Computer-Assisted versus Oral-and-Written History Taking for the Prevention and Management of Cardiovascular Disease: a Systematic Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

CVD is an important global healthcare issue; it is the leading cause of global mortality, with an increasing incidence identified in both developed and developing countries. It is also an extremely costly disease for healthcare systems unless managed effectively. In this review we aimed to: - Assess the effect of computer-assisted versus oral-and-written history taking on the quality of collected information for the prevention and management of CVD. - Assess the effect of computer-assisted versus oral-and-written history taking on the prevention and management of CVD.

METHODS

A systematic review of randomised controlled trials that included participants of 16 years or older at the beginning of the study, who were at risk of CVD (prevention) or were either previously diagnosed with CVD (management). We searched all major databases. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration tool.

RESULTS

Two studies met the inclusion criteria. One comparing the two methods of history-taking for the prevention of cardiovascular disease n = 75. The study shows that generally the patients in the experimental group underwent more laboratory procedures, had more biomarker readings recorded and/or were given (or had reviewed), more dietary changes than the control group. The other study compares the two methods of history-taking for the management of cardiovascular disease (n = 479). The study showed that the computerized decision aid appears to increase the proportion of patients who responded to invitations to discuss CVD prevention with their doctor. The Computer- Assisted History Taking Systems (CAHTS) increased the proportion of patients who discussed CHD risk reduction with their doctor from 24% to 40% and increased the proportion who had a specific plan to reduce their risk from 24% to 37%.

DISCUSSION

With only one study meeting the inclusion criteria, for prevention of CVD and one study for management of CVD we did not gather sufficient evidence to address all of the objectives of the review. We were unable to report on most of the secondary patient outcomes in our protocol.

CONCLUSIONS

We tentatively conclude that CAHTS can provide individually-tailored information about CVD prevention. However, further primary studies are needed to confirm these findings. We cannot draw any conclusions in relation to any other clinical outcomes at this stage. There is a need to develop an evidence base to support the effective development and use of CAHTS in this area of practice. In the absence of evidence on effectiveness, the implementation of computer-assisted history taking may only rely on the clinicians' tacit knowledge, published monographs and viewpoint articles.

Cross-national mixed-methods comparative case study of recovery-focused mental health care planning and co-ordination in acute inpatient mental health settings (COCAPP-A)

Background

Mental health service users in acute inpatient wards, whether informal or detained, should be involved in planning and reviewing their care. Care planning processes should be personalised and focused on recovery, with goals that are specific to the individual and designed to maximise their achievements and social integration.

Objective(s)

We aimed to ascertain the views and experiences of service users, carers and staff to enable us to identify factors that facilitated or acted as barriers to collaborative, recovery-focused care and to make suggestions for future research.

Design

A cross-national comparative mixed-methods study involving 19 mental health wards in six NHS sites in England and Wales included a metanarrative synthesis of policies and literature; a survey of service users (n = 301) and staff (n = 290); embedded case studies involving interviews with staff, service users and carers (n = 76); and a review of care plans (n = 51) and meetings (n = 12).

Results

No global differences were found across the sites in the scores of the four questionnaires completed by service users. For staff, there was significant difference between sites in mean scores on recovery-orientation and therapeutic relationships. For service users, when recovery-orientated focus was high, the quality of care was viewed highly, as was the quality of therapeutic relationships. For staff, there was a moderate correlation between recovery orientation and quality of therapeutic relationships, with considerable variability. Across all sites, staff’s scores were significantly higher than service users’ scores on the scale to assess therapeutic relationships. Staff across the sites spoke of the importance of collaborative care planning. However, the staff, service user and carer interviews revealed gaps between shared aspirations and realities. Staff accounts of routine collaboration contrasted with service user accounts and care plan reviews. Definitions and understandings of recovery varied, as did views of the role of hospital care in promoting recovery. ‘Personalisation’ was not a familiar term, although there was recognition that care was often provided in an individualised way. Managing risk was a central issue for staff, and service users were aware of measures taken to keep them safe, although their involvement in discussions was less apparent.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that there is positive practice taking place within acute inpatient wards, with evidence of widespread commitment to safe, respectful, compassionate care. Although ideas of recovery were evident, there was some uncertainty about and discrepancy in the relevance of recovery ideals to inpatient care and the ability of people in acute distress to engage in recovery-focused approaches. Despite the fact that staff spoke of efforts to involve them, the majority of service users and carers did not feel that they had been genuinely involved, although they were aware of efforts to keep them safe.

Future work

Future research should investigate approaches that increase contact time with service users and promote personalised, recovery-focused working; introduce shared decision-making in risk assessment and management; and improve service user experiences of care planning and review and the use of recovery-focused tools during inpatient care.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Recovery-focused care planning and coordination in England and Wales: a cross-national mixed methods comparative case study

BACKGROUND

In the UK, concerns about safety and fragmented community mental health care led to the development of the care programme approach in England and care and treatment planning in Wales. These systems require service users to have a care coordinator, written care plan and regular reviews of their care. Processes are required to be collaborative, recovery-focused and personalised but have rarely been researched. We aimed to obtain the views and experiences of stakeholders involved in community mental health care and identify factors that facilitate or act as barriers to personalised, collaborative, recovery-focused care.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-national comparative study employing a concurrent transformative mixed-methods approach with embedded case studies across six service provider sites in England and Wales. The study included a survey of views on recovery, empowerment and therapeutic relationships in service users (n = 448) and recovery in care coordinators (n = 201); embedded case studies involving interviews with service providers, service users and carers (n = 117) and a review of care plans (n = 33). Quantitative and qualitative data were analysed within and across sites using inferential statistics, correlations and framework method.

RESULTS

Significant differences were found across sites for scores on therapeutic relationships. Variation within sites and participant groups was reported in experiences of care planning and understandings of recovery and personalisation. Care plans were described as administratively burdensome and were rarely consulted. Carers reported varying levels of involvement. Risk assessments were central to clinical concerns but were rarely discussed with service users. Service users valued therapeutic relationships with care coordinators and others, and saw these as central to recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

Administrative elements of care coordination reduce opportunities for recovery-focused and personalised work. There were few common understandings of recovery which may limit shared goals. Conversations on risk appeared to be neglected and assessments kept from service users. A reluctance to engage in dialogue about risk management may work against opportunities for positive risk-taking as part of recovery-focused work. Research to investigate innovative approaches to maximise staff contact time with service users and carers, shared decision-making in risk assessments, and training designed to enable personalised, recovery-focused care coordination is indicated.

Cross-national comparative mixed-methods case study of recovery-focused mental health care planning and co-ordination: Collaborative Care Planning Project (COCAPP)

Background

Concerns about fragmented community mental health care have led to the development of the care programme approach in England and care and treatment planning in Wales. These systems require those people receiving mental health services to have a care co-ordinator, a written care plan and regular reviews of their care. Care planning and co-ordination should be recovery-focused and personalised, with people taking more control over their own support and treatment.

Objective(s)

We aimed to obtain the views and experiences of various stakeholders involved in community mental health care; to identify factors that facilitated, or acted as barriers to, personalised, collaborative and recovery-focused care planning and co-ordination; and to make suggestions for future research.

Design

A cross-national comparative mixed-methods study involving six NHS sites in England and Wales, including a meta-narrative synthesis of relevant policies and literature; a survey of recovery, empowerment and therapeutic relationships in service users (n = 449) and recovery in care co-ordinators (n = 201); embedded case studies involving interviews with service providers, service users and carers (n = 117); and a review of care plans (n = 33).

Review methods

A meta-narrative mapping method.

Results

Quantitative and qualitative data were analysed within and across sites using inferential statistics, correlations and the framework method. Our study found significant differences for scores on therapeutic relationships related to positive collaboration and clinician input. We also found significant differences between sites on recovery scores for care co-ordinators related to diversity of treatment options and life goals. This suggests that perceptions relating to how recovery-focused care planning works in practice are variable across sites. Interviews found great variance in the experiences of care planning and the understanding of recovery and personalisation within and across sites, with some differences between England and Wales. Care plans were seen as largely irrelevant by service users, who rarely consulted them. Care co-ordinators saw them as both useful records and also an inflexible administrative burden that restricted time with service users. Service users valued their relationships with care co-ordinators and saw this as being central to their recovery. Carers reported varying levels of involvement in care planning. Risk was a significant concern for workers but this appeared to be rarely discussed with service users, who were often unaware of the content of risk assessments.

Limitations

Limitations include a relatively low response rate of between 9% and 19% for the survey and a moderate level of missing data on one measure. For the interviews, there may have been an element of self-selection or inherent biases that were not immediately apparent to the researchers.

Conclusions

The administrative elements of care co-ordination reduce opportunities for recovery-focused and personalised work. There were few shared understandings of recovery, which may limit shared goals. Conversations on risk appeared to be neglected and assessments kept from service users. A reluctance to engage in dialogue about risk management may work against opportunities for positive risk-taking as part of recovery-focused work.

Future work

Research should be commissioned to investigate innovative approaches to maximising staff contact time with service users and carers; enabling shared decision-making in risk assessments; and promoting training designed to enable personalised, recovery-focused care co-ordination.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Study protocol: cross-national comparative case study of recovery-focused mental health care planning and coordination (COCAPP)

BACKGROUND

The collaborative care planning study (COCAPP) is a cross-national comparative study of care planning and coordination in community mental healthcare settings. The context and delivery of mental health care is diverging between the countries of England and Wales whilst retaining points of common interest, hence providing a rich geographical comparison for research. Across England the key vehicle for the provision of recovery-focused, personalised, collaborative mental health care is the care programme approach (CPA). The CPA is a form of case management introduced in England in 1991, then revised in 2008. In Wales the CPA was introduced in 2003 but has now been superseded by The Mental Health (Care Co-ordination and Care and Treatment Planning) (CTP) Regulations (Mental Health Measure), a new statutory framework. In both countries, the CPA/CTP requires providers to: comprehensively assess health/social care needs and risks; develop a written care plan (which may incorporate risk assessments, crisis and contingency plans, advanced directives, relapse prevention plans, etc.) in collaboration with the service user and carer(s); allocate a care coordinator; and regularly review care. The overarching aim of this study is to identify and describe the factors that ensure CPA/CTP care planning and coordination is personalised, recovery-focused and conducted collaboratively.

METHODS/DESIGN

COCAPP will employ a concurrent transformative mixed methods approach with embedded case studies. Phase 1 (Macro-level) will consider the national context through a meta-narrative mapping (MNM) review of national policies and the relevant research literature. Phase 2 (Meso-level and Micro-level) will include in-depth micro-level case studies of everyday 'frontline' practice and experience with detailed qualitative data from interviews and reviews of individual care plans. This will be nested within larger meso-level survey datasets, senior-level interviews and policy reviews in order to provide potential explanations and understanding.

DISCUSSION

COCAPP will help identify the key components that support and hinder the provision of personalised, recovery-focused care planning and provide an informed rationale for a future planned intervention and evaluation.