Search

Background: Scotland abolished the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) in April 2016, before implementing a new Scottish GP contract in April 2018. Since 2016, groups of practices (GP clusters) have been incentivised to meet regularly to plan and organise quality improvement (QI) as part of this new direction in primary care policy.Aim: To understand the organisation and perceived impact of GP clusters, including how they use quantitative data for improvement.Design and Setting: Thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders (n = 17) and observations of GP cluster meetings (n = 6) in two clusters.Method: This analytical strategy was combined with a purposive (variation) sampling approach to the sources of data, to try to identify commonalities across diverse stakeholder experiences of working in or on the idea of GP clusters. Variation was sought particularly in terms of stakeholders' level of involvement in improvement initiatives, and in their disciplinary affiliations.Results: There was uncertainty as to whether GP clusters should focus on activities generated internally or externally by the wider healthcare system (for example, from Scottish Health Boards), although the two observed clusters generally generated their own ideas and issues. Clusters operated with variable administrative/managerial and data support, and variable baseline leadership experience and QI skills. Qualitative approaches formed the focus of collaborative learning in cluster meetings, through sharing and discussion of member practices' own understandings and experiences. Less evidence was observed of data analytics being championed in these meetings, partly because of barriers to accessing the analytics data and existing data quality.Conclusion: Cluster development would benefit from more consistent training and support for cluster leads in small-group facilitation, leadership, and QI expertise, and data analytics access and capacity. While GP clusters are up and running, their impact is likely to be limited without further investment in developing capacity in these areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Comorbidity is common in heart failure, but previous prevalence estimates have been based on a limited number of conditions using mainly non-primary care data sources.Aim: To compare prevalence rates of comorbidity and polypharmacy in those with and without chronic heart failure due to left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD).Design and Setting: A cross-sectional study of 1.4 million patients in primary care in Scotland.Method: Data on the presence of LVSD, 31 other physical, and seven mental health comorbidities, and prescriptions were extracted from a database of 1 424 378 adults. Comorbidity prevalence was compared in patients with and without LVSD, standardised by age, sex, and deprivation. Pharmacology data were also compared between the two groups.Results: There were 17 285 patients (1.2%) who had a diagnosis of LVSD. Compared with standardised controls, the LVSD group had greater comorbidity, with the biggest difference found for seven or more conditions (odds ratio [OR] 4.10; 95% confidence interval (CI] = 3.90 to 4.32). Twenty-five physical conditions and six mental health conditions were significantly more prevalent in those with LVSD relative to standardised controls. Polypharmacy was higher in the LVSD group compared with controls, with the biggest difference found for ≥11 repeat prescriptions (OR 4.81; 95% CI = 4.60 to 5.04). However, these differences in polypharmacy were attenuated after controlling for the number of morbidities, indicating that much of the additional prescribing was accounted for by multimorbidity rather than LVSD per se.Conclusion: Extreme comorbidity and polypharmacy is significantly more common in patients with chronic heart failure due to LVSD. The efficient management of such complexity requires the integration of general and specialist expertise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Empathy is an essential skill in doctor-patient communication with positive effects on compliance, patient satisfaction and symptom duration. There are no validated patient-rated empathy measures available in Dutch.Objective: To investigate the validity and reliability of a Dutch version of the Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) Measure, a widely used 10-item patient-rated questionnaire of physician empathy.Methods: After translation and back translation, the Dutch CARE Measure was distributed among patients from 19 general practitioners in 5 primary care centers. Tests of internal reliability and validity included Cronbach's alpha, item total correlations and factor analysis. Seven items of the QUality Of care Through the patient's Eyes (QUOTE) questionnaire assessing 'affective performance' of the physician were included in factor analysis and used to investigate convergent validity.Results: Of the 800 distributed questionnaires, 655 (82%) were returned. Acceptability and face validity were supported by a low number of 'does not apply' responses (range 0.2%-11.9%). Internal reliability was high (Cronbach's alpha 0.974). Corrected item total correlations were at a minimum of 0.837. Factor analysis on the 10 items of the CARE Measure and 7 QUOTE items resulted in two factors (Eigenvalue > 1), the first containing the CARE Measure items and the second containing the QUOTE items. Convergent construct validity between the CARE Measure and QUOTE was confirmed with a modest positive correlation (r = 0.34, n = 654, P < 0.001).Conclusion: The findings support the preliminary validity and reliability of the Dutch CARE Measure. Future research is required to investigate divergent validity and discriminant ability between doctors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Multimorbidity is common in deprived communities and reduces quality of life. Our aim was to evaluate a whole-system primary care-based complex intervention, called CARE Plus, to improve quality of life in multimorbid patients living in areas of very high deprivation.Methods: We used a phase 2 exploratory cluster randomised controlled trial with eight general practices in Glasgow in very deprived areas that involved multimorbid patients aged 30-65 years. The intervention comprised structured longer consultations, relationship continuity, practitioner support, and self-management support. Control practices continued treatment as usual. Primary outcomes were quality of life (EQ-5D-5L utility scores) and well-being (W-BQ12; 3 domains). Cost-effectiveness from a health service perspective, engagement, and retention were assessed. Recruitment and baseline measurements occurred prior to randomisation. Blinding post-randomisation was not possible but outcome measurement and analysis were masked. Analyses were by intention to treat.Results: Of 76 eligible practices contacted, 12 accepted, and eight were selected, randomised and participated for the duration of the trial. Of 225 eligible patients, 152 (68 %) participated and 67/76 (88 %) in each arm completed the 12-month assessment. Two patients died in the control group. CARE Plus significantly improved one domain of well-being (negative well-being), with an effect size of 0.33 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.11-0.55) at 12 months (p = 0.0036). Positive well-being, energy, and general well-being (the combined score of the three components) were not significantly influenced by the intervention at 12 months. EQ-5D-5L area under the curve over the 12 months was higher in the CARE Plus group (p = 0.002). The incremental cost in the CARE Plus group was £929 (95 % CI: £86-£1788) per participant with a gain in quality-adjusted life years of 0.076 (95 % CI: 0.028-0.124) over the 12 months of the trial, resulting in a cost-effectiveness ratio of £12,224 per quality-adjusted life year gained. Modelling suggested that cost-effectiveness would continue.Conclusions: It is feasible to conduct a high-quality cluster randomised control trial of a complex intervention with multimorbid patients in primary care in areas of very high deprivation. Enhancing primary care through a whole-system approach may be a cost-effective way to protect quality of life for multimorbid patients in deprived areas.Trial Registration: Trial Registration: ISRCTN 34092919 , assigned 14/1/2013. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Goal-oriented care is being adopted to deliver person-centered primary care to older adults with multimorbidity and complex care needs. Although this model holds promise, its implementation remains a challenge. Digital health solutions may enable processes to improve adoption; however, they require evaluation to determine feasibility and impact.Objective: This study aims to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of the electronic Patient-Reported Outcome (ePRO) mobile app and portal system, designed to enable goal-oriented care delivery in interprofessional primary care practices. The research questions driving this study are as follows: Does ePRO improve quality of life and self-management in older adults with complex needs? What mechanisms are likely driving observed outcomes?Methods: A multimethod, pragmatic randomized controlled trial using a stepped-wedge design and ethnographic case studies was conducted over a 15-month period in 6 comprehensive primary care practices across Ontario with a target enrollment of 176 patients. The 6 practices were randomized into either early (3-month control period; 12-month intervention) or late (6-month control period; 9-month intervention) groups. The primary outcome measure of interest was the Assessment of Quality of Life-4D (AQoL-4D). Data were collected at baseline and at 3 monthly intervals for the duration of the trial. Ethnographic data included observations and interviews with patients and providers at the midpoint and end of the intervention. Outcome data were analyzed using linear models conducted at the individual level, accounting for cluster effects at the practice level, and ethnographic data were analyzed using qualitative description and framework analysis methods.Results: Recruitment challenges resulted in fewer sites and participants than expected; of the 176 target, only 142 (80.6%) patients were identified as eligible to participate because of lower-than-expected provider participation and fewer-than-expected patients willing to participate or perceived as ready to engage in goal-setting. Of the 142 patients approached, 45 (32%) participated. Patients set a variety of goals related to self-management, mental health, social health, and overall well-being. Owing to underpowering, the impact of ePRO on quality of life could not be definitively assessed; however, the intervention group, ePRO plus usual care (mean 15.28, SD 18.60) demonstrated a nonsignificant decrease in quality of life (t24=-1.20; P=.24) when compared with usual care only (mean 21.76, SD 2.17). The ethnographic data reveal a complex implementation process in which the meaningfulness (or coherence) of the technology to individuals' lives and work acted as a key driver of adoption and tool appraisal.Conclusions: This trial experienced many unexpected and significant implementation challenges related to recruitment and engagement. Future studies could be improved through better alignment of the research methods and intervention to the complex and diverse clinical settings, dynamic goal-oriented care process, and readiness of provider and patient participants.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02917954; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02917954. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Schizophrenia is associated with increased cardiovascular mortality. Although cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk prediction algorithms are widely in the general population, their utility for patients with schizophrenia is unknown. Methods A primary care dataset was used to compare CVD risk scores (Joint British Societies (JBS) score), cardiovascular risk factors, rates of pre-existing CVD and age of first diagnosis of CVD for schizophrenia (n = 1997) relative to population controls (n = 215,165). Results Pre-existing rates of CVD and the recording of risk factors for those without CVD were higher in the schizophrenia cohort in the younger age groups, for both genders. Those with schizophrenia were more likely to have a first diagnosis of CVD at a younger age, with nearly half of men with schizophrenia plus CVD diagnosed under the age of 55 (schizophrenia men 46.1% vs. control men 34.8%, p < 0.001; schizophrenia women 28.9% vs. control women 23.8%, p < 0.001). However, despite high rates of CVD risk factors within the schizophrenia group, only a very small percentage (3.2% of men and 7.5% of women) of those with schizophrenia under age 55 were correctly identified as high risk for CVD according to the JBS risk algorithm. Conclusion The JBS2 risk score identified only a small proportion of individuals with schizophrenia under the age of 55 as being at high risk of CVD, despite high rates of risk factors and high rates of first diagnosis of CVD within this age group. The validity of CVD risk prediction algorithms for schizophrenia needs further research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]