Search

Objective To develop and validate a new scale to assess treatment burden (the effort of looking after one's health) for patients with multimorbidity. Design Mixed-methods. Setting UK primary care. Participants Content of the Multimorbidity Treatment Burden Questionnaire (MTBQ) was based on a literature review and views from a patient and public involvement group. Face validity was assessed through cognitive interviews. The scale was piloted and the final version was tested in 1546 adults with multimorbidity (mean age 71 years) who took part in the 3D Study, a cluster randomised controlled trial. For each question, we examined the proportion of missing data and the distribution of responses. Factor analysis, Cronbach's alpha, Spearman's rank correlations and longitudinal regression assessed dimensional structure, internal consistency reliability, construct validity and responsiveness, respectively. We assessed interpretability by grouping the global MTBQ scores into zero and tertiles (>0) and comparing participant characteristics across these categories. Results Cognitive interviews found good acceptability and content validity. Factor analysis supported a one-factor solution. Cronbach's alpha was 0.83, indicating internal consistency reliability. The MTBQ score had a positive association with a comparator treatment burden scale (rs 0.58, P<0.0001) and with self-reported disease burden (rs 0.43, P<0.0001), and a negative association with quality of life (rs-0.36, P<0.0001) and self-rated health (rs-0.36, P<0.0001). Female participants, younger participants and participants with mental health conditions were more likely to have high treatment burden scores. Changes in MTBQ score over 9-month follow-up were associated, as expected, with changes in measures of quality of life (EuroQol five dimensions, five level questionnaire) and patient-centred care (Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care). Conclusion The MTBQ is a 10-item measure of treatment burden for patients with multimorbidity that has demonstrated good content validity, construct validity, reliability and responsiveness. It is a useful research tool for assessing the impact of interventions on treatment burden. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Errors associated with failures in filing, actioning and communicating blood test results can lead to delayed and missed diagnoses and patient harm. This study aimed to audit how blood tests in primary care are filed, actioned and communicated in primary care, to identify areas for patient safety improvements., Methods: UK primary care clinicians were recruited through the Primary Care Academic CollaboraTive (PACT). PACT members audited 50 recent sets of blood tests from their practice and retrospectively extracted data on blood test result coding, actioning and communication. PACT members received a practice report, showing their own results, benchmarked against other participating practices., Results: PACT members from 57 general practices across all four UK nations collected data on 2572 patients who had blood tests in April 2021. In 89.9% (n=2311) they agreed with the initial clinician's actioning of blood tests; 10.1% disagreed, either partially (7.1%) or fully (3.0%).In 44% of patients (n=1132) an action (eg, 'make an appointment') was specified by the filing clinician. This action was carried out in 89.7% (n=1015/1132) of cases; in 6.8% (n=77) the action was not carried out, in 3.5% (n=40) it was unclear. In the 117 cases where the test result had not been actioned 38% (n=45) were felt to be at low risk of harm, 1.7% (n=2) were at high risk of harm, 0.85% (n=1) came to harm.Overall, in 47% (n=1210) of patients there was no evidence in the electronic health records that results had been communicated. Out of 1176 patients with one or more abnormal results there was no evidence of test communication in 30.6% (n=360). There were large variations between practices in rates of actioning and communicating tests., Conclusion: This research demonstrates variation in the way blood test results are actioned and communicated, with important patient safety implications., Competing Interests: Competing interests: PD, IBB, SH, SWDM, and SW were members of the PACT committee during the conduct of this study, as well as being co-investigators. JW is current Chair of the PACT committee., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)