‘Jury is still out’ on success of GP Forward View admits NHS England

Adobe Spark (3)The Director of Primary Care for NHS England, has admitted ‘the jury is still out’ on whether the GP Forward View is working. Speaking at the Health and Care Innovations Expo in Manchester, Dr Arvind Madan outlined progress on the 5-year strategy that aims to stabilise general practice and transform it for the future.

The plan, launched in April 2016, has pledged to increase funding in general practice by £2.4 billion per year and introduce 5,000 extra GPs by 2021. Additionally it seeks to reduce pressure on GPs through a new practice resilience programme.

‘We are in our teenage years and this is where we find out what the character of the programme can ultimately be,’ said Madan. He highlighted early indications suggesting a 5% increase in the number of GPs in training since last year and that they were half way through the 5000 target of other professionals working in primary care.

Madan also highlighted the role of nurses in delivering the GP Forward View: ‘Nursing teams are a vital component of the general practice workforce,’ he said. ‘They provide care and treatment across the life course and increasingly work in partnership with GPs to manage overall demand in practices and treat patients with complex conditions.’

Speaking to Independent Nurse, Dr Crystal Oldman, Chief Executive of the Queen’s Nursing Institute, said there has been some progress following the implementation of the GP Forward Practice View, particularly the introduction of the 10-point action plan to develop the role of general practice nurses.

However, she felt less positive about increases in the numbers of nurses, which she said are ‘not even close’ to what is needed. Additionally, she said she is ‘confident’ there has been no change in the reduction of workload pressures for nurses. According to Oldman, the gap is in the engagement with the nurses themselves:

‘Because they work for individual businesses they are not engaged with the wider movement of general practice nursing,’ she said.

‘I think there is increased hope, and this may mean nurses will stick around in general practices in the hope that this plan is going to make a difference to workforce pressures general practice.’

The importance of nurses to meeting the demands faced by general practice was also emphasised at the same event by Professor Jane Cummings, Chief Nursing Officer for England, who described practice nurses as ‘central to our plan to ensure the NHS is fit for the future’.

Taken from Independent Nurse, published 15 September 2017.

Advertisements

More advanced paramedics needed if A&E pressure is to be eased

Adobe Spark (1)The NHS must introduce more advanced paramedics if emergency departments are to meet growing patient demand. The NHS is reaching a crisis point—annual rises in emergency admissions and insufficient resources mean patients aren’t receiving the necessary levels of care. Traditionally, care provided by paramedics has focused on the immediate assessment and management of potentially life-threatening emergencies. This is then followed by transfer to an appropriate receiving unit. However, increasingly, evidence suggests that patients who present to ambulance services with lower acuity presentations could alleviate the need for hospital admission by undergoing assessment and management in the community.

This is highlighted in new draft guidance published by NICE (2017), which should fall on welcome ears to ambulance services. It recommends that the NHS provides more advanced paramedic practitioners (APPs), who have extended training in assessing and treating people with medical emergencies, to relieve pressure on emergency departments.

Evaluating the evidence

In order to make these recommendations, the guideline committee investigated whether enhancing the competencies of paramedics resulted in a reduction in hospital admissions and demand for emergency department services. When considering clinical evidence, three studies were included in the review. Two studies, which came from the same cluster-randomised controlled trial, looked at a paramedic practitioner service in the UK, which gave enhanced training to paramedics.

The first study comprised 3018 people and evaluated the benefits of paramedic practitioners who have been trained with extended skills to assess, treat, and discharge older patients with minor acute conditions in the community (Mason et al. 2007). The evidence suggested that enhanced competencies of paramedics may provide benefit for reducing the number of hospital admissions (0–28 days), emergency department attendance (0–28 days), and patient and/or carer satisfaction. There was no effect on mortality.

The second study comprised 2025 people and evaluated the safety of clinical decisions made by paramedic practitioners of older patients contacting the emergency medical services with a minor injury or illness (Mason et al. 2008). Of the 3018 patients recruited into the randomised-controlled trial, 993 were admitted to the hospital at the index episode, which explains why they were excluded from the analysis in this study. The evidence suggested that there was no effect of paramedics’ enhanced competencies on unplanned emergency department attendance.

The final study was a non-randomised (quasi-experimental) study of emergency care practitioners who worked as single responders to ambulance service 999 calls, compared with standard paramedic or technician ambulance responding to ambulance service 999 calls. The study comprised 1107 people and aimed to evaluate the impact of emergency care practitioners on patient pathways and care indifferent emergency care settings.
(Mason et al. 2012). The evidence suggested that enhanced competencies of paramedics may provide a benefit from reduced numbers of patients referred to hospital (emergency department or direct admission to a hospital ward), and increased number referred to primary care.

Additionally, one cost-utility analysis was assessed to consider the economic implications of providing additional advanced paramedics within ambulance services, and found that the paramedic practitioner scheme was cost-effective compared with the standard 999 service (Dixon et al. 2009). This study was assessed as partially applicable with minor limitations.

Points for concern

There are a number of considerations when looking at the evidence in question that could be cause for concern. While evidence exists, it is minimal, with only one
randomised-controlled trial and one non-randomised study evaluated by NICE. Though results from the studies are positive, it would be difficult to generalise them beyond the services assessed. Additionally, the quality of evidence is generally of a low GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations). The randomised-controlled trial evidence has a moderate-to-low GRADE rating overall, mainly owing to risk of bias and imprecision (NICE 2017). The non-randomised study, although it had large effect sizes, has a very low GRADE rating as a result of high risk of bias and indirectness of the outcomes to the protocol (NICE 2017). The economic evidence was considered high-quality but only partially applicable because the costs were quite dated. Some social care costs were also included, which means that the perspective is not strictly NHS and personal social services (NICE 2017).

There are notable concerns over the definition of an APP, as there is a national lack of consensus over paramedic roles and scope of practice. This was a contributing factor to why independent prescribing by APPs was not recommended by the CHM and MHRA (Allied Health Professions Medicines Project Team 2016).

The need for unanimity across all ambulance services is a concern the College of Paramedics emphasised inits response to the guidance:

‘There has previously been insufficient attention given to career development and career opportunities and there is currently significant variation across the ambulance services in the definitions, titles, education, and training of specialist and advanced paramedics. To ensure consistency of education, training and qualification, the UK ambulance services would need to adopt the frameworks developed by the College of Paramedics, which provide detailed guidance on education, competencies, and career development’ (College of Paramedics 2017).

The College of Paramedics has a clear definition of the APP role in terms of competencies and education:

‘Advanced paramedics are experienced autonomous paramedics who have undertaken further study and skill acquisition to enable them to be able to deliver a more appropriate level of assessment and indeed care to patients in the community and access many more referral pathways.’

It is essential that this becomes the accepted definition across the NHS, and the private health sector. This will ensure that all advanced paramedics are clinically competent and that patient safety is not at risk. More advanced paramedic practitioners with extended training could alleviate current pressures on A&E services.

From guidance to practice

Consulting on the guidance closed on 14 August, with an expected publication of 20 December. If the guidance is to be put into practice, the most important step is to introduce additional funding for NHS ambulance services to educate their clinicians through advanced practice programmes. NHS England and clinical commissioning groups would then have to provide funding to deliver specialist and advanced paramedics as part of the core workforce. Additionally, regulation is essential to ensure clinical competency and patient safety.

There is no denying that acute and emergency care is a challenge for all health services. This is largely owing to the fact that as populations age, costs rise, and technological developments extend the limits of health care. However, providing acute and medical care in the community can reduce the need for hospital admissions.

The introduction of more advanced paramedics will meet the increasing and changing needs of patients who access 999 emergency ambulance services. Having a higher proportion of emergency patients assessed and treated in the community will cause a reduction in the number of attendances at emergency departments.

References

Allied Health Professions Medicines Project Team. 2016. Summary of the responses to the public consultation on proposals to introduce independent prescribing by paramedics across the United Kingdom. Leeds: NHS England.

College of Paramedics. 2017. College of Paramedics respond to NICE Consultation [Internet]. Bridgwater: College of Paramedics; [cited 2017 29 August]. Available from https://www.collegeofparamedics.co.uk/news/college-of-paramedics-responds-tonice-consultation.

Dixon S, Mason S, Knowles E. 2009. Is it cost effective to introduce paramedic practitioners for older people to the ambulance service? Results of a cluster randomised controlled trial. Emerg Med J. 26(6):446-51. http://doi.org/ 10.1136/emj.2008.061424.

Mason S, Knowles E, Colwell B et al. 2007. Effectiveness of paramedic practitioners in attending 999 calls from elderly people in the community: cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 335(7626):919. http://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39343.649097.55

Mason S, Knowles E, Freeman J, Snooks H. 2008. Safety of paramedics with extended skills. Acad Emerg Med. 15(7):607–12. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2008.00156.x.

Mason S, O’Keeffe C, Knowles E. 2012. A pragmatic quasi-experimental multi-site community intervention trial evaluating the impact of Emergency Care Practitioners in different UK health settings on patient pathways (NEECaP Trial). Emerg MedJ. 29(1):47-53. http://doi.org/10.1136/emj.2010.103572.

National Institute for Health and CareExcellence. 2017. Emergency and acute medical care in over 16s: service delivery and organisation: Draft guidance consultation [GID-CGWAVE0734] [Internet]. London: NICE; [cited 2017 29 August]. Available from https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/indevelopment/gid-cgwave0734/consultation/html-content.

Taken from Journal of Paramedic Practice, published 8 September 2017.

MIMO 2016 Review

Adobe SparkRunning since 2004, MIMO (Mostra Internacional de Música de Olinda) is a free festival of music, film and education held in the Brazilian cities of Ouro Preto, Tiradentes, Paraty, Olinda and Rio de Janeiro. While originally celebrating music made in Brazil, in more recent years it has branched out to feature an international lineup. For the 2016 edition in Rio de Janeiro, mornings and early afternoons provided audiences with workshops on topics from Cúmbia to singing in West African music, while evenings saw artists play to thousands in the city’s public parks.

On Saturday, Brazilian singer-guitarist João Bosco was joined by bandolimist Hamilton de Holanda for their project ‘Eu vou pro samba’, a modern revival of samba classics. New arrangements of tracks by artists such as Dorival Cayma, Tom Jobim and Ary Barroso, highlighted de Holanda’s skill as a musician, while the familiarity allowed the home crowd to join in, singing and taking to Praça Paris fountain to dance barefoot.

The highlight of the weekend came in the form of Pat Thomas and Kwashibu Area Band. Arriving on stage all in white, the Ghanian musician played an energetic set of highlife and afrobeat music that saw the crowd rarely standing still. As the rain began to pour, the revellers continued undeterred, the rhythmic bongos and punchy brass of the band creating a party atmosphere. Returning for an encore to cheers from the appreciative audience, Pat Thomas justified his name as the Golden Voice of Africa.

Taken from the January/February issue of Songlines.

Adverse effects of slimming drug orlistat were underreported

Adobe Spark (5)A new study comparing the protocols, clinical study reports (CSRs) and published papers on anti-obesity drug orlistat, has revealed a disparity in how adverse events were summarised and reported (Schroll et al, 2016).

Orlistat, which is manufactured by pharmaceutical company Roche, was approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in 1998 but, along with other slimming drugs, has since encountered regulatory barriers. Nearly all slimming pills (but not orlistat) have been withdrawn from European markets because of harms.

Researchers at the Nordic Cochrane Centre in Copenhagen used a Freedom of Information Act request to the EMA to acquire the CSRs, which describe the results of studies conducted as part of the application for marketing authorisation of the drug.

Seven randomised placebo controlled orlistat trials were included in the application for marketing authorisation for the drug, and involved a total of 4,225 participants. Adverse events outlined in the CSRs were then compared by the researchers to each corresponding published trial paper identified on PubMed.

It was revealed that due to post hoc filters, only 3–33% of the total number of investigator-reported adverse events from the trials were outlined in the publications, though six of seven papers stated that ‘all adverse events were recorded.’

The investigators noted that none of the protocols to investigators for reporting harms or CSRs contained instructions for investigators on how to question participants about adverse events. In CSRs, gastrointestinal adverse events were only coded if the participant reported that they were ‘bothersome,’ a condition that was not specified in the protocol for two of the trials. Events falling under the bracket of bothersome included ‘fatty/oily stool,’ ‘liquid stools’ (which term the protocol suggested to be used instead of diarrhoea), ‘increased defaecation,’ ‘stools soft,’ ‘decreased defaecation,’ and ‘pellets.’ Results sections in the core reports of the CSRs often stated that most of the adverse events were considered unrelated to the drug and that they were generally mild to moderate. The many gastrointestinal adverse events were explained as part of the pharmacological effect of orlistat. The researchers suggested that since gastrointestinal complaints are normal in healthy people, this type of censoring might have made it more difficult to detect gastrointestinal adverse events caused by orlistat.

Additionally, serious adverse events were assessed by the researchers for relationship to the drug by the sponsor, and all adverse events were coded by the sponsor using a glossary that could be updated by the sponsor. The criteria for withdrawal due to adverse events were in one case related to efficacy (high fasting glucose led to withdrawal), which meant that one trial had more withdrawals due to adverse events in the placebo group.

The researchers also revealed that in one trial, both the number of adverse effects and the number of days with adverse effects in participants taking the drug were understated in the corresponding publication. While 1,318 adverse events were not listed or mentioned in the CSR itself, the researchers were able to identify them through manually counting individual adverse events reported in an appendix.

Overall, the analysis revealed that participants treated with orlistat had experienced almost twice as many days with adverse events as those treated with placebo (22.7 days versus 14.9 days). Additionally, it was noted that the adverse events that occurred in the orlistat group were more severe compared with the placebo group. However, none of this information was stated in the CSR or the corresponding published paper.

A statement issued by Roche said: ‘Since the 1990s, technology for analysing data has changed and society’s desire and expectations for access has increased and so our practices have evolved.

‘We understand and support calls for the pharmaceutical industry to be transparent about clinical trial results, this is why we expanded our policy in 2013 to better share data from clinical trials across Roche medicines.

‘Roche are now at the forefront of the data sharing movement and now release all clinical study reports, periodic safety reports and summary reports of clinical data for all licensed, terminated or discontinued medicines.’

Based on the characteristics of harms observed and reported in these trials, the researchers at the Nordic Cochrane Centre suggested that reports of harms include duration of adverse effects. They also suggested that systematic reviews of drugs might be improved by including protocols and CSRs in addition to published articles.

They highlight how even though publication bias is well covered in the medical literature, few studies have analysed clinical study reports. They argue that in the future this could be a very important source of information. Other studies have found that only a fraction of adverse events were reported in published papers compared to the CSRs. For example, a study carried out by the German government’s Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care looked at the CSRs for treatments assessed over a 5-year period and found that CSRs contained more information on adverse events and treatment effects than was published in trial reports and journal articles (Wieseler et al, 2013).

As mentioned by Schroll et al (2016), their research emphasises the ‘need for detailed analysis plans for harms data.’

References:

Schroll JB, Penninga EI, Gøtzsche PC (2016) Assessment of Adverse Events in Protocols, Clinical Study Reports, and Published Papers of Trials of Orlistat: A Document Analysis. PLoS Med 13(8): e1002101. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002101

Wieseler B, Wolfram N, McGauran N et al (2013) Completeness of reporting of patient-relevant clinical trial outcomes: comparison of unpublished clinical study reports with publicly available data. PLoS Med 10(10): e1001526. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001526

Taken from Nurse Prescribing, published 13 October 2016.

Demand on district nursing services leaving staff ‘on their knees,’ says King’s Fund

Adobe Spark (4)A growing gap between capacity and demand in district nursing services has led to staff feeling ‘broken’, ‘exhausted’ and ‘on their knees’, the King’s Fund has said.

A new report (Maybin et al, 2016) published by the think tank has examined the care for older people who receive district nursing services in their own homes. It considered what good-quality care looks like from the perspective of people receiving care, their carers and district nursing staff. This was done by conducting a review of existing policy and research literature, having scoping conversations with national stakeholders, conducting focus groups with senior district nursing staff, and carrying out interviews with patients, carers and staff in three case study sites.

By seeing how patients’ preconceptions of good-quality compared with their actual experiences, the think tank sought to establish what factors support ‘good care’, and figure out what is getting in the way.

Their research indicated that activity has increased significantly over recent years. This applies both to the number of patients seen and the complexity of care provided. From 2005–2014 the number of people living in England has increased by almost 20%, with the most substantial growth seen in the oldest age groups. Additionally, the population aged 85 years and above has increased by just under a third.

It is anticipated that that is set to increase, with the number of people aged 65 years and over expected to rise by almost a half and those aged 85 years and over set to almost double (Mortimer and Green, 2015; Office for National Statistics, 2015). With this increase in age, the likelihood this population will live with chronic disease, multiple health conditions, disability and frailty also rises (Health and Social Care Information Centre, 2014; Oliver et al, 2014).

While demand for services has been increasing, available data on the healthcare workforce suggests a decline in the number of nurses working in community health services over recent years. Additionally, the number working in senior ‘district nurse’ posts has fallen dramatically over a sustained period.

Compromise in quality of care

The result of these pressures is that quality of care is being compromised. Examples highlighted in the report indicate an increasingly task-focused approach to care, staff being rushed and abrupt with patients, reductions in preventive care, visits being postponed and lack of continuity of care. This in turn has caused a deeply negative impact on staff wellbeing, with unmanageable caseloads being increasingly reported. In many cases, staff are leaving the service as a result. Additionally, the King’s Fund has argued that if the ability of district nursing services to deliver appropriate care continues to be undermined, there will be consequences in terms of additional hospital admissions, delayed discharges and dependence on social care.

The King’s Fund have warned that those most likely to be affected by the pressure faced by district nursing staff are often the most vulnerable members of society, who will therefore most likely be affected by cuts in social care and voluntary sectors. They warn that what is more concerning is that this is happening ‘behind closed doors in people’s homes, creating a real danger that serious failures in care could go undetected because they are invisible’ (Maybin et al, 2016).

Recommendations outlined in report

As a result of the issues identified in the report, the King’s Fund have issued the following recommendations as immediate priorities:

Match the stated intention to move care into community settings with greater attention to this service area. Despite intentions by policy makers and regulators to deliver ‘care closer to home’, the direction of resources, monitoring and oversight remains distinctly focused on the hospital sector. The report therefore recommends that community services must be involved in, and central to, the development of new care models and Sustainability and Transformation Plans.

Involve district nursing service leaders in local plans for service redesign. Too often the voice of district nursing service leaders is absent at the system level. The report highlights the valuable role of district nursing and how it is of central importance to the wider health system. The service enhances the health and wellbeing of people living in their own homes, often caring for people with complex and multiple health needs, and helps prevent deteriorations in health and the need for additional services. Therefore now, more than ever, this important but pressured service needs to be part of discussions about future service redesign.

Respond to the issues facing community health and care services, and the needs of people who depend on these, in the round. To address the wide-reaching problems faced by all services, not just district nursing, the report recommends NHS England and Health Education England, together with local commissioners and providers, look in the round at the staffing and resourcing of community health and care services for the older population, taking into account the capacity of people receiving care, their unpaid carers and local communities.

Renew efforts to establish robust national data on capacity and demand in district nursing services. This would include establishing a standard for demand–capacity and workload planning tools in this area, as is currently being undertaken by The Queen’s Nursing Institute and NHS Improvement. The report highlights that the absence of robust national data on activity levels in district nursing services and of a clear dataset on trends in staffing numbers, makes it very difficult to demonstrate, understand and monitor the demand–capacity gap within this service area.

Accelerate the uptake of digital technologies and support implementation. The report argues that adopting new technologies should remain high on the agenda of providers and local service leaders as a strategic area for development, as district nursing stands to benefit significantly from enhanced digital support, if it is designed and works well. Technologies that enable remote working, such as iPads and other tablets, have the potential to improve efficiency and productivity, as well as enhancing quality and safety through timely access to notes at the point of care and supporting communication between professionals.

Develop a meaningful form of oversight for care delivered in people’s own homes, which is sensitive to the unique characteristics of this care. The report stresses the need for national oversight systems to be developed in order for their frameworks to meaningfully capture and reflect care quality. Current national mechanisms of quality assurance and accountability, which are largely designed to assess hospital care, are poorly suited to measuring quality in the community.

Develop a sustainable district nursing workforce. Undoubtedly the most important recommendation, the King’s Fund warns the shortage of suitably trained staff to fill roles in district nursing services is a major cause for concern. Services are increasingly unable to recruit and retain staff. With many of the current district nursing workforce approach retirement age, and others choose to leave due to service pressures, it is understood that this situation will likely worsen.

Conclusions

District nursing services have a key role to play in the national health system, allowing patients to be treated in their own homes and avoid unnecessary hospital admissions. They allow patients to maintain their independence, maintain long-term conditions and manage acute conditions. However, this is only possible through a sustainable workforce. Insufficient staff numbers place unmanageable pressures on the existing workforce as well as other areas of the health service. This report highlights a dissonance between the policy drive to move more care out of hospitals into community settings, and the capacity problems being experienced in district nursing services. It presents a number of recommendations for addressing these issues and calls for the need to develop a robust framework for assessing and assuring the quality of care in the community.

References:

Health and Social Care Information Centre (2014) Focus on the health and care of older people. NHS Digital, Leeds. http://digital.nhs.uk/catalogue/PUB14369 (accessed 23 September 2016)

Maybin J, Charles A, Honeyman M (2016) Understanding Quality in District Nursing Services. The King’s Fund, London. http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/quality-district-nursing (accessed 22 September 2016)

Mortimer J, Green M (2015) Briefing: The Health and Care of Older People in England 2015. Age UK, London. http://www.ageuk.org.uk/professional-resources-home/research/reports/care-and-support/the-health-and-care-of-older-people-in-england-2015/ (accessed 22 September 2016)

Office for National Statistics (2015) Population estimates for UK, England and Wales, Northern Ireland: Mid-2014. Office for National Statistics, Newport. http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/annualmidyearpopulationestimates/2015-06-25 (accessed 22 September 2016)

Oliver D, Foot C, Humphries R (2014) Making our health and care systems fit for an ageing population. The King’s Fund, London. http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/making-ourhealth-and-care-systems-fit-ageing-population (accessed 23 September 2016)

Taken from British Journal of Community Nursing, published 3 October 2016.

Do advanced paramedics have a role as independent prescribers?

adobe-spark-3The journey regarding the proposal to introduce independent prescribing by advanced paramedic practitioners has been one focused on patient safety and a strong case for need. The challenge for the profession has been to ensure it’s positioned to respond to any concerns, and that any changes to the law allowing prescribing are made on the basis that patients will benefit.

Ministerial approval to take the proposal forward to the public consultation phase was granted by NHS England on 15 August 2014. The NHS England Allied Health Professions Medicines Project Team, in partnership with the College of Paramedics, developed a case of need for the proposal based on improving quality of care for patients. These improvements related to safety, clinical outcomes and experience, as well as the efficiency of service delivery, and value for money. Approval of the case of need was received from NHS England’s medical and nursing senior management teams in May 2014, and from the Department of Health non-medical prescribing board in July 2014.

Alongside the paramedic proposal, NHS England consulted on proposals to allow three other allied health professions to be able to prescribe or supply and administer medicines, as appropriate for their patients. These proposals were for independent prescribing by radiographers; supplementary prescribing by dietitians; and the use of exemptions within the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 by orthoptists.

At the time, Suzanne Rastrick, Chief Allied Health Professions Officer at NHS England, said:

‘Our proposals will allow patients to get the medicines they need without delay, instead of having to make separate appointments to see their doctor or GP.

‘Breaking down barriers in how care is provided between different parts of the NHS is key to the vision set out in the NHS Five Year Forward View.

‘Extension of prescribing and supply mechanisms for these four professions creates a more flexible workforce, able to innovate to provide services that are more responsive to the needs of patients, and reduce demand in other parts of the healthcare system.’

The public consultation opened on 26 February 2015 and ran for 12 weeks. As well as consulting on proposals for advanced paramedics to become independent prescribers of medicines across the UK, it also proposed that consideration be given to paramedic independent prescribers being allowed to mix licensed medicines prior to administration, and prescribe independently from a restricted list of controlled drugs. Anyone was welcome to respond, and feedback was received from members of the public, patients/patient representative groups, carers, voluntary organisations, health-care providers, commissioners, doctors, pharmacists, allied health professionals, nurses, regulators, non-medical prescribers and the Royal Colleges, as well as other representative bodies.

Why independent prescribing was not recommended

Following the close of the consultation, responses received were collated and analysed. The responses were considered by both the Commission on Human Medicines (CHM) and Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), who felt unable to recommend independent prescribing for advanced paramedics at present.

The reasons for this decision were concerns over the wide range of conditions encountered by advanced paramedics and whether they could demonstrate evidence of adequate training and competency to diagnose the conditions that will be prescribed for. Additionally, there were notable concerns over the definition of an advanced paramedic practitioner, as this appears to vary between allied health professionals.

As a result, The CHM felt that independent prescribing might represent a risk to patient safety; for example, and in context with the lack of available evidence of competency at the time, if the wrong diagnosis was made and an inappropriate treatment was prescribed. They also felt that some of the examples cited to demonstrate a need for independent prescribing were not sufficiently robust.

Considering the possibility of independent prescribing

The College of Paramedics expressed disappointment that the CHM was unable to recommend independent prescribing for advanced paramedics at the present time, and has said it will continue its support and commitment to work with the project, and with NHS England this year to address the very legitimate comments made by the CHM. The college also said it would give regular updates to its members on the progress of the work.

Speaking on the possible future for independent prescribing by advanced paramedics, Andy Collen, medicines and prescribing project lead for the College of Paramedics, said:

‘We absolutely think that advanced paramedics have got a role as independent prescribers. The journey for any profession to undertake independent prescribing has to be done so with absolute rigour and consideration for patient safety. We need to provide reassurance that what is being proposed is going to benefit patients completely and that any risks are understood. Although it is disappointing, we absolutely welcome the feedback from CHM and we are continuing to work to answer the concerns the CHM have, and that is being supported by NHS England.’

Gerry Egan, chief executive officer of the College of Paramedics, said:

‘The College has a clear definition of the advanced paramedic role in terms of competencies and education and is working to make this the accepted definition both across the NHS and in the private health sector.

‘The College have no doubts advanced paramedics will deliver a massive benefit to patients in terms of delivering the right care at the right place and at the right time by the use of safe independent prescribing as part of integrated care systems.

‘The College remains totally committed to the proposal to introduce independent prescribing by advanced paramedics and looks forward to continuing supporting NHS England.’

Taken from Nurse Prescribing, published 9 September 2016.

Ensuring the district nursing role does not die out

Adobe Spark (2)Recent figures published by the Welsh Government have revealed a 42% reduction in the number of district nurses in Wales between 2009 and 2015 (BBC News, 2016). The number of district nurses has fallen from 712 in 2009 to 412 in 2015, with six of the seven health boards in Wales reporting a reduction.

This follows trends seen in England in recent years, which has reported a 47% reduction in the number of qualified district nursing staff in the past decade (Royal College of Nursing (RCN), 2014). Frequent figures such as these have resulted in a warning from the RCN that district nurses are ‘critically endangered’ and face possible extinction by the end of 2025 (RCN, 2014). Consequently, it has called on the Government to fulfil its commitment to increase the number of community staff to 10000 by 2020.

Origins of district nursing

The district nursing role originated in 1859, when a wealthy Liverpool merchant, William Rathbone, employed a private hospital-trained nurse to care for his dying wife. He was struck by ‘the great comfort and advantage derived from trained nursing, even in a home where everything which unskilled affection could suggest was provided.’ Following the death of his wife, Rathbone set up a training home in Liverpool to give nurses the skills necessary to treat patients in the home.

The title came from the fact that Liverpool was split into 18 districts based on the parish system, so the nurses became known as ‘district nurses’.

There is little research, but a publication from the Department of Health revealed that more than 2.6 million people receive care from district nurses each year, in England and Wales alone, according to statistics gathered nationally (Department of Health, 2004). It is anticipated that this number will only increase.

Due to the increasing elderly population and number of people with long-term conditions, district nurses make a notable contribution to the NHS. Having specially qualified staff who are trained to deliver care to patients in their own homes, should reduce pressures on GP surgeries and emergency departments. However, the shortage of district nurses means many feel they are being pushed to breaking point. Reports of regular additional hours, activities left undone due to lack of time and a desire to leave the job are not uncommon.

The RCN have said the reduced numbers of district nurses has placed extra pressure on GP surgeries and emergency departments. Increases in caseloads from 30 patients to up to 150 means contact time is kept to an absolute minimum. This results in patients not receiving the appropriate care they need and therefore feeling they require further consultation by their GP or at the emergency department.

The future vision of district nurses

In 2009, The Queen’s Nursing Institute (QNI) published its 2020 Vision of the future of district nursing (QNI, 2009). It marked the 150 year anniversary of district nurses and highlighted their role in health care. Fundamentally, the principles of district nursing have changed little in 150 years and consist of ‘better care, closer to home’, ‘patient choice’, ‘integrated care’, and ‘co-production’ (QNI, 2009). As a specialism, district nurses are ‘practitioners, partners and leaders’ of care in the home (QNI, 2009).

Some of the issues identified in the QNI report surrounding district nurses included: ‘loose use of the title, wide variations in pay banding and career structure, reduction in leadership opportunities and lack of recognition of the value of their specialist education’ (QNI, 2009).

It is important to highlight that there is a notable difference between nursing found in clinics, surgeries and other areas of primary care; and that found in patients’ homes. It is for this reason that the district nursing role remains an important part of the NHS.

The British Journal of Community Nursing and the QNI carried out a survey in 2008, gathering information and views from district nurses in England, Wales and Northern Ireland about the state of their specialism. The survey found that 13% of respondents’ employing organisations no longer use the title ‘district nurse’ at all. It also revealed that in those organisations that still use the title, more than 30% do not limit its use to those with a district nurse qualification (QNI, 2009). In some cases, the title was given to team leaders or case managers, with or without the qualification. Additionally, the survey revealed that only 48% of employing organisations continue to require district nursing team leaders to have the district nursing specialist practitioner qualification. Another 19%, who did at the time the report was published, plan to discontinue this requirement.

A follow-up report from the QNI published 5 years after the 2020 Vision, revealed an increase in the level of confusion about job titles, qualifications and roles concerning district nurses (QNI, 2014). As a result, one of the key recommendations of the the report was for a renewed investment in the district nursing specialist practitioner qualification.

Focus surrounding qualifications for district nurses was raised at the most recent RCN Congress, which passed a resolution calling on RCN council to lobby for all district nurse caseload holders to have the relevant specialist practitioner qualification (Ford, 2016). This arose amid concerns over the future of the district nursing role and its protected title. The Forum called for a practitioner who is ‘equipped with skills to manage a role that is highly complex and requires skills in negotiating, coaching, teaching and effective team management’ (Ford, 2016).

The current climate

The situation surrounding the place and role of district nurses within the NHS has gradually changed over the years. For example, it is no longer the sole role to be found delivering nursing care in the home as there are now a multitude of community roles working at different levels. The issue with this is that the meaning attributed to the district nurses’ unique title has eroded somewhat. As mentioned, some employers are using the title without the accompanying specialist qualification, further muddying the waters. District nurses are excellently placed to offer leadership over other health professionals in the home. However, if they have not received adequate training they will struggle to have the strong leadership skills required.

Within Simon Stevens’ Five Year Forward View he called for the introduction of a new care model known as Multispecialty Community Providers. One of the benefits of this model is to allow for the expansion of primary care leadership to include nurses and other community-based professionals. This new way of delivering care and ability to offer a wider scope of services is made possible by allowing the formation of extended group practices as federations, networks or single organisations.

Conclusions

District nurses offer a much-valued service to the NHS through their ability to treat large numbers of people at home, allowing patients to avoid having to go to hospital if they receive the appropriate level of care first-time around. However, this is only possible if the number of district nurses does not continue to fall. The reality is that those still in the role are under increasing pressure, as they find their workloads ever-increasing. The Government must fulfil its commitment to increase the number of community staff, and in particular, the number of district nurses.

Now, more than ever, is the time to reinstate the district nurse.

References

BBC News (2016) Royal College of Nursing concern over fall in district nurses in Wales. BBC News. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-36828072 (accessed 17 August 2016)

Department of Health (2004) Patient Care in the Community: NHS District Nursing Summary Information for 2003–04, England. The Stationery Office, London. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130107105354/http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_4092113.pdf (accessed 17 August 2016)

Ford S (2016) All district nurses ‘should have specialist qualification’. Nursing Times. http://www.nursingtimes.net/news/community/all-district-nurses-should-have-specialist-qualification/7005789.fullarticle (accessed 18 August2016)

Health Education England (2015) District Nursing and General Practice Nursing Service Education and Career Framework. HEE, London. https://hee.nhs.uk/sites/default/files/documents/District%20nursing%20and%20GP%20practice%20nursing%20framework_0.pdf (accessed 17 August 2016)

Royal College of Nursing (2014) District nurses face ‘extinction’ in 2025. RCN, London. https://www2.rcn.org.uk/newsevents/press_releases/uk/district_nurses_face_extinction_in_2025 (accessed 17 August 2016)

The Queen’s Nursing Institute (2009) 2020 Vision: Focusing on the Future of District Nursing. QNI, London. http://www.qni.org.uk/docs/2020_Vision.pdf (accessed 15 August 2016)

The Queen’s Nursing Institute (2014) 2020 Vision Five Years On: Reassessing the Future of District Nursing. http://www.qni.org.uk/docs/2020_Vision_Five_Years_On_Web1.pdf (accessed 15 August 2016)

The Queen’s Nursing Institute, NHS England (2014) Developing a National District Nursing Workforce Planning Framework: A Report Commissioned by NHS England. https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/dn-wfp-report-0414.pdf (accessed 15 August 2016)

Taken from British Journal of Community Nursing, published 2 September 2016.