Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Appears in Collections:Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport Journal Articles
Peer Review Status: Refereed
Title: The Patient Centred Assessment Method for improving nurse-led biopsychosocial assessment of patients with long-term conditions: a feasibility RCT
Author(s): Maxwell, Margaret
Hibberd, Carina
Aitchison, Patricia
Calveley, Eileen
Pratt, Rebekah
Dougall, Nadine
Hoy, Christine
Mercer, Stewart
Cameron, Isobel
Issue Date: Jan-2018
Citation: Maxwell M, Hibberd C, Aitchison P, Calveley E, Pratt R, Dougall N, Hoy C, Mercer S & Cameron I (2018) The Patient Centred Assessment Method for improving nurse-led biopsychosocial assessment of patients with long-term conditions: a feasibility RCT. Health Services and Delivery Research, 6 (4), pp. 1-119.
Abstract: Background  Annual reviews of people living with long-term conditions (LTCs) are mostly conducted by practice nurses (PNs), who focus on the physical needs of patients. The broader mental well-being and social needs of patients are also important if they are to live well. The Patient Centred Assessment Method (PCAM) is a new tool to help PNs conduct biopsychosocial assessments of patients’ needs.  Research questions  Is it feasible and acceptable to use the PCAM in primary care nurse-led reviews for those with LTCs? Is it feasible and acceptable to run a cluster randomised trial of the PCAM in primary care?  Methods  Four practitioner and two patient focus groups explored the acceptability and implementation requirements of the PCAM, which was then tested in a feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial aiming to recruit eight general practitioner (GP) practices and 16 nurses. Baseline data collection was conducted with nurses prior to randomisation, with a cohort of 10 patients per nurse, including patient demographics, patient evaluation of consultation, patient-completed outcomes (measured via the Consultation and Relational Empathy, Patient Enablement Instrument, Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale, General Health Questionnaire and the Short Form questionnaire-12 items) and nurse referrals/signposting to services. Patient follow-up questionnaires were completed at 8 weeks. Practices were then randomised to the PCAM intervention or care as usual (CAU). Data collection was repeated for a second cohort of patients. Fidelity was tested by comparing a sample of recorded consultations before and after PCAM training. Qualitative interviews were conducted with PCAM nurses and a sample of patients.  Results  Approaches to 159 eligible practices resulted in the recruitment of six practices (10 nurses), with five practices (seven nurses) completing both data collection phases. Nurses collected baseline data on 113 patients, 71 of whom (62.8%) completed follow-up questionnaires. Five practices were randomised: three practices (six nurses) to the PCAM arm and two practices (four nurses) to the CAU arm. In phase 2, seven nurses collected data on 77 patients, of whom 40 (52%) completed follow-up. Only four PCAM nurses agreed to recording consultations, with five pre- and four post-PCAM recordings obtained. Post PCAM training, there was evidence of more attention being given to patients’ mental well-being and social issues. The PCAM was fairly easily integrated into consultation, although some nurses reflected that this benefited from early support. Patients were not always aware of its use, but most were happy to have their needs assessed.  Limitations  Recruitment of GP practices, and nurse recruitment and retention.  Conclusions  The PCAM is feasible and acceptable for use by primary care nurses and may have potential for encouraging biopsychosocial assessment of patients. Efforts required to recruit and retain staff indicate that a full trial is not feasible or cost-effective at this time.  Future work  The PCAM intervention warrants further exploration as an effective mechanism for improving care for people with LTCs; this could be conducted within an implementation study.  Trial registration  Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN98973169.
DOI Link: 10.3310/hsdr06040
Rights: Permission to reproduce material from this published report is covered by the UK government’s non-commercial licence for public sector information:
Licence URL(s):

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
3012022.pdfFulltext - Published Version7.15 MBAdobe PDFView/Open

This item is protected by original copyright

Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.