Being on a waiting list for elective (planned) cardiac surgery can be physically and psychologically challenging for patients. Research suggests that stress associated with waiting for surgery is dependent on different individual and contextual factors. However, most data on patients’ experiences of waiting for surgery and preferences for waiting list management derives from non-cardiac clinical populations. The aim of the current study is to explore patients’ experiences of being on a waiting list for elective cardiac surgery, and their views on how the waiting experience could be improved in the future. This work will inform the patient management strategy during the waiting period for surgery across the four major hospitals in London directly involved in this study, and potentially beyond by transferring learning to other services.

This is a mixed-methods study that will collect quantitative and qualitative data using a cross-sectional online survey. Patients who are on waiting lists for elective surgery across four major cardiac surgery departments in London hospitals, and are at least 18 years old, will be invited by their healthcare team via text message or letter to complete the survey. The target sample size of non-randomly selected participants will be 268. Bivariable and multivariable regression models will be used to assess associations between survey items measuring the impact of the cardiac condition on specific life domains (eg, daily activities, social and family relationships, hobbies, sexual life), anxiety and depression symptoms as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 and survey items evaluating experiences of health services. Data on experience and preferences for improvements to the waiting experience will be analysed with qualitative content analysis using an inductive approach.

This study was reviewed and granted ethical approval by the East of England—East Cambridge Research Ethics Committee. Findings from this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, a research website and social media and with an online event engaging patients, members of the public, healthcare professionals and other relevant stakeholders.

NCT05996640

Simultaneous urine testing for albumin (UAlb) and serum creatinine (SCr), that is, ‘dual testing,’ is an accepted quality measure in the management of diabetes. As chronic kidney disease (CKD) is defined by both UAlb and SCr testing, this approach could be more widely adopted in kidney care.

We assessed time trends and facility-level variation in the performance of outpatient dual testing in the integrated Veterans Health Administration (VHA) system.

This retrospective cohort study included patients with any inpatient or outpatient visit to the VHA system during the period 2009–2018. Dual testing was defined as UAlb and SCr testing in the outpatient setting within a calendar year. We assessed time trends in dual testing by demographics, comorbidities, high-risk (eg, diabetes) specialty care and facilities. A generalised linear mixed-effects model was applied to explore individual and facility-level predictors of receiving dual testing.

We analysed data from approximately 6.9 million veterans per year. Dual testing increased, on average, from 17.4% to 21.2%, but varied substantially among VHA centres (0.3%–43.7% in 2018). Dual testing was strongly associated with diabetes (OR 10.4, 95% CI 10.3 to 10.5, p

Dual testing for CKD in high-risk specialties is increasing but remains low. This appears primarily due to low rates of testing for albuminuria. Promoting dual testing in high-risk patients will help to improve disease management and patient outcomes.

To generate qualitative data on the views of Occupational Therapists and Physiotherapists about why people do not receive the Royal College of Physicians’ recommended minimum of 45 minutes (min) of daily therapy after stroke, in order to inform a Delphi study.

Focus group study.

Stroke services in the South of England.

A total of nine participants, in two groups, including therapists covering inpatient and Early Supported Discharge (ESD) services with awareness of the 45 min guideline.

Thematic analysis of focus group data identified five factors that influence the amount of therapy a person receives: The Person (with stroke), Individual Therapist, Stroke Multidisciplinary Team, the Organisation and the Guideline. Study findings suggest that the reasons why a person does not receive the therapy recommendation in inpatient and ESD services relate to either the suitability of the guideline for the person with stroke, or the ability of the service to deliver the guideline.

This study provides evidence for possible reasons why some people do not receive a minimum of 45 minutes of therapy, 5 days per week, related to (1) the suitability of the guideline for people with stroke and (2) services’ ability to deliver this amount of intervention. These two factors are related; therapists decide who should receive therapy and how much in the context of (a) resource availability and (b) people’s need and the benefit they will experience. The study findings, combined with the findings from other studies, will be used to initiate a Delphi study, which will establish consensus among therapists regarding the reasons why some people do not receive the guideline amount of therapy.

To gain a consensus among therapists for reasons why a person who had a stroke may not receive the Royal College of Physicians’ recommended minimum of 45 min of daily therapy.

Three-round remote e-Delphi study.

National study, based in the UK.

Occupational therapists and physiotherapists with experience of delivering therapy after stroke and awareness of the 45 min guideline.

Forty-five therapists consented to participate in the study. Thirty-five (78%) completed round one, 29 of 35 (83%) completed round 2 and 26 of 29 (90%) completed round three. A consensus (75%) was reached for 32 statements. Reasons why a person may not receive 45 min were related to the suitability of the guideline for the individual (based on factors like therapy tolerance or medical status) or the capability of the service to provide the intervention. In addition to the statements for which there was a consensus, 32 concepts did not reach a consensus. Specifically, there was a lack of consensus concerning the suitability of the guideline for people receiving Early Supported Discharge (ESD) services and a lack of agreement about whether people who need more than 45 min of therapy actually receive it.

Some people do not receive 45 min of therapy as they are considered unsuitable for it and some do not receive it due to services’ inability to provide it. It is unclear which reasons for guideline non-achievement are most common. Future research should focus on why the guideline is not achieved in ESD, and why people who require more than 45 min may not receive it. This could contribute to practical guidance for therapists to optimise therapy delivery for people after stroke.