Search

Background: Higher continuity of GP care (CGPC), that is, consulting the same doctor consistently, can improve doctor-patient relationships and increase quality of care; however, its effects on patients with dementia are mostly unknown.Aim: To estimate the associations between CGPC and potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP), and with the incidence of adverse health outcomes (AHOs) in patients with dementia.Design and Setting: A retrospective cohort study with 1 year of follow-up anonymised medical records from 9324 patients with dementia, aged ≥65 years living in England in 2016.Method: CGPC measures include the Usual Provider of Care (UPC), Bice-Boxerman Continuity of Care (BB), and Sequential Continuity (SECON) indices. Regression models estimated associations with PIPs and survival analysis with incidence of AHOs during the follow-up adjusted for age, sex, deprivation level, 14 comorbidities, and frailty.Results: The highest quartile (HQ) of UPC (highest continuity) had 34.8% less risk of delirium (odds ratio [OR] 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.51 to 0.84), 57.9% less risk of incontinence (OR 0.42, 95% CI = 0.31 to 0.58), and 9.7% less risk of emergency admissions to hospital (OR 0.90, 95% CI = 0.82 to 0.99) compared with the lowest quartile. Polypharmacy and PIP were identified in 81.6% (n = 7612) and 75.4% (n = 7027) of patients, respectively. The HQ had fewer prescribed medications (HQ: mean 8.5, lowest quartile (LQ): mean 9.7, P<0.01) and had fewer PIPs (HQ: mean 2.1, LQ: mean 2.5, P<0.01), including fewer loop diuretics in patients with incontinence, drugs that can cause constipation, and benzodiazepines with high fall risk. The BB and SECON measures produced similar findings.Conclusion: Higher CGPC for patients with dementia was associated with safer prescribing and lower rates of major adverse events. Increasing continuity of care for patients with dementia may help improve treatment and outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Research is fundamental to high-quality care, but concerns have been raised about whether health research is conducted in the populations most affected by high disease prevalence. Geographical distribution of research activity is important for many reasons. Recruitment is a major barrier to research delivery, and undertaking recruitment in areas of high prevalence could be more efficient. Regional variability exists in risk factors and outcomes, so research done in healthier populations may not generalise. Much applied health research evaluates interventions, and their impact may vary by context (including geography). Finally, fairness dictates that publically funded research should be accessible to all, so that benefits of participating can be fairly distributed. We explored whether recruitment of patients to health research is aligned with disease prevalence in England.Methods: We measured disease prevalence using the Quality and Outcomes Framework in England (total long-term conditions, mental health and diabetes). We measured research activity using data from the NIHR Clinical Research Network. We presented descriptive data on geographical variation in recruitment rates. We explored associations between the recruitment rate and disease prevalence rate. We calculated the share of patient recruitment that would need to be redistributed to align recruitment with prevalence. We assessed whether associations between recruitment rate and disease prevalence varied between conditions, and over time.Results: There was significant geographical variation in recruitment rates. When areas were ranked by disease prevalence, recruitment was not aligned with prevalence, with disproportionately low recruitment in areas with higher prevalence of total long-term and mental health conditions. At the level of 15 local networks, analyses suggested that around 12% of current recruitment activity would need to be redistributed to align with disease prevalence. Overall, alignment showed little change over time, but there was variation in the trends over time in individual conditions.Conclusions: Geographical variations in recruitment do not reflect the suitability of the population for research. Indicators should be developed to assess the fit between research and need, and to allow assessment of interventions among funders, researchers and patients to encourage closer alignment between research activity and burden. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To determine the preferred means by which participants in a study of cardiac rehabilitation wish to be informed of the study’s results. Design Postal questionnaire survey of participants in a randomized controlled trial. Setting Cornwall, southwest England. Participants Patients recruited to the Cornwall Heart Attack Rehabilitation Management Study (CHARMS). Method Participants recruited to CHARMS who were alive 3 years and 9 months after the trial was completed were contacted by letter and invited to return a reply slip with four short questions indicating how they would prefer to be informed about the published results of the study. Results In March 2008, 191/230 participants originally recruited to CHARMS were still alive. General practitioners deemed 166/191 (88%) survivors medically appropriate to be contacted through a postal survey, and 154/166 (93%) participants responded to the invitation to participate in the follow-up survey. 86% (143/166) of participants indicated that they wished to be informed about the results: 115 (80%) of these elected to receive information by letter and 25 (18%) of these preferred to attend a meeting. Men older than 65 years predominated in this latter group. Women respondents preferred to receive the study results by letter; none preferred communication by email or the web. Conclusion Survivors of acute myocardial infarction who participated in a RCT of cardiac rehabilitation wanted to receive a summary of the aggregate study results. Participants had preferences regarding how they would wish to be informed about the results of the study. Most participants preferred to be informed by letter or email, but some preferred the interaction of a group or a meeting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Previous studies have identified a substantial prevalence of a blood pressure difference between arms in various populations, but not patients with type 2 diabetes. Recognition of such a difference would be important as a potential cause of underestimation of blood pressure. Aim To measure prevalence of an inter-arm blood pressure difference in patients with type 2 diabetes, and to estimate how frequently blood pressure measurements could be erroneously underestimated if an inter-arm difference is unrecognised. Design of study Cross-sectional study. Setting Five surgeries covered by three general practices, Devon, England. Method Patients with type 2 diabetes underwent bilateral simultaneous blood pressure measurements using a validated protocol. Mean blood pressures were calculated for each arm to derive mean systolic and diastolic differences, and to estimate point prevalence of predefined magnitudes of difference. Results A total of 101 participants were recruited. Mean age was 66 years (standard deviation [SD] = 13.9 years); 59% were male, and mean blood pressure was 138/79 mmHg (SD = 15/10 mmHg). Ten participants (10%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4 to 16) had a systolic inter-arm difference >10 mmHg; 29 (29%; 95% CI = 20 to 38) had a diastolic difference ≥5 mmHg; and three (3%; 95% CI = 0 to 6) a diastolic difference ≥10 mmHg. No confounding variable was observed to account for the magnitude of an inter-arm difference. Conclusion A systolic inter-arm difference ≥10 mmHg was observed in 10% of patients with diabetes. Failure to recognise this would misclassify half of these as normotensive rather than hypertensive using the lower-reading arm. New patients with type 2 diabetes should be screened for an inter-arm blood pressure difference. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Patients with asthma are particularly susceptible to serious complications from influenza. The Chief Medical Officer recommends annual influenza vaccination for adult patients with asthma. The uptake of influenza vaccination by patients with asthma is only 40% and, unlike other high-risk groups, has failed to increase in recent years. Aim To investigate the contribution of sociodemographic factors, asthma morbidity, and health beliefs to influenza vaccination uptake in patients with asthma. Design of study Cross-sectional questionnaire study. Setting Single urban British general practice, Exeter, UK. Method A questionnaire survey was sent to adult patients with asthma. Participants were aged 16-65 years, were receiving 62 agonists and inhaled steroids, and had been invited for influenza vaccination in September 2003. Data were examined using univariate analysis and logistic regression. Results A total of 136/204 (66.7%) patients responded to the survey. Influenza vaccination uptake in the study population was 40%. Younger patients were less likely to have undergone vaccination than older patients. There was no difference in vaccination uptake rates between groups of patients defined by other sociodemographic factors. Asthma morbidity was similar in vaccinated and non-vaccinated groups of patients. Vaccinated individuals had a greater belief in the efficacy of the vaccination and medical advice regarding the vaccination, and felt more susceptible to influenza and its complications when compared with non-vaccinated individuals. A fear of side-effects was associated with declining the invitation for vaccination. These health beliefs were the only independent predictors of uptake of influenza vaccination among this group of patients with asthma. Conclusion Improving vaccination uptake in patients with asthma is unlikely unless individual health beliefs are taken into account. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents the life and works of psychiatrist Alan Edwards in England. Development of therapeutic community lines; Role of Edwards with the emergence of social psychiatry; Representation of the nature and object of psychiatry at district general hospital.

Focuses on the land and churches in Northamptonshire, England. Manifestation of medieval design and craftsmanship in the churches; Description of the church at Barton Seagrave; Accounts of the 1665 plague affecting the family of John Norton.

Background: Patients undergoing haemodialysis (HD) are at higher risk of developing worse outcomes if they contract COVID-19. In our renal service we reduced HD frequency from thrice to twice-weekly in selected patients with the primary aim of reducing COVID 19 exposure and transmission between HD patients., Methods: Dialysis unit nephrologists identified 166 suitable patients (38.4% of our HD population) to temporarily convert to twice-weekly haemodialysis immediately prior to the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in our area. Changes in pre-dialysis weight, systolic blood pressure (SBP) and biochemistry were recorded weekly throughout the 4-week project. Hyperkalaemic patients (serum potassium > 6.0 mmol/L) were treated with a potassium binder, sodium bicarbonate and received responsive dietary advice., Results: There were 12 deaths (5 due to COVID-19) in the HD population, 6 of which were in the twice weekly HD group; no deaths were definitively associated with change of dialysis protocol. A further 19 patients were either hospitalised and/or developed COVID-19 and thus transferred back to thrice weekly dialysis as per protocol. 113 (68.1%) were still receiving twice-weekly HD by the end of the 4-week project. Indications for transfer back to thrice weekly were; fluid overload (19), persistent hyperkalaemia (4), patient request (4) and compliance (1). There were statistically significant increases in SBP and pre-dialysis potassium during the project., Conclusions: Short term conversion of a large but selected HD population to twice-weekly dialysis sessions was possible and safe. This approach could help mitigate COVID-19 transmission amongst dialysis patients in centres with similar organisational pressures.

Background: Depression is associated with physical inactivity, which may mediate the relationship between depression and a range of chronic physical health conditions. However, few interventions have combined a psychological intervention for depression with behaviour change techniques, such as behavioural activation (BA), to promote increased physical activity., Methods: To determine procedural and clinical uncertainties to inform a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT), a pilot parallel-group RCT was undertaken within two Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) services in South West England. We aimed to recruit 80 adults with depression and randomise them to a supported, written self-help programme based on either BA or BA plus physical activity promotion (BAcPAc). Data were collected at baseline and 4 months post-randomisation to evaluate trial retention, intervention uptake and variance in outcomes to inform a sample size calculation. Qualitative data were collected from participants and psychological wellbeing practitioners (PWPs) to assess the acceptability and feasibility of the trial methods and the intervention. Routine data were collected to evaluate resource use and cost., Results: Sixty people with depression were recruited, and a 73 % follow-up rate was achieved. Accelerometer physical activity data were collected for 64 % of those followed. Twenty participants (33 %) attended at least one treatment appointment. Interview data were analysed for 15 participants and 9 study PWPs. The study highlighted the challenges of conducting an RCT within existing IAPT services with high staff turnover and absences, participant scheduling issues, PWP and participant preferences for cognitive focussed treatment, and deviations from BA delivery protocols. The BAcPAc intervention was generally acceptable to patients and PWPs., Conclusions: Although recruitment procedures and data collection were challenging, participants generally engaged with the BAcPAc self-help booklets and reported willingness to increase their physical activity. A number of feasibility issues were identified, in particular the under-use of BA as a treatment for depression, the difficulty that PWPs had in adapting their existing procedures for study purposes and the instability of the IAPT PWP workforce. These problems would need to be better understood and resolved before proceeding to a full-scale RCT., Trial Registration: ISRCTN74390532 . Registered on 26 March 2013.

Background: Patients who have had one stroke are at increased risk of another. Secondary prevention strategies that address medical risk factors and promote healthy lifestyles can reduce the risk. However, concordance with secondary prevention strategies is poor and there has been little research into patient and carer views., Objectives: To explore the experiences of patients and carers of receiving secondary prevention advice and use these to inform the development of an educational resource., Methods: A total of 38 participants (25 patients and 13 carers) took part in the study which used an action research approach. Focus groups and interviews were undertaken with patients and carers who had been discharged from hospital after stroke (between 3 and 24 months previously). Framework analysis was used to examine the data and elicit action points to develop an educational resource., Results: Participants' main concern was their desire for early access to information. They commented on their priorities for what information or support they needed, the difficulty of absorbing complex information whilst still an in-patient and how health professionals' use of language was often a barrier to understanding. They discussed the facilitators and barriers to making lifestyle changes. The educational resource was developed to include specific advice for medical and lifestyle risk factors and an individual action plan., Conclusion: An educational resource for secondary prevention of stroke was developed using a participatory methodology. Our findings suggest that this resource is best delivered in a one-to-one manner, but further work is needed to identify its potential utility.

Background: Current primary prevention guidelines recommend the assessment of family history of coronary heart disease (CHD) to identify at-risk individuals., Objective: To examine how clinicians and patients understand and communicate family history in the context of CHD risk assessment in primary care., Methods: A qualitative study. Patients completed a validated family history questionnaire. Consultations with clinicians were video recorded, and semi-structured interviews conducted with patients after consultation. The participants were 21 primary care patients and seven primary care clinicians (two practice nurses, five GPs). Four practices in South West England., Results: Patients and clinicians usually agreed about the patient's level of risk and how to reduce it. Patients were mostly satisfied with their consultations and having their family history assessed. However, three issues were identified from the consultations which contributed to concerns and unanswered questions for patients. Problems arose when there were few modifiable risk factors to address. Firstly, patients' explanations of their family history were not explored in the consultation. Secondly, the relationship between the patient's family history and their other risk factors, such as smoking or cholesterol, was rarely discussed. Thirdly, clinicians did not explain the integration of family history into the patient's overall cardiovascular disease risk., Conclusions: Clinicians appeared to lack a rhetoric to discuss family history, in terms of capturing both genetic and environmental factors and its relation to other risk factors. This created uncertainties for patients and carries potential clinical and social implications. There is a need for better guidance for primary care clinicians about family history assessment.

Objective: Promoting public awareness of cancer risk factors is an important public health goal, but there is concern that it could heighten anxiety. This study examined the impact of mailed information about colorectal cancer on awareness of risk factors, emotional well-being, and interest in attending screening in a population not previously exposed to screening., Method: Individuals (3,185) aged 45-66 years registered with general practitioners in South-West England in 2004 were randomized to (1) control group (no information), (2) information on colorectal cancer risk factors, or (3) information on risk factors and colorectal screening. All participants were sent a questionnaire assessing knowledge, anxiety, worry about colorectal cancer, and interest in screening., Results: Questionnaires (1,945; 61%) were returned. As expected, participants receiving information had significantly greater knowledge than the control group. Anxiety scores were in the normal range and neither anxiety nor worry about cancer differed significantly between the groups. Ninety-three percent of respondents indicated they would be interested in screening, with equally high levels across groups., Conclusion: This study suggests that information leaflets can promote knowledge of cancer risk factors without increasing anxiety. Low-cost educational materials have the potential to contribute to public engagement with health promotion and disease prevention.