Urgent assessment and ongoing care for infection in community-dwelling older people: a qualitative study of patient experience.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the experience of infection from the perspective of community-dwelling older people, including access and preferences for place of care. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study, carried out between March 2017 and August 2018. SETTING: Ambulatory care units in Oxfordshire, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Adults >70 years with a clinical diagnosis of infection. METHODS: Semistructured interviews based on a flexible topic guide. Participants were given the option to be interviewed with their caregiver. Thematic analysis was facilitated by NVivo V.11. RESULTS: Participants described encountering several barriers when accessing an urgent healthcare assessment which were hard to negotiate when they felt unwell. They valued home comforts and independence if they received care for their infection at home, though were worried about burdening their family. Most talked about hospital admission being a necessity in the context of more severe illness. Perceived advantages included monitoring, availability of treatments and investigations. However, some recognised that admission put them at risk of a hospital-acquired infection. Ambulatory care was felt to be convenient if local, but daily transport was challenging. CONCLUSIONS: Providers may need to think about protocols and targeted advice that could improve access for older people to urgent healthcare when they feel unwell. General practitioners making decisions about place of care may need to better communicate risks associated with the available options and think about balancing convenience with facilities for care.

Effects of antihypertensives, lipid-modifying drugs, glycaemic control drugs and sodium bicarbonate on the progression of stages 3 and 4 chronic kidney disease in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of drug interventions that may modify the progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in adults with CKD stages 3 and 4. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: Searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Health Technology Assessment, Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index and Clinical Trials Register, from March 1999 to July 2018, we identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of drugs for hypertension, lipid modification, glycaemic control and sodium bicarbonate, compared with placebo, no drug or a drug from another class, in ≥40 adults with CKD stages 3 and/or 4, with at least 2 years of follow-up and reporting renal function (primary outcome), proteinuria, adverse events, maintenance dialysis, transplantation, cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality or all-cause mortality. Two reviewers independently screened citations and extracted data. For continuous outcomes, we used the ratio of means (ROM) at the end of the trial in random-effects meta-analyses. We assessed methodological quality with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and confidence in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. RESULTS: We included 35 RCTs and over 51 000 patients. Data were limited, and heterogeneity varied. Final renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate) was 6% higher in those taking glycaemic control drugs (ROM 1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.10, I2=0%, low GRADE confidence) and 4% higher in those taking lipid-modifying drugs (ROM 1.04, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.08, I2=88%, very low GRADE confidence). For RCTs of antihypertensive drugs, there were no significant differences in renal function. Treatment with lipid-modifying drugs led to a 36% reduction in cardiovascular disease and 26% reduction in all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Glycaemic control and lipid-modifying drugs may slow the progression of CKD, but we found no pooled evidence of benefit nor harm from antihypertensive drugs. However, given the data limitations, further research is needed to confirm these findings. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42015017501.

Barriers to a software reminder system for risk assessment of stroke in atrial fibrillation: a process evaluation of a cluster randomised trial in general practice.

BACKGROUND: Oral anticoagulants reduce the risk of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), but are underused. AURAS-AF (AUtomated Risk Assessment for Stroke in AF) is a software tool designed to identify eligible patients and promote discussions within consultations about initiating anticoagulants. AIM: To investigate the implementation of the software in UK general practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: Process evaluation involving 23 practices randomly allocated to use AURAS-AF during a cluster randomised trial. METHOD: An initial invitation to discuss anticoagulation was followed by screen reminders appearing during consultations until a decision had been made. The reminders required responses, giving reasons for cases where an anticoagulant was not initiated. Qualitative interviews with clinicians and patients explored acceptability and usability. RESULTS: In a sample of 476 patients eligible for the invitation letter, only 159 (33.4%) were considered suitable for invitation by their GPs. Reasons given were frequently based on frailty, and risk of falls or haemorrhage. Of those invited, 35 (22%) started an anticoagulant (7.4% of those originally identified). A total of 1695 main-screen reminders occurred in 940 patients. In 883 instances, the decision was taken not to initiate and a range of reasons offered. Interviews with 15 patients and seven clinicians indicated that the intervention was acceptable, though the issue of disruptive screen reminders was raised. CONCLUSION: Automated risk assessment for stroke in atrial fibrillation and prompting during consultations are feasible and generally acceptable, but did not overcome concerns about frailty and risk of haemorrhage as barriers to anticoagulant uptake.

Who breaches the four-hour emergency department wait time target? A retrospective analysis of 374,000 emergency department attendances between 2008 and 2013 at a type 1 emergency department in England.

BACKGROUND: The four-hour target is a key hospital emergency department performance indicator in England and one that drives the physical and organisational design of the ED. Some studies have identified time of presentation as a key factor affecting waiting times. Few studies have investigated other determinants of breaching the four-hour target. Therefore, our objective was to describe patterns of emergency department breaches of the four-hour wait time target and identify patients at highest risk of breaching. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of a large type 1 Emergency department at an NHS teaching hospital in Oxford, England. We analysed anonymised individual level patient data for 378,873 emergency department attendances, representing all attendances between April 2008 and April 2013. We examined patient characteristics and emergency department presentation circumstances associated with the highest likelihood of breaching the four-hour wait time target. RESULTS: We used 374,459 complete cases for analysis. In total, 8.3% of all patients breached the four-hour wait time target. The main determinants of patients breaching the four-hour wait time target were hour of arrival to the ED, day of the week, patient age, ED referral source, and the types of investigations patients receive (p < 0.01 for all associations). Patients most likely to breach the four-hour target were older, presented at night, presented on Monday, received multiple types of investigation in the emergency department, and were not self-referred (p < 0.01 for all associations). Patients attending from October to February had a higher odds of breaching compared to those attending from March to September (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.59 to 1.66). CONCLUSIONS: There are a number of independent patient and circumstantial factors associated with the probability of breaching the four-hour ED wait time target including patient age, ED referral source, the types of investigations patients receive, as well as the hour, day, and month of arrival to the ED. Efforts to reduce the number of breaches could explore late-evening/overnight staffing, access to diagnostic tests, rapid discharge facilities, and early assessment and input on diagnostic and management strategies from a senior practitioner.

Predicting clinical deterioration after initial assessment in out-of-hours primary care: a retrospective service evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Accurate assessment of the need for admission is challenging in out-of-hours (OOH) primary care. Understanding more about patient contacts where the decision to continue care in the community may have been incorrect could assist clinicians in assessing clinical risk. AIM: To define the population contacting OOH primary care who are at higher risk of re-presenting to this service and requiring urgent transfer to secondary care within 3 days of their initial contact. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective service evaluation of 4 years of patient contacts with Oxfordshire OOH primary care. METHOD: Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate demographic and service delivery factors associated with increased risk of delayed escalation to secondary care. RESULTS: Almost 1% of 496 931 patients contacting OOH primary care required escalation to secondary care within 3 days. Of these, 68.5% were initially discharged with no follow-up or advice to contact their GP; 14.7% were initially referred to secondary care. The odds of requiring escalation were increased with age (odds ratio [OR] 1.010; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.009 to 1.011; P<0.001), more frequent prior use of the OOH service (OR 1.016; 95% CI = 1.010 to 1.021; P<0.001), and presenting during periods of low call volume (OR 0.880; 95% CI = 0.857 to 0.904; P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Older, prior users of the service, presenting at less busy times, are at greater risk of requiring secondary care referral from the OOH service within 3 days of their initial contact. These higher-risk patient groups might benefit from active follow-up by the OOH service.

Automated Risk Assessment for Stroke in Atrial Fibrillation (AURAS-AF)--an automated software system to promote anticoagulation and reduce stroke risk: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) are at significantly increased risk of stroke. Oral anticoagulants (OACs) substantially reduce this risk, with gains seen across the spectrum of baseline risk. Despite the benefit to patients, OAC prescribing remains suboptimal in the United Kingdom (UK). We will investigate whether an automated software system, operating within primary care electronic medical records, can improve the management of AF by identifying patients eligible for OAC therapy and increasing uptake of this treatment. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a cluster randomised controlled trial, involving general practices using the Egton Medical Information Systems (EMIS) Web clinical system. We will randomise practices to use an electronic software tool or to continue with usual care. The tool will a) produce (and continually refresh) a list of patients with AF who are eligible for OAC therapy--practices will invite these patients to discuss therapy at the start of the trial--and b) generate electronic screen reminders in the medical records of those eligible, appearing throughout the trial. The software will run for 6 months in 23 intervention practices. A total of 23 control practices will manage their AF register in line with the usual care offered. The primary outcome is change in proportion of eligible patients with AF who have been prescribed OAC therapy after six months. Secondary outcomes are incidence of stroke, transient ischaemic attack, other major thromboembolism, major haemorrhage and reports of inappropriate OAC prescribing in the data collection sample--those deemed eligible for OACs. We will conduct a process evaluation in parallel with the randomised trial. We will use qualitative methods to examine patient and practitioner views of the intervention and its impact on primary care practice, including its time implications. DISCUSSION: AURAS-AF will investigate whether a simple intervention, using electronic primary care records, can improve OAC uptake in a high risk group for stroke. Given previous concerns about safety, especially surrounding inappropriate prescribing, we will also examine whether electronic reminders safely impact care in this clinical area. TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://ISRCTN 55722437.

The evidence underpinning sports performance products: a systematic assessment.

BACKGROUND: To assess the extent and nature of claims regarding improved sports performance made by advertisers for a broad range of sports-related products, and the quality of the evidence on which these claims are based. METHODS: The authors analysed magazine adverts and associated websites of a broad range of sports products. The authors searched for references supporting the performance and/or recovery claims of these products. The authors critically appraised the methods in the retrieved references by assessing the level of evidence and the risk of bias. The authors also collected information on the included participants, adverse events, study limitations, the primary outcome of interest and whether the intervention had been retested. RESULTS: The authors viewed 1035 web pages and identified 431 performance-enhancing claims for 104 different products. The authors found 146 references that underpinned these claims. More than half (52.8%) of the websites that made performance claims did not provide any references, and the authors were unable to perform critical appraisal for approximately half (72/146) of the identified references. None of the references referred to systematic reviews (level 1 evidence). Of the critically appraised studies, 84% were judged to be at high risk of bias. Randomisation was used in just over half of the studies (58.1%), allocation concealment was only clear in five (6.8%) studies; and blinding of the investigators, outcome assessors or participants was only clearly reported as used in 20 (27.0%) studies. Only three of the 74 (2.7%) studies were judged to be of high quality and at low risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence is not of sufficient quality to inform the public about the benefits and harms of sports products. There is a need to improve the quality and reporting of research, a move towards using systematic review evidence to inform decisions.