Association of increasing age with receipt of specialist care and long-term mortality in patients with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: observational studies suggest that older patients are less likely to receive secondary prevention medicines following acute coronary syndrome (ACS). OBJECTIVES: to examine the association of increasing age with receipt of specialist care and influence of specialist care on long-term mortality in patients with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). DESIGN: a cohort study. SETTING: National ACS registry of England and Wales. SUBJECTS: a total of 85,183 patients admitted with NSTEMI between 2006 and 2010. METHODS: logistic regression analyses to assess receipt of secondary prevention medicines (ACE inhibitor, ß-blocker, statin, aspirin) by age group; multivariate Cox regression models to examine longitudinal effect of cardiologist care on all-cause mortality by age group. RESULTS: mean age 72.0 years (SD 13.0 years), mean follow-up was 2.13 years. Older patients received less cardiologist care (70.2% of NSTEMI patients ≥85 years compared with 94.7% of patients <65) years and had more co-morbidity. Cardiologists prescribed more secondary prevention in all age groups than generalists, but this was mostly explained away by co-morbidity (receipt of statin crude OR 1.51 (1.27,1.80), fully adjusted OR 1.11 (0.92,1.33) in patients ≥85 years). Receiving cardiologist care compared with generalist care was associated with a decreased risk of death in all even after adjustment for co-morbidity, disease severity and secondary prevention; this benefit reduced incrementally with older age group (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.58 (0.49,0.68) aged <65; 0.87 (0.82,0.92) aged ≥85). CONCLUSION: older patients with NSTEMI were less likely to see a cardiologist, but reduced treatment by generalists was explained away by co-morbidity. Cardiologist care was associated with lower mortality in all age groups than a generalist, but this survival benefit was less pronounced in older patients.

Medical morbidities in people following hip and knee arthroplasty: data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Total hip (THA) and knee (TKA) arthroplasty are common orthopaedic procedures most frequently for older people. Whilst it is known that this older population frequently present with medical morbidities, no studies have previously documented the prevalence of such morbidities in people who have undergone THA or TKA.The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence and what factors are in association with the presentation of medical morbidities in these populations. METHODS: Data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative, a population-based observational study, was assessed. In total 419 people who had undergone a THA or TKA were assessed to determine the prevalence of recorded morbidities within 12 months post-arthroplasty. All medical morbidities were then assessed using univariate and then multivariate logistic regression analysis to identify factors influencing the presentation of specific morbidities at 12 months following THA or TKA. RESULTS: The most common medical morbidities included: osteoporosis (16 %), mild-to-moderate depression (8 %), cancer (8 %), diabetes (6 %), history of stroke or TIA (6 %) and asthma (5 %). The medical morbidities demonstrated are similar between those who undergo THA and TKA. Only gender and ethnic origin were identified as statistically significant predictors of medical morbidities in these populations. Gender was a predictor of history of heart failure, whilst ethnic origin significantly predicted depression. CONCLUSIONS: People who undergo THA or TKA may present with a variety of medical morbidities. Accordingly consideration should be made on how to encourage the adoption and maintenance of physical activity and healthy lifestyle choices for this population.

Attitudes of people with osteoarthritis towards their conservative management: a systematic review and meta-ethnography.

This paper determines the perceptions of people diagnosed with osteoarthritis towards their conservative management strategies. A systematic review of the published (AMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsychINFO, SportsDisc, MEDLINE, Cochrane Clinical Trials Registry, PubMed) and unpublished/trial registry databases (WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Current Controlled Trials, the United States National Institute of Health Trials Registry, NIHR Clinical Research Portfolio Database) searched from their inception to July 2013. Eligible studies included those which presented the attitudes or perceptions of people with osteoarthritis towards non-operative management strategies. Study quality was appraised using the CASP and the Gough's weight of evidence appraisal tools. Data were analysed through a meta-ethnography approach. Thirty-three studies including 1,314 people with osteoarthritis were sampled; the majority diagnosed with knee osteoarthritis. The overarching themes indicated people with osteoarthritis delay their diagnosis, opting for self-management and informal information gathering. This informal rather than health professional-led guidance is sought and maintained as an important resource throughout the care of this population and is valued. Diagnosis is sought at a 'critical point'. Healthcare interventions largely provided are poorly perceived. The period of subsequent self-management is an expectation before the inevitable requirement for joint replacement. There remains uncertainty regarding when this is required, but the expected failure of conservative treatment to manage pain and symptoms is common. In conclusion, patients should be enthused towards the principles of self-management and clinicians should not trivialise osteoarthritis. This may provide a more valuable perception of non-operative management to promote its adoption and adherence in managing osteoarthritis.

Variations in statin prescribing for primary cardiovascular disease prevention: cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND: Statins are an important intervention for primary and secondary cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. We aimed to establish the variation in primary preventive treatment for CVD with statins in the English population. METHODS: Cross sectional analyses of 6155 English primary care practices with 40,017,963 patients in 2006/7. Linear regression was used to model prescribing rates of statins for primary CVD prevention as a function of IMD (index of multiple deprivation) quintile, proportion of population from an ethnic minority, and age over 65 years. Defined Daily Doses (DDD) were used to calculate the numbers of patients receiving a statin. Statin prescriptions were allocated to primary and secondary prevention based on the prevalence of CVD and stroke. RESULTS: We estimated that 10.5% (s.d.3.7%) of the registered population were dispensed a statin for any indication and that 6.3% (s.d. 3.0%) received a statin for primary CVD prevention. The regression model explained 21.2% of the variation in estimates of prescribing for primary prevention. Practices with higher prevalence of hypertension (ß co-efficient 0.299 p <0.001) and diabetes (ß co-efficient 0.566 p < 0.001) prescribed more statins for primary prevention. Practices with higher levels of ethnicity (ß co-efficient-0.026 p <0.001), greater deprivation (ß co-efficient -0.152 p < 0.001) older patients (ß co-efficient -0.032 p 0.002), larger lists (ß co-efficient -0.085, p < 0.001) and were more rural (ß co-efficient -0.121, p0.026) prescribed fewer statins. In a small proportion of practices (0.5%) estimated prescribing rates for statins were so low that insufficient prescriptions were issued to meet the predicted secondary prevention requirements of their registered population. CONCLUSIONS: Absolute estimated prescribing rates for primary prevention of CVD were 6.3% of the population. There was evidence of social inequalities in statin prescribing for primary prevention. These findings support the recent introduction of a financial incentive for primary prevention of CVD in England.

Incentive payments are not related to expected health gain in the pay for performance scheme for UK primary care: cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND: The General Medical Services primary care contract for the United Kingdom financially rewards performance in 19 clinical areas, through the Quality and Outcomes Framework. Little is known about how best to determine the size of financial incentives in pay for performance schemes. Our aim was to test the hypothesis that performance indicators with larger population health benefits receive larger financial incentives. METHODS: We performed cross sectional analyses to quantify associations between the size of financial incentives and expected health gain in the 2004 and 2006 versions of the Quality and Outcomes Framework. We used non-parametric two-sided Spearman rank correlation tests. Health gain was measured in expected lives saved in one year and in quality adjusted life years. For each quality indicator in an average sized general practice we tested for associations first, between the marginal increase in payment and the health gain resulting from a one percent point improvement in performance and second, between total payment and the health gain at the performance threshold for maximum payment. RESULTS: Evidence for lives saved or quality adjusted life years gained was found for 28 indicators accounting for 41% of the total incentive payments. No statistically significant associations were found between the expected health gain and incentive gained from a marginal 1% increase in performance in either the 2004 or 2006 version of the Quality and Outcomes Framework. In addition no associations were found between the size of financial payment for achievement of an indicator and the expected health gain at the performance threshold for maximum payment measured in lives saved or quality adjusted life years. CONCLUSIONS: In this subgroup of indicators the financial incentives were not aligned to maximise health gain. This disconnection between incentive and expected health gain risks supporting clinical activities that are only marginally effective, at the expense of more effective activities receiving lower incentives. When designing pay for performance programmes decisions about the size of the financial incentive attached to an indicator should be informed by information on the health gain to be expected from that indicator.

Effects of payment for performance in primary care: qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVES: To understand the effects of a large scale 'payment for performance' scheme (the Quality and Outcomes Framework [QOF]) on professional roles and the delivery of primary care in the English National Health Service. METHODS: Qualitative semi-structured interview study. Twenty-four clinicians were interviewed during 2006: one general practitioner and one practice nurse in 12 general practices in eastern England with a broad range of sociodemographic and organizational characteristics. RESULTS: Participants reported substantial improvements in teamwork and in the organization, consistency and recording of care for conditions incentivized in the scheme, but not for non-incentivized conditions. The need to carry out and record specific clinical activities was felt to have changed the emphasis from 'patient led' consultations and listening to patients' concerns. Loss of continuity of care and of patient choice were described. Nurses experienced increased workload but enjoyed more autonomy and job satisfaction. Doctors acknowledged improved disease management and teamwork but expressed unease about 'box-ticking' and increased demands of team supervision, despite better terms and conditions. Doctors were less motivated to achieve performance indicators where they disputed the evidence on which they were based. Participants expressed little engagement with results of patient surveys or patient involvement initiatives. Some participants described data manipulation to maximize practice income. Many felt overwhelmed by the flow of policy initiatives. CONCLUSIONS: Payment for performance is driving major changes in the roles and organization of English primary health care teams. Non-incentivized activities and patients' concerns may receive less clinical attention. Practitioners would benefit from improved dissemination of the evidence justifying the inclusion of new performance indicators in the QOF.

"Mind the gap!" Evaluation of the performance gap attributable to exception reporting and target thresholds in the new GMS contract: National database analysis.

BACKGROUND: The 2003 revision of the UK GMS contract rewards general practices for performance against clinical quality indicators. Practices can exempt patients from treatment, and can receive maximum payment for less than full coverage of eligible patients. This paper aims to estimate the gap between the percentage of maximum incentive gained and the percentage of patients receiving indicated care (the pay-performance gap), and to estimate how much of the gap is attributable respectively to thresholds and to exception reporting. METHODS: Analysis of Quality Outcomes Framework data in the National Primary Care Database and exception reporting data from the Information Centre from 8407 practices in England in 2005 - 6. The main outcome measures were the gap between the percentage of maximum incentive gained and the percentage of patients receiving indicated care at the practice level, both for individual indicators and a combined composite score. An additional outcome was the percentage of that gap attributable respectively to exception reporting and maximum threshold targets set at less than 100%. RESULTS: The mean pay-performance gap for the 65 aggregated clinical indicators was 13.3% (range 2.9% to 48%). 52% of this gap (6.9% of eligible patients) is attributable to thresholds being set at less than 100%, and 48% to patients being exception reported. The gap was greater than 25% in 9 indicators: beta blockers and cholesterol control in heart disease; cholesterol control in stroke; influenza immunization in asthma; blood pressure, sugar and cholesterol control in diabetes; seizures in epilepsy and treatment of hypertension. CONCLUSION: Threshold targets and exception reporting introduce an incentive ceiling, which substantially reduces the percentage of eligible patients that UK practices need to treat in order to receive maximum incentive payments for delivering that care. There are good clinical reasons for exception reporting, but after unsuitable patients have been exempted from treatment, there is no reason why all maximum thresholds should not be 100%, whilst retaining the current lower thresholds to provide incentives for lower performing practices.

Does practice analysis agree with the ambulatory care sensitive conditions' list of avoidable unplanned admissions?: a cross-sectional study in the East of England.

OBJECTIVES: To use significant event audits (SEAs) in primary care to determine which of a sample of emergency (unplanned) admissions were potentially avoidable; and compare with the National Health Service (NHS) list of ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs). DESIGN: Analysis of unplanned medical admissions randomly identified in secondary care. SETTING: Primary care in the East of England. PARTICIPANTS: 20 general practice teams trained to use SEA on unplanned admissions to identify potentially preventable factors. INTERVENTIONS: SEA of admissions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Level of agreement between those admissions identified as potentially preventable by SEA and the NHS ACSC list. RESULTS: 132 (26%) of randomly selected patients with unplanned admissions gave consent and an SEA was performed by their primary practice team. 130 SEA reports had sufficient data for our analysis. Practices concluded that 17 (13%) admissions were potentially preventable. The NHS ACSC list identified 36 admissions (28%) as potentially preventable. There was a low level of agreement between the practices and the NHS list as to which admissions were preventable (kappa=0.253). The ACSC list consisted mainly of respiratory admissions whereas the practice list identified a wider range of cases and identified context-specific factors as important. CONCLUSIONS: There was disagreement between the NHS list and practice conclusions of potentially avoidable admissions. The SEAs suggest that the pathway into unplanned admission may be less dependent on the condition than on context-specific factors, and the assumption that unplanned admissions for ACSCs are reasonable indicators of performance for primary care may not be valid.

Are patients in heart failure trials representative of primary care populations? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend drug treatment for patients with heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), however the evidence for benefit in patients with mild disease, such as most in primary care, is uncertain. Importantly, drugs commonly used in heart failure account for one in seven of emergency admissions for adverse drug reactions. AIM: To determine to what extent patients included in studies of heart failure treatment with beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, and aldosterone antagonists were representative of a typical primary care population with HFrEF in England. DESIGN & SETTING: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of drug treatment in patients with HFrEF. METHOD: MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched from inception to March 2015. The characteristics of the patient's New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification were compared with a primary care reference population with HFrEF. RESULTS: Of the 30 studies included, two had incomplete data. None had a close match (defined as ≤10% deviation from reference study) for NYHA class I disease; 5/28 were a close match for NYHA class II; 5/28 for NYHA class III; and 18/28 for NYHA class IV. In general, pre-existing cardiovascular conditions, risk factors, and comorbidities were representative of the reference population. CONCLUSION: Patients recruited to studies typically had more severe heart failure than the reference primary care population. When evidence from sicker patients is generalised to less sick people, there is increased uncertainty about benefit and also a risk of harm from overtreatment. More evidence is needed on the effectiveness of treatment of heart failure in asymptomatic patients with NYHA class I.

Quality of clinical primary care and targeted incentive payments: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Payments for recorded evidence of quality of clinical care in UK general practices were introduced in 2004. AIM: To examine the relationship between changes in recorded quality of care for four common chronic conditions from, 2003 to 2005, and the payment of incentives. DESIGN OF STUDY: Retrospective observational study comparing incentivised and non-incentivised indicators of quality of care. SETTING: Eighteen general practices in England. METHOD: Medical records were examined for 1156 patients. The percentage of eligible quality indicators achieved for each patient was assessed in 2003 and 2005. Twenty-one quality indicators referred to asthma and hypertension: six subject to and 15 not subject to incentive payments. Another 15 indicators referred to depression and osteoarthritis which were not subject to incentive payments. RESULTS: A significant increase occurred for the six indicators linked to incentive payments: from 75% achieved in 2003 to 91% in 2005 (change = 16%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 10 to 22%, P <0.01). A significant increase also occurred for 15 other indicators linked to 'incentivised conditions'; 53 to 64% (change = 11%, 95% CI = 6 to 15%, P <0.01). The 'non-incentivised conditions' started at a lower achievement level, and did not increase significantly: 35 to 36% (change = 2%, 95% CI = -1 to 4%, P = 0.19). CONCLUSION: The introduction of financial incentives was associated with substantial apparent quality improvement for incentivised conditions. For non-incentivised conditions, quality did not appear to improve. Patients with non-incentivised conditions may be at risk of poorer quality care.

Outcomes and inequalities in diabetes from 2004/2005 to 2011/2012: English longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes of diabetes care are unequal and the NHS has a duty to consider reducing inequality in healthcare outcomes. AIM: To quantify trends in socioeconomic inequality and diabetes outcomes. DESIGN AND SETTING: Whole-population longitudinal study of 32 482 neighbourhoods (Lower Layer Super Output Areas [LSOAs]) in England between 2004/2005 and 2011/2012. METHOD: Slope indices of inequality (SIIs) between neighbourhoods of great and little deprivation were measured annually for: glycated haemoglobin control in people with diabetes; emergency hospitalisation for diabetes; and amenable mortality from diabetes. RESULTS: From 2004/2005 to 2011/2012 glycaemic control improved in all social groups, regardless of deprivation level, although inequality was unchanged as measured by the SII (0.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.43 to 0.52). Diabetes-related amenable mortality improved in all social groups, but decreased at a faster rate in neighbourhoods of greater deprivation. Inequality in diabetes-related amenable mortality improved, with the SII falling by 2.68 (95% CI = 1.93 to 3.43), resulting in 594 (95% CI = 420 to 767) fewer deaths. In contrast, emergency hospitalisations for diabetes increased in all social groups, with faster growth in neighbourhoods of greater deprivation. The socioeconomic gradient increased with the SII widening by 19.59 admissions for diabetes per 100 000 (95% CI = 16.00 to 23.17), resulting in an increase of 5991 (95% CI = 5084 to 6899) excess admissions associated with socioeconomic inequality during the study period. CONCLUSION: In diabetes, mortality declined faster, but emergency hospitalisation grew faster in more deprived neighbourhoods. Unequal growth in emergency hospitalisation for diabetes is likely to be partly due to increased diabetes prevalence and patients living longer, but may also be due to overuse of glycaemic control medication.

Protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial of Screening and Enhanced Risk management for Vascular Event-related Decline in Memory (SERVED Memory).

INTRODUCTION: Stroke is a leading cause of death and disability. The development of dementia after stroke is common. Vascular risk factors (VRF) which contribute to stroke risk can also contribute to cognitive decline, especially in vascular dementia (VaD). There is no established treatment for VaD, therefore strategies for prevention could have major health resource implications. This study was designed to assess whether patients with early cognitive decline after stroke/transient ischaemic attack (TIA) can be easily identified and whether target-driven VRF management can prevent progression to dementia. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective is to establish the feasibility of recruitment and retention of patients with early cognitive decline to a randomised controlled trial of enhanced VRF management. Secondary objectives include: (a) to determine the potential clinical benefit of the intervention; (b) to estimate the sample size for a future definitive multicentre randomised controlled trial; (c) to inform a future economic evaluation; (d) to explore the link between VRF control and the incidence of cognitive impairment on longitudinal follow-up in a UK population after stroke/TIA with current routine management. METHODS: 100 patients with cognitive decline poststroke/TIA will be recruited from stroke services at the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital. After collection of baseline data, they will be randomised to intervention (3 monthly follow-up with enhanced management) or control (treatment as usual by the general practitioner). At 12 months outcomes (repeat cognitive testing, VRF assessment) will be assessed. A further 100 patients without cognitive decline will be recruited to a parallel observational group from the same site. At 12 months they will have repeat cognitive testing. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted in England. Dissemination is planned via publication in peer-reviewed medical journals and presentation at relevant conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 42688361; Pre-results.

The relationship between prescribing expenditure and quality in primary care: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: If all GPs target their prescribing appropriately, then a positive relationship may be expected between targeting quality indicators and associated prescribing expenditure. Little is known about this relationship. AIM: To explore the relationship between prescribing quality indicators and associated prescribing expenditures. DESIGN: Observational study of prescribing expenditure and quality indicators. SETTING: Seventy-one of the 121 practices in the Norfolk and Waveney area of East Anglia in England. METHOD: Data were collected on quality indicators for 2002-2003 in seven areas likely to produce the greatest number of lives saved over a period of 1 year. This was linked to routine data on associated pharmaceutical expenditure. RESULTS: There was considerable variation in quality in all areas apart from influenza immunisation. Significant correlations between prescribing quality and expenditure were found in only two of the seven areas. When quality scores were combined into a composite quality index weighted by health gain, a small positive association was found, but this association is lost if all indicators are weighted equally. CONCLUSIONS: There appeared to be no relationship between quality indicators and prescribing expenditure at the practice level for most of the therapeutic areas studied. This suggests the possibility that there may be scope for some GPs to target prescribing more appropriately towards high risk patients -- and thus save more lives -- without increasing prescribing expenditure.

Do the incentive payments in the new NHS contract for primary care reflect likely population health gains?

OBJECTIVE: The new contract for primary care in the UK offers fee-for-service (FFS) payments for a wide range of activities in a quality outcomes framework (QOF), with payments designed to reflect likely workload. This study aims to explore the link between these financial incentives and the likely population health gains. METHODS: The study examines a subset of eight preventive interventions covering 38 of the 81 clinical indicators in the quality framework. The maximum payment for each service was calculated and compared with the likely population health gain in terms of lives saved per 100,000 population based on evidence from McColl et al. (1998). RESULTS: Maximum payments for the eight interventions examined make up 57% of the total maximum payment for all clinical interventions in the (QOF). There appears to be no relationship between pay and health gain across these eight interventions. Two of the eight interventions (warfarin in atrial fibrillation and statins in primary prevention) receive no incentive. CONCLUSIONS: Payments in the new contract do not reflect likely population health gain. There is a danger that clinical activity may be skewed towards high-workload activities that are only marginally effective, to the detriment of more cost-effective activities. If improving population health is the primary goal of the NHS, then FFS incentives should be designed to reflect likely health gain rather than likely workload.

Unequal socioeconomic distribution of the primary care workforce: whole-population small area longitudinal study.

OBJECTIVE: To measure changes in socioeconomic inequality in the distribution of family physicians (general practitioners (GPs)) relative to need in England from 2004/2005 to 2013/2014. DESIGN: Whole-population small area longitudinal data linkage study. SETTING: England from 2004/2005 to 2013/2014. PARTICIPANTS: 32,482 lower layer super output areas (neighbourhoods of 1500 people on average). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Slope index of inequality (SII) between the most and least deprived small areas in annual full-time equivalent GPs (FTE GPs) per 100,000 need adjusted population. RESULTS: In 2004/2005, inequality in primary care supply as measured by the SII in FTE GPs was 4.2 (95% CI 3.1 to 5.3) GPs per 100,000. By 2013/2014, this SII had fallen to -0.7 (95% CI -2.5 to 1.1) GPs per 100,000. The number of FTE GPs per 100,000 serving the most deprived fifth of small areas increased over this period from 54.0 to 60.5, while increasing from 57.2 to 59.9 in the least deprived fifth, so that by the end of the study period there were more GPs per 100,000 need adjusted population in the most deprived areas than in the least deprived. The increase in GP supply in the most deprived fifth of neighbourhoods was larger in areas that received targeted investment for establishing new practices under the 'Equitable Access to Primary Medical Care'. CONCLUSIONS: There was a substantial reduction in socioeconomic inequality in family physician supply associated with national policy. This policy may not have completely eliminated socioeconomic inequality in family physician supply since existing need adjustment formulae do not fully capture the additional burden of multimorbidity in deprived neighbourhoods. The small area approach introduced in this study can be used routinely to monitor socioeconomic inequality of access to primary care and to indicate workforce shortages in particular neighbourhoods. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0.

Emergency hospital admissions for asthma and access to primary care: cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND: Access to general practices may be an important determinant of emergency admissions for asthma, as early treatment of exacerbations has been shown to prevent deterioration. AIM: To determine whether access to primary care is associated with emergency admissions for asthma. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional analysis of data from English practices in 2010-2011. METHOD: Negative binomial regression was used to explore the associations between emergency admissions for asthma and seven measures of patient-reported access to general practice services taken from the GP Patient Survey, controlled for the characteristics of practice populations. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) were calculated for each association. RESULTS: In total 7806 (95%) of practices had data for all variables. There were 3 134 106 patients with asthma, and there were 55 570 emergency admissions with asthma. Admission rates were lower in practices with a higher composite access score (adjusted IRR for 10% change in variable 0.679, 95% CI = 0.665 to 0.708). Admissions were higher in those practices with higher proportions of the practice population who were white, and in practices with lower performance in the Quality and Outcomes Framework indicator 'asthma review in past 15 months' (Asthma 6). Assuming these associations were causal, a higher access score of 10% was associated with a decrease of 17 837 admissions per year for these practices. CONCLUSION: Practices with higher patient-reported access had lower rates of emergency admissions for asthma. Policymakers should consider improving access to primary care as one potential way to help prevent emergency hospital admissions for asthma.

How a universal health system reduces inequalities: lessons from England.

BACKGROUND: Provision of universal coverage is essential for achieving equity in healthcare, but inequalities still exist in universal healthcare systems. Between 2004/2005 and 2011/2012, the National Health Service (NHS) in England, which has provided universal coverage since 1948, made sustained efforts to reduce health inequalities by strengthening primary care. We provide the first comprehensive assessment of trends in socioeconomic inequalities of primary care access, quality and outcomes during this period. METHODS: Whole-population small area longitudinal study based on 32 482 neighbourhoods of approximately 1500 people in England from 2004/2005 to 2011/2012. We measured slope indices of inequality in four indicators: (1) patients per family doctor, (2) primary care quality, (3) preventable emergency hospital admissions and (4) mortality from conditions considered amenable to healthcare. RESULTS: Between 2004/2005 and 2011/2012, there were larger absolute improvements on all indicators in more-deprived neighbourhoods. The modelled gap between the most-deprived and least-deprived neighbourhoods in England decreased by: 193 patients per family doctor (95% CI 173 to 213), 3.29 percentage points of primary care quality (3.13 to 3.45), 0.42 preventable hospitalisations per 1000 people (0.29 to 0.55) and 0.23 amenable deaths per 1000 people (0.15 to 0.31). By 2011/2012, inequalities in primary care supply and quality were almost eliminated, but socioeconomic inequality was still associated with 158 396 preventable hospitalisations and 37 983 deaths amenable to healthcare. CONCLUSIONS: Between 2004/2005 and 2011/2012, the NHS succeeded in substantially reducing socioeconomic inequalities in primary care access and quality, but made only modest reductions in healthcare outcome inequalities.

The feasibility of determining the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of medication organisation devices compared with usual care for older people in a community setting: systematic review, stakeholder focus groups and feasibility randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Medication organisation devices (MODs) provide compartments for a patient's medication to be organised into the days of the week and the recommended times the medication should be taken. AIM: To define the optimal trial design for testing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of MODs. DESIGN: The feasibility study comprised a systematic review and focus groups to inform a randomised controlled trial (RCT) design. The resulting features were tested on a small scale, using a 2 × 2 factorial design to compare MODs with usual packaging and to compare weekly with monthly supply. The study design was then evaluated. SETTING: Potential participants were identified by medical practices. PARTICIPANTS: Aged over 75 years, prescribed at least three solid oral dosage form medications, unintentionally non-adherent and self-medicating. Participants were excluded if deemed by their health-care team to be unsuitable. INTERVENTIONS: One of three MODs widely used in routine clinical practice supplied either weekly or monthly. OBJECTIVES: To identify the most effective method of participant recruitment, to estimate the prevalence of intentional and unintentional non-adherence in an older population, to provide a point estimate of the effect size of MODs relative to usual care and to determine the feasibility and acceptability of trial participation. METHODS: The systematic review included MOD studies of any design reporting medication adherence, health and social outcomes, resource utilisation or dispensing or administration errors. Focus groups with patients, carers and health-care professionals supplemented the systematic review to inform the RCT design. The resulting design was implemented and then evaluated through questionnaires and group discussions with participants and health-care professionals involved in trial delivery. RESULTS: Studies on MODs are largely of poor quality. The relationship between adherence and health outcomes is unclear. Of the limited studies reporting health outcomes, some reported a positive relationship while some reported increased hospitalisations associated with MODs. The pre-trial focus groups endorsed the planned study design, but suggested a minimum recruitment age of 50-60 years. A total of 35.4% of patients completing the baseline questionnaire were excluded because they already used a MOD. Active recruitment yielded a higher consent rate, but passive recruitment was more cost-effective. The prevalence of intentional non-adherence was 24.7% [n = 71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 19.7% to 29.6%] of participants. Of the remaining 76 participants, 46.1% (95% CI 34.8% to 57.3%) were unintentionally non-adherent. There was no indication of a difference in adherence between the study arms. Participants reported a high level of satisfaction with the design. Five adverse/serious adverse events were identified in the MOD study arms and none was identified in the control arms. There was no discernible difference in health economic outcomes between the four study arms; the mean intervention cost was £20 per month greater for MOD monthly relative to usual supply monthly. CONCLUSIONS: MOD provision to unintentionally non-adherent older people may cause medication-related adverse events. The primary outcome for a definitive MOD trial should be health outcomes. Such a trial should recruit patients by postal invitation and recruit younger patients. FUTURE WORK: A study examining the association between MOD initiation and adverse effects is necessary and a strategy to safely introduce MODs should be explored. A definitive study testing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of MODs is also required. STUDY REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 30626972 and UKCRN 12739. FUNDING: This project was funded by National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment Programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 50. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A review of clinical practice guidelines found that they were often based on evidence of uncertain relevance to primary care patients.

OBJECTIVES: Primary care patients typically have less severe illness than those in hospital and may be overtreated if clinical guideline evidence is inappropriately generalized. We aimed to assess whether guideline recommendations for primary care were based on relevant research. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Literature review of all publications cited in support of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommendations for primary care. The relevance to primary care of all 45 NICE clinical guidelines published in 2010 and 2011, and their recommendations, was assessed by an expert panel. RESULTS: Twenty-two of 45 NICE clinical guidelines published in 2010 and 2011 were relevant to primary care. These 22 guidelines contained 1,185 recommendations, of which 495 were relevant to primary care, and cited evidence from 1,573 research publications. Of these cited publications, 590 (38%, range by guideline 6-74%) were based on patients typical of primary care. CONCLUSION: Nearly two-third (62%) of publications cited to support primary care recommendations were of uncertain relevance to patients in primary care. Guideline development groups should more clearly identify which recommendations are intended for primary care and uncertainties about the relevance of the supporting evidence to primary care patients, to avoid potential overtreatment.