Impact of a nurse-led enhanced monitoring, management and contact tracing intervention for chronic hepatitis B in England, 2015-2017.

Around 200,000 people live with chronic hepatitis B in England. Despite national guidance on identification and management of cases and their close contacts, testing rates of close contacts is as low as 43% in high prevalence areas of London. Our study aimed to determine whether a nurse-led enhanced management and contact tracing of chronically infected individuals improved testing uptake, vaccination and onward referral of close contacts. The study was conducted across Greater Manchester and East of England regions between October 2015 and July 2017. All HBV chronically infected individuals registered with a GP and their close contacts were eligible for recruitment. The proportion of contacts who were tested, vaccinated and referred where appropriate were compared before and after the nurse-led intervention. Baseline and outcome information was collected using questionnaires. The intervention improved case referral rates by an additional 14% (from 86% (88/102 cases) to 99.7%; 648/650 cases). The proportion of contacts tested increased from 34% to 72%-94% with 18 new cases of HBV diagnosed. Amongst close contacts tested, vaccination rates of at least three doses increased from 77% (43/56) to 93% (452/491) during the study. Our study has shown that nurse-led enhanced management greatly improves identification, testing and vaccination of close contacts. The identification of new acute and chronic cases is likely to make the intervention cost effective and local health commissioners should consider providing a nurse-led service as part of hepatitis B care pathways.

What do primary care staff know and do about blood borne virus testing and care for migrant patients? A national survey.

BACKGROUND: UK migrants born in intermediate to high prevalence areas for blood borne viruses (BBV) including hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV are at increased risk of these infections. National guidance from Public Health England (PHE) and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends primary care test this population to increase diagnoses and treatment. We aimed to investigate primary care professionals' knowledge of entitlements, and perceptions of barriers, for migrants accessing healthcare, and their policies, and reported practices and influences on provision of BBV testing in migrants. METHODS: A pre-piloted questionnaire was distributed between October 2017 and January 2018 to primary care professionals attending the Royal College of General Practitioners and Best Practice in Primary Care conferences, via a link in PHE Vaccine Updates and through professional networks. Survey results were analysed to give descriptive statistics, and responses by respondent characteristics: profession, region, practice size, and frequency of seeing migrant patients. Responses were considered on a per question basis with response rates for each question presented with the results. RESULTS: Four hundred fourteen questionnaires were returned with responses varying by question, representing an estimated 5.7% of English GP practices overall. Only 14% of respondents' practices systematically identified migrant patients for testing. Universal opt-out testing was offered to newly registering migrant patients by 18% of respondents for hepatitis B, 17% for hepatitis C and 21% for HIV. Knowledge of healthcare entitlements varied; fewer clinical staff knew that general practice consultations were free to all migrants (76%) than for urgent care (88%). Performance payment structure (76%) had the greatest reported influence on testing, followed by PHE and Clinical Commissioning Group recommendations (73% each). Language and culture were perceived to be the biggest barriers to accessing care. CONCLUSIONS: BBV testing for migrant patients in primary care is usually ad hoc, which is likely to lead to testing opportunities being missed. Knowledge of migrants' entitlements to healthcare varies and could affect access to care. Interventions to improve professional awareness and identification of migrant patients requiring BBV testing are needed to reduce the undiagnosed and untreated burden of BBVs in this vulnerable population.

Preventing malaria in international travellers: an evaluation of published English-language guidelines.

BACKGROUND: People intending to travel may seek information on malaria prevention from a range of sources. To ensure the best protection, this information needs to be reliable, up-to-date, consistent, and useful to their decision making. This study appraises current international and national guidelines written in English for malaria prevention in travellers, and whether any recommendations conflict. METHODS: We systematically identified national or international English-language guidelines on malaria prevention in travellers to July 2013 using standard and multiple searching methods. We critically appraised guidelines using the AGREE II tool, and report inconsistent recommendations within guidelines. RESULTS: We identified five sets of English-language guidelines on preventing malaria for travellers. Assessment against AGREE II indicate that all of the guidelines fall short of internationally accepted standards in guideline development: none include a transparent description of methods; only one describes sources of funding or potential conflicts of interest; and only one includes formal presentation of the evidence alongside transparent assessment of the quality of that evidence. There were a number of important discrepancies between guidelines, and some omit information about effectiveness, safety and adverse effects of chemoprophylaxis options. CONCLUSIONS: The methods used for developing guidelines for malaria prevention in travellers lags behind current internationally recognized standards. Healthcare professionals as well as travellers themselves could be better informed if guidelines were more systematic and transparent summaries of the current knowledge on drug interventions in relation to effects, safety, administration and contra-indications.