Telehealth interventions for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of telehealth interventions in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in adult patients in community settings. METHODS: Systematic literature review of randomised controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of telehealth interventions to reduce overall cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and/or to reduce multiple CVD risk factors compared with a non-telehealth control group was conducted in June 2013. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Fixed and random effects models were combined with a narrative synthesis for meta-analysis of included studies. RESULTS: Three of 13 included studies measured Framingham 10-year CVD risk scores, and meta-analysis showed no clear evidence of reduction in overall risk (SMD -0.37%, 95% CI -2.08, 1.33). There was weak evidence for a reduction in systolic blood pressure (SMD -1.22 mmHg 95% CI -2.80, 0.35) and total cholesterol (SMD -0.07 mmol/L 95% CI -0.19, 0.06). There was no change in High-Density Lipoprotein cholesterol or smoking rates. CONCLUSION: There is insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of telehealth interventions in reducing overall CVD risk. More studies are needed that consistently measure overall CVD risk, directly compare different telehealth interventions, and determine cost effectiveness of telehealth interventions for prevention of CVD.

Physical surrogate leg to evaluate blast mine injury.

Antipersonnel blast landmines pose a significant threat in affected areas, with injuries to the lower extremity and amputation being common. Addressing a need for injury prediction and protection evaluation, a 50th percentile physical surrogate lower leg was developed incorporating the load transmission paths in the lower leg. Biofidelic and frangible materials were evaluated and selected based on high deformation rate properties compared to those for human tissues. The predicted leg injuries from experimental blast testing were in agreement with injury data for unprotected and protected legs. Post-test examination was found to be the only consistent and reliable evaluation method for predicting injury outcome, and an evaluation based on tissue damage was shown to be sensitive to changes in loading conditions, not possible with existing approaches. This study identified the severity of calcaneal fracture as the primary determinant of serious injury, which should be the focus of future protection development.

General practitioners and emergency departments (GPED)-efficient models of care: a mixed-methods study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Pressure continues to grow on emergency departments in the UK and throughout the world, with declining performance and adverse effects on patient outcome, safety and experience. One proposed solution is to locate general practitioners to work in or alongside the emergency department (GPED). Several GPED models have been introduced, however, evidence of effectiveness is weak. This study aims to evaluate the impact of GPED on patient care, the primary care and acute hospital team and the wider urgent care system. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study will be divided into three work packages (WPs). WP-A; Mapping and Taxonomy: mapping, description and classification of current models of GPED in all emergency departments in England and interviews with key informants to examine the hypotheses that underpin GPED. WP-B; Quantitative Analysis of National Data: measurement of the effectiveness, costs and consequences of the GPED models identified in WP-A, compared with a no-GPED model, using retrospective analysis of Hospital Episode Statistics Data. WP-C; Case Studies: detailed case studies of different GPED models using a mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods including: non-participant observation of clinical care, semistructured interviews with staff, patients and carers; workforce surveys with emergency department staff and analysis of available local routinely collected hospital data. Prospective case study sites will be identified by completing telephone interviews with sites awarded capital funding by the UK government to implement GPED initiatives. The study has a strong patient and public involvement group that has contributed to study design and materials, and which will be closely involved in data interpretation and dissemination. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the National Health Service East Midlands-Leicester South Research Ethics Committee: 17/EM/0312. The results of the study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conferences and a planned programme of knowledge mobilisation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN51780222.

Depth of the patient-doctor relationship and content of general practice consultations: cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Patient-doctor continuity is valued by both parties, yet the effect of the depth of the patient-doctor relationship on the content of consultations in general practice is unknown. AIM: To assess whether differences in the depth of relationship between a patient and their GP affects the length of consultations, and the number and type of problems and issues raised during a consultation. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional study in 22 GP practices in the UK. METHOD: GP consultations (n = 229) were videotaped and the number of problems and aspects of those problems and issues identified. Patients completed the Patient-Doctor Depth of Relationship (PDDR) and General Practice Assessment Questionnaire-communication (GPAQc) scales. Associations were explored using multivariable linear and logistic regression. RESULTS: Complete data were available on 190 participants consulting 30 GPs. In unadjusted analysis, patients with a deep relationship with their GP discussed more problems (mean 2.8) and issues (mean 4.7) compared with those with a moderate (2.4 problems; 4.0 issues) or shallow (2.3 problems; 3.8 issues) relationship. Patients with deep relationships had consultations that were on average 118 seconds (95% CI = 1 to 236) longer than those with shallow relationships. Adjustment for participant and GP factors attenuated these relationships, although the main trends persisted. CONCLUSION: A greater number of problems and issues may be raised in a consultation when patients have a deeper relationship with their GP. Over several clinical encounters each year, this may be associated with significant benefits to patients and efficiencies in GP consultations and warrants further investigation.