Explore the vast range of titles available.

IntroductionAs an increasing number of people are living with more than 1 long-term condition, identifying effective interventions for the management of multimorbidity in primary care has become a matter of urgency. Interventions are challenging to evaluate due to intervention complexity and the need for adaptability to different contexts. A process evaluation can provide extra information necessary for interpreting trial results and making decisions about whether the intervention is likely to be successful in a wider context. The 3D (dimensions of health, drugs and depression) study will recruit 32 UK general practices to a cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate effectiveness of a patient-centred intervention. Practices will be randomised to intervention or usual care.Methods and analysisThe aim of the process evaluation is to understand how and why the intervention was effective or ineffective and the effect of context. As part of the intervention, quantitative data will be collected to provide implementation feedback to all intervention practices and will contribute to evaluation of implementation fidelity, alongside case study data. Data will be collected at the beginning and end of the trial to characterise each practice and how it provides care to patients with multimorbidity. Mixed methods will be used to collect qualitative data from 4 case study practices, purposively sampled from among intervention practices. Qualitative data will be analysed using techniques of constant comparison to develop codes integrated within a flexible framework of themes. Quantitative and qualitative data will be integrated to describe case study sites and develop possible explanations for implementation variation. Analysis will take place prior to knowing trial outcomes.Ethics and disseminationStudy approved by South West (Frenchay) National Health Service (NHS) Research Ethics Committee (14/SW/0011). Findings will be disseminated via a final report, peer-reviewed publications and practical guidance to healthcare professionals, commissioners and policymakers.Trial registration numberISRCTN06180958.

Effective quality improvement (QI) strategies are needed for small practices. The objective of this study was to compare practice facilitation implementing point-of-care (POC) QI strategies alone versus facilitation implementing point-of-care plus population management (POC+PM) strategies on preventive cardiovascular care. Two arm, practice-randomized, comparative effectiveness study. Small and mid-sized primary care practices. Practices worked with facilitators on QI for 12 months to implement POC or POC+PM strategies. Proportion of eligible patients in a practice meeting \"ABCS\" measures: (Aspirin) Aspirin/antiplatelet therapy for ischemic vascular disease, (Blood pressure) Controlling High Blood Pressure, (Cholesterol) Statin Therapy for the Prevention and Treatment of Cardiovascular Disease, and (Smoking) Tobacco Use: Screening and Cessation Intervention, and the Change Process Capability Questionnaire. Measurements were performed at baseline, 12, and 18 months. A total of 226 practices were randomized, 179 contributed follow-up data. The mean proportion of patients meeting each performance measure was greater at 12 months compared with baseline: Aspirin 0.04 (95% confidence interval: 0.02-0.06), Blood pressure 0.04 (0.02-0.06), Cholesterol 0.05 (0.03-0.07), Smoking 0.05 (0.02-0.07); P<0.001 for each. Improvements were sustained at 18 months. At 12 months, baseline-adjusted difference-in-differences in proportions for the POC+PM arm versus POC was: Aspirin 0.02 (-0.02 to 0.05), Blood pressure -0.01 (-0.04 to 0.03), Cholesterol 0.03 (0.00-0.07), and Smoking 0.02 (-0.02 to 0.06); P>0.05 for all. Change Process Capability Questionnaire improved slightly, mean change 0.30 (0.09-0.51) but did not significantly differ across arms. Facilitator-led QI promoting population management approaches plus POC improvement strategies was not clearly superior to POC strategies alone.

BACKGROUND Policies promoting widespread adoption of electronic medical records (EMRs) are premised on the hope that they can improve the coordination of care. Yet little is known about whether and how physician practices use current EMRs to facilitate coordination. OBJECTIVES We examine whether and how practices use commercial EMRs to support coordination tasks and identify work-arounds practices have created to address new coordination challenges. DESIGN, SETTING Semi-structured telephone interviews in 12 randomly selected communities. PARTICIPANTS Sixty respondents, including 52 physicians or staff from 26 practices with commercial ambulatory care EMRs in place for at least 2 years, chief medical officers at four EMR vendors, and four national thought leaders. RESULTS Six major themes emerged: (1) EMRs facilitate within-office care coordination, chiefly by providing access to data during patient encounters and through electronic messaging; (2) EMRs are less able to support coordination between clinicians and settings, in part due to their design and a lack of standardization of key data elements required for information exchange; (3) managing information overflow from EMRs is a challenge for clinicians; (4) clinicians believe current EMRs cannot adequately capture the medical decision-making process and future care plans to support coordination; (5) realizing EMRs’ potential for facilitating coordination requires evolution of practice operational processes; (6) current fee-for-service reimbursement encourages EMR use for documentation of billable events (office visits, procedures) and not of care coordination (which is not a billable activity). CONCLUSIONS There is a gap between policy-makers’ expectation of, and clinical practitioners’ experience with, current electronic medical records’ ability to support coordination of care. Policymakers could expand current health information technology policies to support assessment of how well the technology facilitates tasks necessary for coordination. By reforming payment policy to include care coordination, policymakers could encourage the evolution of EMR technology to include capabilities that support coordination, for example, allowing for inter-practice data exchange and multi-provider clinical decision support.

In recent years, private-equity firms have emerged as influential players in the health care market, offering a lifeline to smaller groups needing a competitive edge. The growth of private-equity investment has generated intense interest in potential adverse effects.

Objective To evaluate a “telephone first” approach, in which all patients wanting to see a general practitioner (GP) are asked to speak to a GP on the phone before being given an appointment for a face to face consultation.Design Time series and cross sectional analysis of routine healthcare data, data from national surveys, and primary survey data.Participants 147 general practices adopting the telephone first approach compared with a 10% random sample of other practices in England.Intervention Management support for workload planning and introduction of the telephone first approach provided by two commercial companies.Main outcome measures Number of consultations, total time consulting (59 telephone first practices, no controls). Patient experience (GP Patient Survey, telephone first practices plus controls). Use and costs of secondary care (hospital episode statistics, telephone first practices plus controls). The main analysis was intention to treat, with sensitivity analyses restricted to practices thought to be closely following the companies’ protocols.Results After the introduction of the telephone first approach, face to face consultations decreased considerably (adjusted change within practices −38%, 95% confidence interval −45% to −29%; P<0.001). An average practice experienced a 12-fold increase in telephone consultations (1204%, 633% to 2290%; P<0.001). The average duration of both telephone and face to face consultations decreased, but there was an overall increase of 8% in the mean time spent consulting by GPs, albeit with large uncertainty on this estimate (95% confidence interval −1% to 17%; P=0.088). These average workload figures mask wide variation between practices, with some practices experiencing a substantial reduction in workload and others a large increase. Compared with other English practices in the national GP Patient Survey, in practices using the telephone first approach there was a large (20.0 percentage points, 95% confidence interval 18.2 to 21.9; P<0.001) improvement in length of time to be seen. In contrast, other scores on the GP Patient Survey were slightly more negative. Introduction of the telephone first approach was followed by a small (2.0%) increase in hospital admissions (95% confidence interval 1% to 3%; P=0.006), no initial change in emergency department attendance, but a small (2% per year) decrease in the subsequent rate of rise of emergency department attendance (1% to 3%; P=0.005). There was a small net increase in secondary care costs.Conclusions The telephone first approach shows that many problems in general practice can be dealt with over the phone. The approach does not suit all patients or practices and is not a panacea for meeting demand. There was no evidence to support claims that the approach would, on average, save costs or reduce use of secondary care.