Overview of Evidence of Antimicrobial Use and Antimicrobial Resistance in the Food Chain

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global health problem. Bacteria carrying resistance genes can be transmitted between humans, animals and the environment. There are concerns that the widespread use of antimicrobials in the food chain constitutes an important source of AMR in humans, but the extent of this transmission is not well understood. The aim of this review is to examine published evidence on the links between antimicrobial use (AMU) in the food chain and AMR in people and animals. The evidence showed a link between AMU in animals and the occurrence of resistance in these animals. However, evidence of the benefits of a reduction in AMU in animals on the prevalence of resistant bacteria in humans is scarce. The presence of resistant bacteria is documented in the human food supply chain, which presents a potential exposure route and risk to public health. Microbial genome sequencing has enabled the establishment of some links between the presence of resistant bacteria in humans and animals but, for some antimicrobials, no link could be established. Research and monitoring of AMU and AMR in an integrated manner is essential for a better understanding of the biology and the dynamics of antimicrobial resistance.

Responding to the mental health consequences of the 2015-2016 terrorist attacks in Tunisia, Paris and Brussels: implementation and treatment experiences in the United Kingdom

OBJECTIVES

To explore whether the Screen and Treat Programme to support United Kingdom citizens potentially affected by terrorist attacks in Tunisia (2015), Paris (2015) and Brussels (2016) was effective in identifying and referring people to mental health services, to examine the programme's acceptability to users and to understand how agencies involved worked together.

METHODS

Individuals offered screening by the programme (n = 529) were invited to participate in the study and were sent a questionnaire. Follow-up interviews were conducted with questionnaire respondents who consented and with employees of agencies involved in the programme's planning and delivery. Seventy-seven people affected by the attacks completed questionnaires, 35 of those were also interviewed, and 1 further person only participated in an interview. Eleven people from agencies organizing and delivering the programme and five clinician-managers were also interviewed.

RESULTS

Most service users said the attacks had a major impact on their lives. Many reported anxiety, depression, difficulty going out or travelling, sleep problems, panic attacks, flashbacks and hyper-vigilance. A third had reduced their working hours and a similar proportion had taken sick leave. Two-thirds sought help from their General Practitioner (GP) before being contacted by the programme, but almost all thought their GP had not been helpful in dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or referring to appropriate care. Several people were prescribed psychotropic medication; only a few were referred to mental health professionals. Many participants used help offered by organizations external to National Health Service, with mixed experiences. Waiting times for treatment varied from no delay to a few months. Most interviewees thought the programme should have started sooner and provided more information about sources of support. Most users found treatment received via the programme helpful. Professionals involved in organizing and delivering the programme thought that bureaucratic delays in setting it up were key limitations on effectiveness. Clinician interviewees thought an outreach approach was needed to identify at-risk individuals.

CONCLUSIONS

Users who took part in the programme were satisfied with their treatment, although many thought it should have been offered sooner. Funding and data sharing between agencies were the main barriers to timely contact with affected individuals. Self-referral, GP identification of PTSD and GP referral to appropriate care were regarded as ineffective, suggesting that people affected by similar future incidents should be supported better and assisted more promptly to access treatment.

Community Alcohol Partnerships with the alcohol industry: what is their purpose and are they effective in reducing alcohol harms?

Background

Local initiatives to reduce alcohol harms are common. One UK approach, Community Alcohol Partnerships (CAPs), involves partnerships between the alcohol industry and local government, focussing on alcohol misuse and anti-social behaviour (ASB) among young people. This study aimed to assess the evidence of effectiveness of CAPs.

Methods

We searched CAP websites and documents, and databases, and contacted CAPs to identify evaluations and summarize their findings. We appraised these against four methodological criteria: (i) reporting of pre-post data; (ii) use of comparison area(s); (iii) length of follow-up; and (iv) baseline comparability of comparison and intervention areas.

Results

Out of 88 CAPs, we found three CAP evaluations which used controlled designs or comparison areas, and further data on 10 other CAPs. The most robust evaluations found little change in ASB, though few data were presented. While CAPs appear to affect public perceptions of ASB, this is not a measure of the effectiveness of CAPs.

Conclusions

Despite industry claims, the few existing evaluations do not provide convincing evidence that CAPs are effective in reducing alcohol harms or ASB. Their main role may be as an alcohol industry corporate social responsibility measure which is intended to limit the reputational damage associated with alcohol-related ASB.

Can health and social care integration make long-term progress? Findings from key informant surveys of the integration Pioneers in England

Purpose

All areas in England are expected by National Health Service (NHS) England to develop integrated care systems (ICSs) by April 2021. ICSs bring together primary, secondary and community health services, and involve local authorities and the voluntary sector. ICSs build on previous pilots, including the Integrated Care Pioneers in 25 areas from November 2013 to March 2018. This analysis tracks the Pioneers’ self-reported progress, and the facilitators and barriers to improve service coordination over three years, longer than previous evaluations in England. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

Design/methodology/approach

Annual online key informant (KI) surveys, 2016–2018, are used for this study.

Findings

By the fourth year of the programme (2017), KIs had shifted from reporting plans to implementation of a wide range of initiatives. In 2018, informants reported fewer “significant” barriers to change than previously. While some progress in achieving local integration objectives was evident, it was also clear that progress can take considerable time. In parallel, there appears to have been a move away from aspects of personalised care associated with user control, perhaps in part because the emphasis of national objectives has shifted towards establishing large-scale ICSs with a particular focus on organisational fragmentation within the NHS.

Research limitations/implications

Because these are self-reports of changes, they cannot be objectively verified. Later stages of the evaluation will look at changes in outcomes and user experiences.

Originality/value

The current study shows clearly that the benefits of integrating health and social care are unlikely to be apparent for several years, and expectations of policy makers to see rapid improvements in care and outcomes are likely to be unrealistic.

Funding and planning for social care in later life: a deliberative focus group study

This study examined people's perceptions and behaviours in relation to planning for their social care needs, and their values and priorities concerning how social care should be funded. Eight deliberative focus groups were conducted in May 2018 with 53 participants, aged 25-82 years, in London, Manchester and rural locations near York and Sheffield. Multiple uncertainties created barriers to planning for social care needs including not knowing how much to save, not thinking it possible for an average person to save enough to meet significant needs, reluctance to plan for something potentially unnecessary, lack of suitable and secure ways of saving, and a perception of social care policy as unsettled. Participants also had significant concerns that they would not be able to obtain good-quality care, regardless of resources. In addition, it was commonly thought unrealistic to expect families to provide more than low-intensity, supplementary care, while use of housing assets to pay for care was considered unfair, both for home-owners who could lose their assets and non-home-owners who were left reliant on the state although it was more acceptable where people were childless or had substantial assets. Participants thought any new arrangements should be inclusive, personally affordable, sustainable, transparent, good-quality and honest. They preferred to contribute regularly rather than find considerable sums of money at times of crisis, and preferred to risk-pool, with everyone obliged or heavily encouraged to contribute. Transparency was valued so those better at 'working the system' were not able to benefit unfairly  and participants wanted to know that, if they contributed, they would be assured of good-quality care. Trust in Government and other institutions, however, was low. New funding arrangements should incorporate measures to increase transparency and trust, be clear about the responsibilities of individuals and the state, provide meaningful options to save, and place significant focus on improving actual and perceived care quality. For acceptability, proposals should be framed to emphasise their affective dimensions and positive values.

Area level impacts on emergency hospital admissions of the integrated care and support pioneer programme in England: difference-in-differences analysis

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether any differential change in emergency admissions could be attributed to integrated care by comparing pioneer and non-pioneer populations from a pre-pioneer baseline period (April 2010 to March 2013) over two follow-up periods: to 2014/2015 and to 2015/2016.

DESIGN

Difference-in-differences analysis of emergency hospital admissions from English Hospital Episode Statistics.

SETTING

Local authorities in England classified as either pioneer or non-pioneer.

PARTICIPANTS

Emergency admissions to all NHS hospitals in England with local authority determined by area of residence of the patient.

INTERVENTION

Wave 1 of the integrated care and support pioneer programme announced in November 2013.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

Change in hospital emergency admissions.

RESULTS

The increase in the pioneer emergency admission rate from baseline to 2014/2015 was smaller at 1.93% and significantly different from that of the non-pioneers at 4.84% (p=0.0379). The increase in the pioneer emergency admission rate from baseline to 2015/2016 was again smaller than for the non-pioneers but the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.1879).

CONCLUSIONS

It is ambitious to expect unequivocal changes in a high level and indirect indicator of health and social care integration such as emergency hospital admissions to arise as a result of the changes in local health and social care provision across organisations brought about by the pioneers in their early years. We should treat any sign that the pioneers have had such an impact with caution. Nevertheless, there does seem to be an indication from the current analysis that there were some changes in hospital use associated with the first year of pioneer status that are worthy of further exploration.

Exploring the impacts of the 2012 Health and Social Care Act reforms to commissioning on clinical activity in the English NHS: a mixed methods study of cervical screening

OBJECTIVES

Explore the impact of changes to commissioning introduced in England by the Health and Social Care Act 2012 (HSCA) on cervical screening activity in areas identified empirically as particularly affected organisationally by the reforms.

METHODS

Qualitative followed by quantitative methods. Qualitative: semi-structured interviews (with NHS commissioners, managers, clinicians, senior administrative staff from Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs), local authorities, service providers), observations of commissioning meetings in two metropolitan areas of England. Quantitative: triple-difference analysis of national administrative data. Variability in the expected effects of HSCA on commissioning was measured by comparing CCGs working with one local authority with CCGs working with multiple local authorities. To control for unmeasured confounders, differential changes over time in cervical screening rates (among women, 25-64 years) between CCGs more and less likely to have been affected by HSCA commissioning organisational change were compared with another outcome-unassisted birth rates-largely unaffected by HSCA changes.

RESULTS

Interviewees identified that cervical screening commissioning and provision was more complex and 'fragmented', with responsibilities less certain, following the HSCA. Interviewees predicted this would reduce cervical screening rates in some areas more than others. Quantitative findings supported these predictions. Areas where CCGs dealt with multiple local authorities experienced a larger decline in cervical screening rates (1.4%) than those dealing with one local authority (1.0%). Over the same period, unassisted deliveries decreased by 1.6% and 2.0%, respectively, in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Arrangements for commissioning and delivering cervical screening were disrupted and made more complex by the HSCA. Areas most affected saw a greater decline in screening rates than others. The fact that this was identified qualitatively and then confirmed quantitatively strengthens this finding. The study suggests large-scale health system reforms may have unintended consequences, and that complex commissioning arrangements may be problematic.

The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research?

Background

Coproduction, a collaborative model of research that includes stakeholders in the research process, has been widely advocated as a means of facilitating research use and impact. We summarise the arguments in favour of coproduction, the different approaches to establishing coproductive work and their costs, and offer some advice as to when and how to consider coproduction.

Debate

Despite the multiplicity of reasons and incentives to coproduce, there is little consensus about what coproduction is, why we do it, what effects we are trying to achieve, or the best coproduction techniques to achieve policy, practice or population health change. Furthermore, coproduction is not free risk or cost. Tensions can arise throughout coproduced research processes between the different interests involved. We identify five types of costs associated with coproduced research affecting the research itself, the research process, professional risks for researchers and stakeholders, personal risks for researchers and stakeholders, and risks to the wider cause of scholarship. Yet, these costs are rarely referred to in the literature, which generally calls for greater inclusion of stakeholders in research processes, focusing exclusively on potential positives. There are few tools to help researchers avoid or alleviate risks to themselves and their stakeholders.

Conclusions

First, we recommend identifying specific motivations for coproduction and clarifying exactly which outcomes are required for whom for any particular piece of research. Second, we suggest selecting strategies specifically designed to enable these outcomes to be achieved, and properly evaluated. Finally, in the absence of strong evidence about the impact and process of coproduction, we advise a cautious approach to coproduction. This would involve conscious and reflective research practice, evaluation of how coproduced research practices change outcomes, and exploration of the costs and benefits of coproduction. We propose some preliminary advice to help decide when coproduction is likely to be more or less useful.

Comparative institutional analysis for public health: governing voluntary collaborative agreements for public health in England and the Netherlands

Democratic institutions and state-society relations shape governance arrangements and expectations between public and private stakeholders about public health impact. We illustrate this with a comparison between the English Public Health Responsibility Deal (RD) and the Dutch 'All About Health…' (AaH) programme. As manifestations of a Whole-of-Society approach, in which governments, civil society and business take responsibility for the co-production of economic utility and good health, these programmes are two recent collaborative platforms based on voluntary agreements to improve public health. Using a 'most similar cases' design, we conducted a comparative secondary analysis of data from the evaluations of the two programmes. The underlying rationale of both programmes was that voluntary agreements would be better suited than regulation to encourage business and civil society to take more responsibility for improving health. Differences between the two included: expectations of an enforcing versus facilitative role for government; hierarchical versus horizontal coordination; big business versus civil society participants; top-down versus bottom-up formulation of voluntary pledges and progress monitoring for accountability versus for learning and adaptation. Despite the attempt in both programmes to base voluntary commitments on trust, the English 'shadow of hierarchy' and adversarial state-society relationships conditioned non-governmental parties to see the pledges as controlling, quasi-contractual agreements that were only partially lived up to. The Dutch consensual political tradition enabled a civil society-based understanding and gradual acceptance of the pledges as the internalization by partner organizations of public health values within their operations. We conclude that there are institutional limitations to the implementation of generic trust-building and learning-based models of change 'Whole-of-Society' approaches.

The Public Health Responsibility Deal: Using a Systems-Level Analysis to Understand the Lack of Impact on Alcohol, Food, Physical Activity, and Workplace Health Sub-Systems

The extent to which government should partner with business interests such as the alcohol, food, and other industries in order to improve public health is a subject of ongoing debate. A common approach involves developing voluntary agreements with industry or allowing them to self-regulate. In England, the most recent example of this was the Public Health Responsibility Deal (RD), a public⁻private partnership launched in 2011 under the then Conservative-led coalition government. The RD was organised around a series of voluntary agreements that aim to bring together government, academic experts, and commercial, public sector and voluntary organisations to commit to pledges to undertake actions of public health benefit. This paper brings together the main findings and implications of the evaluation of the RD using a systems approach. We analysed the functioning of the RD exploring the causal pathways involved and how they helped or hindered the RD; the structures and processes; feedback loops and how they might have constrained or potentiated the effects of the RD; and how resilient the wider systems were to change (i.e., the alcohol, food, and other systems interacted with). Both the production and uptake of pledges by RD partners were largely driven by the interests of partners themselves, enabling these wider systems to resist change. This analysis demonstrates how and why the RD did not meet its objectives. The findings have lessons for the development of effective alcohol, food and other policies, for defining the role of unhealthy commodity industries, and for understanding the limits of industry self-regulation as a public health measure.

Lessons for 'large-scale' general practice provider organisations in England from other inter-organisational healthcare collaborations

Policymakers in England are increasingly encouraging the formation of 'large-scale' general practice provider collaborations with the expectation that this will help deliver better quality services and generate economies of scale. However, solid evidence that these expectations will be met is limited. This paper reviews evidence from other inter-organisational healthcare collaborations with similarities in their development or anticipated impact to identify lessons. Medline. SSCI, Embase and HMIC database searches identified a range of initiatives which could provide transferable evidence. Iterative searching was undertaken to identify further relevant evidence. Thematic analysis was used to identify areas to consider in the development of large-scale general practice providers. Framework analysis was used to identify challenges which may affect the ability of such providers to achieve their anticipated impact. A narrative approach was used to synthesise the evidence. Trade-offs exist in 'scaling-up' between mandated and voluntary collaboration; networks versus single organisations; small versus large collaborations; and different types of governance structures in terms of sustainability and performance. While positive impact seems plausible, evidence suggests that it is not a given that clinical outcomes or patient experience will improve, nor that cost savings will be achieved as a result of increasing organisational size. Since the impact and potential unintended consequences are not yet clear, it would be advisable for policymakers to move with caution, and be informed by ongoing evaluation.

Improving research and policy interactions requires a better understanding of what works in different contexts

There is keen interest in many jurisdictions in finding ways to improve the way that research evidence informs policy. One possible mechanism for this is to embed academics within government agencies either as advisers or full staff members. Our commentary argues that, in addition to considering the role of academics in government as proposed by Glied and colleagues, we need to understand better how research and policy interactions function across policy sectors. We believe more comparative research is needed to understand if and why academics from certain disciplines are more likely to be recruited to work in some policy sectors rather than others. We caution against treating government as monolithic by advocating the same model for collaborative interaction between academics and government. Lastly, we contend that contextualized research is needed to illuminate important drivers of research and policy interactions before we can recommend what is likely to be more and less effective in different policy sectors.

Local health and social care responses to implementing the national cold weather plan

Background

The Cold Weather Plan (CWP) for England was launched by the Department of Health in 2011 to prevent avoidable harm to health by cold weather by enabling individuals to prepare and respond appropriately. This study sought the views of local decision makers involved in the implementation of the CWP in the winter of 2012/13 to establish the effects of the CWP on local planning. It was part of a multi-component independent evaluation of the CWP.

Methods

Ten LA areas were purposively sampled which varied in level of deprivation and urbanism. Fifty-two semi-structured interviews were held with health and social care managers involved in local planning between November 2012 and May 2013.

Results

Thematic analysis revealed that the CWP was considered a useful framework to formalize working arrangements between agencies though local leadership varied across localities. There were difficulties in engaging general practitioners, differences in defining vulnerable individuals and a lack of performance monitoring mechanisms.

Conclusions

The CWP was welcomed by local health and social care managers, and improved proactive winter preparedness. Areas for improvement include better integration with general practice, and targeting resources at socially isolated individuals in cold homes with specific interventions aimed at reducing social isolation and building community resilience.

An evaluation of a public-private partnership to reduce artificial trans fatty acids in England, 2011-16

Background

The Public Health Responsibility Deal (RD) is a public-private partnership in England involving voluntary pledges between government, and business and other public organizations to improve public health. One such voluntary pledge refers to the reduction of trans fatty acids (TFAs) in the food supply in England by either pledging not to use artificial TFAs or pledging artificial TFA removal. This paper evaluates the RD's effectiveness at encouraging signatory organizations to remove artificially produced TFAs from their products.

Methods

We analysed publically available data submitted by RD signatory organizations. We analysed their plans and progress towards achieving the TFAs pledge, comparing 2015 progress reports against their delivery plans. We also assessed the extent to which TFAs reductions beyond pre-2011 levels could be attributed to the RD.

Results

Voluntary reformulation via the RD has had limited added value, because the first part of the trans fat pledge simply requires organizations to confirm that they do not use TFAs and the second part, that has the potential to reduce use, has failed to attract the participation of food producers, particularly those producing fast foods and takeaways, where most remaining use of artificial TFAs is located.

Conclusions

The contribution of the RD TFAs pledges in reducing artificial TFAs from England's food supply beyond pre-2011 levels appears to be negligible. This research has wider implications for the growing international evidence base voluntary food policy, and offers insights for other countries currently undertaking work to remove TFAs from their food supply.

The Public Health Responsibility Deal: making the workplace healthier?

Background

The Public Health Responsibility Deal (RD) in England is a public-private partnership which aims to improve public health by addressing issues such as health at work. This paper analyses the RD health at work pledges in terms of their likely effectiveness and added value.

Methods

A review of evidence on the effectiveness of the RD 'health at work' pledges to improve health in the workplace; analysis of publically available data on signatory organizations' plans and progress towards achieving the pledges; and assessment of the likelihood that workplace activities pledged by signatories were brought about by participating in the RD.

Results

The 'health at work' pledges mostly consist of information sharing activities, and could be more effective if made part of integrated environmental change at the workplace. The evaluation of organizations' plans and progress suggests that very few actions (7%) were motivated by participation in the RD, with most organizations likely (57%) or probably (36%) already engaged in the activities they listed before joining the RD.

Conclusions

The RD's 'health at work' pledges are likely to contribute little to improving workplace health as they stand but could contribute more if they were incorporated into broader, coherent workplace health strategies.

The impact of new forms of large-scale general practice provider collaborations on England's NHS: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Over the past decade, collaboration between general practices in England to form new provider networks and large-scale organisations has been driven largely by grassroots action among GPs. However, it is now being increasingly advocated for by national policymakers. Expectations of what scaling up general practice in England will achieve are significant.

AIM

To review the evidence of the impact of new forms of large-scale general practice provider collaborations in England.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review.

METHOD

Embase, MEDLINE, Health Management Information Consortium, and Social Sciences Citation Index were searched for studies reporting the impact on clinical processes and outcomes, patient experience, workforce satisfaction, or costs of new forms of provider collaborations between general practices in England.

RESULTS

A total of 1782 publications were screened. Five studies met the inclusion criteria and four examined the same general practice networks, limiting generalisability. Substantial financial investment was required to establish the networks and the associated interventions that were targeted at four clinical areas. Quality improvements were achieved through standardised processes, incentives at network level, information technology-enabled performance dashboards, and local network management. The fifth study of a large-scale multisite general practice organisation showed that it may be better placed to implement safety and quality processes than conventional practices. However, unintended consequences may arise, such as perceptions of disenfranchisement among staff and reductions in continuity of care.

CONCLUSION

Good-quality evidence of the impacts of scaling up general practice provider organisations in England is scarce. As more general practice collaborations emerge, evaluation of their impacts will be important to understand which work, in which settings, how, and why.

Integrated care: learning between high-income, and low- and middle-income country health systems

Over the past decade, discussion of integrated care has become more widespread and prominent in both high- and low-income health care systems (LMICs). The trend reflects the mismatch between an increasing burden of chronic disease and local health care systems which are still largely focused on hospital-based treatment of individual clinical episodes and also the long-standing proliferation of vertical donor-funded disease-specific programmes in LMICs which have disrupted horizontal, or integrated, care. Integration is a challenging concept to define, in part because of its multiple dimensions and varied scope: from integrated clinical care for individual patients to broader systems integration-or linkage-involving a wide range of interconnected services (e.g. social services and health care). In this commentary, we compare integrated care in high- and lower-income countries. Although contexts may differ significantly between these settings, there are many common features of how integration has been understood and common challenges in its implementation. We discuss the different approaches to, scope of, and impacts of, integration including barriers and facilitators to the processes of implementation. With the burden of disease becoming more alike across settings, we consider what gains there could be from comparative learning between these settings which have constituted two separate strands of research until now.

Identification of factors that support successful implementation of care bundles in the acute medical setting: a qualitative study

Background

Clinical guidelines offer an accessible synthesis of the best evidence of effectiveness of interventions, providing recommendations and standards for clinical practice. Many guidelines are relevant to the diagnosis and management of the acutely unwell patient during the first 24–48 h of admission. Care bundles are comprised of a small number of evidence-based interventions that when implemented together aim to achieve better outcomes than when implemented individually. Care bundles that are explicitly developed from guidelines to provide a set of related evidence-based actions have been shown to improve the care of many conditions in emergency, acute and critical care settings. This study aimed to review the implementation of two distinct care bundles in the acute medical setting and identify the factors that supported successful implementation.

Methods

Two initiatives that had used a systematic approach to quality improvement to successfully implement care bundles within the acute medical setting were selected as case studies. Contemporaneous data generated during the initiatives included the review reports, review minutes and audio recordings of the review meetings at different time points. Data were subject to deductive analysis using three domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to identify factors that were important in the implementation of the care bundles.

Results

Several factors were identified that directly influenced the implementation of the care bundles. Firstly, the availability of resources to support initiatives, which included training to develop quality improvement skills within the team and building capacity within the organisation more generally. Secondly, the perceived sustainability of changes by stakeholders influenced the embedding new care processes into existing clinical systems, maximising their chance of being sustained. Thirdly, senior leadership support was seen as critical not just in supporting implementation but also in sustaining longer-term changes brought about by the initiative. Lastly, practitioner incentives were identified as potential levers to engage junior doctors, a crucial part of the acute medical work force and essential to the initiatives, as there is currently little recognition or reward for involvement

Conclusions

The factors identified have been shown to be supportive in the successful implementation of care bundles as a mechanism for implementing clinical guidelines. Addressing these factors at a practitioner and organisational level, alongside the use of a systematic quality improvement approach, should increase the likelihood that care bundles will be implemented successfully to deliver evidence based changes in the acute medical setting.