A Diagnostic Test Accuracy Study Investigating General Practitioner Clinical Impression and Brief Cognitive Assessments for Dementia in Primary Care, Compared to Specialized Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Many health systems are interested in increasing the number of uncomplicated and typical dementia diagnoses that are made in primary care, but the comparative accuracy of tests is unknown. OBJECTIVE: Calculate diagnostic accuracy of brief cognitive tests in primary care. METHODS: We did a diagnostic test accuracy study in general practice, in people over 70 years who had consulted their GP with cognitive symptoms but had no prior diagnosis of dementia. The reference standard was specialist assessment, adjudicated for difficult cases, according to ICD-10. We assessed 16 index tests at a research clinic, and additionally analyzed referring GPs clinical judgement. RESULTS: 240 participants had a median age of 80 years, of whom 126 were men and 132 had dementia. Sensitivity of individual tests at the recommended thresholds ranged from 56% for GP judgement (specificity 89%) to 100% for MoCA (specificity 16%). Specificity of individual tests ranged from 4% for Sniffin' sticks (sensitivity 100%) to 91% for Timed Up and Go (sensitivity 23%). The 95% centile of test duration in people with dementia ranged from 3 minutes for 6CIT and Time and Change, to 16 minutes for MoCA. Combining tests with GP judgement increased test specificity and decreased sensitivity: e.g., MoCA with GP Judgement had specificity 87% and sensitivity 55%. CONCLUSIONS: Using GP judgement to inform selection of tests was an efficient strategy. Using IQCODE in people who GPs judge as having dementia and 6CIT in people who GPs judge as having no dementia, would be a time-efficient and accurate diagnostic assessment.The original protocol for the study is available at https://bmcfampract.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12875-016-0475-2.

Observational Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Using Routine Data: Admission and Discharge Care Bundles for Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a prevalent respiratory disease, and accounts for a substantial proportion of unplanned hospital admissions. Care bundles for COPD are a set of standardised, evidence-based interventions that may improve outcomes in hospitalised COPD patients. We estimated the cost effectiveness of care bundles for acute exacerbations of COPD using routinely collected observational data. METHODS: Data were collected from implementation (n = 7) and comparator (n = 7) acute hospitals located in England and Wales. We conducted a difference-in-difference cost-effectiveness analysis using a secondary care (i.e. hospital) perspective to examine the effect on National Health Service (NHS) costs and 90-day mortality of implementing care bundles compared with usual care for patients admitted to hospital with an acute exacerbation of COPD. Adjusted models included as covariates patient age, sex, deprivation, ethnicity and seasonal effects and mixed effects for site. RESULTS: Outcomes and baseline characteristics of up to 12,532 patients were analysed using both complete case and multiply imputed models. Implementation of bundles varied. COPD care bundles were associated with slightly lower secondary care costs, but there was no evidence that they improved outcomes once adjustments were made for site and baseline covariates. Care bundles were unlikely to be cost effective for the NHS with an estimated net monetary benefit per 90-day death avoided from an adjusted multiply imputed model of -£1231 (95% confidence interval - £2428 to - £35) at a high cost-effectiveness threshold of £50,000 per 90-day death avoided. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Care bundles for COPD did not appear to be cost effective, although this finding may have been influenced by unmeasured variations in bundle implementation and other potential confounding factors.

Determining when a hospital admission of an older person can be avoided in a subacute setting: a systematic review and concept analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of the evidence for when a hospital admission for an older person can be avoided in subacute settings. We examined the definition of admission avoidance and the evidence for the factors that are required to avoid admission to hospital in this setting. METHODS: Using defined PICOD criteria, we conducted searches in three databases (Medline, Embase and Cinahl) from January 2006 to February 2018. References were screened by title and abstract followed by full paper screening by two reviewers. Additional studies were searched from the grey literature, experts in the field and forward and backward referencing. Data were narratively described, and concept analysis was used to investigate the definition of admission avoidance. RESULTS: A total of 17 studies were considered eligible for review; eight provided a definition of admission avoidance and 10 described admission avoidance criteria. We identified three factors which play a key role in admission avoidance in the subacute setting: (1) ambulatory care sensitive conditions and common medical scenarios for the older person, which included respiratory infections or pneumonia, urinary tract infections and catheter care, dehydration and associated symptoms, falls and behavioural management, and managing ongoing chronic conditions; (2) criteria/tools, referring to interventions that have used clinical expertise in conjunction with a range of general and geriatric triage tools; in condition-specific interventions, the decision whether to admit or not was based on level of risk determined by defined clinical tools; and (3) personnel and resources, referring to the need for experts to make the initial decision to avoid an admission. Supervision by nurses or physicians was still needed at subacute level, requiring resources such as short-stay beds, intravenous antibiotic treatment or fluids for rehydration and rapid access to laboratory tests. CONCLUSION: The review identified a set of criteria for ambulatory care sensitive conditions and common medical scenarios for the older person that can be treated in the subacute setting with appropriate tools and resources. This information can help commissioners and care providers to take on these important elements and deliver them in a locally designed way.

Ambulance use for 'primary care' problems: an ethnographic study of seeking and providing help in a UK ambulance service.

OBJECTIVES: To explore what factors shape a service user's decision to call an emergency ambulance for a 'primary care sensitive' condition (PCSC), including contextual factors. Additionally, to understand the function and purpose of ambulance care from the perspective of service users, and the role health professionals may play in influencing demand for ambulances in PCSCs. DESIGN: An ethnographic study set in one UK ambulance service. Patient cases were recruited upon receipt of ambulance treatment for a situation potentially manageable in primary care, as determined by a primary care clinician accompanying emergency medical services (EMS) crews. Methods used included: structured observations of treatment episodes; in-depth interviews with patients, relatives and carers and their GPs; purposeful conversations with ambulance clinicians; analysis of routine healthcare records; analysis of the original EMS 'emergency' telephone call recording. RESULTS: We analysed 170 qualitative data items across 50 cases. Three cross-cutting concepts emerged as central to EMS use for a PCSC: (1) There exists a typology of nine 'triggers', which we categorise as either 'internal' or 'external', depending on how much control the caller feels they have of the situation; (2) Calling an ambulance on behalf of someone else creates a specific anxiety about urgency; (3) Healthcare professionals experience conflict around fuelling demand for ambulances. CONCLUSIONS: Previous work suggests a range of sociodemographic factors that may be associated with choosing ambulance care in preference to alternatives. Building on established sociological models, this work helps understand how candidacy is displayed during the negotiation of eligibility for ambulance care. Seeking urgent assistance on behalf of another often requires specific support and different strategies. Use of EMS for such problems-although inefficient-is often conceptualised as 'rational' by service users. Public health strategies that seek to advise the public about appropriate use of EMS need to consider how individuals conceptualise an 'emergency' situation.

The impact of a named GP scheme on continuity of care and emergency hospital admission: a cohort study among older patients in England, 2012-2016.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the introduction of a named general practitioner (GP, family physician) improved patients' healthcare for patients aged 75 and over in England. SETTING: Random sample of 27 500 patients aged 65 to 84 in 2012 within 139 English practices from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked with Hospital Episode Statistics. DESIGN: Prospective cohort approach, measuring patients' GP consultations and emergency hospital admissions 2 years before/after the intervention. Patients were grouped in (i) aged over 74 and (ii) younger than 75 in both periods in order to compare who were or were not subject to the intervention. Adjusted associations between the named GP scheme, continuity of care and emergency hospital admission were examined using multilevel modelling. INTERVENTION: National Health Service policy to introduce a named accountable GP for patients aged over 74 in April 2014. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (A) Continuity of care index-score, (B) risk of emergency hospital admissions, (C) number of emergency hospital admissions. RESULTS: The intervention was associated with a decrease in continuity index-scores of -0.024 (95% CI -0.030 to -0.018, p<0.001); there were no differences in the decrease between the two age groups (-0.005, 95% CI -0.014 to 0.005). In the pre-intervention and post-intervention periods, respectively, 15.4% and 19.4% patients had an emergency admission. The probability of an emergency hospital admission increased after the intervention (OR 1.156, 95% CI 1.064 to 1.257, p=0.001); this increase was bigger for patients over 74 (relative OR 1.191, 95% CI 1.066 to 1.330, p=0.002). The average number of emergency hospital admissions increased after the intervention (rate ratio (RR) 1.178, 95% CI 1.103 to 1.259, p<0.001); this increase was greater for patients over 74 (relative RR 1.143, 95% CI 1.052 to 1.242, p=0.001). CONCLUSION: The introduction of the named GP scheme was not associated with improvements in either continuity of care or rates of unplanned hospitalisation.

Evaluation of 'care bundles' for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): a multisite study in the UK.

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) accounts for 10% of emergency hospital admissions in the UK annually. Nearly 33% of patients are readmitted within 28 days of discharge. We evaluated the effectiveness of implementing standardised packages of care called 'care bundles' on COPD readmission, emergency department (ED) attendance, mortality, costs and process of care. Methods: This is a mixed-methods, controlled before-and-after study with nested case studies. 31 acute hospitals in England and Wales which introduced COPD care bundles (implementation sites) or provided usual care (comparator sites) were recruited and provided monthly aggregate data. 14 sites provided additional individual patient data. Participants were adults admitted with an acute exacerbation of COPD. Results: There was no evidence that care bundles reduced 28-day COPD readmission rates: OR=1.02 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.26). However, the rate of ED attendance was reduced in implementation sites over and above that in comparator sites (implementation: IRR=0.63 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.71); comparator: IRR=1.12 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.24); group-time interaction p<0.001). At implementation sites, delivery of all bundle elements was higher but was only achieved in 2.2% (admissions bundle) and 7.6% (discharge bundle) of cases. There was no evidence of cost-effectiveness. Staff viewed bundles positively, believing they help standardise practice and facilitate communication between clinicians. However, they lacked skills in change management, leading to inconsistent implementation. Discussion: COPD care bundles were not effectively implemented in this study. They were associated with a reduced number of subsequent ED attendances, but not with change in readmissions, mortality or reduced costs. This is unsurprising given the low level of bundle uptake in implementation sites, and it remains to be determined if COPD care bundles affect patient care and outcomes when they are effectively implemented. Trial registration number: ISRCTN13022442.

Frailty assessment in primary health care and its association with unplanned secondary care use: a rapid review.

BACKGROUND: The growing frail, older population is increasing pressure on hospital services. This is directing the attention of clinical commissioning groups towards more comprehensive approaches to managing frailty in the primary healthcare environment. AIM: To review the literature on whether assessment of frailty in primary health care leads to a reduction in unplanned secondary care use. DESIGN & SETTING: A rapid review involving a systematic search of Medline and Medline In-Process. METHOD: Relevant data were extracted following the iterative screening of titles, abstracts, and full texts to identify studies in the primary or community healthcare setting which assessed the effect of frailty on unplanned secondary care use between January 2005-June 2016. RESULTS: The review included 11 primary studies: nine observational studies; one randomised controlled trial (RCT); and one non-randomised controlled trial (nRCT). Eight out of nine observational studies reported a positive association between frailty and secondary care utilisation. The RCT and nRCT reported conflicting findings. CONCLUSION: Older people identified as frail in a primary healthcare setting were more likely to be admitted to hospital. Based on the limited and equivocal trial evidence, it is not possible to draw firm conclusions regarding appropriate tools for the identification and management of frail older people at risk of hospital admission.

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.

A systematic review to identify and assess the effectiveness of alternatives for people over the age of 65 who are at risk of potentially avoidable hospital admission.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: There are some older patients who are 'at the decision margin' of admission. This systematic review sought to explore this issue with the following objective: what admission alternatives are there for older patients and are they safe, effective and cost-effective? A secondary objective was to identify the characteristics of those older patients for whom the decision to admit to hospital may be unclear. DESIGN: Systematic review of controlled studies (April 2005-December 2016) with searches in Medline, Embase, Cinahl and CENTRAL databases. The protocol is registered at PROSPERO (CRD42015020371). Studies were assessed using Cochrane risk of bias criteria, and relevant reviews were assessed with the AMSTAR tool. The results are presented narratively and discussed. SETTING: Primary and secondary healthcare interface. PARTICIPANTS: People aged over 65 years at risk of an unplanned admission. INTERVENTIONS: Any community-based intervention offered as an alternative to admission to an acute hospital. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES MEASURES: Reduction in secondary care use, patient-related outcomes, safety and costs. RESULTS: Nineteen studies and seven systematic reviews were identified. These recruited patients with both specific conditions and mixed chronic and acute conditions. The interventions involved paramedic/emergency care practitioners (n=3), emergency department-based interventions (n=3), community hospitals (n=2) and hospital-at-home services (n=11). Data suggest that alternatives to admission appear safe with potential to reduce secondary care use and length of time receiving care. There is a lack of patient-related outcomes and cost data. The important features of older patients for whom the decision to admit is uncertain are: age over 75 years, comorbidities/multi-morbidities, dementia, home situation, social support and individual coping abilities. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review describes and assesses evidence on alternatives to acute care for older patients and shows that many of the options available are safe and appear to reduce resource use. However, cost analyses and patient preference data are lacking.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of serum B-type natriuretic peptide testing and monitoring in patients with heart failure in primary and secondary care: an evidence synthesis, cohort study and cost-effectiveness model.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) affects around 500,000 people in the UK. HF medications are frequently underprescribed and B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP)-guided therapy may help to optimise treatment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of BNP-guided therapy compared with symptom-guided therapy in HF patients. DESIGN: Systematic review, cohort study and cost-effectiveness model. SETTING: A literature review and usual care in the NHS. PARTICIPANTS: (a) HF patients in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of BNP-guided therapy; and (b) patients having usual care for HF in the NHS. INTERVENTIONS: Systematic review: BNP-guided therapy or symptom-guided therapy in primary or secondary care. Cohort study: BNP monitored (≥ 6 months' follow-up and three or more BNP tests and two or more tests per year), BNP tested (≥ 1 tests but not BNP monitored) or never tested. Cost-effectiveness model: BNP-guided therapy in specialist clinics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mortality, hospital admission (all cause and HF related) and adverse events; and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for the cost-effectiveness model. DATA SOURCES: Systematic review: Individual participant or aggregate data from eligible RCTs. Cohort study: The Clinical Practice Research Datalink, Hospital Episode Statistics and National Heart Failure Audit (NHFA). REVIEW METHODS: A systematic literature search (five databases, trial registries, grey literature and reference lists of publications) for published and unpublished RCTs. RESULTS: Five RCTs contributed individual participant data (IPD) and eight RCTs contributed aggregate data (1536 participants were randomised to BNP-guided therapy and 1538 participants were randomised to symptom-guided therapy). For all-cause mortality, the hazard ratio (HR) for BNP-guided therapy was 0.87 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.04]. Patients who were aged < 75 years or who had heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) received the most benefit [interactions (p = 0.03): < 75 years vs. ≥ 75 years: HR 0.70 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.92) vs. 1.07 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.37); HFrEF vs. heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF): HR 0.83 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.01) vs. 1.33 (95% CI 0.83 to 2.11)]. In the cohort study, incident HF patients (1 April 2005-31 March 2013) were never tested (n = 13,632), BNP tested (n = 3392) or BNP monitored (n = 71). Median survival was 5 years; all-cause mortality was 141.5 out of 1000 person-years (95% CI 138.5 to 144.6 person-years). All-cause mortality and hospital admission rate were highest in the BNP-monitored group, and median survival among 130,433 NHFA patients (1 January 2007-1 March 2013) was 2.2 years. The admission rate was 1.1 patients per year (interquartile range 0.5-3.5 patients). In the cost-effectiveness model, in patients aged < 75 years with HFrEF or HFpEF, BNP-guided therapy improves median survival (7.98 vs. 6.46 years) with a small QALY gain (5.68 vs. 5.02) but higher lifetime costs (£64,777 vs. £58,139). BNP-guided therapy is cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of the trial were a lack of IPD for most RCTs and heterogeneous interventions; the inability to identify BNP monitoring confidently, to determine medication doses or to distinguish between HFrEF and HFpEF; the use of a simplified two-state Markov model; a focus on health service costs and a paucity of data on HFpEF patients aged < 75 years and HFrEF patients aged ≥ 75 years. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of BNP-guided therapy in specialist HF clinics is uncertain. If efficacious, it would be cost-effective for patients aged < 75 years with HFrEF. The evidence reviewed may not apply in the UK because care is delivered differently. FUTURE WORK: Identify an optimal BNP-monitoring strategy and how to optimise HF management in accordance with guidelines; update the IPD meta-analysis to include the Guiding Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment (GUIDE-IT) RCT; collect routine long-term outcome data for completed and ongoing RCTs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN37248047 and PROSPERO CRD42013005335. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 40. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The British Heart Foundation paid for Chris A Rogers' and Maria Pufulete's time contributing to the study. Syed Mohiuddin's time is supported by the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust. Rachel Maishman contributed to the study when she was in receipt of a NIHR Methodology Research Fellowship.

Why do patients seek primary medical care in emergency departments? An ethnographic exploration of access to general practice.

OBJECTIVES: To describe how processes of primary care access influence decisions to seek help at the emergency department (ED). DESIGN: Ethnographic case study combining non-participant observation, informal and formal interviewing. SETTING: Six general practitioner (GP) practices located in three commissioning organisations in England. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: Reception areas at each practice were observed over the course of a working week (73 hours in total). Practice documents were collected and clinical and non-clinical staff were interviewed (n=19). Patients with recent ED use, or a carer if aged 16 and under, were interviewed (n=29). RESULTS: Past experience of accessing GP care recursively informed patient decisions about where to seek urgent care, and difficulties with access were implicit in patient accounts of ED use. GP practices had complicated, changeable systems for appointments. This made navigating appointment booking difficult for patients and reception staff, and engendered a mistrust of the system. Increasingly, the telephone was the instrument of demand management, but there were unintended consequences for access. Some patient groups, such as those with English as an additional language, were particularly disadvantaged, and the varying patient and staff semantic of words like 'urgent' and 'emergency' was exacerbated during telephone interactions. Poor integration between in-hours and out-of-hours care and patient perceptions of the quality of care accessible at their GP practice also informed ED use. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides important insight into the implicit role of primary care access on the use of ED. Discourses around 'inappropriate' patient demand neglect to recognise that decisions about where to seek urgent care are based on experiential knowledge. Simply speeding up access to primary care or increasing its volume is unlikely to alleviate rising ED use. Systems for accessing care need to be transparent, perceptibly fair and appropriate to the needs of diverse patient groups.

How do population, general practice and hospital factors influence ambulatory care sensitive admissions: a cross sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Reducing unplanned hospital admissions is a key priority within the UK and other healthcare systems, however it remains uncertain how this can be achieved. This paper explores the relationship between unplanned ambulatory care sensitive condition (ACSC) admission rates and population, general practice and hospital characteristics. Additionally, we investigated if these factors had a differential impact across 28 conditions. METHODS: We used the English Hospital Episode Statistics to calculate the number of unplanned ACSC hospital admissions for 28 conditions at 8,029 general practices during 2011/12. We used multilevel negative binomial regression to estimate the influence of population (deprivation), general practice (size, access, continuity, quality, A&E proximity) and hospital (bed availability, % day cases) characteristics on unplanned admission rates after adjusting for age, sex and chronic disease prevalence. RESULTS: Practices in deprived areas (at the 90th centile) had 16% (95% confidence interval: 14 to 18) higher admission rates than those in affluent areas (10th centile). Practices with poorer care continuity (9%; 8 to 11), located closest to A&E (8%; 6 to 9), situated in areas with high inpatient bed availability (14%; 10 to 18) or in areas with a larger proportion of day case admissions (17%; 12 to 21) had more admissions. There were smaller associations for primary care access, clinical quality, and practice size. The strength of associations varied by ACSC. For example, deprivation was most strongly associated with alcohol related diseases and COPD admission rates, while continuity of primary care was most strongly associated with admission rates for chronic diseases such as hypertension and iron-deficiency anaemia. CONCLUSIONS: The drivers of unplanned ACSC admission rates are complex and include population, practice and hospital factors. The importance of these varies markedly across conditions suggesting that multifaceted interventions are required to avoid hospital admissions and reduce costs. Several of the most important drivers of admissions are largely beyond the control of GPs. However, strategies to improve primary care continuity and avoid unnecessary short-stay admissions could lead to improved efficiency.

Model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of B-type natriuretic peptide-guided care in patients with heart failure.

OBJECTIVE: Monitoring B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) to guide pharmacotherapy might improve survival in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, the cost-effectiveness of BNP-guided care is uncertain and guidelines do not uniformly recommend it. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of BNP-guided care in patient subgroups defined by age and ejection fraction. METHODS: We used a Markov model with a 3-month cycle length to estimate the lifetime health service costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental net monetary benefits (iNMBs) of BNP-guided versus clinically guided care in 3 patient subgroups: (1) HFrEF patients <75 years; (2) HFpEF patients <75 years; and (3) HFrEF patients ≥75 years. There is no evidence of benefit in patients with HFpEF aged ≥75 years. We used individual patient data meta-analyses and linked primary care, hospital and mortality data to inform the key model parameters. We performed probabilistic analysis to assess the uncertainty in model results. RESULTS: In younger patients (<75 years) with HFrEF, the mean QALYs (5.57 vs 5.02) and costs (£63 527 vs £58 139) were higher with BNP-guided care. At the willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per QALY, the positive iNMB (£5424 (95% CI £987 to £9469)) indicates that BNP-guided care is cost-effective in this subgroup. The evidence of cost-effectiveness of BNP-guided care is less strong for younger patients with HFpEF (£3155 (-£10 307 to £11 613)) and older patients (≥75 years) with HFrEF (£2267 (-£1524 to £6074)). BNP-guided care remained cost-effective in the sensitivity analyses, albeit the results were sensitive to assumptions on its sustained effect. CONCLUSIONS: We found strong evidence that BNP-guided care is a cost-effective alternative to clinically guided care in younger patients with HFrEF. It is potentially cost-effective in younger patients with HFpEF and older patients with HFrEF, but more evidence is required, particularly with respect to the frequency, duration and BNP target for monitoring. Cost-effectiveness results from trials in specialist settings cannot be generalised to primary care.

Choice of Moisturiser for Eczema Treatment (COMET): feasibility study of a randomised controlled parallel group trial in children recruited from primary care.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial of 'leave on' emollients for children with eczema. DESIGN: Single-centre, pragmatic, 4-arm, observer-blinded, parallel, randomised feasibility trial. SETTING: General practices in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Children with eczema aged 1 month to <5 years. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome-proportion of parents who reported use of the allocated study emollient every day for the duration of follow-up (12 weeks). Other feasibility outcomes-participant recruitment and retention, data collection and completeness and blinding of observers to allocation. INTERVENTIONS: Aveeno lotion, Diprobase cream, Doublebase gel, Hydromol ointment. RESULTS: 197 children were recruited-107 by self-referral (mainly via practice mail-outs) and 90 by inconsultation (clinician consenting and randomising) pathways. Participants recruited inconsultation were younger, had more severe Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure scores and were more likely to withdraw than self-referrals. Parents of 20 (10%) of all the randomised participants reported using the allocated emollient daily for 84 days. The use of other non-study emollients was common. Completeness of data collected by parent-held daily diaries and at monthly study visits was good. Daily diaries were liked (81%) but mainly completed on paper rather than via electronic ('app') form. Major costs drivers were general practitioner consultations and eczema-related prescriptions. Observer unblinding was infrequent, and occurred at the baseline or first follow-up visit through accidental disclosure. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible in a primary care setting to recruit and randomise young children with eczema to emollients, follow them up and collect relevant trial data, while keeping observers blinded to their allocation. However, reported use of emollients (study and others) has design implications for future trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN21828118/EudraCT2013-003001-26.

The healthcare costs of heart failure during the last five years of life: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on the economic impact of heart failure (HF) is vital in order to predict the cost-effectiveness of novel interventions. We estimate the health system costs of HF during the last five years of life. METHODS: We used linked primary care and mortality data accessed through the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) to identify 1555 adults in England who died with HF in 2012/13. We used CPRD and linked Hospital Episode Statistics to estimate the cost of medications, primary and hospital healthcare. Using GLS regression we estimated the relationship between costs, HF diagnosis, proximity to death and patient characteristics. RESULTS: In the last 3months of life, healthcare costs were £8827 (95% CI £8357 to £9296) per patient, more than 90% of which were for inpatient or critical care. In the last 3months, patients spent on average 17.8 (95% CI 16.8 to 18.8) days in hospital and had 8.8 (95% CI 8.4 to 9.1) primary care consultations. Most (931/1555; 59.9%) patients were in hospital on the day of death. Mean quarterly healthcare costs in quarters after HF diagnosis were higher (£1439; [95% CI £1260 to £1619]) than in quarters preceding diagnosis. Older patients and patients with lower comorbidity scores had lower costs. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare costs increase sharply at the end of life and are dominated by hospital care. There is potential to save money by implementation and evaluation of interventions that are known to reduce hospitalisations for HF, particularly at the end of life.

Exploring the relationship between general practice characteristics, and attendance at walk-in centres, minor injuries units and EDs in England 2012/2013: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: For several years, EDs in the UK NHS have faced considerable increases in attendance rates. Walk-in centres (WiCs) and minor injuries units (MIUs) have been suggested as solutions. We aimed to investigate the associations between practice and practice population characteristics with ED attendance rates or combined ED/WiC/MIU attendance, and the associations between WiC/MIU and ED attendance. METHODS: We used general practice-level data including 7462 English practices in 2012/2013 and present adjusted regression coefficients from linear multivariable analysis for relationships between patients' emergency attendance rates and practice characteristics. RESULTS: Every percentage-point increase in patients reporting inability to make an appointment was associated with an increase in emergency attendance by 0.36 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.66) per 1000 population. Percentage-point increases in patients unable to speak to a general practitioner (GP)/nurse within two workdays and patients able to speak often to their preferred GP were associated with increased emergency attendance/1000 population by 0.23 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.42) and 0.10 (95% CI 0.00 to 0.19), respectively. Practices in areas encompassing several towns (conurbations) had higher attendance than rural practices, as did practices with more non-UK-qualified GPs. Practice population characteristics associated with increased emergency attendance included higher unemployment rates, higher percentage of UK whites and lower male life expectancy, which showed stronger associations than practice characteristics. Furthermore, higher MIU or WiC attendance rates were associated with lower ED attendance rates. CONCLUSIONS: Improving availability of appointments and opportunities to speak a GP/nurse at short notice might reduce ED attendance. Establishing MIUs and WiCs might also reduce ED attendance.

Factors associated with hospital deaths in the oldest old: a cross-sectional study.

AIMS/OBJECTIVES: to study associations between the likelihood of hospital death with patient demographics, cause of death and co-morbidities for people aged ≥85 at death who have been previously admitted (within 12 months of death) to hospital. METHODS: a cross-sectional study, using death registration data and hospital episode statistics, for 671,178 England residents who had been admitted to hospital during the 12 months before death and were aged 85 or over at death during 2008-12. The outcome variable was the likelihood of dying in hospital. Covariates included gender, age, social deprivation, care home residence, cause of death and co-morbidity. Potential associations were explored by multivariable regression analysis. RESULTS: sixty-two per cent of the sample died in hospital. The likelihood of dying in hospital varies significantly with age, cause of death, deprivation, number of emergency hospital and co-morbidities. People aged over 90 at the time of death are less likely to die in hospital than those aged 85-89 [odds ratio (OR) for aged 90-94, 0.99; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98-1.00, OR for aged 95 and over, 0.91; 95% CI: 0.89-0.92]. People who are care home residents at the time of death are significantly less likely to die in hospital (OR 0.34; 95% CI: 0.34-0.35). Having a mention of dementia on the death certificate was significantly associated with a reduction in the likelihood of dying in hospital (OR 0.32; 95% CI: 0.31-0.32). CONCLUSIONS: the likelihood of an older person dying in hospital is significantly associated with a number of socio-demographic factors, such as age and level of deprivation. Care home residence is significantly associated with a reduction in likelihood of hospital death.

Unplanned admissions and the organisational management of heart failure: a multicentre ethnographic, qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: Heart failure is a common cause of unplanned hospital admissions but there is little evidence on why, despite evidence-based interventions, admissions occur. This study aimed to identify critical points on patient pathways where risk of admission is increased and identify barriers to the implementation of evidence-based interventions. DESIGN: Multicentre, longitudinal, patient-led ethnography. SETTING: National Health Service settings across primary, community and secondary care in three geographical locations in England, UK. PARTICIPANTS: 31 patients with severe or difficult to manage heart failure followed for up to 11 months; 9 carers; 55 healthcare professionals. RESULTS: Fragmentation of healthcare, inequitable provision of services and poor continuity of care presented barriers to interventions for heart failure. Critical points where a reduction in the risk of current or future admission occurred throughout the pathway. At the beginning some patients did not receive a formal clinical diagnosis, in addition patients lacked information about heart failure, self-care and knowing when to seek help. Some clinicians lacked knowledge about diagnosis and management. Misdiagnoses of symptoms and discontinuity of care resulted in unplanned admissions. Approaching end of life, patients were admitted to hospital when other options including palliative care could have been appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: Findings illustrate the complexity involved in caring for people with heart failure. Fragmented healthcare and discontinuity of care added complexity and increased the likelihood of suboptimal management and unplanned admissions. Diagnosis and disclosure is a vital first step for the patient in a journey of acceptance and learning to self-care/monitor. The need for clinician education about heart failure and specialist services was acknowledged. Patient education should be seen as an ongoing 'conversation' with trusted clinicians and end-of-life planning should be broached within this context.

Choice of Moisturiser for Eczema Treatment (COMET): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Eczema is common in children and in the UK most cases are managed in primary care. The foundation of all treatment is the regular use of leave-on emollients to preserve and restore moisture to the skin. This not only improves comfort but may also reduce the need for rescue treatment for 'flares', such as topical corticosteroids. However, clinicians can prescribe many different types of emollient and there is a paucity of evidence to guide this choice. One reason for this may be the challenges of conducting a clinical trial: are parents or carers of young children willing to be randomly allocated an emollient and followed up for a meaningful amount of time? DESIGN: This is a single-centre feasibility study of a pragmatic, four-arm, single-masked, randomized trial. Children with eczema who are eligible (from 1 month to less than 5 years of age, not known to be sensitive or allergic to any of study emollients or their constituents) are recruited via their general practices. Participants are allocated Aveeno® lotion, Diprobase® cream, Doublebase® gel or Hydromol® ointment via a web-based system, using a simple randomization process in a 1:1:1:1 fashion. Researchers are masked to the study emollient. Participants are assessed at baseline and followed up for 3 months. Data are collected by daily diaries, monthly researcher visits and review of electronic medical records. Because this is a feasibility study, a formal sample size calculation for the estimation of treatment effectiveness has not be made but we aim to recruit 160 participants. DISCUSSION: Recruitment is on-going. At the end of the study, as well as being able to answer the question, 'Is it is possible to recruit and retain children with eczema from primary care into a four-arm randomized trial of emollients?', we will also have collected important data on the acceptability and effectiveness of four commonly used emollients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN21828118 and Clinical Trials Register EudraCT2013-003001-26.

Keep it simple? Predicting primary health care costs with clinical morbidity measures.

Models of the determinants of individuals' primary care costs can be used to set capitation payments to providers and to test for horizontal equity. We compare the ability of eight measures of patient morbidity and multimorbidity to predict future primary care costs and examine capitation payments based on them. The measures were derived from four morbidity descriptive systems: 17 chronic diseases in the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF); 17 chronic diseases in the Charlson scheme; 114 Expanded Diagnosis Clusters (EDCs); and 68 Adjusted Clinical Groups (ACGs). These were applied to patient records of 86,100 individuals in 174 English practices. For a given disease description system, counts of diseases and sets of disease dummy variables had similar explanatory power. The EDC measures performed best followed by the QOF and ACG measures. The Charlson measures had the worst performance but still improved markedly on models containing only age, gender, deprivation and practice effects. Comparisons of predictive power for different morbidity measures were similar for linear and exponential models, but the relative predictive power of the models varied with the morbidity measure. Capitation payments for an individual patient vary considerably with the different morbidity measures included in the cost model. Even for the best fitting model large differences between expected cost and capitation for some types of patient suggest incentives for patient selection. Models with any of the morbidity measures show higher cost for more deprived patients but the positive effect of deprivation on cost was smaller in better fitting models.