits in the early years appears to have inhibited the development of partnership relationships between DHBs and non-government providers, and of longer-term funding arrangements for high quality providers. Non-government providers perceive that DHBs have a tendency to favour their own providers when allocating contracts.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>Decentralized decision-making is starting to make some inroads towards achieving some of the government's objectives with respect to resource allocation and purchasing.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ashton, T., Tenbensel, T., Cumming, J., Barnett, P.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-01</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.007133</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Decentralizing resource allocation: early experiences with District Health Boards in New Zealand]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>115</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>109</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/2/116?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[World class commissioning: a health policy chimera?]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/2/116?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>The health reforms in England have entered a phase in which greater emphasis is being placed on market-like mechanisms. The ability of the commissioners of care to negotiate on equal terms with providers will be of critical importance in the emerging market. The government has set out plans to develop &lsquo;world class commissioning&rsquo; and this essay reviews experience in Europe, New Zealand and the United States to understand what is involved in working towards this goal. The evidence reviewed shows that in no system is commissioning done consistently well and highlights the obstacles to the development of world class commissioning. The reasons for this centre on the complexity of health care and the inherent difficulty of commissioning health services in publicly financed systems. Commissioners will need to be able to access a range of expertise and are likely to incur significant expenditure in so doing. There are warning signs from other systems of health reforms that result in adversarial and legalistic approaches, and do not give sufficient attention to relational contracting. Even if world class commissioning is developed, it may fall short of its potential in the absence of other changes in the design of the reforms, such as autonomous providers and appropriate payment systems. In view of these challenges, a more promising alternative would be to develop competing integrated systems.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ham, C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-01</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.007177</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[World class commissioning: a health policy chimera?]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>121</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>116</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Essay</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/2/122?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Understanding determinants of health service use from a systems perspective]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/2/122?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Parkhurst, J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-01</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008019</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Understanding determinants of health service use from a systems perspective]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>123</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>122</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Worth a second look</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/2/124?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Doctors, lies and the addiction bureaucracy]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/2/124?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Almost everything you know about heroin addiction is wrong. Not only is it wrong, but it is obviously wrong. Heroin is not highly addictive; withdrawal from it is not medically serious; addicts do not become criminals to feed their habit; addicts do not need any medical assistance to stop taking heroin; and contrary to received wisdom, heroin addiction most certainly is a moral or spiritual problem. A&nbsp;literary tradition dating back to De Quincey and Coleridge, and continuing up to the deeply sociopathic William Burroughs and beyond, has misled all Western societies for generations about the nature of heroin addiction. These writers' self-dramatizing and dishonest accounts of their own addiction have been accepted uncritically, and have been more influential by far in forming public attitudes than the whole of pharmacological science. As a result, a self-serving, self-perpetuating and completely useless medical bureaucracy has been set up to deal with the problem.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dalrymple, T.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-01</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008022</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Doctors, lies and the addiction bureaucracy]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>126</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>124</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Perspective</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/2/127?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[How to write a good research paper]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/2/127?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec>
<p><I>There are numerous websites that aim to help students write research papers but it is necessary to look a little further to find websites that are relevant to researchers wishing to publish in peer-reviewed journals. Here we review sites that address scientific writing style, present guidelines for reporting trials and other studies, and provide access to submission requirements for individual journals. Additionally, we list some other relevant sites.</I></p>
<p><I>If you would like to alert readers to useful web pages or suggest topics for this column, please send details to:</I></p>
<p>Kate Light</p>
<p>Information Officer</p>
<p>Centre for Reviews and Dissemination</p>
<p>University of York, York YO10 5DD UK</p>
<p>(Email: KL9@york.ac.uk)</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Glanville, J., Light, K., Stirk, L.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-01</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.007174</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[How to write a good research paper]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>128</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>127</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>What's on the web</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/suppl_2/1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[UK Health Services Research Network makes steady progress]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/suppl_2/1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Black, N.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-01</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2007.007156</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[UK Health Services Research Network makes steady progress]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>Supplement 2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>2</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>1</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Editorial</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/suppl_2/3?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Is fast access to general practice all that should matter? A discrete choice experiment of patients' preferences]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/suppl_2/3?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>To determine the relative importance of factors that influence patient choice in the booking of general practice appointments for two health problems.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>Two discrete choice experiments incorporated into a survey of general practice patients and qualitative methods to support survey development.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>An overall response of 94% (1052/1123) was achieved. Factors influencing the average respondent's choice of appointment, in order of importance, were: seeing a doctor of choice; booking at a convenient time of day; seeing any available doctor; and having an appointment sooner rather than later (acute, low worry condition). This finding was the same for an ongoing, high worry condition but in addition the duration of the appointment was also of (small) value. Patients traded off speed of access for more convenient appointment times (a willingness to wait an extra 2.5&ndash;3 days longer to get a convenient time slot for an acute low worry/ongoing, high worry condition, respectively). However, contrary to expectation, patients were willing to trade off speed of access for continuity of care (e.g. willingness to wait five days longer to see the doctor of their choice for an acute, low worry condition). Preferences varied by a person's gender, work and carer status.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>Patients hold strong preferences for the way general practice appointment systems are managed. Contrary to current policy on improving access to primary care patients value a more complex mix of factors than fast access at all costs. It is important that policy-makers and practices take note of these preferences.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Gerard, K., Salisbury, C., Street, D., Pope, C., Baxter, H.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-01</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2007.007087</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Is fast access to general practice all that should matter? A discrete choice experiment of patients' preferences]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>Supplement 2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>10</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>3</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/suppl_2/11?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Legitimacy of hospital reconfiguration: the controversial downsizing of Kidderminster hospital]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/suppl_2/11?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>This paper examines the contested organizational legitimacy of hospital reconfiguration, which continues to be a central issue in health care management.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>A qualitative study which focuses on the controversial downsizing of Kidderminster Hospital, a highly publicized landmark case of district general hospital closure. Rhetorical strategies are analysed to examine how legitimacy was constructed by stakeholder groups and how these strategies were used to support or resist change.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Stakeholders promoting change legitimized re-organization pragmatically and morally arguing the need for centralization as a rational necessity. Stakeholders resisting change argued for cognitive and moral legitimacy in current service arrangements, contrasting local versus regionalized aspects of safety and provision. Groups managed to talk past each other, failing to establish a dialogue, which led to significant conflict and political upheaval.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>Stakeholders value hospitals in different ways and argue for diverse accounts of legitimacy. Broader discourses of medical science and democratic participation were drawn into rhetorical texts concerning regionalization to render them more powerful.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Oborn, E.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-01</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2007.007093</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Legitimacy of hospital reconfiguration: the controversial downsizing of Kidderminster hospital]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>Supplement 2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>18</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>11</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/suppl_2/19?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Characteristics of the emergency and urgent care system important to patients: a qualitative study]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/suppl_2/19?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>To explore patients' views and experiences of the emergency and urgent care system to inform the development of a questionnaire for routine assessment of the system's performance from the patient perspective.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>Qualitative research with people who had recently used the system: 47 people in eight focus groups and 13 individual interviews.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Recurrent themes included characteristics of the system which are rarely addressed in service-specific questionnaires, in particular, confusion over the most appropriate service to use for particular health problems, coordination between services and informational continuity across services. Other characteristics were identified which, although commonly included in service-specific questionnaires, could have system-level consequences. These included communication between health professionals and patients, and ease of access to services. For example, patients' perception of poor communication with one service could increase their subsequent use of other services in the system. Proactive behaviour from health professionals was an important system characteristic because it could allay patient anxiety by making patients feel that their concerns were being taken seriously and that staff could sort out problems such as feeling &lsquo;stuck in&rsquo; or &lsquo;bounced around&rsquo; the system. &lsquo;Candidacy&rsquo;, whereby eligibility for health care is jointly negotiated between the user and the service provider, was evident as an issue for patients across the social spectrum when seeking help urgently.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>Questionnaires designed to assess patients' views and experiences of emergency and urgent care should address system-level as well as service-specific issues in order to address the full range of patient concerns.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[O'Cathain, A., Coleman, P., Nicholl, J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-01</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2007.007097</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Characteristics of the emergency and urgent care system important to patients: a qualitative study]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>Supplement 2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>25</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>19</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/suppl_2/26?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Equity and service innovation: the implementation of a bibliotherapy scheme in Wales]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/suppl_2/26?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objective</st>
<p>Book Prescription Wales (BPW) is a pilot bibiliotherapy scheme launched in July 2005 as a primary care treatment option for people with mild to moderate mental health problems. In an innovative model, patients are prescribed self-help books from a list, to borrow from local libraries. Our objective was to evaluate its implementation, focusing on the issue of equity of service delivery.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>Data were gathered from Welsh Assembly Government concerning project set-up and borrowing rates. Mailed questionnaires were completed by 21/22 (95.4%) Local Health Boards and 44/64 (68.8%) Community Mental Health Teams. In addition, 327 out of 497 (66%) primary care practices were surveyed by telephone, 20 prescribers took part in in-depth telephone interviews and three focus groups were conducted with library staff.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>From July 2005&ndash;March 2006, books were borrowed 15,236 times. There was a 10-fold variation in borrowing rates across local authorities (1.07 to 10.18 loans/1000 people). The priority which Local Health Board staff reported giving to the scheme varied. Uptake among prescribers was mixed: in 35% of general practices (<I>n</I> = 116) no-one participated. Prescribers reported different ways of using the bibliotherapy scheme. Library staff reported issues of patchy uptake.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusion</st>
<p>Variation in usage of bibliotherapy raises questions about equity; it is unlikely to reflect the distribution of people who could potentially benefit. Factors influencing variation existed all along the implementation chain. It is not always possibly to separate demand-side and supply-side factors when considering equity and service innovation in health care.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Porter, A., Peconi, J., Evans, A., Snooks, H., Lloyd, K., Russell, I.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-01</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2007.007098</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Equity and service innovation: the implementation of a bibliotherapy scheme in Wales]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>Supplement 2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>31</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>26</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/suppl_2/32?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Part of a global workforce: migration of British-trained pharmacists]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/suppl_2/32?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>Many countries, including the UK, have identified a shortage of pharmacists, partly due to emigration. This study was undertaken to examine the extent and nature of migration taking place among British-qualified pharmacists.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>Mixed methods, including secondary analysis of quantitative data, qualitative research and a large self-completion survey of all British-registered pharmacists with an overseas address.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Almost 11% of British-registered pharmacists reside overseas. Nearly three-quarters are British-trained and most are UK nationals. The US, Canada and Australia are the main destinations. The majority work as pharmacists in health services, but sizeable proportions are either retired, not working for other reasons or work in industry. Those who emigrate include those returning home, moving for career opportunities, for lifestyle reasons or as a &lsquo;spouse trailer&rsquo;. For many the move abroad is a permanent one.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>Great Britain is both a source and destination country for migrating pharmacists. Emigration currently exceeds immigration. Pharmacists are not migrating to developing countries, so the profession may want to consider ways of contributing to the health care systems in developing countries which are the source of some of the immigrant pharmacists to Great Britain.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hassell, K., Nichols, L., Noyce, P.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-01</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2007.007100</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Part of a global workforce: migration of British-trained pharmacists]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>Supplement 2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>39</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>32</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/suppl_2/40?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The increasing burden of alcoholic liver disease on United Kingdom critical care units: secondary analysis of a high quality clinical database]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/suppl_2/40?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>To investigate the effect of increasing alcohol consumption on the number of admissions to adult, general critical/intensive care units (ICUs) in England and Wales with alcoholic liver disease, their case mix, mortality, and impact on critical care and hospital activity by extrapolating from admissions to ICUs over the last 10 years.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>Secondary analysis of a high quality clinical database from a national clinical audit using data from 385,429 admissions to174 ICUs in England and Wales between December 1995 and July 2005, of which 4219 (1.1%) had alcoholic liver disease. The extrapolated total number of admissions with alcoholic liver disease and total number of ICU bed-days occupied were calculated. Changes over time in the case mix (age, sex and APACHE II and ICNARC risk prediction models), mortality at ultimate discharge from acute hospital, and length of stay in ICU and in hospital were explored.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>The percentage of ICU admissions with alcoholic liver disease increased from 0.65% in 1996 to 1.35% in 2005, but the case mix remained similar. Mortality decreased and length of stay increased over this period. The extrapolated total number of admissions to all 229 adult, general critical care units in England and Wales increased from 550 in 1996 to 1513 in 2005, and the extrapolated total number of bed-days occupied by these admissions increased from around 3100 to over 10,000.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>Admissions to ICUs in England and Wales with alcoholic liver disease tripled over the 10-year period from 1996 to 2005. The continuing increase in alcohol consumption means that this trend is likely to continue.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Welch, C., Harrison, D., Short, A., Rowan, K.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-01</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2007.007101</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The increasing burden of alcoholic liver disease on United Kingdom critical care units: secondary analysis of a high quality clinical database]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>Supplement 2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>44</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>40</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/suppl_2/45?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Career intentions of pharmacy students]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/suppl_2/45?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>In light of pharmacy workforce shortages in Great Britain, the profession's regulatory body commissioned a programme of longitudinal work to explore pharmacy career decision-making in relation to influences on career choice and intended career paths. Our objective was to gather data on career intentions that could be used to produce robust predictions about pharmacist supply.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>Two annual surveys conducted with the same cohort of pharmacy students in 2005 and 2006. The questionnaires sought to clarify influences on respondents' career intentions and their early career plans.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Only two-thirds of respondents intended going straight into British pharmacy practice after training, with fewer white men (57%) than ethnic minority men (71%) intending to go straight into practice. Preferences for early careers reflected existing occupational segregation, with 41% of white females hoping to work in hospital pharmacy and a similar proportion of ethnic minority men (40%) hoping to work for a large multiple community pharmacy after training.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>A sizeable proportion of pharmacy students do not intend entering the profession for which they have trained, a proportion which is much larger than estimated by other studies. This has significant implications for workforce planning. Existing gender and ethnic segregation in the profession may have occurred as a result of personal choice rather than being a function of constraints operating within the pharmacy labour market.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Willis, S., Hassell, K., Noyce, P.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-01</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2007.007112</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Career intentions of pharmacy students]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>Supplement 2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>51</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>45</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/suppl_2/52?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The local adaptation of national recommendations for preventing early-onset neonatal Group B Streptococcal disease in UK maternity units]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/suppl_2/52?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objective</st>
<p>To evaluate how UK maternity unit protocols conformed to national recommendations for preventing early-onset neonatal Group B Streptococcal (GBS) disease.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>In December 2005, all UK obstetric maternity units were contacted and asked to provide a copy of their protocol on preventing GBS disease. Information was extracted on the protocol's recommendations, its development date and the evidence cited. The protocol's recommendations were then compared against the recommendations in the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) guideline.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Protocols were obtained for 171 of the 227 units (75%), of which 120 were developed after the guideline has been published. There were 134 protocols (78%) that followed the RCOG prevention strategy, recommending a risk-based approach to selecting women for intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP). However, the sets of risk factors named as indications for IAP differed between the protocols and only 34 of these 134 protocols were entirely consistent with the guideline. The 37 protocols (22%) that did not follow the RCOG prevention strategy recommended IAP for some risk factors but only if a bacteriological test was also GBS positive.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>There are considerable differences in the GBS protocols used in maternity units in the UK despite the availability of a national guideline. Consequently, some high-risk women may not receive IAP while some women without risk factors are treated needlessly. While local adaptation may be for legitimate reasons, the processes used in some units seem to require improvement.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Cromwell, D., Joffe, T., Hughes, R., Murphy, D., Dhillon, C., van der Meulen, J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-01</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2007.007144</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The local adaptation of national recommendations for preventing early-onset neonatal Group B Streptococcal disease in UK maternity units]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>Supplement 2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>57</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>52</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Original research</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/suppl_2/58?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Learning from other countries: an on-call facility for health care policy]]></title>
<link>http://jhsrp.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/short/13/suppl_2/58?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Recognizing that robust information on health systems in other countries can provide valuable lessons for the English National Health Service, the Department of Health commissioned an academic team to provide an &lsquo;On-call Facility for International Healthcare Comparisons&rsquo; in 2005. This paper describes the work of this novel approach to informing policy and reviews the experience of the first two years. It illustrates the well-documented challenges of comparative analysis of health systems. One important issue is understanding the health system context so as to interpret phenomena and draw appropriate policy conclusions. Other challenges include the potential tension between academic interest and rigour, and the need for timely analysis to inform the Department of Health's rapidly changing policy agenda. The diversity and nature of topics covered, as well as the rapid turn-around time have meant that the Facility has had to balance rigour and timeliness carefully to ensure the value and relevance of reports. A strong research base linked with an international network of country experts promotes the provision of high quality analyses at relatively low costs. However, such an arrangement can only be sustained if it provides scope for additional primary research. A formal evaluation of the influence on health care policy-making in England is not yet available. Such knowledge will be of crucial importance for the development of similar resources elsewhere.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Nolte, E., Ettelt, S., Thomson, S., Mays, N.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-01</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1258/jhsrp.2007.007146</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Learning from other countries: an on-call facility for health care policy]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Royal Society of Medicine</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>Supplement 2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>64</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-04-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>58</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Essay</prism:section>
</item>

</rdf:RDF>