Implementation Outcomes

Benefits

Risks & contraindications

Evidence quality

Highlighted claims

• The estimated odds ratio for increased template use was 2.86, with a 95% confidence interval of 2.34 to 3.49 and p<0.001. — Implementation of a comprehensive template to support personalised care for people with multiple long-term conditions: a mixed-methods evaluation in primary care
• Only 5.1% of eligible patients in implementation practices received the intended two-part review. — Implementation of a comprehensive template to support personalised care for people with multiple long-term conditions: a mixed-methods evaluation in primary care
• Template use increased more in implementation practices than in control practices. — Implementation of a comprehensive template to support personalised care for people with multiple long-term conditions: a mixed-methods evaluation in primary care
• Fidelity to the intended two-part review was low. — Implementation of a comprehensive template to support personalised care for people with multiple long-term conditions: a mixed-methods evaluation in primary care
• The template reached a broad patient group across sociodemographic characteristics and assessed conditions. — Implementation of a comprehensive template to support personalised care for people with multiple long-term conditions: a mixed-methods evaluation in primary care
• Use of some holistic assessments increased, especially mobility, memory, falls, and pain. — Implementation of a comprehensive template to support personalised care for people with multiple long-term conditions: a mixed-methods evaluation in primary care