Search

Background: Asthma is a common long-term condition and major public health problem. Supported self-management for asthma that includes a written personalised asthma action plan, supported by regular professional review, reduces unscheduled consultations and improves asthma outcomes and quality of life. However, despite unequivocal inter/national guideline recommendations, supported self-management is poorly implemented in practice. The IMPlementing IMProved Asthma self-management as RouTine (IMP2ART) implementation strategy has been developed to address this challenge. The aim of this implementation trial is to determine whether facilitated delivery of the IMP2ART strategy increases the provision of asthma action plans and reduces unscheduled care in the context of routine UK primary care. Methods: IMP2ART is a parallel group, cluster randomised controlled hybrid II implementation trial. One hundred forty-four general practices will be randomly assigned to either the IMP2ART implementation strategy or control group. Following a facilitation workshop, implementation group practices will receive organisational resources to help them prioritise supported self-management (including audit and feedback; an IMP2ART asthma review template), training for professionals and resources to support patients to self-manage their asthma. The control group will continue with usual asthma care. The primary clinical outcome is the between-group difference in unscheduled care in the second year after randomisation (i.e. between 12 and 24 months post-randomisation) assessed from routine data. Additionally, a primary implementation outcome of asthma action plan ownership at 12 months will be assessed by questionnaire to a random sub-group of people with asthma. Secondary outcomes include the number of asthma reviews conducted, prescribing outcomes (reliever medication and oral steroids), asthma symptom control, patients' confidence in self-management and professional support and resource use. A health economic analysis will assess cost-effectiveness, and a mixed methods process evaluation will explore implementation, fidelity and adaptation. Discussion: The evidence for supported asthma self-management is overwhelming. This study will add to the literature regarding strategies that can effectively implement supported self-management in primary care to reduce unscheduled consultations and improve asthma outcomes and quality of life. Trial registration: ISRCTN15448074. Registered on 2 December 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: People living with asthma require regular reviews to address their concerns and questions, assess control, review medication, and support self-management. However, practical barriers to attending face-to-face consultations might limit routine reviews. Reviewing asthma using asynchronous digital health interventions could be convenient for patients and an efficient way of maintaining communication between patients and healthcare professionals and improving health outcomes. We, therefore, aim to conduct a mixed-methods systematic review to assess the effectiveness of reviewing asthma by asynchronous digital health interventions and explore the views of patients and healthcare professionals about the role of such interventions in delivering asthma care. Methods: We will search MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, PsycInfo, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library from 2001 to present without imposing any language restrictions. We are interested in studies of asynchronous digital health interventions used either as a single intervention or contributing to mixed modes of review. Two review authors will independently screen titles and abstracts, and retrieve potentially relevant studies for full assessment against the eligibility criteria and extract data. Disagreements will be resolved by discussion with the review team. We will use 'Downs and Black' checklist, 'Critical Appraisal Skills Programme', and 'Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool' to assess methodological quality of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies respectively. After synthesising quantitative (narrative synthesis) and qualitative (thematic synthesis) data separately, we will integrate them following methods outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Conclusion: The findings of this review will provide insights into the role of asynchronous digital health interventions in the routine care of people living with asthma. Trial registration: Systematic review registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022344224. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: It is now widely acknowledged that there are serious shortcomings in allergy care provision for patients seen in primary care. We sought to assess the feasibility of delivering and evaluating a new nurse‐led allergy service in primary care, measured by recruitment, retention and estimates of the potential impact of the intervention on disease‐specific quality of life. Methods: Mixed‐methods evaluation of a nurse‐led primary care‐based allergy clinic in Edinburgh, UK undertaken during the period 2017–2021 with a focus on suspected food allergy and atopic eczema in young children, allergic rhinitis in children and young people, and suspected anaphylaxis in adults. Prior to March 2020, patients were seen face‐to‐face (Phase 1). Due to COVID‐19 pandemic restrictions, recruitment was halted between March–August 2020, and a remote clinic was restarted in September 2020 (Phase 2). Disease‐specific quality of life was measured at baseline and 6–12 weeks post intervention using validated instruments. Quantitative data were descriptively analysed. We undertook interviews with 16 carers/patients and nine healthcare professionals, which were thematically analysed. Results: During Phase 1, 426/506 (84%) referred patients met the eligibility criteria; 40/46 (87%) of Phase 2 referrals were eligible. Males and females were recruited in approximately equal numbers. The majority (83%) of referrals were for possible food allergy or anaphylaxis. Complete data were available for 338/426 (79%) patients seen in Phase 1 and 30/40 (75%) in Phase 2. Compared with baseline assessments, there were improvements in disease‐specific quality of life for most categories of patients. Patients/carers and healthcare professionals reported high levels of satisfaction, this being reinforced by the qualitative interviews in which convenience and speed of access to expert opinion, the quality of the consultation, and patient/care empowerment were particularly emphasised. Conclusion: This large feasibility trial has demonstrated that it is possible to recruit, deliver and retain individuals into a nurse‐led allergy clinic with both face‐to‐face and remote consultations. Our data indicate that the intervention was considered acceptable to patients/carers and healthcare professionals. The before‐after data of disease‐specific quality of life suggest that the intervention may prove effective, but this now needs to be confirmed through a formal randomised controlled trial. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov reference NCT03826953. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: While evidence from randomised controlled trials shows that telemonitoring for hypertension is associated with improved blood pressure (BP) control, healthcare systems have been slow to implement it, partly because of inadequate integration with existing clinical practices and electronic records. Neither is it clear if trial findings will be replicated in routine clinical practice at scale. We aimed to explore the feasibility and impact of implementing an integrated telemonitoring system for hypertension into routine primary care.Methods and Findings: This was a quasi-experimental implementation study with embedded qualitative process evaluation set in primary care in Lothian, Scotland. We described the overall uptake of telemonitoring and uptake in a subgroup of representative practices, used routinely acquired data for a records-based controlled before-and-after study, and collected qualitative data from staff and patient interviews and practice observation. The main outcome measures were intervention uptake, change in BP, change in clinician appointment use, and participants' views on features that facilitated or impeded uptake of the intervention. Seventy-five primary care practices enrolled 3,200 patients with established hypertension. In an evaluation subgroup of 8 practices (905 patients of whom 427 [47%] were female and with median age of 64 years [IQR 56-70, range 22-89] and median Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation 2012 decile of 8 [IQR 6-10]), mean systolic BP fell by 6.55 mm Hg (SD 15.17), and mean diastolic BP by 4.23 mm Hg (SD 8.68). Compared with the previous year, participating patients made 19% fewer face-to-face appointments, compared with 11% fewer in patients with hypertension who were not telemonitoring. Total consultation time for participants fell by 15.4 minutes (SD 68.4), compared with 5.5 minutes (SD 84.4) in non-telemonitored patients. The convenience of remote collection of BP readings and integration of these readings into routine clinical care was crucial to the success of the implementation. Limitations include the fact that practices and patient participants were self-selected, and younger and more affluent than non-participating patients, and the possibility that regression to the mean may have contributed to the reduction in BP. Routinely acquired data are limited in terms of completeness and accuracy.Conclusions: Telemonitoring for hypertension can be implemented into routine primary care at scale with little impact on clinician workload and results in reductions in BP similar to those in large UK trials. Integrating the telemonitoring readings into routine data handling was crucial to the success of this initiative. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents letter to the editor related to the importance of health services research. Objectives of the research; Coordination of research projects in general practices; Facilitation of appropriate feasibility and high quality research.

Conclusion: There is good evidence for an association between dosulepin and subsequent ischaemic heart disease and for a dose-response relation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Scale-up BP was a quasi-experimental implementation study, following a successful randomised controlled trial of the roll-out of telemonitoring in primary care across Lothian, Scotland. Our primary objective was to assess the effect of telemonitoring on blood pressure (BP) control using routinely collected data. Telemonitored systolic and diastolic BP were compared with surgery BP measurements from patients not using telemonitoring (comparator patients). The statistical analysis and interpretation of findings was challenging due to the broad range of biases potentially influencing the results, including differences in the frequency of readings, 'white coat effect', end digit preference, and missing data.Methods: Four different statistical methods were employed in order to minimise the impact of these biases on the comparison between telemonitoring and comparator groups. These methods were "standardisation with stratification", "standardisation with matching", "regression adjustment for propensity score" and "random coefficient modelling". The first three methods standardised the groups so that all participants provided exactly two measurements at baseline and 6-12 months follow-up prior to analysis. The fourth analysis used linear mixed modelling based on all available data.Results: The standardisation with stratification analysis showed a significantly lower systolic BP in telemonitoring patients at 6-12 months follow-up (-4.06, 95% CI -6.30 to -1.82, p < 0.001) for patients with systolic BP below 135 at baseline. For the standardisation with matching and regression adjustment for propensity score analyses, systolic BP was significantly lower overall (- 5.96, 95% CI -8.36 to - 3.55 , p < 0.001) and (- 3.73, 95% CI- 5.34 to - 2.13, p < 0.001) respectively, even after assuming that - 5 of the difference was due to 'white coat effect'. For the random coefficient modelling, the improvement in systolic BP was estimated to be -3.37 (95% CI -5.41 to -1.33 , p < 0.001) after 1 year.Conclusions: The four analyses provide additional evidence for the effectiveness of telemonitoring in controlling BP in routine primary care. The random coefficient analysis is particularly recommended due to its ability to utilise all available data. However, adjusting for the complex array of biases was difficult. Researchers should appreciate the potential for bias in implementation studies and seek to acquire a detailed understanding of the study context in order to design appropriate analytical approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Objectives: To determine whether paperless medical records contained less information than paper based medical records and whether that information was harder to retrieve. Design: Cross sectional study with review of medical records and interviews with general practitioners. Setting: 25 general practices in Trent region. Participants: 53 British general practitioners (25 using paperless records and 28 using paper based records) who each provided records of 10 consultations. Main outcome measures: Content of a sample of records and doctor recall of consultations for which paperless or paper based records had been made. Results: Compared with paper based records, more paperless records were fully understandable (89.2% v 69.9%, P=0.0001) and fully legible (100% v 64.3%, P < 0.0001). Paperless records were significantly more likely to have at least one diagnosis recorded (48.2% v 33.2%, P=0.05), to record that advice had been given (23.7% vs 10.7%, P=0.017), and, when a referral had been made, were more likely to contain details of the specialty (77.4% v 59.5%, P=0.03). When a prescription had been issued, paperless records were more likely to specify the drug dose (86.6% v 66.2%, P=0.005). Paperless records contained significantly more words, abbreviations, and symbols (P < 0.01 for all). At doctor interview, there was no difference between the groups for the proportion of patients or consultations that could be recalled. Doctors using paperless records were able to recall more advice given to patients (38.6% v 26.8%, P=0.03). Conclusion: We found no evidence to support our hypotheses that paperless records would be truncated and contain more local abbreviations; and that the absence of writing would decrease subsequent recall. Conversely we found that the paperless records compared favourably with manual records. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conclusions: This study provides no evidence that singlehanded general practitioners are underperforming clinically. Our results offer insight into the structural difference between the two types of practice and underline the importance of the effect of other practice characteristics on process and outcome measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To determine whether people whose marital partners have depression, diabetes, hypertension, ischaemic heart disease, stroke, hyperlipidaemia, peptic ulcer disease, or asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are at increased risk of the same disease. Design Cross sectional study. Setting 10 practices from the Trent Focus Collaborative Research Practice Network. Participants 8386 married couples (16 772 individuals) from a population of 29 014 participants aged 30-74 years. Outcomes Risk of disease in participants whose marital partner had that disease compared with those whose partner did not Results After both partners' age, smoking, and obesity and which general practice they attend were adjusted for, participants whose marital partner had asthma, depression, hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, and peptic ulcer disease were at increased risk of having the same disease. The adjusted odds ratios were 1.69 (95% confidence interval 1.43 to 2.98) for asthma, 2.08 (1.71 to 2.54) for depression, 1.32 (1.04 to 1.67) for hypertension, 1.44 (1.19 to 1.75) for hyperlipidaemia, and 2.01 (1.48 to 2.73) for peptic ulcer disease. Conclusion Partners of people with specific diseases are at increased risk of the disease themselves--at least 70% increased risk for asthma, depression, and peptic ulcer disease. This implicates shared environmental causes in some diseases in addition to any genetic or distant exposure or shared behaviours with respect to seeking health care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]