Telephone triage of young adults with chest pain: population analysis of NHS24 calls in Scottish unscheduled care.

BACKGROUND: Telephone triage is increasingly used to manage unscheduled care demand. Younger adults are frequent users, and commonly call with chest pain. We compared pathways of care in younger adults calling with chest pain, and associations of patient characteristics and telephone triage recommendation with hospital admission. METHODS: A retrospective study of all triage calls with chest pain to NHS24 advice line by people aged 15-34 years between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2017 where chest pain was recorded as the call reason. Recommended outcome and subsequent use of services were determined using the continuous urgent care pathways (CUPs) database which records single episodes of care spanning multiple services. We determined the number of services involved, the proportion of patients with inpatient admission, those with an admission for an 'acute-and-serious' diagnosis, and the association between the triage call recommendation and these outcomes. RESULTS: There were 102 822 CUPs identified, with 1251 different combinations of services. The most common pathway was an NHS24 call then attendance at a primary care out-of-hours (PCOOH) centre, accounting for 38 643 (37.6%) CUPs. 9060 (8.8%) CUPs ended with hospital admission, 3030 (3.0%) the result of an 'acute-and-serious' diagnosis. 8453 (8.2%) were given 'self-care' advice and not referred further, while 46.9% ended at PCOOH and 15.2% at ED. 'Asthma, unspecified' was the most frequent 'acute-and-serious' diagnosis. Compared with people given self-care advice, referral to other services had increased odds of inpatient admission (adjusted OR (aOR) for ambulance called 28.7, 95% CI 22.6 to 36.3; for 1-hour in-home general practitioner (GP) visit arranged aOR 36.8, 95% CI 23.2 to 58.5) and for admission with an 'acute-and-serious' diagnosis (aOR ambulance called 23.9, 95% CI 16.2 to 35.4; aOR 1-hour GP visit 48.3, 95% CI 25.5 to 91.6). CONCLUSION: Chest pain triage by NHS24 appears safe, but care pathways can involve multiple service contacts. While acuity assigned to the call is strongly related to the odds of hospital admission and odds of an 'acute-and-serious' diagnosis, 'overtriage' means few patients are directed to self-care advice.

Unscheduled care pathways in patients with myocardial infarction in Scotland.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment of acute myocardial infarction (MI) requires rapid transfer of people with chest pain to hospital, however, unscheduled care pathways vary in their directness (the minimal number of contacts to hospital admission). The aim was to examine unscheduled care pathways and the associations with mortality in people admitted with MI. METHODS: Retrospective population study of all people admitted to Scottish hospitals with a diagnosis of MI between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2017. Linked data for all National Health Service Scotland unscheduled care services (NHS24 telephone triage service, primary care out of hours, ambulance, emergency department (ED)) was used to define continuous unscheduled care pathways (pathways), which were categorised by initial contact, and whether they were 'direct' (had minimum number of contacts between first contact and admission). Analysis estimated ORs and 95% CIs in adjusted models in which all covariates were included. RESULTS: 26 325 people admitted with MI (63.1% men, 61.6% aged 65+ years), of whom 5.6% died from coronary heart disease within 28 days. For 47.0%, the first unscheduled care contact was ambulance, 23.3% attended ED directly and 18.7% called telephone triage. 92.1% of pathways were direct. Pathways starting with telephone triage were more likely to be indirect compared with other initial contacts (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.97, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.40). Compared to direct pathways, indirect pathways starting with telephone triage were associated with higher mortality (aOR 1.97, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.40) as were indirect pathways starting with another service (aOR 1.55, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.01), but not direct pathways starting with telephone triage (aOR 0.87, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.02). CONCLUSION: Unscheduled care pathways leading to admission with MI in Scotland are usually direct, but those starting with telephone triage were more commonly indirect. Those indirect pathways were associated with higher mortality.

Variation in the estimated prevalence of multimorbidity: systematic review and meta-analysis of 193 international studies.

OBJECTIVE: (1) To estimate the pooled prevalence of multimorbidity in all age groups, globally. (2) To examine how measurement of multimorbidity impacted the estimated prevalence. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we conducted searches in nine bibliographic databases (PsycINFO, Embase, Global Health, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global) for prevalence studies published between database inception and 21 January 2020. Studies reporting the prevalence of multimorbidity (in all age groups and in community, primary care, care home and hospital settings) were included. Studies with an index condition or those that did not include people with no long-term conditions in the denominator were excluded. Retrieved studies were independently reviewed by two reviewers, and relevant data were extracted using predesigned pro forma. We used meta-analysis to pool the estimated prevalence of multimorbidity across studies, and used random-effects meta-regression and subgroup analysis to examine the association of heterogeneous prevalence estimates with study and measure characteristics. RESULTS: 13 807 titles were screened, of which 193 met inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of multimorbidity was 42.4% (95% CI 38.9% to 46.0%) with high heterogeneity (I2 >99%). In adjusted meta-regression models, participant mean age and the number of conditions included in a measure accounted for 47.8% of heterogeneity in effect sizes. The estimated prevalence of multimorbidity was significantly higher in studies with older adults and those that included larger numbers of conditions. There was no significant difference in estimated prevalence between low-income or middle-income countries (36.8%) and high-income countries (44.3%), or between self-report (40.0%) and administrative/clinical databases (52.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The pooled prevalence of multimorbidity was significantly higher in older populations and when studies included a larger number of baseline conditions. The findings suggest that, to improve study comparability and quality of reporting, future studies should use a common core conditions set for multimorbidity measurement and report multimorbidity prevalence stratified by sociodemographics.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020172409.

Examining variation in the measurement of multimorbidity in research: a systematic review of 566 studies.

BACKGROUND: A systematic understanding of how multimorbidity has been constructed and measured is unavailable. This review aimed to examine the definition and measurement of multimorbidity in peer-reviewed studies internationally. METHODS: We systematically reviewed studies on multimorbidity, via a search of nine bibliographic databases (Ovid [PsycINFO, Embase, Global Health, and MEDLINE], Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL Plus, Scopus, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global), from inception to Jan 21, 2020. Reference lists and tracked citations of retrieved articles were hand-searched. Eligible studies were full-text articles measuring multimorbidity for any purpose in community, primary care, care home, or hospital populations receiving a non-specialist service. Abstracts, qualitative research, and case series were excluded. Two reviewers independently reviewed the retrieved studies with conflicts resolved by discussion or a third reviewer, and a single researcher extracted data from published papers. To assess our objectives of how multimorbidity has been measured and examine variation in the chronic conditions included (in terms of number and type), we used descriptive analysis (frequencies, cross-tabulation, and negative binomial regression) to summarise the characteristics of multimorbidity studies and measures (study setting, source of morbidity data, study population, primary study purpose, and multimorbidity measure type). This systematic review is registered with PROSPERO, CRD420201724090. FINDINGS: 566 studies were included in our review, of which 206 (36·4%) did not report a reference definition for multimorbidity and 73 (12·9%) did not report the conditions their measure included. The number of conditions included in measures ranged from two to 285 (median 17 [IQR 11-23). 452 (79·9%) studies reported types of condition within a single multimorbidity measure; most included at least one cardiovascular condition (441 [97·6%] of 452 studies), metabolic and endocrine condition (440 [97·3%]), respiratory condition (422 [93·4%]), musculoskeletal condition (396 [87·6%]), or mental health condition (355 [78·5%]) in their measure of multimorbidity. Chronic infections (123 [27·2%]), haematological conditions (110 [24·3%]), ear, nose, and throat conditions (107 [23·7%]), skin conditions (70 [15·5%]), oral conditions (19 [4·2%]), and congenital conditions (14 [3·1%]) were uncommonly included. Only eight individual conditions were included by more than half of studies in the multimorbidity measure used (diabetes, stroke, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, coronary heart disease, chronic kidney disease, and heart failure), with individual mental health conditions under-represented. Of the 566 studies, 419 were rated to be of moderate risk of bias, 107 of high risk of bias, and 40 of low risk of bias according to the Effective Public Health Practice Project quality assessment tool. INTERPRETATION: Measurement of multimorbidity is poorly reported and highly variable. Consistent reporting of measure definitions should be required by journals, and consensus studies are needed to define core and study-dependent conditions to include in measures of multimorbidity. FUNDING: Health Data Research UK.

Comparing rich and poor: burn prevention in Wales, Pakistan, India, Botswana and Zambia.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, over 95% of fire-related burns occur in 'low and middle income countries' (LMIC) [1]. The majority of research, investment and expertise into the prevention and treatment of burns occurs in high income countries (HIC) [2]. Bearing that in mind, this study was conducted in four different LMIC and one HIC, with a view to comparing the knowledge of, and previous exposure to, burn prevention and first aid. METHODS: A 25 question survey was devised at the Welsh Centre for Burns and Plastics, Morriston Hospital, Swansea, to ascertain the knowledge, attitude, and practice of individuals in five countries, in relation to burns. Overall 1146 participants took part in the survey: 191 from Botswana, 492 from India, 198 from Pakistan, 196 from Wales and 69 from Zambia. RESULTS: The results show a disparity between the UK and the four LMIC. A higher proportion of those in the UK received information on prevention and on first aid (51.4% vs. 38.1% and 70.9% vs. 40.1%, respectively). In addition, more of those questioned in the UK were able to identify the correct course of action should their clothing catch fire or should they spill hot oil on their arm (54.1% vs. 24.9% and 75% vs. 25.9%, respectively). CONCLUSION: The results show a discrepancy in the first aid provision, and level of education about burn prevention between a HIC and four LMIC. In addition they suggest an association between an increase in knowledge with better practice in relation to burn prevention and first aid.