Socioeconomic deprivation scores as predictors of variations in NHS practice payments: a longitudinal study of English general practices 2013-2017.

BACKGROUND: A previous study found that variables related to population health needs were poor predictors of cross-sectional variations in practice payments. AIM: To investigate whether deprivation scores predicted variations in the increase over time of total payments to general practices per patient, after adjustment for potential confounders. DESIGN AND SETTING: Longitudinal multilevel model for 2013-2017; 6900 practices (84.4% of English practices). METHOD: Practices were excluded if total adjusted payments per patient were <£10 or >£500 per patient or if deprivation scores were missing. Main outcome measures were adjusted total NHS payments; calculated by dividing total NHS payments, after deductions and premises payments, by the number of registered patients in each practice. A total of 17 independent variables relating to practice population and organisational factors were included in the model after checking for collinearity. RESULTS: After adjustment for confounders and the logarithmic transformation of the dependent and main independent variables (due to extremely skewed [positive] distribution of payments), practice deprivation scores predicted very weakly longitudinal variations in total payments' slopes. For each 10% increase in the Index of Multiple Deprivation score, practice payments increased by only 0.06%. The large sample size probably explains why eight of the 17 confounders were significant predictors, but with very small coefficients. Most of the variability was at practice level (intraclass correlation = 0.81). CONCLUSION: The existing NHS practice payment formula has demonstrated very little redistributive potential and is unlikely to substantially narrow funding gaps between practices with differing workloads caused by the impact of deprivation.

Predicting declines in perceived relationship continuity using practice deprivation scores: a longitudinal study in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Increased relationship continuity in primary care is associated with better health outcomes, greater patient satisfaction, and fewer hospital admissions. Greater socioeconomic deprivation is associated with lower levels of continuity, as well as poorer health outcomes. AIM: To investigate whether deprivation scores predicted variations in the decline over time of patient-perceived relationship continuity of care, after adjustment for practice organisational and population factors. DESIGN AND SETTING: An observational study in 6243 primary care practices with more than one GP, in England, using a longitudinal multilevel linear model, 2012-2017 inclusive. METHOD: Patient-perceived relationship continuity was calculated using two questions from the GP Patient Survey. The effect of deprivation on the linear slope of continuity over time was modelled, adjusting for nine confounding variables (practice population and organisational factors). Clustering of measurements within general practices was adjusted for by using a random intercepts and random slopes model. Descriptive statistics and univariable analyses were also undertaken. RESULTS: Relationship continuity declined by 27.5% between 2012 and 2017, and at all deprivation levels. Deprivation scores from 2012 did not predict variations in the decline of relationship continuity at practice level, after accounting for the effects of organisational and population confounding variables, which themselves did not predict, or weakly predicted with very small effect sizes, the decline of continuity. Cross-sectionally, continuity and deprivation were negatively correlated within each year. CONCLUSION: The decline in relationship continuity of care has been marked and widespread. Measures to maximise continuity will need to be feasible for individual practices with diverse population and organisational characteristics.

Population health needs as predictors of variations in NHS practice payments: a cross-sectional study of English general practices in 2013-2014 and 2014-2015.

BACKGROUND: NHS general practice payments in England include pay for performance elements and a weighted component designed to compensate for workload, but without measures of specific deprivation or ethnic groups. AIM: To determine whether population factors related to health needs predicted variations in NHS payments to individual general practices in England. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional study of all practices in England, in financial years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. METHOD: Descriptive statistics, univariable analyses (examining correlations between payment and predictors), and multivariable analyses (undertaking multivariable linear regressions for each year, with logarithms of payments as the dependent variables, and with population, practice, and performance factors as independent variables) were undertaken. RESULTS: Several population variables predicted variations in adjusted total payments, but inconsistently. Higher payments were associated with increases in deprivation, patients of older age, African Caribbean ethnic group, and asthma prevalence. Lower payments were associated with an increase in smoking prevalence. Long-term health conditions, South Asian ethnic group, and diabetes prevalence were not predictive. The adjusted R2 values were 0.359 (2013-2014) and 0.374 (2014-2015). A slightly different set of variables predicted variations in the payment component designed to compensate for workload. Lower payments were associated with increases in deprivation, patients of older age, and diabetes prevalence. Smoking prevalence was not predictive. There was a geographical differential. CONCLUSION: Population factors related to health needs were, overall, poor predictors of variations in adjusted total practice payments and in the payment component designed to compensate for workload. Revising the weighting formula and extending weighting to other payment components might better support practices to address these needs.

Cluster randomised trial of a tailored intervention to improve the management of overweight and obesity in primary care in England.

BACKGROUND: Tailoring is a frequent component of approaches for implementing clinical practice guidelines, although evidence on how to maximise the effectiveness of tailoring is limited. In England, overweight and obesity are common, and national guidelines have been produced by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. However, the guidelines are not routinely followed in primary care. METHODS: A tailored implementation intervention was developed following an analysis of the determinants of practice influencing the implementation of the guidelines on obesity and the selection of strategies to address the determinants. General practices in the East Midlands of England were invited to take part in a cluster randomised controlled trial of the intervention. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of overweight or obese patients offered a weight loss intervention. Secondary outcomes were the proportions of patients with (1) a BMI or waist circumference recorded, (2) record of lifestyle assessment, (3) referred to weight loss services, and (4) any change in weight during the study period. We also assessed the mean weight change over the study period. Follow-up was for 9 months after the intervention. A process evaluation was undertaken, involving interviews of samples of participating health professionals. RESULTS: There were 16 general practices in the control group, and 12 in the intervention group. At follow-up, 15.08 % in the control group and 13.19 % in the intervention group had been offered a weight loss intervention, odds ratio (OR) 1.16, 95 % confidence interval (CI) (0.72, 1.89). BMI/waist circumference measurement 42.71 % control, 39.56 % intervention, OR 1.15 (CI 0.89, 1.48), referral to weight loss services 5.10 % control, 3.67 % intervention, OR 1.45 (CI 0.81, 2.63), weight management in the practice 9.59 % control, 8.73 % intervention, OR 1.09 (CI 0.55, 2.15), lifestyle assessment 23.05 % control, 23.86 % intervention, OR 0.98 (CI 0.76, 1.26), weight loss of at least 1 kg 42.22 % control, 41.65 % intervention, OR 0.98 (CI 0.87, 1.09). Health professionals reported the interventions as increasing their confidence in managing obesity and providing them with practical resources. CONCLUSIONS: The tailored intervention did not improve the implementation of the guidelines on obesity, despite systematic approaches to the identification of the determinants of practice. The methods of tailoring require further development to ensure that interventions target those determinants that most influence implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN07457585.

On a European collaboration to identify organizational models, potential shortcomings and improvement options in out-of-hours primary health care.

UNLABELLED: Abstract Background: Out-of-hours care (OOHC) provision is an increasingly challenging aspect in the delivery of primary health care services. Although many European countries have implemented organizational models for out-of-hours primary care, which has been traditionally delivered by general practitioners, health care providers throughout Europe are still looking to resolve current challenges in OOHC. It is within this context that the European Research Network for Out-of-Hours Primary Health Care (EurOOHnet) was established in 2010 to investigate the provision of out-of-hours care across European countries, which have diverse political and health care systems. In this paper, we report on the EurOOHnet work related to OOHC organizational models, potential shortcomings and improvement options in out-of-hours primary health care. Needs assessment: The EurOOHnet expert working party proposed that models for OOHC should be reviewed to evaluate the availability and accessibility of OOHC for patients while also seeking ways to make the delivery of care more satisfying for service providers. OUTCOMES: To move towards resolution of OOHC challenges in primary care, as the first stage, the EurOOHnet expert working party identified the following key needs: clear and uniform definitions of the different OOHC models between different countries; adequate-ideally transnational-definitions of urgency levels and corresponding data; and educational programmes for nurses and doctors (e.g. in the use of a standardized triage system for OOHC). Finally, the need for a modern system of data transfer between different health care providers in regular care and providers in OOHC to prevent information loss was identified.

Are there enough GPs in England to detect hypertension and maintain access? A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Fewer patients are recorded by practices as having hypertension than are identified in systematic population surveys. However, as more patients are recorded on practice hypertension registers, mortality from coronary heart disease and stroke declines. AIM: To determine whether the number of GPs per 1000 practice population is associated with the number of patients recorded by practices as having hypertension, and whether patients' reports of being able to get an appointment with a GP are associated with the number of GPs and the number of patients recorded as having hypertension. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional study of available data for all general practices in England for 2008 to 2009. METHOD: A model was developed to describe the hypothesised relationships between population (deprivation, ethnicity, age, poor health) and practice characteristics (list size, number of GPs per 1000 patients, management of hypertension) and the number of patients with hypertension and patient-reported ability to get an appointment fairly quickly. Two regression analyses were undertaken. RESULTS: Practices recorded only 13.3% of patients as having hypertension. Deprivation, age, poor health, white ethnicity, hypertension management, and the number of GPs per 1000 patients predicted the number of patients recorded with hypertension. Being able to get an appointment fairly quickly was associated with the number of patients recorded with hypertension, age, deprivation, practice list size, and the number of GPs per 1000 patients. CONCLUSION: In order to improve detection of hypertension as part of a strategy to lower mortality from coronary heart disease, the capacity of practices to detect hypertension while maintaining access needs to be improved. Increasing the supply of GPs may be necessary, as well as improvements in efficiency.

Chronic disease detection and access: does access improve detection, or does detection make access more difficult?

BACKGROUND: The recorded detection of chronic disease by practices is generally lower than the prevalence predicted by population surveys. AIM: To determine whether patient-reported access to general practice predicts the recorded detection rates of chronic diseases in that setting. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional study involving 146 general practices in Leicestershire and Rutland, England. METHOD: The numbers of patients recorded as having chronic disease (coronary heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, diabetes) were obtained from Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) practice disease registers for 2008-2009. Characteristics of practice populations (deprivation, age, sex, ethnicity, proportion reporting poor health, practice turnover, list size) and practice performance (achievement of QOF disease indicators, patient experience of being able to consult a doctor within 2 working days and book an appointment >2 days in advance) were included in regression models. RESULTS: Patient characteristics (deprivation, age, poor health) and practice characteristics (list size, turnover, QOF achievement) were associated with recorded detection of more than one of the chronic diseases. Practices in which patients were more likely to report being able to book appointments had reduced recording rates of chronic disease. Being able to consult a doctor within 2 days was not associated with levels of recorded chronic disease. CONCLUSION: Practices with high levels of deprivation and older patients have increased rates of recorded chronic disease. As the number of patients recorded with chronic disease increased, the capacity of practices to meet patients' requests for appointments in advance declined. The capacity of some practices to detect and manage chronic disease may need improving.

Potential impact of public access defibrillators on survival after out of hospital cardiopulmonary arrest: retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the potential impact of public access defibrillators on overall survival after out of hospital cardiac arrest. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using data from an electronic register. A statistical model was used to estimate the effect on survival of placing public access defibrillators at suitable or possibly suitable sites. SETTING: Scottish Ambulance Service. SUBJECTS: Records of all out of hospital cardiac arrests due to heart disease in Scotland in 1991-8. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Observed and predicted survival to discharge from hospital. RESULTS: Of 15 189 arrests, 12 004 (79.0%) occurred in sites not suitable for the location of public access defibrillators, 453 (3.0%) in sites where they may be suitable, and 2732 (18.0%) in suitable sites. Defibrillation was given in 67.9% of arrests that occurred in possibly suitable sites for locating defibrillators and in 72.9% of arrests that occurred in suitable sites. Compared with an actual overall survival of 744 (5.0%), the predicted survival with public access defibrillators ranged from 942 (6.3%) to 959 (6.5%), depending on the assumptions made regarding defibrillator coverage. CONCLUSIONS: The predicted increase in survival from targeted provision of public access defibrillators is less than the increase achievable through expansion of first responder defibrillation to non-ambulance personnel, such as police or firefighters, or of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Additional resources for wide scale coverage of public access defibrillators are probably not justified by the marginal improvement in survival.