Between "the best way to deliver patient care" and "chaos and low clinical value": General Practitioners' and Practice Managers' views on data sharing

Views of general practice staff on sharing general practice data for research: a scoping review protocol

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this scoping review is to understand the range and types of evidence in relation to the views of general practitioner and other general practice staff on sharing general practice data for research purposes.

INTRODUCTION

The use of general practice data for research has the potential to drive transformative improvements in health care. The vast amount of patient data collected in general practice is valuable and provides researchers with data to conduct large-scale studies and generate evidence that can inform policy decisions, support the development of personalized medicine, and enhance patient outcomes. However, despite there being clear benefits to using general practice data for research, there are also potential harms, such as data misuse, loss of trust between the general practitioner and patient, and data breaches.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

This scoping review will focus on the views of general practice staff, including general practitioners, practice nurses, and practice managers, about sharing general practice data for the purposes of research. This scoping review will exclude sources of evidence that are conducted outside of the general practice setting, and papers that report on public, patient, or community views on data sharing.

METHODS

This scoping review will be conducted in accordance with JBI methodology for scoping reviews. A 3-step search strategy will be used to acquire both published and unpublished sources of evidence. Two independent reviewers will select sources of evidence in line with the inclusion and exclusion criteria. No limits on the date of the search or language will be applied. Data will be extracted and the results will be summarized descriptively and presented in a tabular format.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework https://osf.io/49yw5.

From "wading through treacle" to "making haste slowly": A comprehensive yet parsimonious model of drivers and challenges to implementing patient data sharing projects based on an EPaCCS evaluation and four pre-existing literature reviews

Conceptually, this study aimed to 1) identify the challenges and drivers encountered by England's Electronic Palliative Care Coordination System (EPaCCS) projects in the context of challenges and drivers in other projects on data sharing for individual care (also referred to as Health Information Exchange, HIE) and 2) organise them in a comprehensive yet parsimonious framework. The study also had a strong applied goal: to derive specific and non-trivial recommendations for advancing data sharing projects, particularly ones in early stages of development and implementation. Primary data comprised 40 in-depth interviews with 44 healthcare professionals, patients, carers, project team members and decision makers in Cambridgeshire, UK. Secondary data were extracted from four pre-existing literature reviews on Health Information Exchange and Health Information Technology implementation covering 135 studies. Thematic and framework analysis underpinned by "pluralist" coding were the main analytical approaches used. We reduced an initial set of >1,800 parameters into >500 challenges and >300 drivers to implementing EPaCCS and other data sharing projects. Less than a quarter of the 800+ parameters were associated primarily with the IT solution. These challenges and drivers were further condensed into an action-guiding, strategy-informing framework of nine types of "pure challenges", four types of "pure drivers", and nine types of "oppositional or ambivalent forces". The pure challenges draw parallels between patient data sharing and other broad and complex domains of sociotechnical or social practice. The pure drivers differ in how internal or external to the IT solution and project team they are, and thus in the level of control a project team has over them. The oppositional forces comprise pairs of challenges and drivers where the driver is a factor serving to resolve or counteract the challenge. The ambivalent forces are factors perceived simultaneously as a challenge and a driver depending on context, goals and perspective. The framework is distinctive in its emphasis on: 1) the form of challenges and drivers; 2) ambivalence, ambiguity and persistent tensions as fundamental forces in the field of innovation implementation; and 3) the parallels it draws with a variety of non-IT, non-health domains of practice as a source of fruitful learning. Teams working on data sharing projects need to prioritise further the shaping of social interactions and structural and contextual parameters in the midst of which their IT tools are implemented. The high number of "ambivalent forces" speaks of the vital importance for data sharing projects of skills in eliciting stakeholders' assumptions; managing conflict; and navigating multiple needs, interests and worldviews.

Reporting on patient and public involvement (PPI) in research publications: using the GRIPP2 checklists with lay co-researchers

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in health and social care research is considered important internationally, with increasing evidence that PPI improves the quality, relevance and outcomes of research. There has been a growth in research publications that describe PPI in the research process, but the frequency and detail of PPI reporting varies considerably. This paper reports on a collaborative study that aimed to describe the extent of PPI in publications from research funded by the Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) in the East of England (EoE), part of the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) in England (2014-2019).

METHODS

A descriptive study of all research publications (1st January 2014 to 31st October 2017) funded by the NIHR CLAHRC EoE. Members of the Public Involvement in Research group (PIRg), at the University of Hertfordshire, were actively involved, with four PIRg co-researchers. We used an internationally recognised reporting checklist for PPI called the GRIPP2 (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public, Version 2) to guide the reviewing process.

RESULTS

Out of 148 research papers identified, 16 (14%) reported some aspect of PPI activity and were included for review. Ten of the publications (63%) acknowledged the contributions of PPI individuals and/or groups and five had PPI co-authors. There was considerable variation in the PPI reported in the publications, with some 'missed opportunities' to provide detail of PPI undertaken. The perspectives of the co-researchers shaped the reporting of the results from this study. The co-researchers found the GRIPP2-SF (short form) to be useful, but the GRIPP2-LF (long form) was considered over complicated and not user-friendly.

CONCLUSIONS

This is one of the first studies to involve lay co-researchers in the review of PPI reporting using the GRIPP2 reporting checklists (GRIPP2-SF and GRIPP2-LF). We make recommendations for a revised version of the GRIPP2-SF, with clearer instructions and three additional sections to record whether PPI is reported in the abstract or key words, in the acknowledgements section, and whether there are PPI co-authors. We also recommend the provision of training and support for patient and public peer reviewers.

Sharing health data among general practitioners: The Nu.Sa. project

Today, e-health has entered the everyday work flow in the form of a variety of healthcare providers. General practitioners (GPs) are the largest category in the public sanitary service, with about 60,000 GPs throughout Italy. Here, we present the Nu.Sa. project, operating in Italy, which has established one of the first GP healthcare information systems based on heterogeneous data sources. This system connects all providers and provides full access to clinical and health-related data. This goal is achieved through a novel technological infrastructure for data sharing based on interoperability specifications recognised at the national level for messages transmitted from GP providers to the central domain. All data standards are publicly available and subjected to continuous improvement. Currently, the system manages more than 5,000 GPs with about 5,500,000 patients in total, with 4,700,000 pharmacological e-prescriptions and 1,700,000 e-prescriptions for laboratory exams per month. Hence, the Nu.Sa. healthcare system that has the capacity to gather standardised data from 16 different form of GP software, connecting patients, GPs, healthcare organisations, and healthcare professionals across a large and heterogeneous territory through the implementation of data standards with a strong focus on cybersecurity. Results show that the application of this scenario at a national level, with novel metrics on the architecture's scalability and the software's usability, affect the sanitary system and on GPs' professional activities.

Research approvals iceberg: how a 'low-key' study in England needed 89 professionals to approve it and how we can do better

BACKGROUND

The red tape and delays around research ethics and governance approvals frequently frustrate researchers yet, as the lesser of two evils, are largely accepted as unavoidable. Here we quantify aspects of the research ethics and governance approvals for one interview- and questionnaire-based study conducted in England which used the National Health Service (NHS) procedures and the electronic Integrated Research Application System (IRAS). We demonstrate the enormous impact of existing approvals processes on costs of studies, including opportunity costs to focus on the substantive research, and suggest directions for radical system change.

MAIN TEXT

We have recorded 491 exchanges with 89 individuals involved in research ethics and governance approvals, generating 193 pages of email text excluding attachments. These are conservative estimates (e.g. only records of the research associate were used). The exchanges were conducted outside IRAS, expected to be the platform where all necessary documents are provided and questions addressed. Importantly, the figures exclude the actual work of preparing the ethics documentation (such as the ethics application, information sheets and consent forms). We propose six areas of work to enable system change: 1. Support the development of a broad range of customised research ethics and governance templates to complement generic, typically clinical trials orientated, ones; 2. Develop more sophisticated and flexible frameworks for study classification; 3. Link with associated processes for assessment, feedback, monitoring and reporting, such as ones involving funders and patient and public involvement groups; 4. Invest in a new generation IT infrastructure; 5. Enhance system capacity through increasing online reviewer participation and training; and 6. Encourage researchers to quantify the approvals processes for their studies.

CONCLUSION

Ethics and governance approvals are burdensome for historical reasons and not because of the nature of the task. There are many opportunities to improve their efficiency and analytic depth in an age of innovation, increased connectivity and distributed working. If we continue to work under current systems, we are perpetuating, paradoxically, an unethical system of research approvals by virtue of its wastefulness and impoverished ethical debate.

Patients' and carers' perspectives of palliative care in general practice: A systematic review with narrative synthesis

BACKGROUND

General practitioners have overall responsibility for community care, including towards end of life. Current policy places generalists at the centre of palliative care provision. However, little is known about how patients and carers understand the general practitioner's role.

AIMS

To explore patient and carer perspectives of (1) the role of the general practitioner in providing palliative care to adult patients and (2) the facilitators and barriers to the general practitioner's capacity to fulfil this perceived role.

DESIGN

Systematic literature review and narrative synthesis.

DATA SOURCES

Seven electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, BNI, CINAHL, Cochrane and HMIC) were searched from inception to May 2017. Two reviewers independently screened papers at title, abstract and full-text stages. Grey literature, guideline, hand searches of five journals and reference list/citation searches of included papers were undertaken. Data were extracted, tabulated and synthesised using narrative, thematic analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 25 studies were included: 14 employed qualitative methods, 8 quantitative survey methods and 3 mixed-methods. Five key themes were identified: continuity of care, communication between primary and secondary care, contact and accessibility, communication between general practitioner and patient, and knowledge and competence.

CONCLUSION

Although the terminology and context of general practice vary internationally, themes relating to the perceived role of general practitioners were consistent. General practitioners are considered well placed to provide palliative care due to their breadth of clinical responsibility, ongoing relationships with patients and families, and duty to visit patients at home and coordinate healthcare resources. These factors, valued by service users, should influence future practice and policy development.