Search

Aims: The COVID-19 pandemic caused significant disruption to routine activity in primary care. Medication reviews are an important primary care activity ensuring safety and appropriateness of prescribing. A disruption could have significant negative implications for patient care. Using routinely collected data, our aim was first to describe codes used to record medication review activity and then to report the impact of COVID-19 on the rates of medication reviews., Methods: With the approval of NHS England, we conducted a cohort study of 20 million adult patient records in general practice, in-situ using the OpenSAFELY platform. For each month, between April 2019 and March 2022, we report the percentage of patients with a medication review coded monthly and in the previous 12 months with breakdowns by regional, clinical and demographic subgroups and those prescribed high-risk medications., Results: In April 2019, 32.3% of patients had a medication review coded in the previous 12 months. During the first COVID-19 lockdown, monthly activity decreased (-21.1% April 2020), but the 12-month rate was not substantially impacted (-10.5% March 2021). The rate of structured medication review in the last 12 months reached 2.9% by March 2022, with higher percentages in high-risk groups (care home residents 34.1%, age 90+ years 13.1%, high-risk medications 10.2%). The most used medication review code was Medication review done 314530002 (59.5%)., Conclusions: There was a substantial reduction in the monthly rate of medication reviews during the pandemic but rates recovered by the end of the study period. Structured medication reviews were prioritized for high-risk patients., (© 2024 The Authors. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Pharmacological Society.)

Electronic health records (EHRs) and other administrative health data are increasingly used in research to generate evidence on the effectiveness, safety, and utilisation of medical products and services, and to inform public health guidance and policy. Reproducibility is a fundamental step for research credibility and promotes trust in evidence generated from EHRs. At present, ensuring research using EHRs is reproducible can be challenging for researchers. Research software platforms can provide technical solutions to enhance the reproducibility of research conducted using EHRs. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we developed the secure, transparent, analytic open-source software platform OpenSAFELY designed with reproducible research in mind. OpenSAFELY mitigates common barriers to reproducible research by: standardising key workflows around data preparation; removing barriers to code-sharing in secure analysis environments; enforcing public sharing of programming code and codelists; ensuring the same computational environment is used everywhere; integrating new and existing tools that encourage and enable the use of reproducible working practices; and providing an audit trail for all code that is run against the real data to increase transparency. This paper describes OpenSAFELY's reproducibility-by-design approach in detail., (© 2024 The Authors. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: In England, national safety guidance recommends that ciclosporin, tacrolimus, and diltiazem are prescribed by brand name due to their narrow therapeutic windows and, in the case of tacrolimus, to reduce the chance of organ transplantation rejection. Various small studies have shown that changes to electronic health record (EHR) system interfaces can affect prescribing choices., Objective: Our objectives were to assess variation by EHR systems in breach of safety guidance around prescribing of ciclosporin, tacrolimus, and diltiazem, and to conduct user-interface research into the causes of such breaches., Methods: We carried out a retrospective cohort study using prescribing data in English primary care. Participants were English general practices and their respective EHR systems. The main outcome measures were (1) the variation in ratio of safety breaches to adherent prescribing in all practices and (2) the description of observations of EHR system usage., Results: A total of 2,575,411 prescriptions were issued in 2018 for ciclosporin, tacrolimus, and diltiazem (over 60 mg); of these, 316,119 prescriptions breached NHS guidance (12.27%). Breaches were most common among users of the EMIS EHR system (breaches in 18.81% of ciclosporin and tacrolimus prescriptions and in 17.99% of diltiazem prescriptions), but breaches were observed in all EHR systems., Conclusions: Design choices in EHR systems strongly influence safe prescribing of ciclosporin, tacrolimus, and diltiazem, and breaches are prevalent in general practices in England. We recommend that all EHR vendors review their systems to increase safe prescribing of these medicines in line with national guidance. Almost all clinical practice is now mediated through an EHR system; further quantitative research into the effect of EHR system design on clinical practice is long overdue., (©Brian MacKenna, Sebastian Bacon, Alex J Walker, Helen J Curtis, Richard Croker, Ben Goldacre. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 16.10.2020.)

Background: The UK delivered its first “booster” COVID-19 vaccine doses in September 2021, initially to individuals at high risk of severe disease, then to all adults. The BNT162b2 Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was used initially, then also Moderna mRNA-1273. Methods: With the approval of the National Health Service England, we used routine clinical data to estimate the effectiveness of boosting with BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 compared with no boosting in eligible adults who had received two primary course vaccine doses. We matched each booster recipient with an unboosted control on factors relating to booster priority status and prior COVID-19 immunization. We adjusted for additional factors in Cox models, estimating hazard ratios up to 182 days (6 months) following booster dose. We estimated hazard ratios overall and within the following periods: 1–14, 15–42, 43–69, 70–97, 98–126, 127–152, and 155–182 days. Outcomes included a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, COVID-19 hospitalization, COVID-19 death, non-COVID-19 death, and fracture. Results: We matched 8,198,643 booster recipients with unboosted controls. Adjusted hazard ratios over 6-month follow-up were: positive SARS-CoV-2 test 0.75 (0.74, 0.75); COVID-19 hospitalization 0.30 (0.29, 0.31); COVID-19 death 0.11 (0.10, 0.14); non- COVID-19 death 0.22 (0.21, 0.23); and fracture 0.77 (0.75, 0.78). Estimated effectiveness of booster vaccines against severe COVID- 19-related outcomes peaked during the first 3 months following the booster dose. By 6 months, the cumulative incidence of positive SARS-CoV-2 test was higher in boosted than unboosted individuals. Conclusions: We estimate that COVID-19 booster vaccination, compared with no booster vaccination, provided substantial protection against COVID-19 hospitalization and COVID-19 death but only limited protection against positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Lower rates of fracture in boosted than unboosted individuals may suggest unmeasured confounding. Observational studies should report estimated vaccine effectiveness against nontarget and negative control outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic many patients were switched from warfarin to direct)acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs), which require the creatinine clearance (CrCl) calculated to ensure the correct dose is prescribed to avoid bleeding or reduced efficacy. Aim: To identify the study population proportion prescribed a DOAC. Of these, the proportion with recorded: weight, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), creatinine, CrCl and atrial fibrillation (AF). To analyse the proportion of patients with recorded AF and CrCl prescribed a recommended DOAC dose. Design & setting: A retrospective cohort study of 20.5 million adult NHS patients’ electronic health records (EHRs) in England in the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform (January 2018–February 2023). Method: Patients on DOACs were analysed for age, sex, recorded weight, eGFR, creatinine, CrCl and AF. Prescribed DOAC doses in patients with recorded AF were compared with recommended doses for recorded CrCl and determined as either recommended, higher than recommended (overdose), or lower than recommended (underdose). Results: In February 2023, weight, eGFR, creatinine, CrCl, and AF were recorded in 72.8%, 92.4%, 94.3%, 73.5%, and 73.9% of study population, respectively. Both AF and CrCl were recorded for 56.7% of patients. Of these, 86.2% received the recommended, and 13.8% non-recommended, DOAC doses. Conclusion: CrCl is not recorded for a substantial number of patients on DOACs. We recommend that national organisations tasked with safety, collectively update guidance on the appropriate weight to use in the Cockcroft–Gault equation, clarify that CrCl is not equivalent to eGFR, and work with GP clinical system suppliers to standardise the calculation of CrCl in the EHR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted healthcare activity across a broad range of clinical services. The NHS stopped non-urgent work in March 2020, later recommending services be restored to near-normal levels before winter where possible. Aim: To describe changes in the volume and variation of coded clinical activity in general practice across six clinical areas: cardiovascular disease, diabetes, mental health, female and reproductive health, screening and related procedures, and processes related to medication. Design and setting: With the approval of NHS England, a cohort study was conducted of 23.8 million patient records in general practice, in situ using OpenSAFELY. Method: Common primary care activities were analysed using Clinical Terms Version 3 codes and keyword searches from January 2019 to December 2020, presenting median and deciles of code usage across practices per month. Results: Substantial and widespread changes in clinical activity in primary care were identified since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, with generally good recovery by December 2020. A few exceptions showed poor recovery and warrant further investigation, such as mental health (for example, for 'Depression interim review' the median occurrences across practices in December 2020 was down by 41.6% compared with December 2019). Conclusion: Granular NHS general practice data at population-scale can be used to monitor disruptions to healthcare services and guide the development of mitigation strategies. The authors are now developing real-time monitoring dashboards for the key measures identified in this study, as well as further studies using primary care data to monitor and mitigate the indirect health impacts of COVID-19 on the NHS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]