Electronically delivered interventions to reduce antibiotic prescribing for respiratory infections in primary care: cluster RCT using electronic health records and cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Unnecessary prescribing of antibiotics in primary care is contributing to the emergence of antimicrobial drug resistance. OBJECTIVES: To develop and evaluate a multicomponent intervention for antimicrobial stewardship in primary care, and to evaluate the safety of reducing antibiotic prescribing for self-limiting respiratory infections (RTIs). INTERVENTIONS: A multicomponent intervention, developed as part of this study, including a webinar, monthly reports of general practice-specific data for antibiotic prescribing and decision support tools to inform appropriate antibiotic prescribing. DESIGN: A parallel-group, cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: The trial was conducted in 79 general practices in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). PARTICIPANTS: All registered patients were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the rate of antibiotic prescriptions for self-limiting RTIs over the 12-month intervention period. COHORT STUDY: A separate population-based cohort study was conducted in 610 CPRD general practices that were not exposed to the trial interventions. Data were analysed to evaluate safety outcomes for registered patients with 45.5 million person-years of follow-up from 2005 to 2014. RESULTS: There were 41 intervention trial arm practices (323,155 patient-years) and 38 control trial arm practices (259,520 patient-years). There were 98.7 antibiotic prescriptions for RTIs per 1000 patient-years in the intervention trial arm (31,907 antibiotic prescriptions) and 107.6 per 1000 patient-years in the control arm (27,923 antibiotic prescriptions) [adjusted antibiotic-prescribing rate ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 0.99; p = 0.040]. There was no evidence of effect in children aged < 15 years (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.12) or adults aged ≥ 85 years (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.18). Antibiotic prescribing was reduced in adults aged between 15 and 84 years (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.95), that is, one antibiotic prescription was avoided for every 62 patients (95% CI 40 to 200 patients) aged 15-84 years per year. Analysis of trial data for 12 safety outcomes, including pneumonia and peritonsillar abscess, showed no evidence that these outcomes might be increased as a result of the intervention. The analysis of data from non-trial practices showed that if a general practice with an average list size of 7000 patients reduces the proportion of RTI consultations with antibiotics prescribed by 10%, then 1.1 (95% CI 0.6 to 1.5) more cases of pneumonia per year and 0.9 (95% CI 0.5 to 1.3) more cases of peritonsillar abscesses per decade may be observed. There was no evidence that mastoiditis, empyema, meningitis, intracranial abscess or Lemierre syndrome were more frequent at low-prescribing practices. LIMITATIONS: The research was based on electronic health records that may not always provide complete data. The number of practices included in the trial was smaller than initially intended. CONCLUSIONS: This study found evidence that, overall, general practice antibiotic prescribing for RTIs was reduced by this electronically delivered intervention. Antibiotic prescribing rates were reduced for adults aged 15-84 years, but not for children or the senior elderly. FUTURE WORK: Strategies for antimicrobial stewardship should employ stratified interventions that are tailored to specific age groups. Further research into the safety of reduced antibiotic prescribing is also needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN95232781. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 11. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The overuse of antibiotics to treat infections is contributing to the rise of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. A trial was carried out to evaluate whether or not interventions delivered through general practice computer systems may be used to reduce antibiotic prescribing for self-limiting respiratory tract infections (RTIs). The study was carried out in 79 UK general practices. The study tested the effect of a webinar to introduce the trial interventions, which included monthly feedback reports of data for respiratory consultations and antibiotic prescriptions, as well as computer-delivered decision support tools. These interventions were specially developed for this study and were pre-tested with general practitioners and practice nurses. Over the 12-month intervention period, the antibiotic-prescribing rate was about 12% lower in the intervention trial arm than in the control arm. There was no effect of intervention in children aged < 15 years or adults aged ≥ 85 years, but antibiotic prescribing was reduced by about 16% in adults aged between 15 and 84 years. Assuming this was caused by the intervention, one antibiotic prescription was avoided per year for every 62 patients aged between 15 and 84 years and registered with a trial practice. The study found no evidence that the intervention might increase the risk of 12 bacterial infections. In addition, a follow-up study of 610 UK general practices not included in the trial was conducted. The study found that if a general practice with an average list size of 7000 patients reduces the proportion of RTI consultations with antibiotics prescribed by 10%, then it may be possible to observe about one more case of pneumonia per year and one more case of peritonsillar abscess per decade, but no increase in other infections is likely. It can be concluded that electronically delivered interventions, including feedback of antibiotic-prescribing data for specific indications, may have the potential to reduce unnecessary antibiotic prescribing; however, antimicrobial stewardship interventions need to be tailored to particular age groups.

Enhanced Invitations Using the Question-Behavior Effect and Financial Incentives to Promote Health Check Uptake in Primary Care.

Background: Uptake of health checks for cardiovascular risk assessment in primary care in England is lower than anticipated. The question-behavior effect (QBE) may offer a simple, scalable intervention to increase health check uptake. Purpose: The present study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of enhanced invitation methods employing the QBE, with or without a financial incentive to return the questionnaire, at increasing uptake of health checks. Methods: We conducted a three-arm randomized trial including all patients at 18 general practices in two London boroughs, who were invited for health checks from July 2013 to December 2014. Participants were randomized to three trial arms: (i) Standard health check invitation letter only; (ii) QBE questionnaire followed by standard invitation letter; or (iii) QBE questionnaire with offer of a financial incentive to return the questionnaire, followed by standard invitation letter. In intention to treat analysis, the primary outcome of completion of health check within 6 months of invitation, was evaluated using a p value of .0167 for significance. Results: 12,459 participants were randomized. Health check uptake was evaluated for 12,052 (97%) with outcome data collected. Health check uptake within 6 months of invitation was: standard invitation, 590 / 4,095 (14.41%); QBE questionnaire, 630 / 3,988 (15.80%); QBE questionnaire and financial incentive, 629 / 3,969 (15.85%). Difference following QBE questionnaire, 1.43% (95% confidence interval -0.12 to 2.97%, p = .070); following QBE questionnaire and financial incentive, 1.52% (-0.03 to 3.07%, p = .054). Conclusions: Uptake of health checks following a standard invitation was low and not significantly increased through enhanced invitation methods using the QBE.

Enhanced invitation methods and uptake of health checks in primary care: randomised controlled trial and cohort study using electronic health records.

BACKGROUND: A national programme of health checks to identify risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is being rolled out but is encountering difficulties because of low uptake. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of an enhanced invitation method using the question-behaviour effect (QBE), with or without the offer of a financial incentive to return the QBE questionnaire, at increasing the uptake of health checks. The research went on to evaluate the reasons for the low uptake of invitations and compare the case mix for invited and opportunistic health checks. DESIGN: Three-arm randomised trial and cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: All participants invited for a health check from 18 general practices. Individual participants were randomised. INTERVENTIONS: (1) Standard health check invitation only; (2) QBE questionnaire followed by a standard invitation; and (3) QBE questionnaire with offer of a financial incentive to return the questionnaire, followed by a standard invitation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was completion of the health check within 6 months of invitation. A p-value of 0.0167 was used for significance. In the cohort study of all health checks completed during the study period, the case mix was compared for participants responding to invitations and those receiving 'opportunistic' health checks. Participants were not aware that several types of invitation were in use. The research team were blind to trial arm allocation at outcome data extraction. RESULTS: In total, 12,459 participants were included in the trial and health check uptake was evaluated for 12,052 participants for whom outcome data were collected. Health check uptake was as follows: standard invitation, 590 out of 4095 (14.41%); QBE questionnaire, 630 out of 3988 (15.80%); QBE questionnaire and financial incentive, 629 out of 3969 (15.85%). The increase in uptake associated with the QBE questionnaire was 1.43% [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.12% to 2.97%; p = 0.070] and the increase in uptake associated with the QBE questionnaire and offer of financial incentive was 1.52% (95% CI -0.03% to 3.07%; p = 0.054). The difference in uptake associated with the offer of an incentive to return the QBE questionnaire was -0.01% (95% CI -1.59% to 1.58%; p = 0.995). During the study period, 58% of health check cardiovascular risk assessments did not follow a trial invitation. People who received an 'opportunistic' health check had greater odds of a ≥ 10% CVD risk than those who received an invited health check (adjusted odds ratio 1.70, 95% CI 1.45 to 1.99; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Uptake of a health check following an invitation letter is low and is not increased through an enhanced invitation method using the QBE. The offer of a £5 incentive did not increase the rate of return of the QBE questionnaire. A high proportion of all health checks are performed opportunistically and not in response to a standard invitation letter. Participants receiving opportunistic checks are at higher risk of CVD than those responding to standard invitations. Future research should aim to increase the accessibility of preventative medical interventions to increase uptake. Research should also explore the wider use of electronic health records in delivering efficient trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN42856343. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 84. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Do health checks improve risk factor detection in primary care? Matched cohort study using electronic health records.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the effect of NHS Health Checks on cardiovascular risk factor detection and inequalities. METHODS: Matched cohort study in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, including participants who received a health check in England between 1 April 2010 and 31 March 2013, together with matched control participants, with linked deprivation scores. RESULTS: There were 91 618 eligible participants who received a health check, of whom 75 123 (82%) were matched with 182 245 controls. After the health check, 90% of men and 92% of women had complete data for blood pressure, total cholesterol, smoking and body mass index; a net 51% increase (P < 0.001) over controls. After the check, gender and deprivation inequalities in recording of all risk factors were lower than for controls. Net increase in risk factor detection was greater for hypercholesterolaemia (men +33%; women +32%) than for obesity (men +8%; women +4%) and hypertension in men only (+5%) (all P < 0.001). Detection of smoking was 5% lower in health check participants than controls (P < 0.001). Over 4 years, statins were prescribed to 11% of health -check participants and 7.6% controls (hazard ratio 1.58, 95% confidence interval 1.53-1.63, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: NHS Health Checks are associated with increased detection of hypercholesterolaemia, and to a lesser extent obesity and hypertension, but smokers may be under-represented.

Estimating the yield of NHS Health Checks in England: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the yield of the NHS Health Checks programme. METHODS: A cohort study, conducted in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink in England. Electronic health records were analysed for patients aged 40-74 receiving an NHS Health Check between 2010 and 2013. RESULTS: There were 65 324 men and 75 032 women receiving a health check. For every 1000 men assessed, there were 205 smokers (95% confidence interval 195-215), 355 (340-369) with hypertension (≥140/90 mmHg) and 633 (607-658) with elevated cholesterol (≥5 mmol/l). Among 1000 women, there were 161 (151-171) smokers, 247 (238-257) with hypertension and 668 (646-689) with elevated cholesterol. In the 12 months following the check, statins were prescribed to 18% of men and 21% of women with ≥20% cardiovascular risk and antihypertensive drugs to 11% of men and 16% of women with ≥20% cardiovascular risk. Slight reductions in risk factor values were observed in the minority of participants with follow-up values recorded in the 15 months following the check. CONCLUSIONS: A universal primary prevention programme identifies substantial risk factor burden in a population without known cardiovascular disease. Research is needed to monitor interventions, and intermediate- and long-term outcomes, in those identified at high risk.

Point-of-care cluster randomized trial in stroke secondary prevention using electronic health records.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the remote introduction of electronic decision support tools into family practices improves risk factor control after first stroke. This study also aimed to develop methods to implement cluster randomized trials in stroke using electronic health records. METHODS: Family practices were recruited from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink and allocated to intervention and control trial arms by minimization. Remotely installed, electronic decision support tools promoted intensified secondary prevention for 12 months with last measure of systolic blood pressure as the primary outcome. Outcome data from electronic health records were analyzed using marginal models. RESULTS: There were 106 Clinical Practice Research Datalink family practices allocated (intervention, 53; control, 53), with 11 391 (control, 5516; intervention, 5875) participants with acute stroke ever diagnosed. Participants at trial practices had similar characteristics as 47,887 patients with stroke at nontrial practices. During the intervention period, blood pressure values were recorded in the electronic health records for 90% and cholesterol values for 84% of participants. After intervention, the latest mean systolic blood pressure was 131.7 (SD, 16.8) mm Hg in the control trial arm and 131.4 (16.7) mm Hg in the intervention trial arm, and adjusted mean difference was -0.56 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, -1.38 to 0.26; P=0.183). The financial cost of the trial was approximately US $22 per participant, or US $2400 per family practice allocated. CONCLUSIONS: Large pragmatic intervention studies may be implemented at low cost by using electronic health records. The intervention used in this trial was not found to be effective, and further research is needed to develop more effective intervention strategies. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.controlled-trials.com. Current Controlled Trials identifier: ISRCTN35701810.

GPs' management strategies for patients with insomnia: a survey and qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Patients frequently experience sleep problems and present to primary care. However, information is limited regarding the management strategies that GPs employ. AIM: To gain an understanding of current GP management strategies for insomnia. DESIGN AND SETTING: A postal questionnaire survey and qualitative interviews with GPs in the south of England. METHOD: A postal survey of 296 GPs and qualitative interviews were carried out with 23 of the GPs. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 56% (166/296). GPs look for signs of depression and anxiety in patients and if present treat these first. 'Sleep hygiene' advice is provided by 88% (147/166) of GPs but often seems insufficient and they feel under pressure to prescribe. Benzodiazepines and Z drugs are prescribed, often reluctantly, for short periods, because of known problems with dependence and tolerance. Many GPs prescribe low-dose amitriptyline for insomnia although it is not licensed for this indication. For insomnia 95% (157/166) of survey responders 'ever prescribe' amitriptyline, with 31% (52/166) stating they do so commonly. Most GPs perceived amitriptyline to be effective and a longer-term option for those with ongoing sleep problems. GPs report a lack of knowledge and confidence in the provision and use of psychological therapies, such as cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), in the management of insomnia. CONCLUSION: GPs often find 'sleep hygiene' advice is insufficient for managing insomnia and report frequently prescribing medication, including amitriptyline (off licence), which is often based on perceived patient pressure for a prescription. Patients are rarely offered psychological therapies such as CBT for insomnia, despite evidence suggesting its potential effectiveness.

PRImary care Streptococcal Management (PRISM) study: in vitro study, diagnostic cohorts and a pragmatic adaptive randomised controlled trial with nested qualitative study and cost-effectiveness study.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotics are still prescribed to most patients attending primary care with acute sore throat, despite evidence that there is modest benefit overall from antibiotics. Targeting antibiotics using either clinical scoring methods or rapid antigen detection tests (RADTs) could help. However, there is debate about which groups of streptococci are important (particularly Lancefield groups C and G), and uncertainty about the variables that most clearly predict the presence of streptococci. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare clinical scores or RADTs with delayed antibiotic prescribing. DESIGN: The study comprised a RADT in vitro study; two diagnostic cohorts to develop streptococcal scores (score 1; score 2); and, finally, an open pragmatic randomised controlled trial with nested qualitative and cost-effectiveness studies. SETTING: The setting was UK primary care general practices. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were patients aged ≥ 3 years with acute sore throat. INTERVENTIONS: An internet program randomised patients to targeted antibiotic use according to (1) delayed antibiotics (control group), (2) clinical score or (3) RADT used according to clinical score. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were self-reported antibiotic use and symptom duration and severity on seven-point Likert scales (primary outcome: mean sore throat/difficulty swallowing score in the first 2-4 days). RESULTS: The IMI TestPack Plus Strep A (Inverness Medical, Bedford, UK) was sensitive, specific and easy to use. Lancefield group A/C/G streptococci were found in 40% of cohort 2 and 34% of cohort 1. A five-point score predicting the presence of A/C/G streptococci [FeverPAIN: Fever; Purulence; Attend rapidly (≤ 3 days); severe Inflammation; and No cough or coryza] had moderate predictive value (bootstrapped estimates of area under receiver operating characteristic curve: 0.73 cohort 1, 0.71 cohort 2) and identified a substantial number of participants at low risk of streptococcal infection. In total, 38% of cohort 1 and 36% of cohort 2 scored ≤ 1 for FeverPAIN, associated with streptococcal percentages of 13% and 18%, respectively. In an adaptive trial design, the preliminary score (score 1; n = 1129) was replaced by FeverPAIN (n = 631). For score 1, there were no significant differences between groups. For FeverPAIN, symptom severity was documented in 80% of patients, and was lower in the clinical score group than in the delayed prescribing group (-0.33; 95% confidence interval -0.64 to -0.02; p = 0.039; equivalent to one in three rating sore throat a slight rather than moderately bad problem), and a similar reduction was observed for the RADT group (-0.30; -0.61 to 0.00; p = 0.053). Moderately bad or worse symptoms resolved significantly faster (30%) in the clinical score group (hazard ratio 1.30; 1.03 to 1.63) but not the RADT group (1.11; 0.88 to 1.40). In the delayed group, 75/164 (46%) used antibiotics, and 29% fewer used antibiotics in the clinical score group (risk ratio 0.71; 0.50 to 0.95; p = 0.018) and 27% fewer in the RADT group (0.73; 0.52 to 0.98; p = 0.033). No significant differences in complications or reconsultations were found. The clinical score group dominated both other groups for both the cost/quality-adjusted life-years and cost/change in symptom severity analyses, being both less costly and more effective, and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves indicated the clinical score to be the most likely to be cost-effective from an NHS perspective. Patients were positive about RADTs. Health professionals' concerns about test validity, the time the test took and medicalising self-limiting illness lessened after using the tests. For both RADTs and clinical scores, there were tensions with established clinical experience. CONCLUSIONS: Targeting antibiotics using a clinical score (FeverPAIN) efficiently improves symptoms and reduces antibiotic use. RADTs used in combination with FeverPAIN provide no clear advantages over FeverPAIN alone, and RADTs are unlikely to be incorporated into practice until health professionals' concerns are met and they have experience of using them. Clinical scores also face barriers related to clinicians' perceptions of their utility in the face of experience. This study has demonstrated the limitation of using one data set to develop a clinical score. FeverPAIN, derived from two data sets, appears to be valid and its use improves outcomes, but diagnostic studies to confirm the validity of FeverPAIN in other data sets and settings are needed. Experienced clinicians need to identify barriers to the use of clinical scoring methods. Implementation studies that address perceived barriers in the use of FeverPAIN are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN32027234. SOURCE OF FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.