Investigating innovations in outpatient services: a mixed-methods rapid evaluation.
HOSPITAL CARE
MIXED METHODS EVALUATION
OPEN ACCESS
OUTPATIENT
PATIENT-INITIATED
Journal
Health and social care delivery research
ISSN: 2755-0079
Titre abrégé: Health Soc Care Deliv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9918470788706676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2024
Sep 2024
Historique:
medline:
27
9
2024
pubmed:
27
9
2024
entrez:
27
9
2024
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Within outpatient services, a broad range of innovations are being pursued to better manage care and reduce unnecessary appointments. One of the least-studied innovations is Patient-Initiated Follow-Up, which allows patients to book appointments if and when they need them, rather than follow a standard schedule. To use routine national hospital data to identify innovations in outpatient services implemented, in recent years, within the National Health Service in England. To carry out a rapid mixed-methods evaluation of the implementation and impact of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up. The project was carried out in four sequential workstreams: (1) a rapid scoping review of outpatient innovations; (2) the application of indicator saturation methodology for scanning national patient-level data to identify potentially successful local interventions; (3) interviews with hospitals identified in workstream 2; and (4) a rapid mixed-methods evaluation of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up. The evaluation of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up comprised an evidence review, interviews with 36 clinical and operational staff at 5 National Health Service acute trusts, a workshop with staff from 13 National Health Service acute trusts, interviews with four patients, analysis of national and local data, and development of an evaluation guide. Using indicator saturation, we identified nine services with notable changes in follow-up to first attendance ratios. Of three sites interviewed, two queried the data findings and one attributed the change to a clinical assessment service. Models of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up varied widely between hospital and clinical specialty, with a significant degree of variation in the approach to patient selection, patient monitoring and discharge. The success of implementation was dependent on several factors, for example, clinical condition, staff capacity and information technology systems. From the analysis of national data, we found evidence of an association between greater use of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up and a lower frequency of outpatient attendance within 15 out of 29 specialties and higher frequency of outpatient attendance within 7 specialties. Four specialties had less frequent emergency department visits associated with increasing Patient-Initiated Follow-Up rates. Patient-Initiated Follow-Up was viewed by staff and the few patients we interviewed as a positive intervention, although there was varied impact on individual staff roles and workload. It is important that sites and services undertake their own evaluations of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up. To this end we have developed an evaluation guide to support trusts with data collection and methods. The Patient-Initiated Follow-Up evaluation was affected by a lack of patient-level data showing who is on a Patient-Initiated Follow-Up pathway. Engagement with local services was also challenging, given the pressures facing sites and staff. Patient recruitment was low, which affected the ability to understand experiences of patients directly. The study provides useful insights into the evolving national outpatient transformation policy and for local practice. Patient-Initiated Follow-Up is often perceived as a positive intervention for staff and patients, but the impact on individual outcomes, health inequalities, wider patient experience, workload and capacity is still uncertain. Further research should include patient-level analysis to determine clinical outcomes for individual patients on Patient-Initiated Follow-Up and health inequalities, and more extensive investigation of patient experiences. This study is registered with the Research Registry (UIN: researchregistry8864). This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 16/138/17) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 38. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. When someone visits hospital for an operation or an ongoing condition, they are given follow-up appointments at clinics, often after 6 months. The National Health Service thinks that many of these appointments are not necessary because they are not useful to patients. Also, outside fixed appointments, patients are not always being seen when they are most in need. Hospitals have been testing new ways to improve services. We looked at hospital data and discussed interesting findings with hospitals themselves to see if we could find approaches that worked. We then looked at one new approach called Patient-Initiated Follow-Up. Patients using Patient-Initiated Follow-Up can book appointments when they are needed, rather than at a pre-planned time. We explored how Patient-Initiated Follow-Up was being used in hospitals, what effect it was having and what patients and National Health Service staff thought about it. We studied hospital data and interviewed patients and National Health Service staff. We found that Patient-Initiated Follow-Up works differently depending on the hospital and the patient’s condition. Patient-Initiated Follow-Up is most frequently used for patients needing short-term follow-up, such as after an operation. It is also starting to be used for patients with long-term chronic conditions. National Health Service staff think that Patient-Initiated Follow-Up can benefit patients, although some may find it easier to use than others. Patients appear to like Patient-Initiated Follow-Up, but some still prefer to let the hospital schedule appointments. From data it appears that for some conditions, where more patients use Patient-Initiated Follow-Up, fewer follow-up visits are required. For a few conditions, there is evidence of fewer emergency department visits, but the overall impact is small. We interviewed staff from a small number of hospitals and four patients, so what we found may not apply across the National Health Service. We also developed a guide to help hospitals evaluate the success of their own Patient-Initiated Follow-Up services.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Within outpatient services, a broad range of innovations are being pursued to better manage care and reduce unnecessary appointments. One of the least-studied innovations is Patient-Initiated Follow-Up, which allows patients to book appointments if and when they need them, rather than follow a standard schedule.
Objectives
UNASSIGNED
To use routine national hospital data to identify innovations in outpatient services implemented, in recent years, within the National Health Service in England. To carry out a rapid mixed-methods evaluation of the implementation and impact of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
The project was carried out in four sequential workstreams: (1) a rapid scoping review of outpatient innovations; (2) the application of indicator saturation methodology for scanning national patient-level data to identify potentially successful local interventions; (3) interviews with hospitals identified in workstream 2; and (4) a rapid mixed-methods evaluation of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up. The evaluation of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up comprised an evidence review, interviews with 36 clinical and operational staff at 5 National Health Service acute trusts, a workshop with staff from 13 National Health Service acute trusts, interviews with four patients, analysis of national and local data, and development of an evaluation guide.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Using indicator saturation, we identified nine services with notable changes in follow-up to first attendance ratios. Of three sites interviewed, two queried the data findings and one attributed the change to a clinical assessment service. Models of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up varied widely between hospital and clinical specialty, with a significant degree of variation in the approach to patient selection, patient monitoring and discharge. The success of implementation was dependent on several factors, for example, clinical condition, staff capacity and information technology systems. From the analysis of national data, we found evidence of an association between greater use of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up and a lower frequency of outpatient attendance within 15 out of 29 specialties and higher frequency of outpatient attendance within 7 specialties. Four specialties had less frequent emergency department visits associated with increasing Patient-Initiated Follow-Up rates. Patient-Initiated Follow-Up was viewed by staff and the few patients we interviewed as a positive intervention, although there was varied impact on individual staff roles and workload. It is important that sites and services undertake their own evaluations of Patient-Initiated Follow-Up. To this end we have developed an evaluation guide to support trusts with data collection and methods.
Limitations
UNASSIGNED
The Patient-Initiated Follow-Up evaluation was affected by a lack of patient-level data showing who is on a Patient-Initiated Follow-Up pathway. Engagement with local services was also challenging, given the pressures facing sites and staff. Patient recruitment was low, which affected the ability to understand experiences of patients directly.
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
The study provides useful insights into the evolving national outpatient transformation policy and for local practice. Patient-Initiated Follow-Up is often perceived as a positive intervention for staff and patients, but the impact on individual outcomes, health inequalities, wider patient experience, workload and capacity is still uncertain.
Future research
UNASSIGNED
Further research should include patient-level analysis to determine clinical outcomes for individual patients on Patient-Initiated Follow-Up and health inequalities, and more extensive investigation of patient experiences.
Study registration
UNASSIGNED
This study is registered with the Research Registry (UIN: researchregistry8864).
Funding
UNASSIGNED
This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 16/138/17) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 38. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
When someone visits hospital for an operation or an ongoing condition, they are given follow-up appointments at clinics, often after 6 months. The National Health Service thinks that many of these appointments are not necessary because they are not useful to patients. Also, outside fixed appointments, patients are not always being seen when they are most in need. Hospitals have been testing new ways to improve services. We looked at hospital data and discussed interesting findings with hospitals themselves to see if we could find approaches that worked. We then looked at one new approach called Patient-Initiated Follow-Up. Patients using Patient-Initiated Follow-Up can book appointments when they are needed, rather than at a pre-planned time. We explored how Patient-Initiated Follow-Up was being used in hospitals, what effect it was having and what patients and National Health Service staff thought about it. We studied hospital data and interviewed patients and National Health Service staff. We found that Patient-Initiated Follow-Up works differently depending on the hospital and the patient’s condition. Patient-Initiated Follow-Up is most frequently used for patients needing short-term follow-up, such as after an operation. It is also starting to be used for patients with long-term chronic conditions. National Health Service staff think that Patient-Initiated Follow-Up can benefit patients, although some may find it easier to use than others. Patients appear to like Patient-Initiated Follow-Up, but some still prefer to let the hospital schedule appointments. From data it appears that for some conditions, where more patients use Patient-Initiated Follow-Up, fewer follow-up visits are required. For a few conditions, there is evidence of fewer emergency department visits, but the overall impact is small. We interviewed staff from a small number of hospitals and four patients, so what we found may not apply across the National Health Service. We also developed a guide to help hospitals evaluate the success of their own Patient-Initiated Follow-Up services.
Autres résumés
Type: plain-language-summary
(eng)
When someone visits hospital for an operation or an ongoing condition, they are given follow-up appointments at clinics, often after 6 months. The National Health Service thinks that many of these appointments are not necessary because they are not useful to patients. Also, outside fixed appointments, patients are not always being seen when they are most in need. Hospitals have been testing new ways to improve services. We looked at hospital data and discussed interesting findings with hospitals themselves to see if we could find approaches that worked. We then looked at one new approach called Patient-Initiated Follow-Up. Patients using Patient-Initiated Follow-Up can book appointments when they are needed, rather than at a pre-planned time. We explored how Patient-Initiated Follow-Up was being used in hospitals, what effect it was having and what patients and National Health Service staff thought about it. We studied hospital data and interviewed patients and National Health Service staff. We found that Patient-Initiated Follow-Up works differently depending on the hospital and the patient’s condition. Patient-Initiated Follow-Up is most frequently used for patients needing short-term follow-up, such as after an operation. It is also starting to be used for patients with long-term chronic conditions. National Health Service staff think that Patient-Initiated Follow-Up can benefit patients, although some may find it easier to use than others. Patients appear to like Patient-Initiated Follow-Up, but some still prefer to let the hospital schedule appointments. From data it appears that for some conditions, where more patients use Patient-Initiated Follow-Up, fewer follow-up visits are required. For a few conditions, there is evidence of fewer emergency department visits, but the overall impact is small. We interviewed staff from a small number of hospitals and four patients, so what we found may not apply across the National Health Service. We also developed a guide to help hospitals evaluate the success of their own Patient-Initiated Follow-Up services.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1-162Références
NHS England. The NHS Long Term Plan; 2019. URL: www.longtermplan.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/nhs-long-term-plan-version-1.2.pdf (accessed 5 November 2020).
Royal College of Physicians. Outpatients: The Future – Adding Value Through Sustainability. 2018. URL: www.rcplondon.ac.uk/projects/outputs/outpatients-future-adding-value-through-sustainability (accessed 5 November 2020).
NHS Digital. Hospital Outpatient Activity 2019–20. 2020. URL: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/hospital-outpatient-activity/2019-20 (accessed 25 September 2023).
Castle-Clarke S, Edwards N. Rethinking Outpatient Services: Learning from an Interactive Workshop. 2018. URL: www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/research/rethinking-outpatient-services-learning-from-an-interactive-workshop (accessed 4 November 2020).
Scobie S. Are Strikes by Health Care Staff Impacting NHS Waiting Lists? The Nuffield Trust; 2023. URL: www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/news-item/how-are-strikes-by-health-care-staff-impacting-nhs-waiting-lists (accessed 18 September 2023).
British Medical Association. NHS Backlog Data Analysis. 2023. URL: www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/nhs-delivery-and-workforce/pressures/nhs-backlog-data-analysis (accessed 18 September 2023).
The Nuffield Trust. NHS Performance Tracker. 2023. URL: www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/qualitywatch/nhs-performance-summary (accessed 18 September 2023).
NHS Digital. Hospital Outpatient Activity 2021–22. 2022. URL: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/hospital-outpatient-activity/2021-22 (accessed 25 September 2023).
Royal College of Physicians, Royal College of General Practitioners. Rebuilding the NHS: Resetting Outpatient Services for the 21st Century in the Context of COVID-19. 2020. URL: https://medicalcare.rcp.ac.uk/media/4qnpugot/4-rebuilding-the-nhs-policy_outpatients_202006_rcp_rcgp_principles_recommendations_0.pdf (accessed 25 September 2023).
NHS Scotland. The Modern Outpatient: A Collaborative Approach 2017–2020. 2017. URL: www.gov.scot/publications/modern-outpatient-collabortaive-approach-2017-2020/ (accessed 5 November 2020).
Welsh Government. Transforming the Way We Deliver Outpatients in Wales. 2020. URL: www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2020-06/transforming-the-way-we-deliver-outpatients-in-wales--a-three-year-strategy-and-action-plan-2020-2023.pdf (accessed 6 November 2020).
NHS England. 2023/24 Priorities and Operational Planning Guidance; 2023. URL: www.england.nhs.uk/publication/2023-24-priorities-and-operational-planning-guidance/ (accessed 27 July 2023).
Akobeng AK, O’Leary N, Vail A, Brown N, Widiatmoko D, Fagbemi A, Thomas AG. Telephone consultation as a substitute for routine out-patient face-to-face consultation for children with inflammatory bowel disease: randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation. eBioMedicine 2015;2:1251–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2015.08.011
Morris J, Campbell-Richards D, Wherton J, Sudra R, Vijayaraghavan S, Greenhalgh T, et al. Webcam consultations for diabetes: findings from four years of experience in Newham. Pract Diabetes 2017;34:45–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/pdi.2078
Ma Y, Jones G, Tay YK, Hunter T, Holden D, Rodgers-Wilson S, et al. Post-operative telephone review is safe and effective: prospective study – Monash outpatient review by phone trial. ANZ J Surg 2018;88:434–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.14280
Kalafat E, Leslie K, Bhide A, Thilaganathan B, Khalil A. Pregnancy outcomes following home blood pressure monitoring in gestational hypertension. Pregnancy Hypertens 2019;18:14–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.preghy.2019.07.006
Vestergaard AS, Hansen L, Sorensen SS, Jensen MB, Ehlers LH. Is telehealthcare for heart failure patients cost-effective? An economic evaluation alongside the Danish TeleCare North heart failure trial. BMJ Open 2020;10:e031670. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031670
de Jong MJ, van der Meulen-de Jong AE, Romberg-Camps MJ, Becx MC, Maljaars JP, Cilissen M, et al. Telemedicine for management of inflammatory bowel disease (myIBDcoach): a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2017;390:959–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31327-2
Bennett K, de Boisanger L, Moreton F, Davenport R, Stone J. The safety of using active triage to provide advice rather than a face-to-face neurology outpatient appointment. J R Coll Physicians Edinb 2019;49:193–8. https://doi.org/10.4997/JRCPE.2019.305
Gregory C. Improving colorectal cancer referrals. BMJ Open Qual 2018;7:e000280. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2017-000280
Klimis H, Thiagalingam A, Altman M, Atkins E, Figtree G, Lowe H, et al. Rapid-access cardiology services: can these reduce the burden of acute chest pain on Australian and New Zealand health services? Intern Med J 2017;47:986–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/imj.13334
Nisar MK. Early arthritis clinic is cost-effective, improves outcomes and reduces biologic use. Clin Rheumatol 2019;38:1555–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-019-04515-3
Sagar A, Mai DVC, Divya GS, Al-Habsi R, Wothers T, Ni Bhroin O, et al. A colorectal straight-to-test cancer pathway with general-practitioner-guided triage improves attainment of the 28-day diagnosis target and increases outpatient clinic capacity. Colorectal Dis 2021;23:664–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.15410
Pokorny MA, Thorne PR, Whitfield BC, Lee AC, Wilson WJ. Can an advanced audiology-led service reduce waiting times for paediatric ear nose and throat outpatient services? J Paediatr Child Health 2021;57:268–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpc.15218
Hill CE, Thomas B, Amendt A, Lawler M, Kalfin M. A multidisciplinary care model to increase access to neurologic ambulatory care. J Am Assoc Nurse Pract 2020;33:254–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/JXX.0000000000000435
Reed S, Crellin N. Patient-initiated Follow-up: Will It Free Up Capacity in Outpatient Care? The Nuffield Trust; 2022. URL: www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/research/patient-initiated-follow-up-will-it-free-up-capacity-in-outpatient-care (accessed 18 September 2023).
Bragge P, Clavisi O, Turner T, Tavender E, Collie A, Gruen RL. The global evidence mapping initiative: scoping research in broad topic areas. BMC Med Res Methodol 2011;11:92. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-92
Snilstveit B, Vojtkova M, Bhavsar A, Gaarder M. Evidence Gap Maps – a Tool for Promoting Evidence-Informed Policy and Prioritizing Future Research. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No 6725; 2013. URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2367606 (accessed 3 September 2024).
Miake-Lye IM, Hempel S, Shanman R, Shekelle PG. What is an evidence map? A systematic review of published evidence maps and their definitions, methods, and products. Syst Rev 2016;5:28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0204-x
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLOS Med 2009;6:e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
Anugraha A, Dalal R, Raad M, Patel N, Sugathan H. Preconsultation questionnaires for patients attending elective foot and ankle clinics: is this the way forward in outpatient clinics? Foot Ankle Spec 2022;15:487–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/1938640020986644
Kiruparan P, Kiruparan N, Debnath D. Impact of pre-appointment contact and short message service alerts in reducing ‘Did Not Attend’ (DNA) rate on rapid access new patient breast clinics: a DGH perspective. BMC Health Serv Res 2020;20:757. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05627-2
Dusheiko M, Gravelle H. Choosing and booking-and attending? Impact of an electronic booking system on outpatient referrals and non-attendances. Health Econ 2018;27:357–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3552
Hull SA, Rajabzadeh V, Thomas N, Hoong S, Dreyer G, Rainey H, Ashman N. Do virtual renal clinics improve access to kidney care? A preliminary impact evaluation of a virtual clinic in East London. BMC Nephrol 2020;21:10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12882-020-1682-6
Buvik A, Bergmo TS, Bugge E, Smaabrekke A, Wilsgaard T, Olsen JA. Cost-effectiveness of telemedicine in remote orthopedic consultations: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res 2019;21:e11330. https://doi.org/10.2196/11330
Creen J, Kennedy-Behr A, Gee K, Wilks L, Verdonck M. Reducing time between referral and diagnosis in paediatric outpatient neurodevelopmental and behavioural clinics. J Paediatr Child Health 2021;57:126–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpc.15156
Balaban RB, Zhang F, Vialle-Valentin CE, Galbraith AA, Burns ME, Larochelle MR, Ross-Degnan D. Impact of a patient navigator program on hospital-based and outpatient utilization over 180 days in a safety-net health system. J Gen Intern Med 2017;32:981–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-017-4074-2
Horny M, Glover W, Gupte G, Saraswat A, Vimalananda V, Rosenzweig J. Patient navigation to improve diabetes outpatient care at a safety-net hospital: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Health Serv Res 2017;17:759. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2700-7
Whitelaw L, Hammond K, Cumming M, Mansfield K, Saurman E. The direct access colonoscopy clinic: improving time to colonoscopy for eligible positive faecal occult blood test patients in Broken Hill NSW. Aust J Rural Health 2020;28:81–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajr.12569
Lindsay JR, Lawrenson G, English S. A service evaluation of e-triage in the osteoporosis outpatient clinic-an effective tool to improve patient access? Arch Osteoporos 2020;15:53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-020-0703-1
Donald M, Jackson CL, Byrnes J, Vaikuntam BP, Russell AW, Hollingworth SA. Community-based integrated care versus hospital outpatient care for managing patients with complex type 2 diabetes: costing analysis. Aust Health Rev 2021;45:42–50. https://doi.org/10.1071/AH19226
Hollingworth SA, Donald M, Zhang J, Vaikuntam BP, Russell A, Jackson C. Impact of a general practitioner-led integrated model of care on the cost of potentially preventable diabetes-related hospitalisations. Prim Care Diabetes 2017;11:344–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcd.2017.03.009
Emery JD, Jefford M, King M, Hayne D, Martin A, Doorey J, et al. ProCare trial: a phase II randomized controlled trial of shared care for follow-up of men with prostate cancer. BJU Int 2017;119:381–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13593
NHS Digital. Hospital Outpatient Activity – 2003–04. 2007. URL: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/hospital-outpatient-activity/hospital-outpatient-activity-2003-04 (accessed 9 May 2023).
Keith J, Grimm F, Steventon A. How Better Use of Data Can Help Address Key Challenges Facing the NHS. The Health Foundation; 2022. URL: www.health.org.uk/publications/long-reads/how-better-use-of-data-can-help-address-key-challenges-facing-the-nhs (accessed 9 May 2023).
Chaudhry Z, Mannan F, Gibson-White A, Syed U, Ahmed S, Majeed A. Research outputs of england’s hospital episode statistics (HES) database: bibliometric analysis. J Innov Health Inform 2017;24:949. https://doi.org/10.14236/jhi.v24i4.949
Bradley EH, Curry LA, Ramanadhan S, Rowe L, Nembhard IM, Krumholz HM. Research in action: using positive deviance to improve quality of health care. Implement Sci 2009;4:25. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-25
Walker AJ, Pretis F, Powell-Smith A, Goldacre B. Variation in responsiveness to warranted behaviour change among NHS clinicians: novel implementation of change detection methods in longitudinal prescribing data. BMJ 2019;367:l5205. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l5205
Morris J, Georghious T, Appleby J. Changes in English NHS outpatient activity during the early COVID-19 period. medRxiv 2021. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.04.28.21256176
NHS Digital. Organisation Data Service (ODS). 2021. URL: https://digital.nhs.uk/services/organisation-data-service (accessed 10 May 2023).
Wickham H. tidyverse: Easily Install and Load the ‘Tidyverse’. 2023. URL: https://tidyverse.tidyverse.org/ (accessed 5 July 2023).
Pretis F, Reade JJ, Sucarrat G. Automated general-to-specific (GETS) regression modeling and indicator saturation for outliers and structural breaks. J Stat Softw 2018;86:1–44. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v086.i03
NHS England. Implementing Patient Initiated Follow-up: Guidance for Local Health and Care Systems (Version 1, 17 May 2022). 2022. URL: www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/B0801-implementing-patient-initiated-follow-up-guidance-1.pdf (accessed 12 July 2023).
Curtis HJ, Walker AJ, MacKenna B, Croker R, Goldacre B. Prescription of suboptimal statin treatment regimens: a retrospective cohort study of trends and variation in English primary care. Br J Gen Pract 2020;70:e525–33. https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp20X710873
Hopcroft LEM, Curtis HJ, Croker R, Pretis F, Inglesby P, Evans D, et al. Data-driven identification of potentially successful intervention implementations: a proof of concept using five years of opioid prescribing data from over 7000 practices in England. medRxiv 2023. https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.06.28.23291704
Castle JL, Doornik JA, Hendry DF. Short-term Forecasting of the Coronavirus Pandemic. Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford; 2020. URL: www.nuff.ox.ac.uk/economics/papers/2020/2020W06_COVID-19_shortterm_forecasts.pdf (accessed 1 August 2023).
Baxter R, Taylor N, Kellar I, Lawton R. What methods are used to apply positive deviance within healthcare organisations? A systematic review. BMJ Qual Saf 2016;25:190–201. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004386
Taliani CA, Bricker PL, Adelman AM, Cronholm PF, Gabbay RA. Implementing effective care management in the patient-centered medical home. Am J Manag Care 2013;19:957–64.
Bradley EH, Byam P, Alpern R, Thompson JW, Zerihun A, Abebe Y, Curry LA. A systems approach to improving rural care in Ethiopia. PLOS ONE 2012;7:e35042. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0035042
Kraschnewski JL, Sciamanna CN, Pollak KI, Stuckey HL, Sherwood NE. The epidemiology of weight counseling for adults in the United States: a case of positive deviance. Int J Obes (Lond) 2013;37:751–3. https://doi.org/10.1038/ijo.2012.113
NHS England. GIRFT: Getting It Right First Time. n.d. URL: https://gettingitrightfirsttime.co.uk/workstreams/ (accessed 24 August 2023).
NHS England. Core20PLUS5 (Adults) – An Approach to Reducing Healthcare Inequalities. n.d. URL: www.england.nhs.uk/about/equality/equality-hub/national-healthcare-inequalities-improvement-programme/core20plus5/ (accessed 24 August 2023).
Isherwood J, Hillman T, Goddard A. Outpatients: The Future – Adding Value Through Sustainability. 2018. URL: www.rcplondon.ac.uk/projects/outputs/outpatients-future-adding-value-through-sustainability (accessed 14 July 2022).
NHS England. 2021/22 Priorities and Operational Planning Guidance. 2021. URL: www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/B0468-nhs-operational-planning-and-contracting-guidance.pdf (accessed 25 September 2023).
NHS England. Guide to Implementing Patient Initiated Follow-up (PIFU) in Adult Trauma and Orthopaedic Secondary Care Pathways. 2023. URL: www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/guide-to-implementing-patient-initiated-follow-up-pifu-in-adult-trauma-and-orthopaedic-secondary-care-pathways/ (accessed 21 July 2023).
Vindrola-Padros C, Chisnall G, Cooper S, Dowrick A, Djellouli N, Symmons SM, et al. Carrying out rapid qualitative research during a pandemic: emerging lessons from COVID-19. Qual Health Res 2020;30:2192–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732320951526
Greenhalgh T, Wherton J, Papoutsi C, Lynch J, Hughes G, A’Court C, et al. Beyond adoption: a new framework for theorizing and evaluating nonadoption, abandonment, and challenges to the scale-up, spread, and sustainability of health and care technologies. J Med Internet Res 2017;19:e367. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.8775
Carter N, Bryant-Lukosius D, DiCenso A, Blythe J, Neville AJ. The use of triangulation in qualitative research. Oncol Nurs Forum 2014;41:545–7. https://doi.org/10.1188/14.ONF.545-547
Snilstveit B, Vojtkova M, Bhavsar A, Gaarder M. Evidence Gap Maps – a Tool for Promoting Evidence-Informed Policy and Prioritizing Future Research. 2013. URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2367606 (accessed 5 September 2023).
Whear R, Thompson-Coon J, Rogers M, Abbott RA, Anderson L, Ukoumunne O, et al. Patient-initiated appointment systems for adults with chronic conditions in secondary care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020;4:CD010763. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010763.pub2
Hong QN, Pluye P, Fabregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, et al. Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) Version 2018: User Guide. McGill University. Registration of Copyright (#1148552), Canadian Intellectual Property Office, Industry Canada; 2018. URL: http://mixedmethodsappraisaltoolpublic.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/127916259/MMAT_2018_criteria-manual_2018-08-01_ENG.pdf (accessed 5 September 2023).
Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci 2009;4:50. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-50
Newton C, Nordin A, Rolland P, Ind T, Larsen-Disney P, Martin-Hirsch P, et al. British Gynaecological Cancer Society recommendations and guidance on patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU). Int J Gynecol Cancer 2020;30:695–700. https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2019-001176
FutureNHS. n.d. URL: https://future.nhs.uk/ (accessed 12 July 2023).
NHS England. 2022/23 Priorities and Operational Planning Guidance. 2022. URL: www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/20211223-B1160-2022-23-priorities-and-operational-planning-guidance-v3.2.pdf (accessed 25 July 2023).
Cameron AC, Trivedi PK. Regression Analysis of Count Data. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2013.
Collett D. Modelling Survival Data in Medical Research. 3rd edn. New York: Chapman and Hall/CRC; 2014. https://doi.org/10.1201/b18041
Jones A, Wyatt S. Classifying Outpatient Activity by Function: Introducing a Tool to Support Service Reform and Enhance Analyses of Outpatient Care. NHS Strategy Unit; 2021. URL: www.midlandsdecisionsupport.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/dsu_classify_op_report2_v0.9.pdf (accessed 18 September 2023).
NHS England. Action Required to Tackle Health Inequalities in Latest Phase of COVID-19 Response and Recovery. n.d. URL: www.england.nhs.uk/about/equality/equality-hub/national-healthcare-inequalities-improvement-programme/what-are-healthcare-inequalities/action-required-to-tackle-health-inequalities-in-latest-phase-of-covid-19-response-and-recovery/ (accessed 24 August 2023).
Howlett M, Geist S. The Policy Making Process. In Araral E, Fritzen S, Howlett M, Ramesh M, Wu X, editors. Routledge Handbook of Public Policy. London: Routledge; 2012. pp. 17–28.
Lamont T, Barber N, de Pury J, Fulop N, Garfield-Birkbeck S, Lilford R, et al. New approaches to evaluating complex health and care systems. Br Med J 2016;352:i154. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i154
Markiewicz A, Patrick I. Developing Monitoring and Evaluation Frameworks. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2016. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071878774
Drojdahl Ryg N, Gram J, Haghighi M, Juhl CB. Effects of patient-initiated visits on patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes in a type 1 diabetes outpatient clinic: a 2-year randomized controlled study. Diabetes Care 2021;44:2277–85. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc20-3083
Poggenborg RP, Madsen OR, Sweeney AT, Dreyer L, Bukh G, Hansen A. Patient-controlled outpatient follow-up on demand for patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a 2-year randomized controlled trial. Clin Rheumatol 2021;40:3599–604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-021-05674-y
Kieft E, Day J, Byng R, McArdle P, Goodwin VA. Bridging the second gap in translation: a case study of barriers and facilitators to implementing patient-initiated Clinics into secondary care. Eur J Person Centered Healthcare 2017;5:129–37.
Child S, Goodwin VA, Perry MG, Gericke CA, Byng R. Implementing a patient-initiated review system in rheumatoid arthritis: a qualitative evaluation. BMC Health Serv Res 2015;15:157. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-015-0837-9
Beaver K, Martin-Hirsch P, Williamson S, Kyrgiou M. Exploring the acceptability and feasibility of patient-initiated follow-up for women treated for stage I endometrial cancer. Eur J Oncol Nurs 2020;44:101704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2019.101704
Rogers A, Kennedy A, Nelson E, Robinson A. Patients’ experiences of an open access follow up arrangement in managing inflammatory bowel disease. Qual Saf Health Care 2004;13:374–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/qhc.13.5.374
Lorenc A, Wells M, Fulton-Lieuw T, Nankivell P, Mehanna H, Jepson M; PETNECK2 Research Team. Clinicians’ views of patient-initiated follow-up in head and neck cancer: a qualitative study to inform the PETNECK2 trial. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2022;34:230–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2021.11.010
Hovdenak Jakobsen I, Juul T, Bernstein I, Christensen P, Jensen FS, Johansen C, et al. Follow-up after rectal cancer: developing and testing a novel patient-led follow-up program. Study protocol. Acta Oncol 2017;56:307–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/0284186X.2016.1267400
Lawes-Wickwar S, McBain H, Brini S, Hirani SP, Hurt CS, Flood C, et al. A patient-initiated treatment model for blepharospasm and hemifacial spasm: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Neurol 2022;22:99. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-022-02603-7
Bech B, Lykkegaard JJ, Lundbak T, Schroder HM, Birkeland LM, Schlyter ML, et al. Patient-Initiated Follow-Up (PIFU) as reorganized support for increased patient involvement – focus group discussions among patients’ with inflammatory arthritis. BMC Rheumatol 2020;4:44. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41927-020-00143-6
Morris J, Schlepper L, Dayan M, Jefferies D, Maguire D, Merry L, et al. Public Satisfaction with the NHS and Social Care in 2022. The Kings Fund, The Nuffield Trust; 2023. URL: www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/research/public-satisfaction-with-the-nhs-and-social-care-in-2022-results-from-the-british-social-attitudes-survey (accessed 25 September 2023).
NHS England. Provisional Monthly Hospital Episode Statistics for Admitted Patient Care, Outpatient and Accident and Emergency data, April 2023–May 2023. 2023. URL: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/provisional-monthly-hospital-episode-statistics-for-admitted-patient-care-outpatient-and-accident-and-emergency-data/april-2023---may-2023 (accessed 2 August 2023).
Whiting P, Savovic J, Higgins JP, Caldwell DM, Reeves BC, Shea B, et al.; ROBIS group. ROBIS: a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;69:225–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.005
NHS Data Model and Dictionary. CDS V6-3. n.d. URL: www.datadictionary.nhs.uk/data_sets/cds_v6-3.html (accessed 6 September 2023).