Search

Background: Following the 2019 NHS Long Term Plan, link workers have been employed across primary care in England to deliver social prescribing., Aim: To understand and explain how the link worker role is being implemented in primary care in England., Design and Setting: This was a realist evaluation undertaken in England, focusing on link workers based in primary care., Method: The study used focused ethnographies around seven link workers from different parts of England. As part of this, we interviewed 61 patients and 93 professionals from health care and the voluntary, community, and social enterprise sector. We reinterviewed 41 patients, seven link workers, and a link worker manager 9-12 months after their first interview., Results: We developed four concepts from the codes developed during the project on the topic around how link workers are integrated (or not) within primary care: (or not) within primary care: centralising or diffusing power; forging an identity in general practice; demonstrating effect; and building a facilitative infrastructure. These concepts informed the development of a programme theory around a continuum of integration of link workers into primary care - from being 'bolted on' to existing provision, without much consideration, to 'fitting in', shaping what is delivered to be accommodating, through to 'belonging', whereby they are accepted as a legitimate source of support, making a valued contribution to patients' broader wellbeing., Conclusion: Social prescribing was introduced into primary care to promote greater attention to the full range of factors affecting patients' health and wellbeing, beyond biomedicine. For that to happen, our analysis highlights the need for a whole-system approach to defining, delivering, and maintaining this new part of practice., (© The Authors.)

Background: In response to the unsustainable workload and workforce crises in primary care, paramedics (with their generalist clinical background acquired from ambulance service experience) are increasingly employed in primary care. However, the specific contribution paramedics can offer to the primary care workforce has not been distinctly outlined. We used realist approaches to understand the ways in which paramedics impact (or not) the primary care workforce., Methods: A realist evaluation was undertaken, consisting of three independent but inter-related research studies: In WP1, a mixed-methods cross-sectional survey of paramedics in primary care in the UK was conducted to comprehend the existing practices of paramedics within the NHS. WP2 involved an analytic auto-netnography, where online conversations among paramedics in primary care were observed to understand paramedics' perceptions of their role. WP3 utilised focused observations and interviews to delve into the impact of paramedics on the primary care workforce. This comparative study collected data from sixty participants across fifteen sites in the UK, and twelve participants across three sites in a specific region in Canada, where Community Paramedicine is well established., Results: The culmination of findings from each phase led to the development of a final programme theory, comprising of 50 context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs) encompassing three conceptual categories: Expectations associated with paramedics in primary care, the transition of paramedics into primary care roles, and the roles and responsibilities of paramedics in primary care., Conclusions: Our realist evaluation used a mixed-method approach to present empirical evidence of the role of paramedics in primary care. It offers insights into factors relating to their deployment, employment, and how they fit within the wider primary care team. Based on the evidence generated, we produced a series of practice implementation recommendations and highlighted areas for further research., Competing Interests: Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: WP1 was approved by the Central University Research Ethics Committee (MS IDREC Ref: R64129/RE001) at the University of Oxford. WP2 was approved by the Central University Research Ethics Committee (MS IDREC Ref: R77299/RE001) at the University of Oxford. WP3 was approved to be undertaken in the UK by the Central University Research Ethics Committee at the University of Oxford and the Health Research Authority (22/NW/0097). It was approved to be undertaken within the County of Renfrew Paramedic Service, Ontario, Canada by the Oxford Tropical Research Ethics Committee (OxTREC Reference: 524–22). Consent for publication: N/A. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests., (© 2025. The Author(s).)

Background: Unsolicited feedback can solicit changes in prescribing., Objectives: Determine whether a low-cost intervention increases clinicians' engagement with data, and changes prescribing; with or without behavioural science techniques., Methods: Randomized trial (ISRCTN86418238). The highest prescribing practices in England for broad-spectrum antibiotics were allocated to: feedback with behavioural impact optimization; plain feedback; or no intervention. Feedback was sent monthly for 3 months by letter, fax and email. Each included a link to a prescribing dashboard. The primary outcomes were dashboard usage and change in prescribing., Results: A total of 1401 practices were randomized: 356 behavioural optimization, 347 plain feedback, and 698 control. For the primary engagement outcome, more intervention practices had their dashboards viewed compared with controls [65.7% versus 55.9%; RD 9.8%, 95% confidence intervals (CIs): 4.76% to 14.9%, P < 0.001]. More plain feedback practices had their dashboard viewed than behavioural feedback practices (69.1% versus 62.4%); but not meeting the P < 0.05 threshold (6.8%, 95% CI: -0.19% to 13.8%, P = 0.069). For the primary prescribing outcome, intervention practices possibly reduced broad-spectrum prescribing to a greater extent than controls (1.42% versus 1.12%); but again not meeting the P < 0.05 threshold (coefficient -0.31%, CI: -0.7% to 0.1%, P = 0.104). The behavioural impact group reduced broad-spectrum prescribing to a greater extent than plain feedback practices (1.63% versus 1.20%; coefficient 0.41%, CI: 0.007% to 0.8%, P = 0.046). No harms were detected., Conclusions: Unsolicited feedback increased practices' engagement with data, with possible slightly reduced antibiotic prescribing (P = 0.104). Behavioural science techniques gave greater prescribing effects. The modest effects on prescribing may reflect saturation from similar initiatives on antibiotic prescribing., Clinical Trial Registration: ISRCTN86418238., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Since 2002, paramedics have been working in primary care within the United Kingdom (UK), a transition also mirrored within Australia, Canada and the USA. Recent recommendations to improve UK NHS workforce capacities have led to a major push to increase the numbers of paramedics recruited into primary care. However, gaps exist in the evidence base regarding how and why these changes would work, for whom, in what context and to what extent. To understand the ways in which paramedics impact (or not) the primary care workforce, we conducted a realist review., Methods: A realist approach aims to provide causal explanations through the generation and articulation of contexts, mechanisms and outcomes. Our search of electronic databases was supplemented with Google and citation checking to locate grey literature including news items and workforce reports. Included documents were from the UK, Australia, Canada and the Americas-countries within which the paramedic role within primary care is well established., Results: Our searches resulted in 205 included documents, from which data were extracted to produce context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs) within a final programme theory. Our results outline that paramedics are more likely to be effective in contributing to primary care workforces when they are supported to expand their existing role through formal education and clinical supervision. We also found that unless paramedics were fully integrated into primary care services, they did not experience the socialisation needed to build trusting relationships with patients or physicians. Indeed, for patients to accept paramedics in primary care, their role and its implications for their care should be outlined by a trusted source., Conclusions: Our realist review highlights the complexity surrounding the introduction of paramedics into primary care roles. As well as offering an insight into understanding the paramedic professional identity, we also discuss the range of expectations this professional group will face in the transition to primary care. These expectations come from patients, general practitioners (family physicians) and paramedics themselves. This review is the first to offer insight into understanding the impact paramedics may have on the international primary care workforce and shaping how they might be optimally deployed.

Competing Interests: Competing interests The BMJ has judged that there are no disqualifying financial ties to commercial companies. The authors declare the following other interests: none. Further details of The BMJ policy on financial interests are here: https://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-authors/forms-policies-and-checklists/declaration-competing-interests

Background: Social prescribing is a way of addressing the 'non-medical' needs (e.g. loneliness, debt, housing problems) that can affect people's health and well-being. Connector schemes (e.g. delivered by care navigators or link workers) have become a key component to social prescribing's delivery. Those in this role support patients by either (a) signposting them to relevant local assets (e.g. groups, organisations, charities, activities, events) or (b) taking time to assist them in identifying and prioritising their 'non-medical' needs and connecting them to relevant local assets. To understand how such connector schemes work, for whom, why and in what circumstances, we conducted a realist review., Method: A search of electronic databases was supplemented with Google alerts and reference checking to locate grey literature. In addition, we sent a Freedom of Information request to all Clinical Commissioning Groups in England to identify any further evaluations of social prescribing connector schemes. Included studies were from the UK and focused on connector schemes for adult patients (18+ years) related to primary care., Results: Our searches resulted in 118 included documents, from which data were extracted to produce context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs). These CMOCs underpinned our emerging programme theory that centred on the essential role of 'buy-in' and connections. This was refined further by turning to existing theories on (a) social capital and (b) patient activation., Conclusion: Our realist review highlights how connector roles, especially link workers, represent a vehicle for accruing social capital (e.g. trust, sense of belonging, practical support). We propose that this then gives patients the confidence, motivation, connections, knowledge and skills to manage their own well-being, thereby reducing their reliance on GPs. We also emphasise within the programme theory situations that could result in unintended consequences (e.g. increased demand on GPs).

Background: Reducing antibiotic overuse is a key NHS priority. The majority of antibiotics are prescribed in primary care., Objectives: To describe antibiotic prescribing trends in NHS England primary care for the years 1998-2017 using various measures. We investigated trends and variation between practices and geographical areas, out-of-hours prescribing, and seasonality., Methods: We used publicly available prescribing datasets and calculated antibiotic prescribing rates per 1000 age-sex-adjusted population units, percentage prescribed as broad-spectrum, and course length. We report national time trends for 1998-2016, geographical variation across 2017 and variation trends for 2010-17. We calculated percentiles and ranges, and plotted maps., Results: The overall rate of antibiotic prescribing has reduced by 18% since 2010, with the steepest decline since 2013. The percentage prescribed as broad-spectrum declined since 2006, from 18.0 to 8.4. Between the best and worst Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) there was 2-fold variation for total antibiotic prescribing, but 7-fold variation for cephalosporins. Variation across general practices has declined. The CCG to which a practice belongs accounted for 12.6% of current variation (P < 0.0001). Higher antibiotic prescribing was associated with greater practice size, proportion of patients >65 years or <18 years, ruralness and deprivation. Seasonal increases have been declining for most antibiotics. If every practice prescribed antibiotics at the lowest decile rate in 2017, 10.8 million fewer prescriptions could have been issued (34%). Compared with standard practices, out-of-hours practices prescribed a greater proportion of broad-spectrum antibiotics., Conclusions: Despite a general trend towards more optimal antibiotic prescribing, considerable geographical variation persists across England's practices and CCGs.

Purpose: Positive effects have been reported after mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) in diverse clinical and nonclinical populations. Primary care is a key health care setting for addressing common chronic conditions, and an effective MBI designed for this setting could benefit countless people worldwide. Meta-analyses of MBIs have become popular, but little is known about their efficacy in primary care. Our aim was to investigate the application and efficacy of MBIs that address primary care patients., Methods: We performed a meta-analytic review of randomized controlled trials addressing the effect of MBIs in adult patients recruited from primary care settings. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and Cochrane guidelines were followed. Effect sizes were calculated with the Hedges g in random effects models., Results: The meta-analyses were based on 6 trials having a total of 553 patients. The overall effect size of MBI compared with a control condition for improving general health was moderate (g = 0.48; P = .002), with moderate heterogeneity (I(2) = 59; P <.05). We found no indication of publication bias in the overall estimates. MBIs were efficacious for improving mental health (g = 0.56; P = .007), with a high heterogeneity (I(2) = 78; P <.01), and for improving quality of life (g = 0.29; P = .002), with a low heterogeneity (I(2) = 0; P >.05)., Conclusions: Although the number of randomized controlled trials applying MBIs in primary care is still limited, our results suggest that these interventions are promising for the mental health and quality of life of primary care patients. We discuss innovative approaches for implementing MBIs, such as complex intervention and stepped care., (© 2015 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.)

Objective: To investigate the diagnostic accuracy of RF as a test for RA in primary care and its impact on referral times using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink., Methods: We identified all patients with a first RF test recorded in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2008 and those diagnosed with RA within 2 years of testing. We calculated likelihood ratios (LRs), sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of RF for a diagnosis of RA. We compared time to hospital referral in those testing positive and negative using Kaplan-Meier failure curves and log-rank tests., Results: Of 62 436 first RF tests, 4679 (7.5%) were positive. There were 1753 incident cases of RA, of which 57.8% were seropositive. The positive LR for RF was 9.5 (95% CI 9.0, 10.0) and the negative LR was 0.5 (95% CI 0.4, 0.5). Sensitivity and specificity were 57.8% (95% CI 55.4%, 60.1%) and 93.9% (95% CI 93.7%, 94.1%) and the positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 21.4% (95% CI 20.3%, 22.6%) and 98.7% (95% CI 98.6%, 98.8%), respectively. Median time to first hospital contact after the first RF test in those with seropositive vs seronegative results was 54 days (95% CI 49, 58) vs 150 (95% CI 147, 152)., Conclusion: Only 2.8% of patients undergoing RF testing were diagnosed with RA, suggesting that RF is used to screen patients with musculoskeletal symptoms rather than those with more specific features of RA. A positive RF test may be helpful in diagnosing RA in primary care but performs badly in excluding RA and may delay referral., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)