Search

Objectives: Third-generation cephalosporin-resistant Escherichia coli from community-acquired urinary tract infections are increasingly reported worldwide. We sought to determine and characterize the mechanisms of cefotaxime resistance employed by urinary E. coli obtained from primary care, over 12 months, in Bristol and surrounding counties in South-West England.Methods: Cefalexin-resistant E. coli isolates were identified from GP-referred urine samples using disc susceptibility testing. Cefotaxime resistance was determined by subsequent plating onto MIC breakpoint plates. β-Lactamase genes were detected by PCR. WGS was performed on 225 isolates and analyses were performed using the Center for Genomic Epidemiology platform. Patient information provided by the referring general practices was reviewed.Results: Cefalexin-resistant E. coli (n=900) isolates were obtained from urines from 146 general practices. Following deduplication by patient approximately 69% (576/836) of isolates were cefotaxime resistant. WGS of 225 isolates identified that the most common cefotaxime-resistance mechanism was blaCTX-M carriage (185/225), followed by plasmid-mediated AmpCs (pAmpCs) (17/225), AmpC hyperproduction (13/225), ESBL blaSHV variants (6/225) or a combination of both blaCTX-M and pAmpC (4/225). Forty-four STs were identified, with ST131 representing 101/225 isolates, within which clade C2 was dominant (54/101). Ciprofloxacin resistance was observed in 128/225 (56.9%) of sequenced isolates, predominantly associated with fluoroquinolone-resistant clones ST131 and ST1193.Conclusions: Most cefalexin-resistant E. coli isolates were cefotaxime resistant, predominantly caused by blaCTX-M carriage. The correlation between cefotaxime resistance and ciprofloxacin resistance was largely attributable to the high-risk pandemic clones ST131 and ST1193. Localized epidemiological data provide greater resolution than regional data and can be valuable for informing treatment choices in the primary care setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the research that investigates the drivers of patient satisfaction in the primary care setting in Great Britain. The topics discussed include the correlation between patient experience and their overall satisfaction and approaches in determining the healthcare priorities and preferences of patients.

Background: We aim to describe the health-related quality of life of informal carers and their experiences of primary care. Methods: Responses from the 2011-12 English General Practice Patient Survey, including 195,364 informal carers, were analysed using mixed effect logistic regressions controlling for age, gender, ethnicity and social deprivation to describe carer health-related quality of life (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain, and anxiety/depression, measured using EQ-5D) and primary care experience (access, continuity and communication). Results: Informal carers reported poorer health-related quality of life than non-carers of similar age, gender, ethnicity and social deprivation. Increasing caring commitment was associated with worse EQ-5D scores, with carers of 50+ hours a week scoring 0.05 points lower than non-carers (95 % CI 0.05 to 0.04), equivalent to 18 fewer days of full health annually. Considering each domain of EQ-5D separately, carers of 50+ hours/week were more likely to report pain OR = 1.53 (1.50-1.57), p < 0.0001, and anxiety/depression OR = 1.69 (1.66-1.73), p < 0.0001, than non-carers. Younger carers scored lower on EQ-5D than non-carer peers but the converse was true among over-85s. In the most deprived areas carers reported the equivalent of 37 fewer days of full health annually than carers in the most affluent areas. On average, carers reported poorer patient experiences in all areas of primary care than non-carers (odds ratios 0.84-0.97), with this difference being most marked in the domain of access. Conclusions: Informal carers experience a double disadvantage of poorer health-related quality of life and poorer patient experience in primary care. We find no evidence for health benefits of caregiving. We recommend physicians identify and treat carer health problems, including pain and anxiety/depression, particularly among young, deprived and high time-commitment carers. Improving patient experience for carers, including access to primary care, should be a priority. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is an independent risk factor for mortality and is responsible for a significant burden of healthcare expenditure, so accurate measurement of its incidence is important. Administrative coding data has been used for assessing AKI incidence, and shows an increasing proportion of hospital bed days attributable to AKI. However, the accuracy of coding for AKI and changes in coding over time have not been studied in England. Methods: We studied a random sample of admissions from 2005 and 2010 where ICD-10 code N17 (acute renal failure) was recorded in the administrative coding data at one acute NHS Foundation Trust in England. Using the medical notes and computerised records we examined the demographic and clinical details of these admissions. Results: Against a 6.3% (95% CI 4.8-7.9%) increase in all non-elective admissions, we found a 64% increase in acute renal failure admissions (95% CI 41%-92%, p < 0.001) in 2010 compared to 2005. Median age was 78 years (IQR 72- 87), 11-25% had a relevant pre-admission co-morbidity and 64% (55-73%) were taking drugs known to be associated with AKI. Over both years, 95% (91-99%) of cases examined met the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes criteria for AKI. Conclusions: Patients with hospital admissions where AKI has been coded are elderly with multiple co-morbidities. Our results demonstrate a high positive predictive value of coding data for a clinical diagnosis of AKI, with no suggestion of marked changes in coding of AKI between 2005 and 2010. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports on the quality of care offered between 2003-2007 in England during the health service reforms. The study finds no significant changes in the quality of care in the areas such as communication, nursing care, and coordination. Details on the participants, survey instruments, and data analysis are discussed.

Purpose: During the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been particular concerns regarding the related impact on specialist tumour services. Neuroendocrine tumour (NET) services are delivered in a highly specialised setting, typically delivered in a small number of centres that fulfil specific criteria as defined by the European Neuroendocrine Tumour Society (ENETS). We aimed to address the COVID-19-related impact on specialist NET tumour services in England and other countries., Methods: Electronic survey addressing patient access and delivery of care distributed to all ENETS Centres of Excellence (CoE) in England and matching number of ENETS CoE elsewhere. Semi-quantitative and qualitative analyses of survey responses were performed., Results: Survey response of ENETS CoE in England was 55% (6/11). Responses from six non-UK ENETS CoE elsewhere were received and analysed in a similar manner. Relevant disruption of various NET services was noted across all responding Centres, which included delayed patient appointments and investigations, reduced availability of treatment modalities including delayed surgical treatment and a major negative impact on research activities. The comparison between English and non-UK ENETS CoE suggested that the former had significantly greater concerns related to future research funding (p = 0.014), whilst having less disruption to multidisciplinary meetings (p = 0.01). A trend was also noted towards virtual patient appointments in ENETS CoE in England vs. elsewhere (p = 0.092)., Conclusions: Restoration of highly specialised NET services following COVID-19 and planning for future service delivery and research funding must take account of the severe challenges encountered during the pandemic.

Background: ACE Inhibitors (ACE-I) and Angiotensin-Receptor Antagonists (ARAs) are commonly prescribed but can cause acute kidney injury (AKI) during intercurrent illness. Rates of hospitalization with AKI are increasing. We aimed to determine whether hospital AKI admission rates are associated with increased ACE-I/ARA prescribing., Methods and Findings: English NHS prescribing data for ACE-I/ARA prescriptions were matched at the level of the general practice to numbers of hospital admissions with a primary diagnosis of AKI. Numbers of prescriptions were weighted for the demographic characteristics of general practices by expressing prescribing as rates where the denominator is Age, Sex, and Temporary Resident Originated Prescribing Units (ASTRO-PUs). We performed a mixed-effect Poisson regression to model the number of admissions for AKI occurring in each practice for each of 4 years from 1/4/2007. From 2007/8-2010/11, crude AKI admission rates increased from 0.38 to 0.57 per 1000 patients (51.6% increase), and national annual ACE-I/ARA prescribing rates increased by 0.032 from 0.202 to 0.234 (15.8% increase). There was strong evidence (p<0.001) that increases in practice-level prescribing of ACE-I/ARA over the study period were associated with an increase in AKI admission rates. The increase in prescribing seen in a typical practice corresponded to an increase in admissions of approximately 5.1% (rate ratio = 1.051 for a 0.03 per ASTRO-PU increase in annual prescribing rate, 95%CI 1.047-1.055). Using the regression model we predict that 1,636 (95%CI 1,540-1,780) AKI admissions would have been avoided if prescribing rates were at the 2007/8 level, equivalent to 14.8% of the total increase in AKI admissions., Conclusion: In this ecological analysis, up to 15% of the increase in AKI admissions in England over a 4-year time period is potentially attributable to increased prescribing of ACE-I and ARAs. However, these findings are limited by the lack of patient level data such as indication for prescribing and patient characteristics.

Objective: To measure changes in quality of care for three major chronic diseases (coronary heart disease, asthma, and type 2 diabetes) between 1998 and 2003., Design: Longitudinal cohort study., Setting: 42 general practices in six geographical areas of England (Avon, Bury/Rochdale, Enfield, Oldham, Somerset, South Essex)., Participants: Medical record data for 2300 patients with diabetes, asthma, or coronary heart disease in 1998, and 1495 patients in 2003., Main Outcome Measure: Quality of care assessed against predefined evidence based review criteria., Results: Between 1998 and 2003, quality of care improved markedly in terms of maximum possible scores on the review criteria, from 60.5% to 78.1% for coronary heart disease (change = 17.6, 95% confidence interval 13.9 to 21.4; P < 0.001), 60.1% to 70.3% for asthma (10.2, 4.6 to 15.8; P = 0.001), and 70.4% to 77.7% for diabetes (7.3, 3.5 to 11.1; P = 0.001). Important changes occurred to several indicators potentially related to improved health outcomes. These included improved control of serum cholesterol (to < or = 5 mmol/l) from 17.6% to 61.4% in coronary heart disease and from 21.5% to 52% in diabetes and control of blood pressure to < or = 150/90 in coronary heart disease from 47.3% to 72.2% and to < or = 145/85 in diabetes from 21.8% to 35.8%. A small, non-significant improvement in glycaemic control occurred among diabetic patients (37.9% to 39.7% with HbA1c < 7.4%). Significant improvements also occurred in the recording of exercise capacity and diet and weight advice for patients with coronary heart disease; of smoking advice, peak flow, and symptoms for patients with asthma; and of creatinine, weight, and HbA(1c) for patients with diabetes. Over the five years, more improvement in coronary heart disease care occurred in large practices and practices in affluent areas., Conclusions: Substantial improvements were seen in quality of care for the three conditions studied between 1998 and 2003, a time of systematic quality improvement initiatives in the NHS. The changes were most marked for coronary heart disease. English general practices could be expected to achieve high clinical quality scores in the initial year of a new contact, which provides financial incentives for high quality care from 2004.

Background: There is wide variation in the quality of care provided by primary care practices to individuals with chronic illnesses. Individual doctor attitudes and interest have been demonstrated to influence patient outcomes in some instances. Given the trend towards larger practices and part-time working, continuity of care is likely to fall and thus practice-based rather than individual general practitioner attributes and attitudes are likely to become increasingly important. The aim in this paper was to examine the extent to which individual general practitioner (G.P.) attitudes to the care of people with epilepsy cluster within practices and predict patient-rated quality of care., Methods: The sample consisted of 1255 people with active epilepsy (a recent seizure or on anti-convulsant medication for epilepsy) and 199 GPs from 82 general practices. Measures of GP attitudes (a 17-item GP attitudes questionnaire) and patient-rated quality of epilepsy care were obtained. 1210 individuals completed initial questionnaires and 975 patients filled in final questionnaires one year later. Responses were achieved from 64 practices (83% of total) and 115 GPs (60% of total)., Results: 2 main factors were found to underlie GP attitudes to the care of people with epilepsy and these demonstrated clustering within practices "epilepsy viewed as a primary care responsibility" (Eigenvalue 3.98, intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.40), and "medication skills"(Eigenvalue 2.74, ICC 0.35). GP-rated scores on "epilepsy care being a primary care responsibility" were a significant predictor of patient-rated quality of GP care (p = 0.031). Other contributory factors were seizure frequency (p = 0.044), and patient-rated "shared decision making" (p = 0.022)., Conclusion: Specific general practitioner attitudes to the care of people with epilepsy cluster within practices and are significantly associated with patient-rated quality of epilepsy care. It is important to take these findings into consideration when planning primary care interventions to ensure people with epilepsy receive the benefits of available medical and surgical expertise.