Search

Background: The threat of antimicrobial resistance has led to intensified efforts to reduce antibiotic utilisation, but serious bacterial infections are increasing in frequency. Objectives: To estimate the risks of serious bacterial infections in association with lower antibiotic prescribing and understand stakeholder views with respect to safe antibiotic reduction. Design: Mixed-methods research was undertaken, including a qualitative interview study of patient and prescriber views that informed a cohort study and a decision-analytic model, using primary care electronic health records. These three work packages were used to design an application (app) for primary care prescribers. Data sources: The Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Setting: This took place in UK general practices. Participants: A total of 706 general practices with 66.2 million person-years of follow-up from 2002 to 2017 and antibiotic utilisation evaluated for 671,830 registered patients. The qualitative study included 31 patients and 30 health-care professionals from primary care. Main outcome measures: Sepsis and localised bacterial infections. Results: Patients were concerned about antimicrobial resistance and the side effects, as well as the benefits, of antibiotic treatment. Prescribers viewed the onset of sepsis as the most concerning potential outcome of reduced antibiotic prescribing. More than 40% of antibiotic prescriptions in primary care had no coded indication recorded across both Vision® and EMIS® practice systems. Antibiotic prescribing rates varied widely between general practices, but there was no evidence that serious bacterial infections were less frequent at higher prescribing practices (adjusted rate ratio for 20% increase in prescribing 1.03, 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.06; p = 0.074). The probability of sepsis was lower if an antibiotic was prescribed at an infection consultation, and the number of antibiotic prescriptions required to prevent one episode of sepsis (i.e. the number needed to treat) decreased with age. For those aged 0–4 years, the number needed to treat was 29,773 (95% uncertainty interval 18,458 to 71,091) in boys and 27,014 (95% uncertainty interval 16,739 to 65,709) in girls. For those aged > 85 years, the number needed to treat was 262 (95% uncertainty interval 236 to 293) in men and 385 (95% uncertainty interval 352 to 421) in women. Frailty was associated with a greater risk of sepsis and a smaller number needed to treat. For severely frail patients aged 55–64 years, the number needed to treat was 247 (95% uncertainty interval 156 to 459) for men and 343 (95% uncertainty interval 234 to 556) for women. At all ages, the probability of sepsis was greatest for urinary tract infection, followed by skin infection and respiratory tract infection. The numbers needed to treat were generally smaller for the period 2014–17, when sepsis was diagnosed more frequently. The results are available using an app that we developed to provide primary care prescribers with stratified risk estimates during infection consultations. Limitations: Analyses were based on non-randomised comparisons. Infection episodes and antibiotic prescribing are poorly documented in primary care. Conclusions: Antibiotic treatment is generally associated with lower risks, but the most serious bacterial infections remain infrequent even without antibiotic treatment. This research identifies risk strata in which antibiotic prescribing can be more safely reduced. Future work: The software developed from this research may be further developed and investigated for antimicrobial stewardship effect. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: This study focuses on health care received by people with serious mental illness (SMI). The aim is to examine the economic implications of different locations of management of care and the views of service users and staff regarding services set up as alternatives to secondary care. Objectives: Specific objectives are to (1) identify people with SMI managed in primary or secondary care; (2) identify those who could be potentially transferred to primary care; (3) compare the characteristics of these groups; (4) compare service use and costs; (5) generate models to estimate cost changes following transfer between settings; (6) identify characteristics associated with time to transition to secondary care; (7) investigate experiences of patients receiving support from community-based interventions; and (8) assess the economic impact of interventions to facilitate transfer of care management. Methods: (1) Quantitative component – using linked primary and secondary care data we examined differences between those discharged to primary care (n = 1410) and those still in secondary care (n = 1629). Service use and costs were compared and predictors of costs were identified using regression models. (2) Qualitative component – interviews following a topic guide were conducted at two time points with 31 people using and 10 people working in services set up as alternatives to secondary care. (3) Economic modelling – an analysis of the health-care costs of the above services compared with usual care was conducted using decision modelling. Data were obtained from local services where possible, and the time horizon was 12 months. Results: (1) Quantitative component – characteristics of those discharged to primary care (n = 1410) were similar to those still in secondary care (n = 1629). Costs for those discharged to primary care were 48% lower than for those remaining in secondary care. Other variables strongly associated with costs were a history of violence and a diagnosis of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. Few patients in secondary care had a high probability of primary care management and, therefore, excess costs were only around £150,000 across the sample. (2) Qualitative component – service users’ views about a community options team and a primary care support service were positive and compared favourably to services used previously. Views about peer support were slightly less consistent. Staff had concerns with regard to caseload sizes and staff turnover. (3) Economic modelling – services to help transition had costs that were 40% of those for standard care. The results of this showed that triaging patients into these services would save £1578 over a 1-year period and that the results were robust to changes in most parameters. Limitations: Analysis was hindered by the extent to which data were available. Qualitative analyses were limited by the fact that most of the participants did not have a SMI as usually defined and that many had been out of contact with secondary services for a long period of time. Conclusions: Costs are substantially lower in primary care than secondary care, even after controlling for service-user patient differences. Generally, there is satisfaction with services to help facilitate primary care provision and these appear to be cost saving. Future work should continue the analysis of linked data and involve a more comprehensive evaluation of the specific services investigated here. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Background: Bariatric surgery is known to be an effective treatment for extreme obesity but access to these procedures is currently limited. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the costs and outcomes of increasing access to bariatric surgery for severe and morbid obesity. Design and methods: Primary care electronic health records from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink were analysed for 3045 participants who received bariatric surgery and 247,537 general population controls. The cost-effectiveness of bariatric surgery was evaluated in severe and morbid obesity through a probabilistic Markov model populated with empirical data from electronic health records. Results: In participants who did not undergo bariatric surgery, the probability of participants with morbid obesity attaining normal body weight was 1 in 1290 annually for men and 1 in 677 for women. Costs of health-care utilisation increased with body mass index category but obesity-related physical and psychological comorbidities were the main drivers of health-care costs. In a cohort of 3045 adult obese patients with first bariatric surgery procedures between 2002 and 2014, bariatric surgery procedure rates were greatest among those aged 35–54 years, with a peak of 37 procedures per 100,000 population per year in women and 10 per 100,000 per year in men. During 7 years of follow-up, the incidence of diabetes diagnosis was 28.2 [95% confidence interval (CI) 24.4 to 32.7] per 1000 person-years in controls and 5.7 (95% CI 4.2 to 7.8) per 1000 person-years in bariatric surgery patients (adjusted hazard ratio was 0.20, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.30; p