Search

Background: Patient safety research is conducted predominantly in hospital settings, with a dearth of insight from primary care, despite suggestions that 2.2% of primary care consultations result in a patient safety incident. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of an intervention intended to improve patient safety in general practice., Methods: A randomised controlled feasibility study was conducted with general practices in the Republic of Ireland (N = 9) and Northern Ireland (N = 2), randomly assigned to the intervention (N = 5) or control (N = 6) group. The nine-month intervention consisted of: 1) repeated safety climate (SC) measurement (using GP-SafeQuest questionnaire) and feedback (comparative anonymised practice-level SC data), and 2) patient record reviews using a specialised trigger tool to identify instances of undetected patient harm. For control practices, SC was measured at baseline and study end only. The intervention's perceived usefulness and feasibility were explored via an end-of-study questionnaire and semi-structured interviews., Results: Thirteen practices were invited; 11 participated; 10 completed the study. At baseline, 84.8% of intervention practice staff (39/46) and 77.8% (42/54) of control practice staff completed the SC questionnaire; at the study terminus, 78.3% (36/46) of intervention practice staff and 68.5% (37/54) of control practice staff did so. Changes in SC scores, indicating improvement, were observed among the intervention practices but not in the control group. The trigger tool was applied to 188 patient records; patient safety incidents of varying severity were detected in 19.1% (36/188). Overall, 59% of intervention practice team members completed the end-of-study questionnaire, with the majority in both healthcare systems responding positively about the intervention. Interviews (N = 9) identified the intervention's usefulness in informing practice management and patient safety issues, time as a barrier to its use, and the value of group discussion of feedback., Conclusion: This feasibility study suggests that a definitive randomised controlled trial of the intervention is warranted. Our findings suggest that the intervention is feasible, useful, and sustainable. Practices were willing to be recruited into the study, response and retention rates were acceptable, and there is possible evidence of a positive effect of the intervention., Trial Registration: The trial registration number is: ISRCTN11426121 (retrospectively registered 12th June 2018).

Background: Statin prescribing and healthy lifestyles contribute to declining cardiovascular disease mortality. Recent guidelines emphasise the importance of giving lifestyle advice in association with prescribing statins but adherence to healthy lifestyle recommendations is sub-optimal. However, little is known about any change in patients' lifestyle behaviours when starting statins or of their recall of receiving advice. This study aimed to examine patients' diet and physical activity (PA) behaviours and their recall of lifestyle advice following initiation of statin prescribing in primary care., Method: In 12 general practices, patients with a recent initial prescription of statin therapy, were invited to participate. Those who agreed received a food diary by post, to record food consumed over 4 consecutive days and return to the researcher. We also telephoned participants to administer brief validated questionnaires to assess typical daily diet (DINE) and PA level (Godin). Using the same methods, food diaries and questionnaires were repeated 3 months later. At both times participants were asked if they had changed their behaviour or received advice about their diet or PA., Results: Of 384 invited, 122 (32 %) participated; 109 (89.3 %) completed paired datasets; 50 (45.9 %) were male; their mean age was 64 years. 53.2 % (58/109) recalled receiving lifestyle advice. Of those who did, 69.0 % (40/58) reported having changed their diet or PA, compared to 31.4 % (16/51) of those who did not recall receiving advice. Initial mean daily saturated fat intake (12.9 % (SD3.5) of total energy) was higher than recommended; mean fibre intake (13.8 g/day (SD5.5)), fruit/vegetable consumption (2.7 portions/day (SD1.3)) and PA levels (Godin score 7.1 (SD13.9)) were low. Overall, although some individuals showed evidence of behaviour change, there were no significant changes in the proportions who reported high or medium fat intake (42.2 % v 49.5 %), low fibre (51.4 % v 55.0 %), or insufficient PA (80.7 % v 83.5 %) at 3-month follow-up., Conclusion: Whilst approximately half of our cohort recalled receiving lifestyle advice associated with statin prescribing this did not translate into significant changes in diet or PA. Further research is needed to explore gaps between people's knowledge and behaviours and determine how best to provide advice that supports behaviour change.

Background: Insufficient physical activity (PA) levels which increase the risk of chronic disease are reported by almost two-thirds of the population. More evidence is needed about how PA promotion can be effectively implemented in general practice (GP), particularly in socio-economically disadvantaged communities. One tool recommended for the assessment of PA in GP and supported by NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) is The General Practice Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPPAQ) but details of how it may be used and of its acceptability to practitioners and patients are limited. This study aims to examine aspects of GPPAQ administration in non-urgent patient contacts using different primary care electronic recording systems and to explore the views of health professionals regarding its use., Methods: Four general practices, selected because of their location within socio-economically disadvantaged areas, were invited to administer GPPAQs to patients, aged 35-75 years, attending non-urgent consultations, over two-week periods. They used different methods of administration and different electronic medical record systems (EMIS, Premiere, Vision). Participants' (general practitioners (GPs), nurses and receptionists) views regarding GPPAQ use were explored via questionnaires and focus groups., Results: Of 2,154 eligible consultations, 192 (8.9%) completed GPPAQs; of these 83 (43%) were categorised as inactive. All practices were located within areas ranked as being in the tertile of greatest socio-economic deprivation in Northern Ireland. GPs/nurses in two practices invited completion of the GPPAQ, receptionists did so in two. One practice used an electronic template; three used paper copies of the questionnaires.End-of-study questionnaires, completed by 11 GPs, 3 nurses and 2 receptionists and two focus groups, with GPs (n = 8) and nurses (n = 4) indicated that practitioners considered the GPPAQ easy to use but not in every consultation. Its use extended consultation time, particularly for patients with complex problems who could potentially benefit from PA promotion., Conclusions: GPs and nurses reported that the GPPAQ itself was an easy tool with which to assess PA levels in general practice and feasible to use in a range of electronic record systems but integration within routine practice is constrained by time and complex consultations. Further exploration of ways to facilitate PA promotion into practice is needed.

Background: Healthy lifestyles help to prevent coronary heart disease (CHD) but outcomes from secondary prevention interventions which support lifestyle change have been disappointing. This study is a novel, in-depth exploration of patient factors affecting lifestyle behaviour change within an intervention designed to improve secondary prevention for patients with CHD in primary care using personalised tailored support. We aimed to explore patients' perceptions of factors affecting lifestyle change within a trial of this intervention (the SPHERE Study), using semi-structured, one-to-one interviews, with patients in general practice., Methods: Interviews (45) were conducted in purposively selected general practices (15) which had participated in the SPHERE Study. Individuals, with CHD, were selected to include those who succeeded in improving physical activity levels and dietary fibre intake and those who did not. We explored motivations, barriers to lifestyle change and information utilised by patients. Data collection and analysis, using a thematic framework and the constant comparative method, were iterative, continuing until data saturation was achieved., Results: We identified novel barriers to lifestyle change: such disincentives included strong negative influences of social networks, linked to cultural norms which encouraged consumption of 'delicious' but unhealthy food and discouraged engagement in physical activity. Findings illustrated how personalised support within an ongoing trusted patient-professional relationship was valued. Previously known barriers and facilitators relating to support, beliefs and information were confirmed., Conclusions: Intervention development in supporting lifestyle change in secondary prevention needs to more effectively address patients' difficulties in overcoming negative social influences and maintaining interest in living healthily.