Aspirin reduces cardiovascular events in patients with pneumonia: a prior event rate ratio analysis in a large primary care database.

BACKGROUND: Ischaemic stroke and myocardial infarction (MI) are common after pneumonia and are associated with long-term mortality. Aspirin may attenuate this risk and should be explored as a therapeutic option. METHODS: We extracted all patients with pneumonia (aged over 50 years) from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), a large UK primary care database, from inception until January 2019. We then performed a prior event rate ratio (PERR) analysis with propensity score matching (PSM), an approach that allows for control of measured and unmeasured confounding, with aspirin usage as the exposure and ischaemic events as the outcome. The primary outcome was the combined outcome of ischaemic stroke and MI. Secondary outcomes were ischaemic stroke and MI individually. Relevant confounders (smoking, comorbidities, age and gender) were included in the analysis. FINDINGS: 48 743 patients were eligible for matching. Of these, 9864 were aspirin users who were matched to 9864 non-users. Aspirin users had a reduced risk of the primary outcome (adjusted hazard ratio 0.64, 95% CI 0.52-0.79) in the PERR analysis. For both secondary outcomes, aspirin use was also associated with a reduced risk for MI (hazard ratio 0.46, 95% CI 0.30-0.72) and stroke (hazard ratio 0.70, 95% CI 0.55-0.91), respectively. INTERPRETATION: This study provides supporting evidence that aspirin use is associated with reduced ischaemic events after pneumonia in a primary care setting. This drug may have a future clinical role in preventing this important complication.

Characteristics, service use and mortality of clusters of multimorbid patients in England: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity is associated with mortality and service use, with specific types of multimorbidity having differential effects. Additionally, multimorbidity is often negatively associated with participation in research cohorts. Therefore, we set out to identify clusters of multimorbidity patients and how they are differentially associated with mortality and service use across age groups in a population-representative sample. METHODS: Linked primary and secondary care electronic health records contributed by 382 general practices in England to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) were used. The study included a representative set of multimorbid adults (18 years old or more, N = 113,211) with two or more long-term conditions (a total of 38 conditions were included). A random set of 80% of the multimorbid patients (N = 90,571) were stratified by age groups and clustered using latent class analysis. Consistency between obtained multimorbidity phenotypes, classification quality and associations with demographic characteristics and primary outcomes (GP consultations, hospitalisations, regular medications and mortality) was validated in the remaining 20% of multimorbid patients (N = 22,640). RESULTS: We identified 20 patient clusters across four age strata. The clusters with the highest mortality comprised psychoactive substance and alcohol misuse (aged 18-64); coronary heart disease, depression and pain (aged 65-84); and coronary heart disease, heart failure and atrial fibrillation (aged 85+). The clusters with the highest service use coincided with those with the highest mortality for people aged over 65. For people aged 18-64, the cluster with the highest service use comprised depression, anxiety and pain. The majority of 85+-year-old multimorbid patients belonged to the cluster with the lowest service use and mortality for that age range. Pain featured in 13 clusters. CONCLUSIONS: This work has highlighted patterns of multimorbidity that have implications for health services. These include the importance of psychoactive substance and alcohol misuse in people under the age of 65, of co-morbid depression and coronary heart disease in people aged 65-84 and of cardiovascular disease in people aged 85+.

Effect of Antihypertensive Medication Reduction vs Usual Care on Short-term Blood Pressure Control in Patients With Hypertension Aged 80 Years and Older: The OPTIMISE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Deprescribing of antihypertensive medications is recommended for some older patients with polypharmacy and multimorbidity when the benefits of continued treatment may not outweigh the harms. Objective: This study aimed to establish whether antihypertensive medication reduction is possible without significant changes in systolic blood pressure control or adverse events during 12-week follow-up. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Optimising Treatment for Mild Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly (OPTIMISE) study was a randomized, unblinded, noninferiority trial conducted in 69 primary care sites in England. Participants, whose primary care physician considered them appropriate for medication reduction, were aged 80 years and older, had systolic blood pressure lower than 150 mm Hg, and were receiving at least 2 antihypertensive medications were included. Participants enrolled between April 2017 and September 2018 and underwent follow-up until January 2019. Interventions: Participants were randomized (1:1 ratio) to a strategy of antihypertensive medication reduction (removal of 1 drug [intervention], n = 282) or usual care (control, n = 287), in which no medication changes were mandated. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was systolic blood pressure lower than 150 mm Hg at 12-week follow-up. The prespecified noninferiority margin was a relative risk (RR) of 0.90. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of participants maintaining medication reduction and differences in blood pressure, frailty, quality of life, adverse effects, and serious adverse events. Results: Among 569 patients randomized (mean age, 84.8 years; 276 [48.5%] women; median of 2 antihypertensive medications prescribed at baseline), 534 (93.8%) completed the trial. Overall, 229 (86.4%) patients in the intervention group and 236 (87.7%) patients in the control group had a systolic blood pressure lower than 150 mm Hg at 12 weeks (adjusted RR, 0.98 [97.5% 1-sided CI, 0.92 to ∞]). Of 7 prespecified secondary end points, 5 showed no significant difference. Medication reduction was sustained in 187 (66.3%) participants at 12 weeks. Mean change in systolic blood pressure was 3.4 mm Hg (95% CI, 1.1 to 5.8 mm Hg) higher in the intervention group compared with the control group. Twelve (4.3%) participants in the intervention group and 7 (2.4%) in the control group reported at least 1 serious adverse event (adjusted RR, 1.72 [95% CI, 0.7 to 4.3]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among older patients treated with multiple antihypertensive medications, a strategy of medication reduction, compared with usual care, was noninferior with regard to systolic blood pressure control at 12 weeks. The findings suggest antihypertensive medication reduction in some older patients with hypertension is not associated with substantial change in blood pressure control, although further research is needed to understand long-term clinical outcomes. Trial Registration: EudraCT Identifier: 2016-004236-38; ISRCTN identifier: 97503221.

Developing a measure of polypharmacy appropriateness in primary care: systematic review and expert consensus study.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy is an increasing challenge for primary care. Although sometimes clinically justified, polypharmacy can be inappropriate, leading to undesirable outcomes. Optimising care for polypharmacy necessitates effective targeting and monitoring of interventions. This requires a valid, reliable measure of polypharmacy, relevant for all patients, that considers clinical appropriateness and generic prescribing issues applicable across all medications. Whilst there are several existing measures of potentially inappropriate prescribing, these are not specifically designed with polypharmacy in mind, can require extensive clinical input to complete, and often cover a limited number of drugs. The aim of this study was to identify what experts consider to be the key elements of a measure of prescribing appropriateness in the context of polypharmacy. METHODS: Firstly, we conducted a systematic review to identify generic (not drug specific) prescribing indicators relevant to polypharmacy appropriateness. Indicators were subject to content analysis to enable categorisation. Secondly, we convened a panel of 10 clinical experts to review the identified indicators and assess their relative clinical importance. For each indicator category, a brief evidence summary was developed, based on relevant clinical and indicator literature, clinical guidance, and opinions obtained from a separate patient discussion panel. A two-stage RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to reach consensus amongst the panel on a core set of indicators of polypharmacy appropriateness. RESULTS: We identified 20,879 papers for title/abstract screening, obtaining 273 full papers. We extracted 189 generic indicators, and presented 160 to the panel grouped into 18 classifications (e.g. adherence, dosage, clinical efficacy). After two stages, during which the panel introduced 18 additional indicators, there was consensus that 134 indicators were of clinical importance. Following the application of decision rules and further panel consultation, 12 indicators were placed into the final selection. Panel members particularly valued indicators concerned with adverse drug reactions, contraindications, drug-drug interactions, and the conduct of medication reviews. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified a set of 12 indicators of clinical importance considered relevant to polypharmacy appropriateness. Use of these indicators in clinical practice and informatics systems is dependent on their operationalisation and their utility (e.g. risk stratification, targeting and monitoring polypharmacy interventions) requires subsequent evaluation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registration number: PROSPERO ( CRD42016049176 ).

Defining, identifying and addressing problematic polypharmacy within multimorbidity in primary care: a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Polypharmacy and multimorbidity pose escalating challenges. Despite numerous attempts, interventions have yet to show consistent improvements in health outcomes. A key factor may be varied approaches to targeting patients for intervention. OBJECTIVES: To explore how patients are targeted for intervention by examining the literature with respect to: understanding how polypharmacy is defined; identifying problematic polypharmacy in practice; and addressing problematic polypharmacy through interventions. DESIGN: We performed a scoping review as defined by the Joanna Briggs Institute. SETTING: The focus was on primary care settings. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and Cochrane along with ClinicalTrials.gov, Science.gov and WorldCat.org were searched from January 2004 to February 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included all articles that had a focus on problematic polypharmacy in multimorbidity and primary care, incorporating multiple types of evidence, such as reviews, quantitative trials, qualitative studies and policy documents. Articles focussing on a single index disease or not written in English were excluded. EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS: We performed a narrative synthesis, comparing themes and findings across the collective evidence to draw contextualised insights and conclusions. RESULTS: In total, 157 articles were included. Case-finding methods often rely on basic medication counts (often five or more) without considering medical history or whether individual medications are clinically appropriate. Other approaches highlight specific drug indicators and interactions as potentially inappropriate prescribing, failing to capture a proportion of patients not fitting criteria. Different potentially inappropriate prescribing criteria also show significant inconsistencies in determining the appropriateness of medications, often neglecting to consider multimorbidity and underprescribing. This may hinder the identification of the precise population requiring intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Improved strategies are needed to target patients with polypharmacy, which should consider patient perspectives, individual factors and clinical appropriateness. The development of a cross-cutting measure of problematic polypharmacy that consistently incorporates adjustment for multimorbidity may be a valuable next step to address frequent confounding.

Safety-netting advice documentation out-of-hours: a retrospective cohort from 2013 to 2020.

BACKGROUND: Providing safety-netting advice (SNA) in out-of-hours primary care is a recognised standard of safe care but it is not known how frequently this occurs in practice. AIM: Assess the frequency and type of SNA documented in out-of-hours primary care and explore factors associated with its presence. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective cohort using the Birmingham Out-of-hours General Practice Research Database. METHOD: A stratified sample of 30 adult consultation records per month from July 2013 to February 2020 were assessed using a safety-netting coding tool. Associations were tested using linear and logistic regression. RESULTS: The overall frequency of SNA per consultation was 78.0%, increasing from 75.7% (2014) to 81.5% (2019). The proportion of specific SNA and the average number of symptoms patients were told to look out for increased with time. The most common symptom to look out for was if the patients' condition worsened followed by if their symptoms persisted, but only one in five consultations included a time-frame to reconsult for persistent symptoms. SNA was more frequently documented in face-to-face treatment-centre encounters compared to telephone-consultations (Odds Ratio [OR]=1.77, p=0.02), for possible infections (OR=1.53, p=0.006), and less frequently for mental (vs. physical) health consultations (OR=0.33, p=0.002) and where follow-up was planned (OR=0.34, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The frequency of SNA documented in OOH was higher than previously reported during in-hours care. Over time, the frequency of SNA and proportion that contained specific advice increased, however this study highlights potential consultations where SNA could be improved, such as mental health and telephone consultations.

Collaborative discussions between GPs and pharmacists to optimise patient medication: a qualitative study within a UK primary care clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: There has been significant investment in pharmacists working in UK general practice to improve the effective and safe use of medicines. However, evidence of how to optimise collaboration between GPs and pharmacists in the context of polypharmacy (multiple medication) is lacking. AIM: To explore GP and pharmacist views and experiences of in-person, interprofessional collaborative discussions (IPCDs) as part of a complex intervention to optimise medication use for patients with polypharmacy in general practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: A mixed-method process evaluation embedded within the Improving Medicines use in People with Polypharmacy in Primary Care (IMPPP) trial conducted in Bristol and the West Midlands, between February 2021 and September 2023. METHOD: Audio-recordings of IPCDs between GPs and pharmacists, along with individual semi-structured interviews to explore their reflections on these discussions, were used. All recordings were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. RESULTS: A total of 14 practices took part in the process evaluation from February 2022 to September 2023; 17 IPCD meetings were audio-recorded, discussing 30 patients (range 1-6 patients per meeting). In all, six GPs and 13 pharmacists were interviewed. The IPCD was highly valued by GPs and pharmacists who described benefits, including: strengthening their working relationship; gaining in confidence to manage more complex patients; and learning from each other. It was often challenging, however, to find time for the IPCDs. CONCLUSION: The model of IPCD used in this study provided protected time for GPs and pharmacists to work together to deliver whole-patient care, with both professions finding this beneficial. Protected time for interprofessional liaison and collaboration, and structured interventions may facilitate improved patient care.

Using the Primary care Academic CollaboraTive to explore the characteristics and healthcare use of older housebound patients in England: protocol for a retrospective observational study and clinician survey (the CHiP study).

BACKGROUND: Older housebound people are an under-researched group for whom achieving good primary health care can be resource intensive. AIMS: To describe the characteristics and healthcare use of older (≥65 years) housebound people; explore clinician views on delivery of care to housebound people; and assess the feasibility of using a new network of healthcare professionals to deliver high quality research. DESIGN & SETTING: Retrospective observational study of electronic GP records and clinician survey in England. METHOD: Clinical members of a new UK research network called the Primary care Academic CollaboraTive (PACT) will collect the data. For part A, around 20 GP practices will be recruited and clinicians will identify 20 housebound and 20 non-housebound people, matched by age and gender (around 400 total in each group). Anonymised data will be collected on characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity, deprivation decile), long-term conditions, prescribed medicines, quality of healthcare (via Quality Outcomes Framework targets), and continuity of care. Reports with benchmarked practice-level data will be provided to practices to identify areas for quality improvement and to enhance engagement. For part B, 2-4 clinicians will be recruited from around 50 practices in England (around 150 clinicians) to complete a survey about delivery of healthcare for housebound people. For part C, data will be collected to assess the feasibility of using the PACT network to deliver primary care research. CONCLUSION: Older housebound people are a neglected group both in terms of research and clinical care. Understanding the characteristics and use of primary healthcare of housebound people will help identify how to improve their care.

Ideas, concerns, expectations, and effects on life (ICEE) in GP consultations: an observational study using video-recorded UK consultations.

BACKGROUND: Eliciting patients' ideas, concerns, expectations, and whether a problem has an 'effect' on their life (ICEE), is a widely recommended communication technique. However, it is not known how frequently ICEE components are raised in UK GP consultations. AIM: To assess the frequency of ICEE in routine GP consultations with adult patients and explore variables associated with ICEE. DESIGN & SETTING: An observational study was undertaken. It involved secondary analysis of a pre-existing archive of video-recorded, face-to-face GP consultations in the UK. METHOD: Observational coding of 92 consultations took place. Associations were assessed using binomial and ordered logistic regression. RESULTS: Most consultations included at least one ICEE component (90.2%). The most common ICEE component per consultation was patient ideas (79.3%), followed by concerns (55.4%), expectations (51.1%), and then effects on life (42.4%). For all ICEE components patients more commonly initiated the ICEE dialogue, and in only three consultations (3.3%) did GPs directly ask patients about their expectations. Problems that were acute (odds ratio [OR] 2.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.36 to 6.53, P = 0.007) or assessed by GPs aged ≥50 years (OR 2.10, 95% CI = 1.07 to 4.13, P = 0.030) were associated with more ICEE components. Problems assessed later in the consultation (OR 0.60 per problem order increase, 95% CI = 0.41 to 0.87, P = 0.007) by patients aged ≥75 years (OR 0.40, 95% CI = 0.16 to 0.98, P = 0.046) and from the most deprived cohort (OR 0.39, 95% CI = 0.17 to 0.92, P = 0.032) were associated with fewer ICEE components. Patient ideas were associated with more patients being 'very satisfied' post-consultation (OR 10.74, 95% CI = 1.60 to 72.0, P = 0.014) and the opposite was true of concerns (OR 0.14, 95% CI = 0.02 to 0.86, P = 0.034). CONCLUSION: ICEE components were associated with patient satisfaction and demographic variables. Further research is required to assess if the way ICEE are communicated affects these associations and other potential confounders.

Antidepressant use and risk of adverse outcomes: population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Antidepressants are one of the most widely prescribed drugs in the global north. However, little is known about the health consequences of long-term treatment. AIMS: This study aimed to investigate the association between antidepressant use and adverse events. METHOD: The study cohort consisted of UK Biobank participants whose data was linked to primary care records (N = 222 121). We assessed the association between antidepressant use by drug class (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and 'other') and four morbidity (diabetes, hypertension, coronary heart disease (CHD), cerebrovascular disease (CV)) and two mortality (cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all-cause) outcomes, using Cox's proportional hazards model at 5- and 10-year follow-up. RESULTS: SSRI treatment was associated with decreased risk of diabetes at 5 years (hazard ratio 0.64, 95% CI 0.49-0.83) and 10 years (hazard ratio 0.68, 95% CI 0.53-0.87), and hypertension at 10 years (hazard ratio 0.77, 95% CI 0.66-0.89). At 10-year follow-up, SSRI treatment was associated with increased risks of CV (hazard ratio 1.34, 95% CI 1.02-1.77), CVD mortality (hazard ratio 1.87, 95% CI 1.38-2.53) and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 1.73, 95% CI 1.48-2.03), and 'other' class treatment was associated with increased risk of CHD (hazard ratio 1.99, 95% CI 1.31-3.01), CVD (hazard ratio 1.86, 95% CI 1.10-3.15) and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 2.20, 95% CI 1.71-2.84). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate an association between long-term antidepressant usage and elevated risks of CHD, CVD mortality and all-cause mortality. Further research is needed to assess whether the observed associations are causal, and elucidate the underlying mechanisms.

Improving Medicines use in People with Polypharmacy in Primary Care (IMPPP): Protocol for a multicentre cluster randomised trial comparing a complex intervention for medication optimization against usual care.

Introduction: Polypharmacy is increasingly common, and associated with undesirable consequences. Polypharmacy management necessitates balancing therapeutic benefits and risks, and varying clinical and patient priorities. Current guidance for managing polypharmacy is not supported by high quality evidence. The aim of the Improving Medicines use in People with Polypharmacy in Primary Care (IMPPP) trial is to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention to optimise medication use for patients with polypharmacy in a general practice setting. Methods: This trial will use a multicentre, open-label, cluster-randomised controlled approach, with two parallel groups. Practices will be randomised to a complex intervention comprising structured medication review (including interprofessional GP/pharmacist treatment planning and patient-facing review) supported by performance feedback, financial incentivisation, clinician training and clinical informatics (intervention), or usual care (control). Patients with polypharmacy and triggering potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) indicators will be recruited in each practice using a computerised search of health records. 37 practices will recruit 50 patients, and review them over a 26-week intervention delivery period. The primary outcome is the mean number of PIP indicators triggered per patient at 26 weeks follow-up, determined objectively from coded GP electronic health records. Secondary outcomes will include patient reported outcome measures, and health and care service use. The main intention-to-treat analysis will use linear mixed effects regression to compare number of PIP indicators triggered at 26 weeks post-review between groups, adjusted for baseline (pre-randomisation) values. A nested process evaluation will explore implementation of the intervention in primary care. Ethics and dissemination: The protocol and associated study materials have been approved by the Wales REC 6, NHS Research Ethics Committee (REC reference 19/WA/0090), host institution and Health Research Authority. Research outputs will be published in peer-reviewed journals and relevant conferences, and additionally disseminated to patients and the public, clinicians, commissioners and policy makers. ISRCTN Registration: 90146150 (28/03/2019).

GPs' mindlines on deprescribing antihypertensives in older patients with multimorbidity: a qualitative study in English general practice.

BACKGROUND: Optimal management of hypertension in older patients with multimorbidity is a cornerstone of primary care practice. Despite emphasis on personalised approaches to treatment in older patients, there is little guidance on how to achieve medication reduction when GPs are concerned that possible risks outweigh potential benefits of treatment. Mindlines - tacit, internalised guidelines developed over time from multiple sources - may be of particular importance in such situations. AIM: To explore GPs' decision-making on deprescribing antihypertensives in patients with multimorbidity aged ≥80 years, drawing on the concept of mindlines. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative interview study set in English general practice. METHOD: Thematic analysis of face-to-face interviews with a sample of 15 GPs from seven practices in the East of England, using a chart-stimulated recall approach to explore approaches to treatment for older patients with multimorbidity with hypertension. RESULTS: GPs are typically confident making decisions to deprescribe antihypertensive medication in older patients with multimorbidity when prompted by a trigger, such as a fall or adverse drug event. GPs are less confident to attempt deprescribing in response to generalised concerns about polypharmacy, and work hard to make sense of multiple sources (including available evidence, shared experiential knowledge, and non-clinical factors) to guide decision-making. CONCLUSION: In the absence of a clear evidence base on when and how to attempt medication reduction in response to concerns about polypharmacy, GPs develop 'mindlines' over time through practicebased experience. These tacit approaches to making complex decisions are critical to developing confidence to attempt deprescribing and may be strengthened through reflective practice.

Deprescribing: a primary care perspective.

Polypharmacy is an increasing and global issue affecting primary care. Although sometimes appropriate, polypharmacy can also be problematic, leading to a range of adverse consequences. Deprescribing is the process of supervised withdrawal of an inappropriate medication and has the potential to reduce some of the problems associated with polypharmacy. It is a complex and sensitive process. We examine the issue of deprescribing from the perspective of primary care. Key steps in the deprescribing process are a review of medications and corresponding indications, consideration of harms, assessment of eligibility for discontinuation, prioritisation of medications and implementation of a stopping plan with appropriate monitoring. Patient involvement is a key feature of this process. Deprescribing should be considered in the context of end-of-life care and medication safety, but approaches are also required to identify other situations where deprescribing is appropriate. General practitioners are well positioned to facilitate deprescribing, usually through formal medication review, with decisions informed by a range of other healthcare professionals. Guidelines are available that help guide these processes. A range of studies have explored attitudes towards deprescribing; patients are generally supportive of the concept, although clinician views are varied. The successful implementation of deprescribing strategies still requires important patient and clinician barriers to be overcome, and clinical trial evidence of effectiveness and safety is essential.

Improving medication management in multimorbidity: development of the MultimorbiditY COllaborative Medication Review And DEcision Making (MY COMRADE) intervention using the Behaviour Change Wheel.

BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity, the presence of two or more chronic conditions, affects over 60 % of patients in primary care. Due to its association with polypharmacy, the development of interventions to optimise medication management in patients with multimorbidity is a priority. The Behaviour Change Wheel is a new approach for applying behavioural theory to intervention development. Here, we describe how we have used results from a review of previous research, original research of our own and the Behaviour Change Wheel to develop an intervention to improve medication management in multimorbidity by general practitioners (GPs), within the overarching UK Medical Research Council guidance on complex interventions. METHODS: Following the steps of the Behaviour Change Wheel, we sought behaviours associated with medication management in multimorbidity by conducting a systematic review and qualitative study with GPs. From the modifiable GP behaviours identified, we selected one and conducted a focused behavioural analysis to explain why GPs were or were not engaging in this behaviour. We used the behavioural analysis to determine the intervention functions, behavioural change techniques and implementation plan most likely to effect behavioural change. RESULTS: We identified numerous modifiable GP behaviours in the systematic review and qualitative study, from which active medication review (rather than passive maintaining the status quo) was chosen as the target behaviour. Behavioural analysis revealed GPs' capabilities, opportunities and motivations relating to active medication review. We combined the three intervention functions deemed most likely to effect behavioural change (enablement, environmental restructuring and incentivisation) to form the MultimorbiditY COllaborative Medication Review And DEcision Making (MY COMRADE) intervention. MY COMRADE primarily involves the technique of social support: two GPs review the medications prescribed to a complex multimorbid patient together. Four other behavioural change techniques are incorporated: restructuring the social environment, prompts/cues, action planning and self-incentives. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to use the Behaviour Change Wheel to develop an intervention targeting multimorbidity and confirms the usability and usefulness of the approach in a complex area of clinical care. The systematic development of the MY COMRADE intervention will facilitate a thorough evaluation of its effectiveness in the next phase of this work.

A retrospective cohort study assessing patient characteristics and the incidence of cardiovascular disease using linked routine primary and secondary care data.

OBJECTIVES: Data linkage combines information from several clinical data sets. The authors examined whether coding inconsistencies for cardiovascular disease between components of linked data sets result in differences in apparent population characteristics. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Routine primary care data from 40 Scottish general practitioner (GP) surgeries linked to national hospital records. PARTICIPANTS: 240 846 patients, aged 20 years or older, registered at a GP surgery. OUTCOMES: Cases of myocardial infarction, ischaemic heart disease and stroke (cerebrovascular disease) were identified from GP and hospital records. Patient characteristics and incidence rates were assessed for all three clinical outcomes, based on GP, hospital, paired GP/hospital (similar diagnoses recorded simultaneously in both data sets) or pooled GP/hospital records (diagnosis recorded in either or both data sets). RESULTS: For all three outcomes, the authors found evidence (p<0.05) of different characteristics when using different methods of case identification. Prescribing of cardiovascular medicines for ischaemic heart disease was greatest for cases identified using paired records (p≤0.013). For all conditions, 30-day case fatality rates were higher for cases identified using hospital compared with GP or paired data, most noticeably for myocardial infarction (hospital 20%, GP 4%, p=0.001). Incidence rates were highest using pooled GP/hospital data and lowest using paired data. CONCLUSIONS: Differences exist in patient characteristics and disease incidence for cardiovascular conditions, depending on the data source. This has implications for studies using routine clinical data.