Search

Background: Blood pressure (BP) control following stroke is important but currently sub-optimal. This trial aimed to determine whether self-monitoring of hypertension with telemonitoring and a treatment escalation protocol, results in lower BP than usual care in people with previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA)., Methods: Unblinded randomised controlled trial, comparing a BP telemonitoring-based intervention with control (usual care) for hypertension management in 12 primary care practices in England. People with previous stroke or TIA with clinic systolic BP 130-180 mmHg, taking ≤ 3 antihypertensive medications and on stable treatment for at least four weeks were randomised 1:1 using secure online system to intervention or control. The BP:Together intervention comprised self-monitoring of blood pressure with a digital behavioural intervention which supported telemonitoring of self-monitored BP with feedback to clinicians and patients regarding medication titration. The planned primary outcome was difference in clinic measured systolic BP 12 months from randomisation but was not available following early study termination due to withdrawal of funding during the COVID-19 pandemic. Instead, in addition to pre-randomised data, routinely recorded BP was extracted from electronic patient records both pre- and post-randomisation and presented descriptively only. An intention to treat approach was taken., Results: From 650 postal invitations, 129 (20%) responded, of whom 95 people had been screened for eligibility prior to the pandemic (November 2019-March 2020) and 55 (58%) were randomised. Pre-randomisation routinely recorded mean BP was 145/78 mmHg in the control (n = 26) and 145/79 mmHg in the self-monitoring (n = 21) groups. Post-randomisation mean BP was 134/73 mmHg in the control (n = 19) and 130/75 mmHg in the self-monitoring (n = 25) groups. Participants randomised to self-monitoring used the intervention for ≥ 7 months in 25/27 (93%) of cases., Conclusions: Recruitment of people with stroke/TIA to a trial comparing a BP self-monitoring and digital behavioural intervention to usual care was feasible prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and the vast majority of those randomised to intervention used it while the trial was running. Routinely recorded blood pressure control improved in both groups. Digital interventions including self-monitoring are feasible for people with stroke/TIA and should be definitively evaluated in future trials., Trial Registration: ISRCTN57946500 06/09/2019 Prospective., Competing Interests: Declarations. Ethics approvals and consent to participate: Ethical approval was granted by North West - Greater Manchester East Research Ethics Committee Reference 19/NW/0409.Written informed consent was obtained before eligibility confirmation. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: RM has received BP monitors for research from Omron (which were recycled for use in the current study) and Oxford University has received fees and consultancy from Omron for his work. FDRH has received occasional fees or expenses for speaking or consultancy from AZ, BI, Bayer, BMS/Pfizer, and Novartis. BM has received consultancy fees from the Scottish Government for advice on remote monitoring of hypertension. CRo has received consultancy fees from Sensyne Health for work on telemonitoring products. The other authors declare no further conflicts of interest., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

There is uncertainty about how best to diagnose asthma, especially in primary care where mis-diagnosis is common. To address this, we developed a clinical decision support system (CDSS) for asthma diagnosis in children and young people (aged 5-25 years). This study explored the feasibility and acceptability of the CDSS in UK primary care. We recruited general practices from England and Scotland. The CDSS was available for use during routine consultations for six months. We analysed CDSS usage and, toward the end of the study, undertook qualitative interviews with clinicians who had used the CDSS. Within the 10 practices who completed the study, the CDSS was used by 75 out of 94 clinicians. 11 clinicians from 8 practices were interviewed. The CDSS was acceptable to participants who particularly commented on the ease of use and auto-population of information from the patient record. Barriers to use included the inability to record findings directly into the patient notes and a sense that, whilst possibly useful for trainees and junior colleagues, the CDSS would not necessarily lead to a change in their own practice. The CDSS was generally well received by primary care clinicians, though participants felt it would be most useful for trainees and less experienced colleagues., Competing Interests: Competing interests: C.S. reports unconditional honoraria via a Limited company for consultancy and delivery of education from AstraZeneca, Bedfont, Boehringer Inglehieim, Cheisi, GSK, Teva, and Trudell; policy lead PCRS and Co-chair of Early and Accurate Diagnosis working group of Taskforce for Lung Health. D.P. has advisory board membership with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Viatris, Teva Pharmaceuticals; consultancy agreements with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Viatris, Teva Pharmaceuticals; grants and unrestricted funding for investigator-initiated studies (conducted through Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd.) from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Viatris, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, and UK National Health Service; payment for lectures/speaking engagements from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, Inside Practice, GlaxoSmithKline, Medscape, Viatris, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi Genzyme, Teva Pharmaceuticals; payment for travel/accommodation/meeting expenses from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Medscape, Teva Pharmaceuticals.; owns 74% of the social enterprise Optimum Patient Care Ltd. (Australia and UK) and 92.61% of Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd. (Singapore); 5% shareholding in Timestamp which develops adherence monitoring technology; is peer reviewer for grant committees of the UK Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme, and Health Technology Assessment; and was an expert witness for GlaxoSmithKline. H.P. has received fees for non-promotional talks in sponsored symposia from Teva and Sandoz Pharmaceuticals. The remaining authors declare no competing interests., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: The receptionist is pivotal to the smooth running of general practice in the UK, communicating with patients and booking appointments., Aim: The authors aimed to explore the role of the receptionist in the implementation of new approaches to consultations in primary care., Design and Setting: The authors conducted a team-based focused ethnography. Three researchers observed eight general practices across England and Scotland between June 2015 and May 2016., Method: Interviews were conducted with 39 patients and 45 staff in the practices, all of which had adopted one or more methods (telephone, email, e-consultation, or internet video) for providing an alternative to face-to-face consultation., Results: Receptionists have a key role in facilitating patient awareness regarding new approaches to consultations in primary care, while at the same time ensuring that patients receive a consultation appropriate to their needs. In this study, receptionists' involvement in implementation and planning for the introduction of alternative approaches to face-to-face consultations was minimal, despite the expectation that they would be involved in delivery., Conclusion: A shared understanding within practices of the potential difficulties and extra work that might ensue for reception staff was lacking. This might contribute to the low uptake by patients of potentially important innovations in service delivery. Involvement of the wider practice team in planning and piloting changes, supporting team members through service reconfiguration, and providing an opportunity to discuss and contribute to modifications of any new system would ensure that reception staff are suitably prepared to support the introduction of a new approach to consultations., (© British Journal of General Practice 2018.)

Objectives: To explore the experiences of patients and professionals taking part in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of blood glucose, blood pressure (BP) and weight telemonitoring in type 2 diabetes supported by primary care, and identify factors facilitating or hindering the effectiveness of the intervention and those likely to influence its potential translation to routine practice., Design: Qualitative study adopting an interpretive descriptive approach., Participants: 23 patients, 6 nurses and 4 doctors who were participating in a RCT of blood glucose and BP telemonitoring. A maximum variation sample of patients from within the trial based on age, sex and deprivation status of the practice was sought., Setting: 12 primary care practices in Scotland and England., Method: Data were collected via recorded semistructured interviews. Analysis was inductive with themes presented within an overarching thematic framework. Multiple strategies were employed to ensure that the analysis was credible and trustworthy., Results: Telemonitoring of blood glucose, BP and weight by people with type 2 diabetes was feasible. The data generated by telemonitoring supported self-care decisions and medical treatment decisions. Motivation to self-manage diet was increased by telemonitoring of blood glucose, and the 'benign policing' aspect of telemonitoring was considered by patients to be important. The convenience of home monitoring was very acceptable to patients although professionals had some concerns about telemonitoring increasing workload and costs., Conclusions: Telemonitoring of blood glucose, BP and weight in primary care is a promising way of improving diabetes management which would be highly acceptable to the type of patients who volunteered for this study., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN71674628; Pre-results., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)