Self-harm represents a significant public health concern and is a common reason for contact with urgent and emergency care (UEC) services among young people. Although young people frequently interact with multiple components of the urgent care system following self-harm, there is limited system-level evidence describing patterns of service use, transitions between services and repeat emergency department (ED) attendance. An improved understanding of how young people use UEC services after self-harm is needed to inform the design of more effective and appropriate care pathways.

This protocol describes a prospective cohort study using an extract from the Centre for URgent and Emergency care research database (CUREd+) research database, which comprises routinely collected, linked healthcare data from the National Health Service 111 (NHS 111), ambulance services, urgent care centres, walk-in centres and EDs across Yorkshire and the Humber, England. The study population will include young people aged ≤25 years presenting to UEC services between April 2019 and March 2022 with self-harm coded as the reason for attendance. Analyses will describe the prevalence of self-harm presentations across UEC settings, quantify the proportion of NHS 111 and ambulance contacts resulting in ED attendance within 24 hours and examine factors associated with ED reattendance at 3 and 12 months. Mixed-effects logistic regression models will be used to account for repeated attendances, confounding variables and temporal variation, including changes related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Anticipated analysis period: January 2026–January 2027.

Ethical approval has been granted by the University of Leeds (MREC 22-079 Amd1) and the University of Sheffield (Ref 068194). The CUREd+ research database operates under Research Ethics Committee approval (23/YH/0079) and Confidentiality Advisory Group approval (18/CAG/0126). Individual consent is not required as all data are pseudonymised at source. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and public-facing outputs coproduced with patient and public involvement groups.

To explore patient and public views and experiences of health professional access to patient health records and advance care planning information to support care at the end of life.

A cross-sectional national online survey of patients and the public using a convergent-parallel approach.

The survey was distributed across the UK by Compassion in Dying and promoted via newsletters and social media channels of the Professional Records Standards Body and NHS England’s digital workstream network. These partners were purposively selected for their active involvement in end-of-life care, including hospices, clinicians and related charities.

A total of 1728 participants from 103 UK counties responded, including people with a terminal condition (n=33), with long-term condition (n=442), who provide or have provided care to a person with a long-term or terminal illness (n=229) and who identified as healthy and interested in planning for the future (n=1024).

Both quantitative data (multiple-choice responses and numerical ratings) and qualitative data (open-ended comments) asking about experiences and views of access to their health and advance care planning information to support their care at the end of life.

Confidence that recorded care preferences would be accessed when needed was low for carers (median=2, IQR 1–4) and moderate for patients (median=3, IQR 1–4). Four themes derived from free-text responses included (1) experience of sharing health information; (2) preparation, communication and understanding; (3) concerns, unknowns and assurance seeking; and (4) preserving dignity and respect: understanding individual contexts.

Respondents acknowledged the opportunity for digital systems to enable access to health and advance care planning information but expressed doubts that professionals would retrieve it when needed, citing past failures. Confidence in record accuracy could be strengthened by patient and carer access. Future research should examine whether such access improves alignment of care with patients’ wishes.

Frequent use of emergency departments (EDs) places a considerable burden on healthcare systems. Although frequent attenders are known to have complex physical, mental health and social needs, national-level evidence on their characteristics and patterns of attendance remains limited. This study aimed to provide a comprehensive, population-level description of frequent ED attendance in England, with a focus on age-based subgroups.

Retrospective cohort study.

EDs in England via the Hospital Episode Statistics and the Emergency Care Dataset data linked with primary care prescribing and mortality data, between March 2016 and March 2021.

The dataset received from National Health Service Digital contained approximately 150 million ED attendances by 30 million adult (>18 years) patients over the time period April 2016 to March 2021. A random sample of 5 million people was used for this analysis.

The primary outcome was the number of attendances in each financial year by frequent attenders compared with the remaining patients, split by age bands. Patients were classified as frequent attenders if they had ≥5 or ≥10 ED attendances within a rolling 12-month period. Secondary outcomes included demographic, diagnostic and prescribing characteristics, as well as the number of different ED sites visited.

A Gaussian mixture model was used to identify age-based subgroups. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise key features; 95% CIs were reported where applicable. Among 3.91 million unique adult ED attenders, there were 8.7 million attendances. Of these, 222 160 individuals (5.7%) had ≥5 attendances in a year, accounting for 12.6% of total attendances. A trimodal age distribution was identified, with three distinct peaks corresponding to ages 18–34, 35–64 and 65+. Frequent attenders were more likely to live in deprived areas and have a history of psychotropic or analgesic prescribing. Mental health diagnoses and polypharmacy were particularly common in the younger and middle-aged groups. Multisite attendance was uncommon, with over 80% of frequent attenders using only one ED site annually.

This national analysis reveals a trimodal age pattern among frequent ED attenders, with differing clinical and socio-demographic profiles across age groups. These findings highlight the need for age-tailored approaches to managing high-intensity ED use and inform targeted service development.

In the UK, approximately 5.4 million adults live with asthma, of whom one in five have an uncontrolled form. Uncontrolled asthma reduces quality of life and increases healthcare use. Engaging with peers through online health communities (OHCs) can empower patients to self-manage their long-term condition. While OHCs have been in existence for several years and growing numbers of patients access them, the role of primary care in signposting patients to them has been minimal and ad hoc. We have co-developed with patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) an intervention for adult patients with asthma, consisting of an appointment with a primary care HCP to introduce online peer support and sign patients up to an established asthma OHC, followed by OHC engagement. Feasibility work found the intervention acceptable to patients and HCPs. This protocol outlines our plan to test the intervention’s effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

An individual randomised controlled trial will be carried out. Eligible participants will be recruited via an online survey sent to adult patients on the asthma register in 50–70 general practices in several UK locations. Participants will be invited to attend a one-off, face-to-face appointment with a primary care HCP, during which they will be individually randomised to the intervention or usual care. An asthma control test (primary outcome) and other measures of clinical effectiveness will be collected at baseline and every 3 months over a 12-month follow-up period. Descriptive and inferential statistics will be used to compare outcome measures between study arms. Cost-effectiveness assessment of the intervention compared with current standard of asthma management in primary care will be reported. A sample of patients and HCPs will be interviewed at study exit and the data analysed thematically.

The study was approved by a National Health Service Research Ethics Committee (reference: 25/NE/0006). Written consent will be obtained from all participants. Findings will be disseminated through various means, including sharing with general practices, conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications.

NCT06849245.