Chest pain symptoms during myocardial infarction in patients with and without diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Chest pain (CP) is key in diagnosing myocardial infarction (MI). Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) are at increased risk of an MI but may experience less CP, leading to delayed treatment and worse outcomes. We compared the prevalence of CP in those with and without DM who had an MI. METHODS: The study population was people with MI presenting to healthcare services. The outcome measure was the absence of CP during MI, comparing those with and without DM. Medline and Embase databases were searched to 18 October 2021, identifying 9272 records. After initial independent screening, 87 reports were assessed for eligibility against the inclusion criteria, quality and risk of bias assessment (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology and Newcastle-Ottawa criteria), leaving 22 studies. The meta-analysis followed Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology criteria and reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Pooled ORs, weights and 95% CIs were calculated using a random-effects model. RESULTS: This meta-analysis included 232 519 participants from 22 studies and showed an increased likelihood of no CP during an MI for those with DM, compared with those without. This was 43% higher in patients with DM in the cohort and cross-sectional studies (OR: 1.43; 95% CI: 1.26 to 1.62), and 44% higher in case-control studies (OR: 1.44; 95% CI: 1.11 to 1.87). CONCLUSION: In patients with an MI, patients with DM are less likely than those without to have presentations with CP recorded. Clinicians should consider an MI diagnosis when patients with DM present with atypical symptoms and treatment protocols should reflect this, alongside an increased patient awareness on this issue. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017058223.

Universities and primary care organisations working together to recruit GPs: a qualitative evaluation of the Enfield clinical teaching fellow programme.

BACKGROUND: General practice recruitment is in difficulty in the UK as many experienced GPs retire or reduce their commitment. The numbers of junior doctors choosing to specialise in the discipline is also falling, leading to primary care workforce issues particularly in 'hard to serve' areas. AIM: To evaluate an academic service collaboration on GP recruitment between a primary care organisation (PCO), Enfield CCG, and a university, University College London (UCL). DESIGN & SETTING: Evaluation of an academic service collaboration in the Enfield CCG area of north east London. METHOD: An action research method utilising qualitative methodology was used to evaluate a local service intervention, undertaken by the participants themselves. The qualitative data were analysed by one researcher but themes were agreed by the whole team. Enfield CCG, an NHS PCO, funded a collaboration with UCL to employ five GPs as clinical teaching fellows to work in Enfield, to increase patients' access, to provide input to CCG development projects, and to provide undergraduate medical student teaching in practice. RESULTS: Five teaching fellows were employed for ≤2 years and provided 18 266 extra appointments, engaged with development projects, and delivered local undergraduate teaching. The themes identified by stakeholders were the challenges of these organisations working together, recruiting GPs to an underserved area, and perceptions of the model's value for money. CONCLUSION: The evaluation showed that the collaboration of an NHS PCO and a higher education institution can work, and the prestige of being associated with a universty and clinical variety ensured GP recruitment in an area that had previously struggled. However, the project's costs were high, which affected perceptions of its value.

Patient participation in general practice based undergraduate teaching: a focus group study of patient perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Patients make a crucial contribution to undergraduate medical education. Although a national resource is available for patients participating in research, none is as yet available for education. AIM: This study aimed to explore what information patients would like about participation in general practice based undergraduate medical education, and how they would like to obtain this information. DESIGN AND SETTING: Two focus groups were conducted in London-based practices involved in both undergraduate and postgraduate teaching. METHOD: Patients both with and without teaching experience were recruited using leaflets, posters, and patient participation groups. An open-ended topic guide explored three areas: perceived barriers that participants anticipated or had experienced; patient roles in medical education; and what help would support participation. Focus groups were audiorecorded, transcribed, and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Patients suggested ways of professionalising the teaching process. These were: making information available to patients about confidentiality, iterative consent, and normalising teaching in the practice. Patients highlighted the importance of relationships, making information available about their GPs' involvement in teaching, and initiating student-patient interactions. Participants emphasised educational principles to maximise exchange of information, including active participation of students, patient identification of student learner needs, and exchange of feedback. CONCLUSION: This study will inform development of patient information resources to support their participation in teaching and access to information both before and during general practice based teaching encounters.

Exploring provision of Innovative Community Education Placements (ICEPs) for junior doctors in training: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: Medical education in community settings is an essential ingredient of doctors' training and a key factor in recruiting general practitioners (GP). Health Education England's report 'Broadening the Foundation' recommends foundation doctors complete 4-month community placements. While Foundation GP schemes exist; other community settings, are not yet used for postgraduate training. The objective of this study was to explore how community-based training of junior doctors might be expanded into possible 'innovative community education placements' (ICEPs), examining opportunities and barriers to these developments. DESIGN: A qualitative study where semistructured interviews were undertaken and themes were generated deductively from the research questions, and iteratively from transcripts. SETTING: UK community healthcare. PARTICIPANTS: Stakeholders from UK Community healthcare providers and undergraduate GP and community educators. RESULTS: Nine participants were interviewed; those experienced in delivering community-based undergraduate education, and others working in community settings that had not previously trained doctors. Themes identified were practicalities such as 'finance and governance', 'communication and interaction', 'delivery of training' and 'perceptions of community'. ICEPs were willing to train Foundation doctors. However, concerns were raised that large numbers and inadequate resources could undermine the quality of educational opportunities, and even cause reputational damage. Organisation was seen as a challenge, which might be best met by placing some responsibility with trainees to manage their placements. ICEP providers agreed that defined service contribution by trainees was required to make placements sustainable, and enhance learning. ICEPs stated the need for positive articulation of the learning value of placements to learners and stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlighted the opportunities for foundation doctors to gain specialist and generalist knowledge in ICEPs from diverse clinical teams and patients. We recommend in conclusion ways of dealing with some of the perceived barriers to training.

Patients' descriptions of angina symptoms: a qualitative study of primary care patients.

BACKGROUND: Initial diagnosis of angina in primary care is based on the history of symptoms as described by the patient in consultation with their GP. Deciphering and categorising often complex symptom narratives, therefore, represents an ongoing challenge in the early diagnosis of angina in primary care. AIM: To explore how patients with a preexisting angina diagnosis describe their symptoms. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 64 males and females, identified from general practice records as having received a diagnosis of angina within the previous 5 years. RESULTS: While some patients described their angina symptoms in narratives consistent with typical anginal symptoms, others offered more complex descriptions of their angina experiences, which were less easy to classify. The latter was particularly the case for severe coronary artery disease, where some patients tended to downplay chest pain or attribute their experience to other causes. CONCLUSION: Patients with a known diagnosis of angina do not always describe their symptoms in a way that is consistent with Diamond and Forrester's diagnostic framework for typicality of angina. Early diagnosis of angina in primary care requires that GPs operate with a broad level of awareness of the various ways in which their patients describe their symptoms.