Practitioners' views on community implementation of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in the UK: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Implementing Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in community practice could help to decide upon and prioritise initial treatment, procedures and appropriate specialist referral or conveyance to hospital. A recent literature review suggests that image quality, portability and cost of ultrasound devices are all improving with widening indications for community POCUS, but evidence about community POCUS use is needed in the UK. We aimed to explore views of clinical practitioners, actively using ultrasound, on their experiences of using POCUS and potential facilitators and barriers to its wider implementation in community settings in the UK. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative interview study with practitioners from community and secondary care settings actively using POCUS in practice. A convenience sample of eligible participants from different clinical specialties and settings was recruited using social media adverts, through websites of relevant research groups and snowball sampling. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted online using Microsoft Teams. These were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using a Framework approach supported by NVivo 12. RESULTS: We interviewed 16 practitioners aged between 40 and 62 years from different professional backgrounds, including paramedics, emergency physicians, general practitioners, and allied health professionals. Participants identified key considerations and facilitators for wider implementation of POCUS in community settings in the UK: resource requirements for deployment and support of working devices; sufficient time and a skilled workforce; attention to training, education and support needs; ensuring proper governance, guidelines and quality assurance; workforce considerations; enabling ease of use in assisting decision making with consideration of unintended consequences; and more robust evidence to support perceptions of improved patient outcomes and experience. CONCLUSIONS: POCUS could be useful for improving patient journey and health outcomes in community care, but this requires further research to evaluate outcomes. The facilitators identified could help make community POCUS a reality.

FOUND Trial: randomised controlled trial study protocol for case finding of obstructive sleep apnoea in primary care using a novel device.

INTRODUCTION: Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is a common, but underdiagnosed, sleep disorder. If untreated, it leads to poor health outcomes, including Alzheimer's disease, cancer, cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality. Our aim is to determine the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of moving the testing for OSA into general practice and how general practitioner (GP)-based screening affects overall detection rates. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Randomised controlled trial of case finding of OSA in general practice using a novel Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency-registered device (AcuPebble SA100) compared with usual care with internal feasibility phase. A diverse sample of general practices (approximately 40) from across the West Midlands Clinical Research Network will identify participants from their records. Eligible participants will be aged 50-70 years with body mass index >30 kg/m2 and diabetes (type 1 or 2) and/or hypertension (office blood pressure >145/90 mm Hg or on treatment). They will exclude individuals with known OSA or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or those they deem unable to take part. After eligibility screening, consent and baseline assessment, participants will be randomised to either the intervention or control group. Participants in the intervention arm will receive by post the AcuPebble sleep test kit. Those in the control arm will continue with usual care. Follow-up questionnaires will be completed at 6 months. The study is powered (90%) to detect a 5% difference and will require 606 patients in each arm (713 will be recruited to each arm to allow for attrition). Due to the nature of the intervention, participants and GPs will not be blinded to the allocation. OUTCOMES: Primary: Detection rate of moderate-to-severe OSA in the intervention group versus control group. Secondary: Time to diagnosis and time to treatment for intervention versus control group for mild, moderate and severe OSA; cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the different testing pathways. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial started on 1 November 2022. Ethical approval was granted from the South Central Oxford A Research Ethics Committee on 9 June 2023 (23/SC/0188) (protocol amendment version 1.3; update with amendment and approval to renumber to V2.0 on 29 August 2023). Patient recruitment began on 7 January 2024; initial planned end date will be on 31 April 2025.Results will be uploaded to the ISRCTN register within 12 months of the end of the trial date, presented at conferences, submitted to peer-reviewed journals and distributed via our patient and public involvement networks.The University of Warwick will act as the trial sponsor. The trial will be conducted in accordance with the Sponsor and Primary Care Clinical Trials Unit standard operating procedures. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 16982033.

An international longitudinal registry of patients with atrial fibrillation at risk of stroke (GARFIELD): the UK protocol.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is an independent risk factor for stroke and a significant predictor of mortality. Evidence-based guidelines for stroke prevention in AF recommend antithrombotic therapy corresponding to the risk of stroke. In practice, many patients with AF do not receive the appropriate antithrombotic therapy and are left either unprotected or inadequately protected against stroke. The purpose of the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD (GARFIELD) is to determine the real-life management and outcomes of patients newly diagnosed with non-valvular AF. METHODS/DESIGN: GARFIELD is an observational, international registry of newly diagnosed AF patients with at least one additional investigator-defined risk factor for stroke. The aim is to enrol 55,000 patients at more than 1000 centres in 50 countries worldwide. Enrolment will take place in five independent, sequential, prospective cohorts; the first cohort includes a retrospective validation cohort. Each cohort will be followed up for 2 years. The UK stands to be a significant contributor to GARFIELD, aiming to enrol 4,582 patients, and reflecting the care environment in which patients with AF are managed. The UK protocol will also focus on better understanding the validity of the two main stroke risk scores (CHADS2 and CHA2DS2VASC) and the HAS-BLED bleeding risk score, in the context of a diverse patient population. DISCUSSION: The GARFIELD registry will describe how therapeutic strategies, patient care, and clinical outcomes evolve over time. This study will provide UK-specific comprehensive data that will allow a range of evaluations both at a national level and in relation to global data and contribute to a better understanding of AF management in the UK. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT01090362.

Optimising prediction of mortality, stroke, and major bleeding for patients with atrial fibrillation: validation of the GARFIELD-AF tool in UK primary care electronic records.

BACKGROUND: The GARFIELD-AF tool is a novel risk tool that simultaneously assesses the risk of all-cause mortality, stroke or systemic embolism, and major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). AIM: To validate the GARFIELD-AF tool using UK primary care electronic records. DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) linked with Hospital Episode Statistics data and Office for National Statistics mortality data. METHOD: Discrimination was evaluated using the area under the curve (AUC) and calibration was evaluated using calibration-in-the-large regression and calibration plots. RESULTS: A total of 486 818 patients aged ≥18 years with incident diagnosis of non-valvular AF between 2 January 1998 and 31 July 2020 were included; 50.6% (n = 246 425/486 818) received anticoagulation at diagnosis The GARFIELD- AF models outperformed the CHA2DS2VASc and HAS-BLED scores in discrimination ability of death, stroke, and major bleeding at all the time points. The AUC for events at 1 year for the 2017 models were: death 0.747 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.744 to 0.751) versus 0.635 (95% CI = 0.631 to 0.639) for CHA2DS2VASc; stroke 0.666 (95% CI = 0.663 to 0.669) versus 0.625 (95% CI = 0.622 to 0.628) for CHA2DS2VASc; and major bleeding 0.602 (95% CI = 0.598 to 0.606) versus 0.558 (95% CI = 0.554 to 0.562) for HAS- BLED. Calibration between predicted and Kaplan- Meier observed events was inadequate with the GARFIELD-AF models. CONCLUSION: The GARFIELD-AF models were superior to the CHA2DS2VASc score for discriminating stroke and death and superior to the HAS-BLED score for discriminating major bleeding. The models consistently underpredicted the level of risk, suggesting that a recalibration is needed to optimise its use in the UK population.

Uptake and Use of Care Companion, a Web-Based Information Resource for Supporting Informal Carers of Older People: Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Informal carers play a major role in supporting relatives and friends who are sick, disabled, or frail. Access to information, guidance, and support that are relevant to the lives and circumstances of carers is critical to carers feeling supported in their role. When unmet, this need is known to adversely affect carer resilience and well-being. To address this problem, Care Companion was co-designed with current and former carers and stakeholders as a free-to-use, web-based resource to provide access to a broad range of tailored information, including links to local and national resources. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the real-world uptake and use of Care Companion in 1 region of England (with known carer population of approximately 100,000), with local health, community, and social care teams being asked to actively promote its use. METHODS: The study had a convergent parallel, mixed methods design and drew on the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) framework. Data included metrics from carers' use of Care Companion, surveys completed by users recruited through general practice, and interviews with carers and health and social care providers regarding their views about Care Companion and their response to it. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Interview data were analyzed thematically and synthesized to create overarching themes. The qualitative findings were used for in-depth exploration and interpretation of quantitative results. RESULTS: Despite awareness-raising activities by relevant health, social care, and community organizations, there was limited uptake with only 556 carers (0.87% of the known carer population of 100,000) registering to use Care Companion in total, with median of 2 (mean 7.2; mode 2) visits per registered user. Interviews with carers (n=29) and stakeholders (n=12) identified 7 key themes that influenced registration, use, and perceived value: stakeholders' signposting of carers to Care Companion, expectations about Care Companion, activity levels and conflicting priorities, experience of using Care Companion, relevance to personal circumstances, social isolation and networks, and experience with digital technology. Although many interviewed carers felt that it was potentially useful, few considered it as being of direct relevance to their own circumstances. For some, concerns about social isolation and lack of hands-on support were more pressing issues than the need for information. CONCLUSIONS: The gap between the enthusiastic views expressed by carers during Care Companion's co-design and the subsequent low level of uptake and user experience observed in this evaluation suggests that the co-design process may have lacked a sufficiently diverse set of viewpoints. Numerous factors were identified as contributing to Care Companion's level of use, some of which might have been anticipated during its co-design. More emphasis on the development and implementation, including continuing co-design support after deployment, may have supported increased use.

Determinants and clinical outcomes of patients who refused anticoagulation: findings from the global GARFIELD-AF registry.

OBJECTIVE: There is a substantial incidence of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) not receiving anticoagulation. The reasons for not receiving anticoagulation are generally attributed to clinician's choice, however, a proportion of AF patients refuse anticoagulation. The aim of our study was to investigate factors associated with patient refusal of anticoagulation and the clinical outcomes in these patients. METHODS: Our study population comprised patients in the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD (GARFIELD-AF) registry with CHA2DS2-VASc≥2. A logistic regression was developed with predictors of patient anticoagulation refusal identified by least absolute shrinkage and selection operator methodology. Patient demographics, medical and cardiovascular history, lifestyle factors, vital signs (body mass index, pulse, systolic and diastolic blood pressure), type of AF and care setting at diagnosis were considered as potential predictors. We also investigated 2-year outcomes of non-haemorrhagic stroke/systemic embolism (SE), major bleeding and all-cause mortality in patients who refused versus patients who received and patients who did not receive anticoagulation for other reasons. RESULTS: Out of 43 154 AF patients, who were at high risk of stroke, 13 283 (30.8%) did not receive anticoagulation at baseline. The reason for not receiving anticoagulation was unavailable for 38.7% (5146/13 283); of the patients with a known reason for not receiving anticoagulation, 12.5% (1014/8137) refused anticoagulation. Diagnosis in primary care/general practitioner, Asian ethnicity and presence of vascular disease were strongly associated with a higher risk of patient refusal of anticoagulation. Patient refusal of anticoagulation was associated with a higher risk of non-haemorrhagic stroke/SE (adjusted HR (aHR) 1.16 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.76)) but lower all-cause mortality (aHR 0.59 (95% CI 0.43 to 0.80)) compared with patients who received anticoagulation. The GARFIELD-AF mortality score corroborated this result. CONCLUSION: The data suggest patient refusal of anticoagulation is a missed opportunity to prevent AF-related stroke. Further research is required to understand the patient profile and mortality outcome of patients who refuse anticoagulation.

Two-year outcomes of UK patients newly diagnosed with atrial fibrillation: findings from the prospective observational cohort study GARFIELD-AF.

BACKGROUND: The outcomes of patients newly diagnosed with atrial fibrillation (AF) following the introduction of direct-acting oral anticoagulants are not well known. AIM: To determine the 2-year outcomes of patients newly diagnosed with AF, and the effectiveness of oral anticoagulants in everyday practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a prospective observational cohort study in UK primary care. METHOD: In total, 3574 patients aged ≥18 years with a new AF diagnosis were enrolled. A propensity score was applied using an overlap weighting scheme to obtain unbiased estimates of the treatment effect of anticoagulation versus no anticoagulation on the occurrence of death, non-haemorrhagic stroke/systemic embolism, and major bleeding within 2 years of diagnosis. RESULTS: Overall, 65.8% received anticoagulant therapy, 20.8% received an antiplatelet only, and 13.4% received neither. During the study period, the overall incidence rates of all-cause mortality, non-haemorrhagic stroke/systemic embolism, and major bleeding were 4.15 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.69 to 4.65), 1.45 (95% CI = 1.19 to 1.77), and 1.21 (95% CI = 0.97 to 1.50) per 100 person-years, respectively. Anticoagulation treatment compared with no anticoagulation treatment was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.70 (95% CI = 0.53 to 0.93), significantly lower risk of non-haemorrhagic stroke/systemic embolism (aHR 0.39, 95% CI = 0.24 to 0.62), and a non-significant higher risk of major bleeding (aHR 1.31, 95% CI = 0.77 to 2.24). CONCLUSION: The data support a benefit of anticoagulation in reducing stroke and death, without an increased risk of a major bleed in patients with new-onset AF. Anticoagulation treatment in patients at high risk of stroke who are not receiving anticoagulation may further improve outcomes.

GARFIELD-AF: a worldwide prospective registry of patients with atrial fibrillation at risk of stroke.

The Global Anticoagulant Registry in the Field-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF) examined real-world practice in a total of 57,149 (5069 retrospective, 52,080 prospective) patients with newly diagnosed AF at risk of stroke/systemic embolism, enrolled at over 1000 centers in 35 countries. It aimed to capture data on AF burden, patients' clinical profile, patterns of clinical practice and antithrombotic management, focusing on stroke/systemic embolism prevention, uptake of new oral anticoagulants, impact on death and bleeding. GARFIELD-AF set new standards for quality of data collection and analysis. A total of 36 peer-reviewed articles were already published and 73 abstracts presented at international congresses, covering treatment strategies, geographical variations in baseline risk and therapies, adverse outcomes and common comorbidities such as heart failure. A risk prediction tool as well as innovative observational studies and artificial intelligence methodologies are currently being developed by GARFIELD-AF researchers. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01090362 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Temporal trends in antithrombotic treatment of real-world UK patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation: findings from the GARFIELD-AF registry.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate evolving patterns in antithrombotic treatment in UK patients with newly diagnosed non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). DESIGN: Prospective, multicentre, international registry. SETTING: 186 primary care practices in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: 3482 participants prospectively enrolled in four sequential cohorts (cohort 2 (C2) n=830, diagnosed September 2011 to April 2013; cohort 3 (C3) n=902, diagnosed April 2013 to June 2014; cohort 4 (C4) n=850, diagnosed July 2014 to June 2015; cohort 5 (C5) n=900, diagnosed June 2015 to July 2016). Participants had newly diagnosed non-valvular AF and at least one risk factor for stroke, were aged ≥18, and provided informed consent. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Antithrombotic treatment initiated at diagnosis, overall and according to stroke and bleeding risks. Stroke risk was retrospectively calculated using CHA2DS2-VASc (cardiac failure, hypertension, age ≥75 (doubled), diabetes, stroke (doubled)-vascular disease, age 65-74 and sex category (female)) and bleeding risk using HAS-BLED (hypertension, abnormal renal/liver function (1 point each), stroke, bleeding history or predisposition, elderly (>65), drugs/alcohol concomitantly (1 point each)). RESULTS: 42.7% were women and the mean age was 74.5 years. The median CHA2DS2-VASc score was 3 in all cohorts and the median HAS-BLED score was 2 in all cohorts. There was a statistically significant increase in the use of anticoagulant therapy from C2 to C5 (C2 54.7%, C3 60.3%, C4 73.1%, C5 73.9%; P value for trend <0.0001). The increase in the use of anticoagulant was mainly in patients with CHA2DS2-VASc ≥2. The use of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs)±antiplatelet (AP) drugs decreased from C2 to C5 (C2 53.3%, C3 52.1%, C4 50.3%, C5 30.6%), while the use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs)±AP increased (C2 1.3%, C3 8.0%, C4 22.7%, C5 43.3%). The use of AP only decreased (C2 36.4%, C3 25.5%, C4 11.9%, C5 10.5%), as did the combination therapy of VKA+AP (C2 13.6%, C3 11.0%, C4 9.6%, C5 5.8%). CONCLUSION: There has been a progressive increase in the proportion of patients newly diagnosed with AF receiving guideline-recommended therapy in the UK, potentially driven by the availability of NOACs. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01090362; Pre-results.

Incidence of venous thromboembolism in care homes: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Care home residents have venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk profiles similar to medical inpatients; however, the epidemiology of VTE in care homes is unclear. AIM: To determine the incidence of VTE in care homes. DESIGN AND SETTING: Observational cohort study of 45 care homes in Birmingham and Oxford, UK. METHOD: A consecutive sample of care home residents was enrolled and followed up for 12 months. Data were collected via case note reviews of care home and GP records; mortality information was supplemented with Health and Social Care Information Centre (now called NHS Digital) cause of death data. All potential VTE events were adjudicated by an independent committee according to three measures of diagnostic certainty: definite VTE (radiological evidence), probable VTE (high clinical indication but no radiological evidence), or possible VTE (VTE cannot be ruled out). (Study registration number: ISTCTN80889792.) RESULTS: There were 1011 participants enrolled, and the mean follow-up period was 312 days (standard deviation 98 days). The incidence rate was 0.71 per 100 person years of observation (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.26 to 1.54) for definite VTE, 0.83 per 100 person years (95% CI = 0.33 to 1.70) for definite and probable VTE, and 2.48 per 100 person years (95% CI = 1.53 to 3.79) for definite, probable, and possible VTE. CONCLUSION: The incidence of VTE in care homes in this study (0.71-2.48 per 100 person years) is substantial compared with that in the community (0.117 per 100 person years) and in people aged ≥70 years (0.44 per 100 person years). Further research regarding risk stratification and VTE prophylaxis in this population is needed.

Prevention of hospital-acquired thrombosis from a primary care perspective: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Although there is considerable risk for patients from hospital-acquired thrombosis (HAT), current systems for reducing this risk appear inefficient and have focused predominantly on secondary care, leaving the role of primary care underexplored, despite the onset of HAT often occurring post-discharge. AIM: To gain an understanding of the perspectives of primary care clinicians on their contribution to the prevention of HAT. Their current role, perceptions of patient awareness, the barriers to better care, and suggestions for how these may be overcome were discussed. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews in Oxfordshire and South Birmingham, England. METHOD: Semi-structured telephone interviews with clinicians working at practices of a variety of size, socioeconomic status, and geographical location. RESULTS: A number of factors that influenced the management of HAT emerged, including patient characteristics, a lack of clarity of responsibility, limited communication and poor coordination, and the constraints of limited practice resources. Suggestions for improving the current system include a broader role for primary care supported by appropriate training and the requisite funding. CONCLUSION: The role of primary care remains limited, despite being ideally positioned to either raise patient awareness before admission or support patient adherence to the thromboprophylaxis regimen prescribed in hospital. This situation may begin to be addressed by more robust lines of communication between secondary and primary care and by providing more consistent training for primary care staff. In turn, this relies on the allocation of appropriate funds to allow practices to meet the increased demand on their time and resources.

Patients' perceptions and experiences of the prevention of hospital-acquired thrombosis: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine patients' understanding of hospital-associated thrombosis, and their experiences of thromboprophylaxis. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with 31 patients requiring venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis following a recent hospital admission. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically using framework analysis. SETTING: 4 hospitals in Birmingham and Oxford. RESULTS: All the participants received thromboprophylaxis following surgical procedures. Participants were aware of a risk of blood clots; however, they lacked a good understanding of VTE and its components. Experiences of VTE prophylaxis were characterised with good adherence to heparin injections and poor adherence to elastic compression stockings, largely due to perceived lack of clarity in guidance from health professionals. Participants had limited knowledge of the signs and symptoms of VTE and would value improved education on VTE. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that patient education is often inadequate and impacts negatively on patients' involvement in VTE prevention. An enhanced patient education programme incorporating a consistent message on the appropriate use of elastic compression stockings and description of VTE symptoms is likely to optimise the effectiveness of the prevention of hospital-associated thrombosis. Physicians may use the results of this study to improve individual patient education.