Diversity in intermediate care

This paper discusses the evolution of intermediate care and presents some interim observations from a survey of providers in England being conducted as part of a national evaluation of intermediate care. Telephone interviews covering various issues concerning the level of provision and style of delivery of intermediate care have been conducted with 70 services to date. Data from these are used to discuss the progress, range and nature of intermediate care in relation to clinician viewpoints and academic and official literature on the subject. Intermediate care ‘on the ground’ is a multiplicitous entity, with provision apparently evolving in accordance with the particularities of local need. Whilst protocols for medical involvement in intermediate care generally appear to be well established, there are some tensions concerning integration of services in a locality, care management processes and questions of flexibility and inclusiveness in relation to eligibility criteria. The definitive version is available at www.blackwell-synergy.com

Bayesian analysis of a mastitis control plan to investigate the influence of veterinary prior beliefs on clinical interpretation

The fundamental objective for health research is to determine whether changes should be made to clinical decisions. Decisions made by veterinary surgeons in the light of new research evidence are known to be influenced by their prior beliefs, especially their initial opinions about the plausibility of possible results. In this paper, clinical trial results for a bovine mastitis control plan were evaluated within a Bayesian context, to incorporate a community of prior distributions that represented a spectrum of clinical prior beliefs. The aim was to quantify the effect of veterinary surgeons’ initial viewpoints on the interpretation of the trial results. A Bayesian analysis was conducted using Markov chain Monte Carlo procedures. Stochastic models included a financial cost attributed to a change in clinical mastitis following implementation of the control plan. Prior distributions were incorporated that covered a realistic range of possible clinical viewpoints, including scepticism, enthusiasm and uncertainty. Posterior distributions revealed important differences in the financial gain that clinicians with different starting viewpoints would anticipate from the mastitis control plan, given the actual research results. For example, a severe sceptic would ascribe a probability of 0.50 for a return of <£5 per cow in an average herd that implemented the plan, whereas an enthusiast would ascribe this probability for a return of >£20 per cow. Simulations using increased trial sizes indicated that if the original study was four times as large, an initial sceptic would be more convinced about the efficacy of the control plan but would still anticipate less financial return than an initial enthusiast would anticipate after the original study. In conclusion, it is possible to estimate how clinicians’ prior beliefs influence their interpretation of research evidence. Further research on the extent to which different interpretations of evidence result in changes to clinical practice would be worthwhile.