Search

Background: Rates of blood testing have increased over the past two decades. Reasons for testing cannot easily be extracted from electronic health record databases. Aim: To explore who requests blood tests and why, and what the outcomes of testing are in UK primary care. Design and setting: A retrospective audit of electronic health records in general practices in England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland was undertaken. Method: Fifty-seven clinicians from the Primary care Academic CollaboraTive (PACT) each reviewed the electronic health records of 50 patients who had blood tests in April 2021. Anonymised data were extracted including patient characteristics, who requested the tests, reasons for testing, test results, and outcomes of testing. Results: Data were collected from 2572 patients across 57 GP practices. The commonest reasons for testing in primary care were investigation of symptoms (43.2%), monitoring of existing disease (30.1%), monitoring of existing medications (10.1%), and follow up of previous abnormalities (6.8%); patient requested testing was rare in this study (1.5%). Abnormal and borderline results were common, with 26.6% of patients having completely normal test results. Around one-quarter of tests were thought to be partially or fully unnecessary when reviewed retrospectively by a clinical colleague. Overall, 6.2% of tests in primary care led to a new diagnosis or confirmation of a diagnosis. Conclusion: The utilisation of a national collaborative model (PACT) has enabled a unique exploration of the rationale and outcomes of blood testing in primary care, highlighting areas for future research and optimisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Treatment burden represents the work patients undertake because of their health care, and the impact of that effort on the patient. Most research has focused on older adults (aged >65 years) with multiple long-term conditions (multimorbidity) (MLTC-M), but there are now more younger adults (aged 18-65 years) living with MLTC-M and they may experience treatment burden differently. Understanding experiences of treatment burden, and identifying those most at risk of high treatment burden, are important for designing primary care services to meet their needs. Aim: To understand the treatment burden associated with MLTC-M, for people aged 18-65 years, and how primary care services affect this burden. Design & setting: Mixed-methods study in up to 33 primary care practices in two UK regions. Method: The following two approaches will be used: (i) in-depth qualitative interviews with adults living with MLTC-M (approximately 40 participants) to understand their experiences of treatment burden and the impact of primary care, with a think-aloud aspect to explore face validity of a novel short treatment burden questionnaire (STBQ) for routine clinical use in the initial 15 interviews; (ii) cross-sectional patient survey (approximately 1000 participants), with linked routine medical record data to examine the factors associated with treatment burden for people living with MLTC-M, and to test the validity of STBQ. Conclusion: This study will generate in-depth understanding of the treatment burden experienced by people aged 18-65 years living with MLTC-M, and how primary care services affect this burden. This will inform further development and testing of interventions to reduce treatment burden, and potentially influence MLTC-M trajectories and improve health outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Treatment burden is the effort required of patients to look after their health, and the impact this has on their wellbeing. Quantitative data on treatment burden for patients with multimorbidity are sparse, and no single-item treatment burden measure exists.Aim: To determine the extent of, and associations with, high treatment burden among older adults with multimorbidity, and to explore the performance of a novel single-item treatment burden measure.Design and Setting: Cross-sectional postal survey via general practices in Dorset, UK.Method: Patients ≥55 years, living at home, with three or more long-term conditions (LTCs) were identified by practices. Treatment burden was measured using the Multimorbidity Treatment Burden Questionnaire. Data collected were sociodemographics, LTCs, medications, and characteristics including health literacy and financial resource. Associations with high treatment burden were investigated via logistic regression. Performance of a novel single-item measure of treatment burden was also evaluated.Results: A total of 835 responses were received (response rate 42%) across eight practices. Patients' mean age was 75 years, 55% were female (n = 453), and 99% were white (n = 822). Notably, 39% of patients self-reported fewer than three LTCs (n = 325). Almost one-fifth (18%) of responders reported high treatment burden (n = 150); making lifestyle changes and arranging appointments were particular sources of difficulty. After adjustment, limited health literacy and financial difficulty displayed strong associations with high treatment burden; more LTCs and more prescribed regular medications were also independently associated. The single-item measure discriminated moderately between high and non-high burden with a sensitivity of 89%, but a specificity of 58%.Conclusion: High treatment burden was relatively common, underlining the importance of minimising avoidable burden. More vulnerable patients, with less capacity to manage, are at greater risk of being overburdened. Further development of a single-item treatment burden measure is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The true burden of acute lower respiratory tract disease (aLRTD; includes acute lower respiratory tract infection [aLRTI] and presumed non-infective exacerbations of chronic lung disease and heart failure) among adults presenting to primary care, and the proportion that are potentially vaccine preventable is unknown., Aim: To describe aLRTD incidence in adults presenting to primary care; estimate proportions caused by respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and Streptococcus pneumoniae (SP); and investigate disease burden from patient and NHS perspectives., Design & Setting: Primary care prospective cohort study conducted in six representative general practices (total ∼86 000 registered adults) in Bristol, UK., Method: Adults (aged ≥18 years) registered at participating general practices and presenting to primary care (in-hours or out-of-hours) or emergency department (if not admitted) with aLRTD will be eligible. They will be identified by real-time primary care record searches. Researchers will screen electronic GP records, including free text, contact patients to assess eligibility, and offer enrolment in a surveillance study and an enhanced diagnostic study (urine, saliva, and respiratory samples; physical examination; and symptom diaries). Data will be collected for all aLRTD episodes, with patients assigned to one of three arms: surveillance; embedded diagnostic; and descriptive dataset. Outcome measures will include clinical and pathogen-defined aLRTD incidence rates, symptom severity and duration, NHS contacts and costs, health-related quality-of-life changes, and mortality (≤30 days post-identification)., Conclusion: This comprehensive surveillance study of adults presenting to primary care with aLRTD, with embedded detailed data and sample collection, will provide an accurate assessment of aLRTD burden due to vaccine-preventable infections., (Copyright © 2024, The Authors.)