OBJECTIVE: to assess the effects of interventions aimed at involving older people with multimorbidity in decision-making about their healthcare during primary care consultations. METHODS: Cochrane methodological procedures were applied. Searches covered all relevant trial registries and databases. Randomised controlled trials were identified where interventions had been compared with usual care/ control/ another intervention. A narrative synthesis is presented; meta-analysis was not appropriate. RESULTS: 8160 abstracts and 54 full-text articles were screened. Three studies were included, involving 1879 patient participants. Interventions utilised behaviour change theory; cognitive-behavioural therapy and motivational interviewing; multidisciplinary, holistic patient review and organisational changes. No studies reported the primary outcome 'patient involvement in decision-making about their healthcare'. Patient involvement was evident in the theory underpinning interventions. Certainty of evidence (assessed using GRADE) was limited by small studies and inconsistency in secondary outcomes measured. CONCLUSION: the evidence base is currently too limited to interpret with certainty. Transparency in design and consistency in evaluation, using validated measures, is required for future interventions involving older patients with multimorbidity in decisions about their healthcare. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: There is a large gap between clinical guidelines for multimorbidity and an evidence base for implementation of their recommendations during primary care consultations with older people.

Background: the number of older people with multiple health problems is increasing worldwide. This creates a strain on clinicians and the health service when delivering clinical care to this patient group, who themselves carry a large treatment burden. Despite shared decision-making being acknowledged by healthcare organisations as a priority feature of clinical care, older patients with multimorbidity are less often involved in decision-making when compared with younger patients, with some evidence suggesting associated health inequalities. Interventions aimed at facilitating shared decision-making between doctors and patients are outdated in their assessments of today's older patient population who need support in prioritising complex care needs in order to maximise quality of life and day-to-day function. Aims: to undertake feasibility testing of an intervention ('VOLITION') aimed at facilitating the involvement of older patients with more than one long-term health problem in shared decision-making about their healthcare during GP consultations.To inform the design of a fully powered trial to assess intervention effectiveness. Methods: This study is a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial with qualitative process evaluation interviews. Participants are patients, aged 65 years and above with more than one long-term health problem (multimorbidity), and the GPs that they consult with. This study aims to recruit 6 GP practices, 18 GPs and 180 patients. The intervention comprises two components: (i) a half-day training workshop for GPs in shared decision-making; and (ii) a leaflet for patients that facilitate their engagement with shared decision-making. Intervention implementation will take 2 weeks (to complete delivery of both patient and GP components), and follow-up duration will be 12 weeks (from index consultation and commencement of data collection to final case note review and process evaluation interview). The trial will run from 01/01/20 to 31/01/21; 1 year 31 days. Discussion: Shared decision-making for older people with multimorbidity in general practice is under-researched. Emerging clinical guidelines advise a patient-centred approach, to reduce treatment burden and focus on quality of life alongside disease control. The systematic development, testing and evaluation of an intervention is warranted and timely. This study will test the feasibility of implementing a new intervention in UK general practice for future evaluation as a part of routine care. Trial registration: CLINICAL TRIALS.GOV registration number NCT03786315, registered 24/12/18.

BACKGROUND: UK general practice is experiencing a workload crisis. Pharmacists are the third largest healthcare profession in the UK; however, their skills are a currently underutilised and potentially highly valuable resource for primary health care. This study forms part of the evaluation of an innovative training programme for pharmacists who are interested in extended roles in primary care, advocated by a UK collaborative '10-point GP workforce action plan'. AIM: to explore pharmacists' perceptions of primary care roles including the potential for greater integration of their profession into general practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: a qualitative interview study in UK primary care carried out between October 2015 and July 2016. METHOD: Pharmacists were purposively sampled by level of experience, geographical location, and type of workplace. Two confidential semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted - one before and one after the training programme. A constant comparative, inductive approach to thematic analysis was used. RESULTS: Sixteen participants were interviewed. The themes related to: initial expectations of the general practice role, varying by participants' experience of primary care; the influence of the training course with respect to managing uncertainty, critical appraisal skills, and confidence for the role; and predictions for the future of this role. CONCLUSION: There is enthusiasm and willingness among pharmacists for new, extended roles in primary care, which could effectively relieve GP workload pressures. A definition of the role, with examples of the knowledge, skills, and attributes required, should be made available to pharmacists, primary care teams, and the public. Training should include clinical skills teaching, set in context through exposure to general practice, and delivered motivationally by primary care practitioners.

BACKGROUND: Older patients differ from younger patients in their perceptions of trust in doctors; their sense of shared decision making is particularly associated with their trust in the GP. Enhancing trust and improving shared decision making are thought to have positive health outcomes. Older patients are sometimes reported as being less frequently involved in decisions about their health care, however, and in having more unmet healthcare needs than younger patients. AIM: This study explored older patients' trust in their GPs and their perceptions of shared decision making. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative methods were used. Systematic sampling identified 20 participants, aged ≥65 years, from three GP surgeries in Devon, UK. METHOD: a constant comparative approach was applied to thematic analysis of transcribed interviews. RESULTS: all participants valued feeling involved in decisions but differed regarding how they felt involved. Trust influenced preferences for shared decision making: a trusted GP 'ally', to competently manage participants' increasing health-information requirements throughout the vulnerable ageing process, was important. Trust was affected by factors contributing to the facilitation of involvement. GP characteristics, communication skills, consultation duration, and continuity of care were common themes. CONCLUSION: Although limited geographically and subsequently by ethnic group, the present sample allows for reasonable transferability of the study to other UK populations. A range of factors are highlighted for consideration when planning primary healthcare delivery: to facilitate the optimal involvement of older patients in decisions about their health care, while enhancing their trust in the GP; to help minimise potential health inequalities for this patient group.

Objectives: Patients' trust in general practitioners (GPs) is fundamental to effective clinical encounters. Associations between patients' trust and their perceptions of communication within the consultation have been identified, but the influence of patients' demographic characteristics on these associations is unknown. We aimed to investigate the relative contribution of the patient's age, gender and ethnicity in any association between patients' ratings of interpersonal aspects of the consultation and their confidence and trust in the doctor. Design: Secondary analysis of English national GP patient survey data (2009). Setting: Primary Care, England, UK. Participants: Data from year 3 of the GP patient survey: 5 660 217 questionnaires sent to patients aged 18 and over, registered with a GP in England for at least 6 months; overall response rate was 42% after adjustment for sampling design. Outcome measures: We used binary logistic regression analysis to investigate patients' reported confidence and trust in the GP, analysing ratings of 7 interpersonal aspects of the consultation, controlling for patients' sociodemographic characteristics. Further modelling examined moderating effects of age, gender and ethnicity on the relative importance of these 7 predictors. Results: Among 1.5 million respondents (adjusted response rate 42%), the sense of 'being taken seriously' had the strongest association with confidence and trust. The relative importance of the 7 interpersonal aspects of care was similar for men and women. Non-white patients accorded higher priority to being given enough time than did white patients. Involvement in decisions regarding their care was more strongly associated with reports of confidence and trust for older patients than for younger patients. Conclusions: Associations between patients' ratings of interpersonal aspects of care and their confidence and trust in their GP are influenced by patients' demographic characteristics. Taking account of these findings could inform patient-centred service design and delivery and potentially enhance patients' confidence and trust in their doctor.

To gain insight into factors affecting patient and practitioner satisfaction with access to healthcare in a remote rural island community. General practice based primary care is the focus of health service delivery in rural areas of the UK. Individuals from rural populations have reported inequalities in access to healthcare. User satisfaction with service performance is recognised as an important outcome of healthcare. Further investigation into factors underpinning patient and practitioner satisfaction with access to rural healthcare is required. Qualitative interviews with patients and primary healthcare practitioners. Isles of Scilly, Cornwall, UK. A topic guide was developed following review of the literature. In-depth, semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of 23 participants were conducted with individuals from all inhabited islands. Detailed field notes were kept, and interview content was partially transcribed and analysed thematically. Principal themes identified were common to patient and practitioner participants. These were: concerns expressed regarding the equitable provision of services; obstacles to using health services; and the outlook of patients and professionals, including expectations, choice, patient–practitioner relationships and community cohesiveness. Emerging themes gave insight into a range of factors affecting satisfaction with access to healthcare. Despite numerous policy initiatives aimed at reducing inequities in health service provision, problems with access and uptake of health services persist amongst individuals from remote rural populations. If implemented, recent National Health Service proposals may address some of the challenges identified by participants. Service developments need to take account of local priorities, expectations, geography and demography to achieve favourable outcomes. © 2009, Cambridge University Press. All rights reserved.