Primary care physicians' perspectives on the identification and management of postnatal mental health problems.

BACKGROUND: Postnatal mental health problems (PMHPs) are prevalent and negatively affect mothers, children, and society. International and local guidelines recommend that Singapore primary care physicians (PCP) screen, assess, and manage mothers with PMHPs. However, little is known about their experiences and views. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 14 PCPs in Singapore. Interview questions elicited perspectives on the identification and management of mothers with PMHPs. The interview guide was developed from a conceptual framework incorporating the knowledge-attitudes-practices, self-efficacy, and socio-ecological models. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Thematic analysis was used to identify emergent themes. RESULTS: Singapore PCPs viewed themselves as key providers of first-contact care to mothers with PMHPs. They believed mothers preferred them to alternative providers because of greater accessibility and trust. In detection, they were vigilant in identifying at-risk mothers and favoured clinical intuition over screening tools. PCPs were confident in diagnosing common PMHPs and believed that mothers not meeting diagnostic criteria must be readily recognized and supported. In managing PMHPs, PCPs expressed varying confidence in prescribing antidepressants, which were viewed as second-line to supportive counselling and psychoeducation. Impeding physician factors, constraining practice characteristics and health system limitations were barriers. Looking forward, PCPs aspired to leverage technology and multidisciplinary teams to provide comprehensive, team-based care for the mother-child dyad. CONCLUSION: Singapore PCPs are key in identifying and managing mothers with PMHPs. To fully harness their potential in providing comprehensive care, PCPs need greater multidisciplinary support and technological solutions that promote remote disclosure and enhanced preparation for their role.

Engaging primary care professionals in OECD's international PaRIS survey: a documentary analysis.

Healthcare professionals have first-hand experience with patients in clinical practice and the dynamics in the healthcare system, which can be of great value in the design, implementation, data analysis and dissemination of research study results. Primary care professionals are particularly important as they provide first contact, accessible, coordinated, comprehensive and continuous people-focused care. However, in-depth examination of the engagement of health professionals in health system research and planning activities-how professionals are engaged and how this varies across national contexts- is limited, particularly in international initiatives. There is a need to identify gaps in the planning of engagement activities to inform the design and successful implementation of future international efforts to improve the responsiveness of health systems to the changing needs of patients and professionals. The aim of this study was to explore how primary care professionals were engaged in the design and implementation plans of an international health policy study led by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The OECD's international PaRIS survey measures and disseminates information on patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs) of people living with chronic conditions who are managed in primary care. A documentary analysis of 17 written national implementation plans (country roadmaps) was conducted between January and June 2023. Two reviewers independently performed the screening and data abstraction and resolved disagreements by discussion. We reported the intended target primary care professionals, phase of the study, channel of engagement, level of engagement, and purpose of engagement. All 17 countries aimed to engage primary care professionals in the execution plans for the international PaRIS survey. While organisations of primary care professionals, particularly of family doctors, were the most commonly targeted group, variation was found in the timing of engagement activities during the different phases of the study and in the level of engagement, ranging from co-development (half of the countries co-developed the survey together with primary care professionals) to one-off consultations with whom. International guidance facilitated the participation of primary care professionals. Continuous collaborative efforts at the international and national levels can foster a culture of engagement with primary care organisations and individual professionals and enhance meaningful engagement of primary care professionals.

Interventions to reduce cancer screening inequities: the perspective and role of patients, advocacy groups, and empowerment organizations.

BACKGROUND: Health inequities lead to low rates of cancer screening in certain populations, such as low-income and ethnic minority groups. Different interventions to address this have been developed with mixed results. However, interventions are not always developed in collaboration with the people they target. The aim of our article is to present the viewpoint of patients, survivors, advocates, and lay persons on interventions to increase cancer screening from a health inequity perspective. METHODS: We prepared talking points to guide discussions between coauthors, who included representatives from nine patient and survivor advocacy groups, organizations working for citizen/patient empowerment, and health equity experts. Perspectives and opinions were first collected through video conferencing meetings and a first draft of the paper was prepared. All authors, read through, revised, and discussed the contents to reach an agreement on the final perspectives to be presented. RESULTS: Several themes were identified: it is important to not view screening as a discrete event; barriers underlying an individual's access and willingness to undergo screening span across a continuum; individually tailored interventions are likely to be more effective than a one-size fits-all approach because they may better accommodate the person's personal beliefs, knowledge, behaviors, and preferences; targeting people who are unknown to medical services and largely unreachable is a major challenge; including professional patient advocacy groups and relevant lay persons in the cocreation of interventions at all stages of design, implementation, and evaluation is essential along with relevant stakeholders (healthcare professionals, researchers, local government and community organizations etc). CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to address cancer screening inequity currently do not adequately solve the issue, especially from the viewpoint of patients, survivors, and lay persons. Several core pathways should be focused on when designing and implementing interventions: advancing individually tailored interventions; digital tools and social media; peer-based approaches; empowerment; addressing policy and system barriers; better design of interventions; and collaboration, including the involvement of patients and patient advocacy organizations.

The relationship between air pollution and multimorbidity: Can two birds be killed with the same stone?

Air pollution and multimorbidity are two of the most important challenges for Public Health worldwide. Although there is a large body of evidence linking air pollution with the development of different single chronic conditions, the evidence about the relationship between air pollution and multimorbidity (the co-occurrence of multiple long-term conditions) is sparse. To obtain evidence about this relationship could be challenging and different aspects should be considered, such as its multifaceted and complex nature, the specific pollutants and their potential influence on health, their levels of exposure over time, or the data that could be used for its study. This evidence could be instrumental to inform the development of new recommendations and measures to reduce harmful levels of air pollutants, as means to prevent the development of multimorbidity and reduce its burden.

Feedback reports to the general practitioner (GP) on the patients' experiences: are GPs interested, and is this interest associated with GP factors and patient experience scores?

BACKGROUND: Patient experience feedback is key in patient centred health systems, but empirical evidence of general practitioner (GP) interest in it is sparse. We aimed to: (i) quantitatively estimate the level of GP interest for feedback reports on patient experience; (ii) explore determinants of such interest; and (iii) examine potential association between a priori interest and patient experience. METHODS: The patient experience survey included maximum 300 randomly selected patients for each of 50 randomly selected GPs (response rate 41.4%, n = 5,623). GPs were sent a postal letter offering feedback reports and were grouped according to their replies: (i) interested in the report; (ii) not interested. Associations between interest and GP variables were assessed with Chi-square tests and multivariate logistic regression, while associations between interest and scores for 5 patient experiences scales were assessed with multilevel regression models. RESULTS: About half (n = 21; 45.7%) of the GPs showed interest in the report by asking to receive the report. The only GP variable associated with a priori interest was being a specialist in general practice (58.6% vs. 23.5% for those without) (P = 0.021). Interest was significantly associated with the practice patient experience scale (4.1 higher score compared with those not interested, P = 0.048). Interest in the report had small and nonsignificant associations with the remaining patient experience scales. CONCLUSIONS: Almost half of the GPs, and almost 3 in 5 of specialists in general practice, were interested in receiving a GP-specific feedback report on patient experiences. Interest in the report was generally not related to patient experience scores.

Patient perspectives of diabetes care in primary care networks in Singapore: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) remains an important chronic condition worldwide requiring integrated patient-centred care as advocated by the Chronic Care Model (CCM). The Primary Care Networks (PCNs) in Singapore organise general practitioners (GPs) with nurses and care coordinators to deliver team-based care for patients with chronic conditions. This study examined the quality of care in the PCNs as defined by the CCM from the patients' perspective. METHODS: This study followed a cross-sectional convergent mixed-method design with T2D patients across three PCN types (GP-led, Group, and Cluster). The Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC, range 1-5) was completed by a convenience sample of 343 patients. Multivariate linear regression was performed to estimate the associations between patient and service characteristics and PACIC summary score. Twenty-four participants were purposively recruited for interviews on the experienced care until thematic saturation was reached. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected concurrently and independently. Integration occurred during study design and data analysis using the CCM as guidance. Quantitative and qualitative results were compared side-by-side in a joint comparison table to develop key concepts supported by themes, subthemes, and patients' quotes. RESULTS: The PACIC mean summary score of 3.21 for 343 patients evidenced that some have received CCM consistent care in the PCNs. Being younger and spending more time with the GP were associated with higher PACIC summary scores. PACIC summary scores did not differ across PCN types. The 24 patients interviewed in the qualitative study reported receiving team-based care, nurse services, good continuity of care, as well as patient-centred care, convenient access, and affordable care. Key concepts showed that integrated care consistent with the CCM was sometimes received by patients in the PCNs. Patient activation, delivery system design/decision support, goal setting/tailoring, and problem-solving/contextual counselling were sometimes received by patients, while follow-up/coordination was generally not received. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with T2D from the Singapore Primary Care Networks received integrated care consistent with the Chronic Care Model, particularly in patient activation, delivery system design/decision support, goal setting/tailoring, and problem-solving/contextual counselling. Follow-up/coordination needed improvement to ensure higher quality of diabetes care.

Measuring health-related quality of life of older people with frailty receiving acute care: feasibility and psychometric performance of the EuroQol EQ-5D.

BACKGROUND: Although outcome goals for acute healthcare among older people living with frailty often include Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) and other patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), current quality metrics usually focus on waiting times and survival. Lay and patient review have identified the EuroQol EQ-5D as a candidate measure for this setting. This research appraised the EQ-5D for feasibility, psychometric performance, and respondents' outcomes in the acute frailty setting. METHODS: People aged 65 + with Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) 5-8 were recruited from eight UK hospitals' emergency care and acute admissions settings. They completed the five-level EQ-5D and the EQ-VAS. Feasibility was assessed with completion times and completeness. For reliability, response distributions and internal consistency were analysed. Finally, EQ-Index values were compared with demographic characteristics and service outcomes for construct validity. RESULTS: The 232 participants were aged 65-102. 38% responded in emergency departments and 62% in admissions wards. Median completion time was 12 (IQR, 11) minutes. 98% responses were complete. EQ-5D had acceptable response distribution (SD 1.1-1.3) and internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.69). EQ-VAS demonstrated a midpoint response pattern. Median EQ-Index was 0.574 (IQR, 0.410) and was related positively with increasing age (p = 0.010) and negatively with CFS (p < 0.001). Participants with higher CFS had more frequent problems with mobility, self-care, and usual activities. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of the EQ-5D was feasible in these emergency and acute frailty care settings. EQ-5D had acceptable properties, while EQ-VAS appeared problematic. Participants with more severe frailty had also poorer HRQoL.

Rural versus metropolitan comparison of processes of care in the community-based management of TIA and minor stroke in Australia (an analysis from the INSIST study).

OBJECTIVES: To compare processes of care and clinical outcomes of community-based management of TIAs and minor strokes (TIAMS) between rural and metropolitan Australia. DESIGN: Inception cohort study between 2012 and 2016 with 12-month follow-up after index event (sub-study of INSIST). SETTING: Hunter and Manning valley regions of New South Wales, within the referral territory of the John Hunter Hospital Acute Neurovascular Clinic (JHHANC). PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive patients of 16 participating general practices, presenting with possible TIAMS to either primary or secondary care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Processes of care (referrals, key management processes, time-based metrics) and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Of 613 participants with possible TIAMS who completed the baseline interview, 298 were adjudicated as having TIAMS (119 from rural, 179 from metropolitan). Mean age was 72.3 years (SD, 10.7) and 127 (43%) were women. Rural participants were more likely to be managed solely by a general practitioner (GP) than metropolitan participants (34% v 20%) and less likely to be referred to a JHHANC specialist (13% v 38%) or have brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) [24% v 51%]. Those rural participants who were referred, also waited longer (both p < 0.001). Recurrent stroke, myocardial infarction and death at 12 months were not significantly different between rural and metropolitan participants. CONCLUSIONS: Although TIAMS prognosis in rural settings where solely GP care is common is very good, the processes of care in such areas are inferior to metropolitan. This suggests there is further scope to support rural GPs to optimise care of TIAMS patients.

Cross-cultural adaptation of the Spanish MINICHAL instrument into English for use in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is a highly prevalent condition, with optimal treatment to BP targets conferring significant gains in terms of cardiovascular outcomes. Understanding why some patients do not achieve BP targets would be enhanced through greater understanding of their health-related quality of life (HRQoL). However, the only English language disease-specific instruments for measurement of HRQoL in hypertension have not been validated in accordance with accepted standards. It is proposed that the Spanish MINICHAL instrument for the assessment of HRQoL in hypertension could be translated, adapted and validated for use in the United Kingdom. The aim of the study was therefore to complete this process. METHODS: The MINICHAL authors were contacted and the original instrument obtained. This was then translated into English by two independent English-speakers, with these versions then reconciled, before back-translation and subsequent production of a 2nd reconciled version. Thereafter, a final version was produced after cognitive debriefing, for administration and psychometric analysis in the target population of patients living in the Exeter area (Southwest UK) aged 18-80 years with treatment-naïve grade II-III hypertension, before, during and after 18 weeks' intensive treatment. RESULTS: The English-language instrument was administered to 30 individuals (median age: 58.5 years, 53% male). Psychometric analysis demonstrated a floor effect, though no ceiling effect. Internal consistency for both state of mind (StM) and somatic manifestations (SM) dimensions of the instrument were acceptable (Cronbach's alpha = 0.81 and 0.75), as was test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.717 and 0.961) and construct validity, which was measured through co-administration with the EQ-5D-5L and Bulpitt-Fletcher instruments. No significant associations were found between scores and patient characteristics known to affect HRQoL. The EQ-5D-5L instrument found an improvement in HRQoL following treatment, with the StM and SM dimensions of the English language MINICHAL trending to support this (d = 0.32 and 0.02 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The present study details the successful English translation and validation of the MINICHAL instrument for use in individuals with hypertension. The data reported also supports an improvement in HRQoL with rapid treatment of grade II-III hypertension, a strategy which has been recommended by contemporaneous European guidelines. Trial registration ISRCTN registry number: 57475376 (assigned 25/06/2015).

Patient experiences with general practitioners: psychometric performance of the generic PEQ-GP instrument among patients with chronic conditions.

BACKGROUND: Most generic patient experience instruments have not been validated specifically for persons with chronic health problems, even though they are the dominant user of GPs/family physicians. OBJECTIVES: To assess the psychometric properties of the generic Patient Experiences with GP Questionnaire (PEQ-GP) instrument (five scales: assessment of GP, coordination, patient enablement, accessibility, and practice) in persons with chronic conditions, and to develop a short version to maximize response rates and minimize respondent fatigue in future applications. METHODS: Secondary analysis of data from a national survey of patient experiences with general practitioners in 2018-2019 (response rate: 42.6%). The psychometric properties of PEQ-GP were assessed with exploratory factor analysis and Cronbach's alpha, supplemented with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and item response theory (IRT). A short version was constructed and evaluated based on item performance. RESULTS: Nine hundred and seventy persons reported a chronic condition(s), the most frequent being "musculoskeletal, arthritis, other back and joints" (n = 473, 48.8%). Factor analysis identified three scales with adequate psychometric results: GP (15 items; Cronbach's alpha: 0.96), practice (3 items; Cronbach's alpha: 0.87), and accessibility (2 items; Cronbach's alpha: 0.77). Evaluation of item performance identified a 7-item short version, including a 5-item GP scale with scores with strong concordance with the 15-item scale (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient: 0.97, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The generic PEQ-GP exhibits adequate psychometric performance for persons with chronic conditions. Three empirically derived PEQ-GP scales cover evaluation of the GP, accessibility, and practice. The 7-item short form minimize respondent burden, but further validation work is warranted before large-scale use.

Feasibility of the SINERGIAPS ("Sinergias entre profesionales y pacientes para una Atención Primaria Segura") intervention for improving patient safety in primary care.

AIM: The primary aim was to examine the feasibility of intervention delivery and of trial procedures. Secondary aims were to study the intervention uptake; its acceptability and perceived utility; and its potential to improve safety culture and avoidable hospital admissions. METHODS: We conducted a 3-month, single-arm feasibility study in 10 primary care (PC) centres in Spain. Centres received information regarding patients' experiences of safety (through the Patient Reported Experiences and Outcomes of Safety in Primary Care [PREOS-PC] questionnaire), and were instructed to plan safety improvements based on that feedback. We used a bespoke online tool to recruit PC professionals, collect patient feedback, and deliver it to the centres, and to collect outcome data (patient safety culture [Medical Office Survey on Patient Safety Culture, MOSPSC questionnaire]). We measured recruitment and follow-up rates and intervention uptake (based on the number of safety improvement plans registered). We conducted semistructured interviews with 9 professionals to explore the intervention acceptability and perceived utility. RESULTS: Of 256 professionals invited, 120 (47%) agreed to participate, and 97 completed baseline and postintervention measures. Of 780 patients invited, 585 (75%) completed the PREOS-PC questionnaire. Five of 10 centres (50%) designed an improvement plan, providing 27 plans in total (range per centre, 1-14). The intervention was perceived as a novel strategy for improving safety, although the healthcare professionals identified several factors limiting its acceptability and utility: lack of feedback at the individual professional level; potentially unrepresentative sample of patients providing feedback; and number of educational materials deemed overwhelming. DISCUSSION: It is feasible to deliver the proposed intervention so long as the identified limitations are addressed.

Estimating and characterizing the burden of multimorbidity in the community: A comprehensive multistep analysis of two large nationwide representative surveys in France.

BACKGROUND: Given the increasing burden of chronic conditions, multimorbidity is now a priority for healthcare and public health systems worldwide. Appropriate methodological approaches for assessing the phenomenon have not yet been established, resulting in inconsistent and incomplete descriptions. We aimed to estimate and characterize the burden of multimorbidity in the adult population in France in terms of number and type of conditions, type of underlying mechanisms, and analysis of the joint effects for identifying combinations with the most deleterious interaction effects on health status. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used a multistep approach to analyze cross-sectional and longitudinal data from 2 large nationwide representative surveys: 2010/2014 waves of the Health, Health Care, and Insurance Survey (ESPS 2010-2014) and Disability Healthcare Household Survey 2008 (HSM 2008), that collected similar data on 61 chronic or recurrent conditions. Adults aged ≥25 years in either ESPS 2010 (14,875) or HSM 2008 (23,348) were considered (participation rates were 65% and 62%, respectively). Longitudinal analyses included 7,438 participants of ESPS 2010 with follow-up for mortality (97%) of whom 3,798 were reinterviewed in 2014 (52%). Mortality, activity limitation, self-reported health, difficulties in activities/instrumental activities of daily living, and Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 12-Item Health Survey were the health status measures. Multiple regression models were used to estimate the impact of chronic or recurrent conditions and multimorbid associations (dyads, triads, and tetrads) on health status. Etiological pathways explaining associations were investigated, and joint effects and interactions between conditions on health status measures were evaluated using both additive and multiplicative scales. Forty-eight chronic or recurrent conditions had an independent impact on mortality, activity limitations, or perceived heath. Multimorbidity prevalence varied between 30% (1-year time frame) and 39% (lifetime frame), and more markedly according to sex (higher in women), age (with greatest increases in middle-aged), and socioeconomic status (higher in less educated and low-income individuals and manual workers). We identified various multimorbid combinations, mostly involving vasculometabolic and musculoskeletal conditions and mental disorders, which could be explained by direct causation, shared or associated risk factors, or less frequently, confounding or chance. Combinations with the highest health impacts included diseases with complications but also associations of conditions affecting systems involved in locomotion and sensorial functions (impact on activity limitations), and associations including mental disorders (impact on perceived health). The interaction effects of the associated conditions varied on a continuum from subadditive and additive (associations involving cardiometabolic conditions, low back pain, osteoporosis, injury sequelae, depression, and anxiety) to multiplicative and supermultiplicative (associations involving obesity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, migraine, and certain osteoarticular pathologies). Study limitations included self-reported information on chronic conditions and the insufficient power of some analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Multimorbidity assessments should move beyond simply counting conditions and take into account the variable impacts on health status, etiological pathways, and joint effects of associated conditions. In particular, the multimorbid combinations with substantial health impacts or shared risk factors deserve closer attention. Our findings also suggest that multimorbidity assessment and management may be beneficial already in midlife and probably earlier in disadvantaged groups.

Diagnostic promiscuity: the use of real-world data to study multimorbidity in mental health.

Mental health-related multimorbidity can be considered as multimorbidity in the presence of a mental disorder. Some knowledge gaps on the study of mental health-related multimorbidity were identified. These knowledge gaps could be potentially addressed with real-world data.

Integrating Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) into routine nurse-led primary care for patients with multimorbidity: a feasibility and acceptability study.

BACKGROUND: The use of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMS) in clinical practice has the potential to promote patient-centred care and improve patients' quality of life. Individualized PROMs may be particularly helpful in identifying, prioritizing and monitoring health problems of patients with multimorbidity. We aimed to develop an intervention centred around PROMs feedback as part of Primary Care annual reviews for patients with multimorbidity and evaluate its feasibility and acceptability. METHODS: We developed a nurse-oriented intervention including (a) training of nurses on PROMs; (b) administration to patients with multimorbidity of individualized and standardized PROMS; and (c) feedback to both patients and nurses of PROMs scores and interpretation guidance. We then tailored the intervention to patients with two or more highly prevalent conditions (asthma, COPD, diabetes, heart failure, depression, and hip/knee osteoarthritis) and designed a non-controlled feasibility and acceptability evaluation in a convenience sample of primary care practices (5). PROMs were administered and scores fed back immediately ahead of scheduled annual reviews with nurses. Patients and nurses rated the acceptability of the intervention using with a brief survey including optional free comments. Thematic analysis of qualitative interviews with a sample of participating patients (10) and nurses (4) and of survey free comments was conducted for further in-depth evaluation of acceptability. Feasibility was estimated based on rates of participation and completion. RESULTS: Out of 68 recruited patients (mean age 70; 47% female), 68 completed the PROMs (100%), received feedback (100%) and confirmed nurse awareness of their scores (100%). Most patients (83%) "agreed"/"strongly agreed" that the PROMs feedback had been useful, a view supported by nurses in 89% of reviews. Thematic analysis of rich qualitative data on PROMS administration, feedback and role in annual reviews indicated that both patients and nurses perceived the intervention as acceptable and promising, emphasizing its comprehensiveness and patient-centredness. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed and tested an intervention focusing on routine PROM assessment of patients with multimorbidity in Primary Care. Preliminary findings support its feasibility and a high degree of acceptability from both patients and nurses. The next step is to conduct a full-scale trial for evaluating the effectiveness of the proposed intervention.

Routine provision of feedback from patient-reported outcome measurements to healthcare providers and patients in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) assess a patient's subjective appraisal of health outcomes from their own perspective. Despite hypothesised benefits that feedback  on PROMs can support decision-making in clinical practice and improve outcomes, there is uncertainty surrounding the effectiveness of PROMs feedback. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of PROMs feedback to patients, or healthcare workers, or both on patient-reported health outcomes and processes of care. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, two other databases and two clinical trial registries on 5 October 2020. We searched grey literature and consulted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Two review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion. We included randomised trials directly comparing the effects on outcomes and processes of care of PROMs feedback to healthcare professionals and patients, or both with the impact of not providing such information. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two groups of two authors independently extracted data from the included studies and evaluated study quality. We followed standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and EPOC. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. We conducted meta-analyses of the results where possible. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 116 randomised trials which assessed the effectiveness of PROMs feedback in improving processes or outcomes of care, or both in a broad range of disciplines including psychiatry, primary care, and oncology. Studies were conducted across diverse ambulatory primary and secondary care settings in North America, Europe and Australasia. A total of 49,785 patients were included across all the studies. The certainty of the evidence varied between very low and moderate. Many of the studies included in the review were at risk of performance and detection bias. The evidence suggests moderate certainty that PROMs feedback probably improves quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.26; 11 studies; 2687 participants), and leads to an increase in patient-physician communication (SMD 0.36, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.52; 5 studies; 658 participants), diagnosis and notation (risk ratio (RR) 1.73, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.08; 21 studies; 7223 participants), and disease control (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.41; 14 studies; 2806 participants). The intervention probably makes little or no difference for general health perceptions (SMD 0.04, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.24; 2 studies, 552 participants; low-certainty evidence), social functioning (SMD 0.02, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.09; 15 studies; 2632 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and pain (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.08; 9 studies; 2386 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of PROMs feedback on physical functioning (14 studies; 2788 participants) and mental functioning (34 studies; 7782 participants), as well as fatigue (4 studies; 741 participants), as the certainty of the evidence was very low. We did not find studies reporting on adverse effects defined as distress following or related to PROM completion. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: PROM feedback probably produces moderate improvements in communication between healthcare professionals and patients as well as in diagnosis and notation, and disease control, and small improvements to quality of life. Our confidence in the effects is limited by the risk of bias, heterogeneity and small number of trials conducted to assess outcomes of interest. It is unclear whether   many of these improvements are clinically meaningful or sustainable in the long term. There is a need for more high-quality studies in this area, particularly studies which employ cluster designs and utilise techniques to maintain allocation concealment.

Patient-reported outcome and experience measures in geriatric emergency medicine.

Older people with frailty and health crises have complex physical and social needs. Modern emergency care systems are fast-flowing, using protocols optimised for single-problem presentations. Systems must incorporate individualised care to best serve people with multiple problems. Healthcare quality is typically appraised with service metrics, such as department length of stay and mortality. Worldwide, patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) and patient-reported experience measures (PREM) are increasingly used in research, service development and performance evaluation, paving the ground for their use to support individual clinical decision-making. The PROMs and PREMs are person-centred metrics, which inform healthcare decisions at the individual level and which at the strategic level drive improvement through comparison of interprovider effectiveness. To date, there is no PROM or PREM specifically developed for older people with frailty and emergency care needs.

[Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient-reported patient safety in Primary Care]. / Impacto de la pandemia de COVID-19 en la seguridad del paciente percibida por los pacientes en Atención Primaria.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of the changes introduced in response to the pandemic on patient-reported patient safety in Primary Care. DESIGN: Prospective observational panel study (health center) based on two cross-sectional surveys. SETTING: 29 Primary Health Care centers from three Spanish health regions (Mallorca, Catalunya Central and Camp de Tarragona). PARTICIPANTS: Random sample of patients visiting their centers before (n=2199 patients) and during the pandemic (n=1955 patients) MAIN MEASUREMENTS: We used the PREOS-PC questionnaire, a validated instrument which assesses patient-reported patient safety in Primary Care. We compared mean scores of the "experiences of errors" and "harm" scales in both periods, and built multilevel regression analyzes to study the variations in patient and center characteristics associated with worse levels of safety. A qualitative (content) analysis of patients' experiences during the pandemic was also performed. RESULTS: The "experiences of errors" and "harm" scales scores significantly worsened during the COVID-19 period (92.65 to 88.81 (Cohen's d=0.27); and 96.92 to 79.97 (d=0.70), respectively). Patient and center characteristics associated to worsened scores were: women, people with a lower educational level, worse health status, more years assigned to the center, and health region. CONCLUSIONS: During the pandemic, a perceptible worsening in patient safety perceived by patients treated in Primary Care has been observed, which has differentially affected patients according to their sociodemographic characteristics or health center profiles.

Patient-Reported Morbidity Instruments: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: Although comorbidities play an essential role in risk adjustment and outcomes measurement, there is little consensus regarding the best source of this data. The aim of this study was to identify general patient-reported morbidity instruments and their measurement properties. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using multiple electronic databases (Embase, Medline, Cochrane Central, and Web of Science) from inception to March 2018. Articles focusing primarily on the development or subsequent validation of a patient-reported morbidity instrument were included. After including relevant articles, the measurement properties of each morbidity instrument were extracted by 2 investigators for narrative synthesis. RESULTS: A total of 1005 articles were screened, of which 34 eligible articles were ultimately included. The most widely assessed instruments were the Self-Reported Charlson Comorbidity Index (n = 7), the Self-Administered Comorbidity Questionnaire (n = 3), and the Disease Burden Morbidity Assessment (n = 3). The most commonly included conditions were diabetes, hypertension, and myocardial infarction. Studies demonstrated substantial variability in item-level reliability versus the gold standard medical record review (κ range 0.66-0.86), meaning that the accuracy of the self-reported comorbidity data is dependent on the selected morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: The Self-Reported Charlson Comorbidity Index and the Self-Administered Comorbidity Questionnaire were the most frequently cited instruments. Significant variability was observed in reliability per comorbid condition of patient-reported morbidity questionnaires. Further research is needed to determine whether patient-reported morbidity data should be used to bolster medical records data or serve as a stand-alone entity when risk adjusting observational outcomes data.

Predicting incident delirium diagnoses using data from primary-care electronic health records.

IMPORTANCE: risk factors for delirium in hospital inpatients are well established, but less is known about whether delirium occurring in the community or during an emergency admission to hospital care might be predicted from routine primary-care records. OBJECTIVES: identify risk factors in primary-care electronic health records (PC-EHR) predictive of delirium occurring in the community or recorded in the initial episode in emergency hospitalisation. Test predictive performance against the cumulative frailty index. DESIGN: Stage 1: case-control; Stages 2 and 3: retrospective cohort. SETTING: clinical practice research datalink: PC-EHR linked to hospital discharge data from England. SUBJECTS: Stage 1: 17,286 patients with delirium aged ≥60 years plus 85,607 controls. Stages 2 and 3: patients ≥ 60 years (n = 429,548 in 2015), split into calibration and validation groups. METHODS: Stage 1: logistic regression to identify associations of 110 candidate risk measures with delirium. Stage 2: calibrating risk factor weights. Stage 3: validation in independent sample using area under the curve (AUC) receiver operating characteristic. RESULTS: fifty-five risk factors were predictive, in domains including: cognitive impairment or mental illness, psychoactive drugs, frailty, infection, hyponatraemia and anticholinergic drugs. The derived model predicted 1-year incident delirium (AUC = 0.867, 0.852:0.881) and mortality (AUC = 0.846, 0.842:0.853), outperforming the frailty index (AUC = 0.761, 0.740:0.782). Individuals with the highest 10% of predicted delirium risk accounted for 55% of incident delirium over 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: a risk factor model for delirium using data in PC-EHR performed well, identifying individuals at risk of new onsets of delirium. This model has potential for supporting preventive interventions.

Impact of comorbidity on the short- and medium-term risk of revision in total hip and knee arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The impact of comorbidity on the risk of revision in patients undergoing Total Knee arthroplasty (TKA) and Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) is not currently well known. The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of comorbidity on the risk of revision in TKA and THA. METHODS: Patients recorded in the Catalan Arthroplasty Register (RACat) between 01/01/2005 and 31/12/2016 undergoing TKA (n = 49,701) and THA (n = 17,923) caused by osteoarthritis were included. As main explanatory factors, comorbidity burden was assessed by the Elixhauser index, categorized, and specific comorbidities from the index were taken into account. Descriptive analyses for comorbidity burden and specific conditions were done. Additionally, incidence at 1 and 5 years' follow-up was calculated, and adjusted Competing Risks models were fitted. RESULTS: A higher incidence of revision was observed when the number of comorbidities was high, both at 1 and 5 years for THA, but only at 1 year for TKA. Of the specific conditions, only obesity was related to the incidence of revision at 1 year in both joints, and at 5 years in TKA. The risk of revision was related to deficiency anemia and liver diseases in TKA, while in THA, it was related to peripheral vascular disorders, metastatic cancer and psychoses. CONCLUSIONS: Different conditions, depending on the joint, might be related to higher revision rates. This information could be relevant for clinical decision-making, patient-specific information and improving the results of both TKA and THA.