Objective  To examine the psychometric properties of a revised scale, named ‘observing patient involvement in decision making’ (OPTION), by analysing its reapplication to a sample of routine primary care consultations. The OPTION instrument assesses to what degree clinicians involve patients in decision making.Design  Cross‐sectional assessment of medical interaction by two calibrated raters.Setting  Primary care.Participants  Twenty‐one general practitioners provided 186 consultations for assessment.Measurements  Observational score using the OPTION instrument.Results  Compared with the first version of the OPTION scale, the revised scale that uses a magnitude instead of an attitude scale, when applied to the same data set, resulted in improvement in the scale's reliability and to lower scores for the levels of involvement achieved by the practitioners. Factor analysis confirms that it is acceptable to regard the scale as a single construct. Although there is moderate variability when raters are assessed on an item by item basis, the agreements between raters at the level of the overall OPTION score is high (the intraclass correlation coefficient scores for total OPTION score was 0.77), a level that is acceptable for the evaluation of a set of consultations per practitioner (e.g. between 5 and 10 consultations), where aggregate scores would be used for determining overall performance.Conclusions  We conclude that OPTION is sufficiently reliable to be used for formal assessment at the level of the whole instrument (all 12 items).

Antibiotic-associated diarrhoea (AAD) occurs most frequently in older (≥65 years) inpatients exposed to broad-spectrum antibiotics. When caused by Clostridium difficile, AAD can result in life-threatening illness. Although underlying disease mechanisms are not well understood, microbial preparations have been assessed in the prevention of AAD. However, studies have been mostly small single-centre trials with varying quality, providing insufficient data to reliably assess effectiveness. We aimed to do a pragmatic efficacy trial in older inpatients who would be representative of those admitted to National Health Service (NHS) and similar secondary care institutions and to recruit a sufficient number of patients to generate a definitive result. We did a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, pragmatic, efficacy trial of inpatients aged 65 years and older and exposed to one or more oral or parenteral antibiotics. A computer-generated randomisation scheme was used to allocate participants (in a 1:1 ratio) to receive either a multistrain preparation of lactobacilli and bifidobacteria, with a total of 6 × 10(10) organisms, one per day for 21 days, or an identical placebo. Patients, study staff, and specimen and data analysts were masked to assignment. The primary outcomes were occurrence of AAD within 8 weeks and C difficile diarrhoea (CDD) within 12 weeks of recruitment. Analysis was by modified intention-to-treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN70017204. Of 17,420 patients screened, 1493 were randomly assigned to the microbial preparation group and 1488 to the placebo group. 1470 and 1471, respectively, were included in the analyses of the primary endpoints. AAD (including CDD) occurred in 159 (10·8%) participants in the microbial preparation group and 153 (10·4%) participants in the placebo group (relative risk [RR] 1·04; 95% CI 0·84-1·28; p=0·71). CDD was an uncommon cause of AAD and occurred in 12 (0·8%) participants in the microbial preparation group and 17 (1·2%) participants in the placebo group (RR 0·71; 95% CI 0·34-1·47; p=0·35). 578 (19·7%) participants had one or more serious adverse event; the frequency of serious adverse events was much the same in the two study groups and none was attributed to participation in the trial. We identified no evidence that a multistrain preparation of lactobacilli and bifidobacteria was effective in prevention of AAD or CDD. An improved understanding of the pathophysiology of AAD is needed to guide future studies. Health Technology Assessment programme; National Institute for Health Research, UK.

Infliximab and ciclosporin are of similar efficacy in treating acute severe ulcerative colitis, but there has been no comparative evaluation of their relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. In this mixed methods, open-label, pragmatic randomised trial, we recruited consenting patients aged 18 years or older at 52 district general and teaching hospitals in England, Scotland, and Wales who had been admitted, unscheduled, with severe ulcerative colitis and failed to respond to intravenous hydrocortisone within about 5 days. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either infliximab (5 mg/kg intravenous infusion given over 2 h at baseline, and again at 2 weeks and 6 weeks after the first infusion) or ciclosporin (2 mg/kg per day by continuous infusion for up to 7 days, followed by twice-daily tablets delivering 5·5 mg/kg per day for 12 weeks). Randomisation used a web-based password-protected site, with a dynamic algorithm to generate allocations on request, thus protecting against investigator preference or other subversion, while ensuring that each trial group was balanced by centre, which was the only stratification used. Local investigators and participants were aware of the treatment allocated, but the chief investigator and analysts were masked. Analysis was by treatment allocated. The primary outcome was quality-adjusted survival—ie, the area under the curve (AUC) of scores from the Crohn's and Ulcerative Colitis Questionnaire (CUCQ) completed by participants at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months, then every 6 months from 1 year to 3 years. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number ISRCTN22663589. Between June 17, 2010, and Feb 26, 2013, 270 patients were recruited. 135 patients were allocated to the infliximab group and 135 to the ciclosporin group. 121 (90%) patients in each group were included in the analysis of the primary outcome. There was no significant difference between groups in quality-adjusted survival (mean AUC 564·0 [SD 241·9] in the infliximab group vs 587·0 [226·2] in the ciclosporin group; mean adjusted difference 7·9 [95% CI −22·0 to 37·8]; p=0·603). Likewise, there were no significant differences between groups in the secondary outcomes of CUCQ scores, EQ-5D, or SF-6D scores; frequency of colectomy (55 [41%] of 135 patients in the infliximab group vs 65 [48%] of 135 patients in the ciclosporin group; p=0·223); or mean time to colectomy (811 [95% CI 707–912] days in the infliximab group vs 744 [638–850] days in the ciclosporin group; p=0·251). There were no differences in serious adverse reactions (16 reactions in 14 participants receiving infliximab vs ten in nine patients receiving ciclosporin); serious adverse events (21 in 16 patients vs 25 in 17 patients); or deaths (three in the infliximab group vs none in the ciclosporin group). There was no significant difference between ciclosporin and infliximab in clinical effectiveness. NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme.

Rising demand for health care has prompted interest in new technologies to support a shift of care from hospital to community and primary care, which may require clinicians to undertake new working practices. A predictive risk stratification tool (Prism) was developed for use in primary care to estimate patients’ risk of an emergency hospital admission. As part of an evaluation of Prism, we aimed to understand what might be needed to bring Prism into effective use by exploring clinicians and practice managers’ attitudes and expectations about using it. We were informed by Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) which examines the work needed to bring an innovation into use. We conducted 4 focus groups and 10 interviews with a total of 43 primary care doctors and colleagues from 32 general practices. All were recorded and transcribed. Analysis focussed in particular on the construct of ‘coherence’ within NPT, which examines how people understand an innovation and its purpose. Respondents were in agreement that Prism was a technological formalisation of existing practice, and that it would function as a support to clinical judgment, rather than replacing it. There was broad consensus about the role it might have in delivering new models of care based on active management, but there were doubts about the scope for making a difference to some patients and about whether Prism could identify at-risk patients not already known to the clinical team. Respondents did not expect using the tool to be onerous, but were concerned about the work which might follow in delivering care. Any potential value would not be of the tool in isolation, but would depend on the availability of support services. Policy imperatives and the pressure of rising demand meant respondents were open to trying out Prism, despite underlying uncertainty about what difference it could make. Controlled Clinical Trials no. ISRCTN55538212 .

Background: Health related quality of life (HRQL) has been recognised as an important paediatric outcome measurement. One of the more promising measures to emerge in recent years is the Pediatric Quality Of Life Inventory (PedsQL™), developed in the US. Advantages of the PedsQL™ include brevity, availability of age appropriate versions and parallel forms for child and parent. This study developed a UK-English version of PedsQL™ generic module and assessed its performance in a group of UK children and their parents. Methods: PedsQL™ was translated to UK-English. The psychometric properties of the UK version were then tested following administration to 1399 children and 970 of their parents. The sample included healthy children, children diagnosed with asthma, diabetes or inflammatory bowel disease and children in remission from cancer. Results: Psychometric properties were similar to those reported for the original PedsQL™. Internal reliability exceeded 0.70 for all proxy and self-report sub-scales. Discriminant validity was established for proxy and self-report with higher HRQL being reported for healthy children than those with health problems. Sex differences were noted on the emotional functioning subscale, with females reporting lower HRQL than males. Proxy and self-report correlation was higher for children with health problems than for healthy children. Conclusion: The UK-English version of PedsQL™ performed as well as the original PedsQL™ and is recommended for assessment of paediatric HRQL in the UK.