Impact of the Prevalence of Concordant and Discordant Conditions on the Quality of Diabetes Care in Family Practices in England.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the association between the prevalence of both diabetes-concordant and diabetes-discordant conditions and the quality of diabetes care at the family practice level in England. We hypothesized that the prevalence of concordant (or discordant) conditions would be associated with better (or worse) quality of diabetes care. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study using practice-level data (7,884 practices). We estimated the practice-level prevalence of diabetes and 15 other chronic conditions, which were classified as diabetes concordant (ie, with the same pathophysiologic risk profile and therefore more likely to be part of the same management plan) or diabetes discordant (ie, not directly related in either their pathogenesis or management). We measured quality of diabetes care with diabetes-specific indicators (8 processes and 3 intermediate outcomes of care). We used linear regression models to quantify the effect of the prevalence of the conditions on aggregate achievement rate for quality of diabetes care. RESULTS: Consistent with the proposed model, the prevalence rates of 4 of 7 concordant conditions (obesity, chronic kidney disease, atrial fibrillation, heart failure) were positively associated with quality of diabetes care. Similarly, negative associations were observed as predicted for 2 of the 8 discordant conditions (epilepsy, mental health). Observations for other concordant and discordant conditions did not match predictions in the hypothesized model. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of diabetes care provided in English family practices is associated with the prevalence of other major chronic conditions at the practice level. The nature and direction of the observed associations cannot be fully explained by the concordant-discordant model.

Ethnic group differences in cardiovascular risk assessment scores: national cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: There are marked inequalities in cardiovascular disease (CVD) incidence and outcomes between ethnic groups. CVD risk scores are increasingly used in preventive medicine and should aim to accurately reflect differences between ethnic groups. Ethnicity, as an independent risk factor for CVD, can be accounted for in CVD risk scores primarily using two methods, either directly incorporating it as a risk factor in the algorithm or through a post hoc adjustment of risk. We aim to compare these two methods in terms of their prediction of CVD across ethnic groups using representative national data from England. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study using data from the Health Survey for England. We measured ethnic group differences in risk estimation between the QRISK2, which includes ethnicity and Joint British Societies 2 (JBS2) algorithm, which uses post hoc risk adjustment factor for South Asian men. RESULTS: The QRISK2 score produces lower median estimates of CVD risk than JBS2 overall (6.6% [lower quartile-upper quartile (LQ-UQ)=4.0-18.6] compared with 9.3% [LQ-UQ=2.3-16.9]). Differences in median risk scores are significantly greater in South Asian men (7.5% [LQ-UQ=3.6-12.5]) compared with White men (3.0% [LQ-UQ=0.7-5.9]). Using QRISK2, 19.1% [95% confidence interval (CI)=16.2-22.0] fewer South Asian men are designated at high risk compared with 8.8% (95% CI=5.9-7.8) fewer in White men. Across all ethnic groups, women had a lower median QRISK2 score (0.72 [LQ-UQ=- 0.6 to 2.13]), although relatively more (2.0% [95% CI=1.4-2.6]) were at high risk than with JBS2. CONCLUSIONS: Ethnicity is an important CVD risk factor. Current scoring tools used in the UK produce significantly different estimates of CVD risk within ethnic groups, particularly in South Asian men. Work to accurately estimate CVD risk in ethnic minority groups is important if CVD prevention programmes are to address health inequalities.

Effectiveness of a national cardiovascular disease risk assessment program (NHS Health Check): results after one year.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess whether the National Health Service (NHS) Health Check, a systematic cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment and management program, was associated with reduction in CVD risk in attendees after one year. METHODS: We extracted data from patients aged 40-74 years, with high estimated CVD risk, who were registered with general practices in a deprived, culturally diverse setting in England. We included 4748 patients at baseline (July 2008-November 2009), with 3712 at follow-up (December 2009-March 2011). We used a pre-post study design to assess changes in global CVD risk, individual CVD risk factors and statin prescription in patients with a complete and partial Health Check. RESULTS: There were significant reductions in mean CVD risk score (28.2%; 95% confidence interval (CI)=27.3-29.1 to 26.2%; 95% CI, 25.4-27.1), diastolic blood pressure, total cholesterol levels and lipid ratios after one year in patients with a complete Health Check. Statin prescription increased from 14.0% (95% CI=11.9-16.0) to 60.6% (95% CI=57.7-63.5). CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of NHS Health Check was associated with significant but modest reductions in CVD risk among screened high-risk individuals. Further cost-effectiveness analysis and work accounting for uptake is required to assess whether the program can make significant changes to population health.

Uptake of the NHS Health Check programme in an urban setting.

BACKGROUND: The NHS Health Check programme aims to improve prevention, early diagnosis and management of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in England. High and equitable uptake is essential for the programme to effectively reduce the CVD burden. OBJECTIVES: Assessing the impact of a local financial incentive scheme on uptake and statin prescribing in the first 2 years of the programme. METHODS: Cross-sectional study using data from electronic medical records of general practices in Hammersmith and Fulham, London on all patients aged 40-74 years. We assessed uptake of complete Health Check, exclusion of patients from the programme (exception reporting) and statin prescriptions in patients confirmed with high CVD risk. RESULTS: The Health Check uptake was 32.7% in Year 1 and 20.0% in Year 2. Older patients had higher uptake of Health Check than younger (65- to 74-year-old patients: Year 1 adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 2.05 (1.67-2.52) & Year 2 AOR 2.79 (2.49-3.12) compared with 40- to 54-year-old patients). The percentage of confirmed high risk patients prescribed a statin was 17.7% before and 52.9% after the programme. There was a marked variation in Health Check uptake, exception reporting and statin prescribing between practices. CONCLUSIONS: Uptake of the Health Check was low in the first year in patients with estimated high risk despite financial incentives to general practices; although this matched the national required rate in second year. Further evaluations for cost and clinical effectiveness of the programme are needed to clarify whether this spending is appropriate, and to assess the impact of financial incentives on programme performance.

Implementation of the NHS Health Checks programme: baseline assessment of risk factor recording in an urban culturally diverse setting.

BACKGROUND: National Health Service (NHS) Health Checks, a population-wide prevention programme introduced during 2009, aims to measure and manage cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors among all persons aged 40-74 years in England. The potential workload implications of the programme for general practice are considerable, particularly in deprived culturally diverse settings. OBJECTIVE: To examine the baseline levels of CVD risk factor recording in general practices located in Ealing, North West London. METHODS: Cross-sectional study using data extracted from electronic medical records in 14 general practices between December 2008 and January 2009. The completeness of blood pressure, smoking, body mass index (BMI) and cholesterol recording was examined by practice and patient characteristics. RESULTS: Recording of blood pressure [85.6% (practice interquartile range = 10.1)] and smoking status [95.8% (2.6)] was very high in practices. Recording of BMI [72.8% (23.4)] and cholesterol [55.6% (25.3)] was considerably lower. There were large differences in recording between practices (range for cholesterol: 33.6-78.0%), though these were largely explained by patient characteristics. In regression analysis, hypertensive patients [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 36.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 21.0-62.9], women [AOR = 2.88 (95% CI 2.64-3.15)] and older patients [AOR = 2.75 (95% CI 2.28-3.32) for 65-74 against 35-44 years of age] had better recording of blood pressure as well as BMI and cholesterol. Recording of blood pressure [AOR = 1.38 (95% CI 1.09-1.75)] and cholesterol [AOR = 1.47 (95% CI 1.30-1.66)] was significantly higher among South Asian patients. CONCLUSIONS: The workload implications of the NHS Health Checks programme for general practices in England are substantial. There are considerable variations in risk factor recording between practices and between age, gender and ethnic groups.

Uptake of the NHS Health Checks programme in a deprived, culturally diverse setting: cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The UK is embarking on a national cardiovascular risk assessment programme called NHS Health Checks; in order to be effective, high and equitable uptake is paramount. METHODS: A cross-sectional study, using data extracted from electronic medical records of persons aged 35-74 years estimated to be at a high risk of developing cardiovascular disease, to examine the uptake of the Health Checks using logistic regression and statin prescribing. RESULTS: A total of 44.8% of high risk patients invited for a Health Check attended. Uptake was lower among younger men but higher among patients from south Asian (AOR = 1.71 [1.29-2.27] compared with white) or mixed ethnic backgrounds (AOR = 2.42 [1.50-3.89]), and patients registered with smaller practices (AOR = 2.53 [1.09-5.84] <3000 patients compared with 3000-5999). The percentage of patients confirmed to be at high risk of CVD prescribed a statin increased from 24.7 to 44.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Uptake of cardiovascular risk assessment and prescribing of statins in high risk patients was considerably lower than projected in the first year of NHS Health Checks programme. Targeting efforts to increase uptake and adherence to interventions in high risk populations and reinvesting resources into population wide strategies to reduce obesity, smoking and salt intake may prove more cost-effective in reducing the burden of cardiovascular disease in the UK.

The comparison of cardiovascular risk scores using two methods of substituting missing risk factor data in patient medical records.

BACKGROUND: Targeted screening for cardiovascular disease (CVD) can be carried out using existing data from patient medical records. However, electronic medical records in UK general practice contain missing risk factor data for which values must be estimated to produce risk scores. OBJECTIVE: To compare two methods of substituting missing risk factor data; multiple imputation and the use of default National Health Survey values. METHODS: We took patient-level data from patients in 70 general practices in Ealing, North West London. We substituted missing risk factor data using the two methods, applied two risk scores (QRISK2 and JBS2) to the data and assessed differences between methods. RESULTS: Using multiple imputation, mean CVD risk scores were similar to those using default national survey values, a simple method of imputation. There were fewer patients designated as high risk (>20%) using multiple imputation, although differences were again small (10.3% compared with 11.7%; 3.0% compared with 3.4% in women). Agreement in high-risk classification between methods was high (Kappa = 0.91 in men; 0.90 in women). CONCLUSIONS: A simple method of substituting missing risk factor data can produce reliable estimates of CVD risk scores. Targeted screening for high CVD risk, using pre-existing electronic medical record data, does not require multiple imputation methods in risk estimation.

Identifying Primary Care Pathways from Quality of Care to Outcomes and Satisfaction Using Structural Equation Modeling.

OBJECTIVE: To study the relationships between the different domains of quality of primary health care for the evaluation of health system performance and for informing policy decision making. DATA SOURCES: A total of 137 quality indicators collected from 7,607 English practices between 2011 and 2012. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study at the practice level. Indicators were allocated to subdomains of processes of care ("quality assurance," "education and training," "medicine management," "access," "clinical management," and "patient-centered care"), health outcomes ("intermediate outcomes" and "patient-reported health status"), and patient satisfaction. The relationships between the subdomains were hypothesized in a conceptual model and subsequently tested using structural equation modeling. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The model supported two independent paths. In the first path, "access" was associated with "patient-centered care" (ß = 0.63), which in turn was strongly associated with "patient satisfaction" (ß = 0.88). In the second path, "education and training" was associated with "clinical management" (ß = 0.32), which in turn was associated with "intermediate outcomes" (ß = 0.69). "Patient-reported health status" was weakly associated with "patient-centered care" (ß = -0.05) and "patient satisfaction" (ß = 0.09), and not associated with "clinical management" or "intermediate outcomes." CONCLUSIONS: This is the first empirical model to simultaneously provide evidence on the independence of intermediate health care outcomes, patient satisfaction, and health status. The explanatory paths via technical quality clinical management and patient centeredness offer specific opportunities for the development of quality improvement initiatives.

The English North-South divide: risk factors for cardiovascular disease accounting for cross-sectional socio-economic position.

AIMS: Given a North-South divide in mortality in England, we aimed to assess the extent of a North-South divide in risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD), controlling for markers of socio-economic position (SEP). METHODS: We undertook cross-sectional analyses using respondents from the 2006 Health Survey for England. We assessed mean systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, body mass index (BMI) and smoking prevalence in the two regions. We built nested regression models adding demographic factors, SEP indicators, behavioural risk factors, vascular disease status and CVD preventive medications stepwise into each model. We examined interactions between region, age and gender. RESULTS: Controlling for demographic variables, we found a northern excess in systolic blood pressure (+1.95mmHg (SE = 0.40)), BMI (0.40kgm(-2) (SE = 0.12)) and smoking prevalence (5.6% (SE = 1.1)). The difference in smoking prevalence was entirely abolished by markers of SEP. Systolic blood pressure and BMI differences were attenuated by SEP, behavioural and disease indicators, but remained (+1.63mmHg (SE = 0.41) and 0.25kgm(-2) (SE = 0.12), respectively). However, they were lost after adjustment for preventive medication. The North-South divide in systolic blood pressure was attributed to differences in men and younger-to-middle-aged groups. Northern respondents were more physically active, especially younger men. CONCLUSIONS: English North-South differences in smoking can be explained through adverse, cross-sectional SEP. Northern excesses in blood pressure and BMI may be associated with differential clinical management. Risk factor differences may, in part, explain a previously found North-South divide in mortality. Further exploration of geographic inequalities, concentrating on the impact of healthcare, may be warranted.

Do-it-yourself healthcare: the current landscape, prospects and consequences.

The wider availability and increasing use of mHealth tools - covering health applications, smartphone plug-ins and gadgets is significant for healthcare. This trend epitomises broader trajectories in access to and delivery of healthcare, with greater consumer involvement and decentralisation. This shift may be conceptualised as 'do-it-yourself Healthcare' - allowing consumers to monitor and manage their health, and guide their healthcare consumption. Technology that enables data collection by patients informs them about vital health metrics, giving them more control over experiences of health or illness. The information can be used alone as empowered consumers or together with healthcare professionals in an environment of patient-centred care. Current evidence suggests a large scope for do-it-yourself Healthcare, given the availability of technologies, whilst mHealth tools enhance diagnostics, improve treatment, increase access to services and lower costs. There are, however, limitations to do-it-yourself Healthcare. Notably, its evidence base is less well developed than the availability of technologies to facilitate it. A more complex model and understanding is needed to explain motivations for and consequences of engaging in do-it-yourself Healthcare. That said, its introduction alongside existing medicine may improve quality and reduce costs - potentially improving health system sustainability whilst future generations - tomorrow's middle-aged and the elderly, will become more conducive to its spread.

Impact of universal health insurance coverage on hypertension management: a cross-national study in the United States and England.

BACKGROUND: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) galvanised debate in the United States (US) over universal health coverage. Comparison with countries providing universal coverage may illustrate whether the ACA can improve health outcomes and reduce disparities. We aimed to compare quality and disparities in hypertension management by socio-economic position in the US and England, the latter of which has universal health care. METHOD: We used data from the Health and Retirement Survey in the US, and the English Longitudinal Study for Aging from England, including non-Hispanic White respondents aged 50-64 years (US market-based v NHS) and >65 years (US-Medicare v NHS) with diagnosed hypertension. We compared blood pressure control to clinical guideline (140/90 mmHg) and audit (150/90 mmHg) targets; mean systolic and diastolic blood pressure and antihypertensive prescribing, and disparities in each by educational attainment, income and wealth, using regression models. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in aggregate achievement of clinical targets aged 50 to 65 years (US market-based vs. NHS--62.3% vs. 61.3% [p = 0.835]). There was, however, greater control in the US in patients aged 65 years and over (US Medicare vs. NHS--53.5% vs. 58.2% [p = 0.043]). England had no significant socioeconomic disparity in blood pressure control (60.9% vs. 63.5% [p = 0.588], high and low wealth aged ≥65 years). The US had socioeconomic differences in the 50-64 years group (71.7% vs. 55.2% [p = 0.003], high and low wealth); these were attenuated but not abolished in Medicare beneficiaries. CONCLUSION: Moves towards universal health coverage in the US may reduce disparities in hypertension management. The current situation, providing universal coverage for residents aged 65 years and over, may not be sufficient for equality in care.

Prevalence of cardiovascular disease risk amongst the population eligible for the NHS Health Check Programme.

BACKGROUND: The National Health Service (NHS) Health Check Programme aims to identify and manage patients in England aged 40-74 years with a 10-year cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk score over 20%. We aimed to assess the prevalence of high CVD risk in the English population, using the two CVD risk scores and the 20% cut off mandated in national policy, and the prevalence of risk factors within this population. DESIGN: Modelling study using patients registered in general practice in England. METHODS: Using data from the Health Survey for England, we modelled the prevalence of high CVD risk in general practice populations. RESULTS: Of those eligible for an NHS Health Check, 10.5% (2,012,000) had a risk score greater than 20% using the QRISK2 risk score; 22.0% (4,267,000) using Joint British Societies' (JBS2) score. There was a median of 206 (range 0-1693) and 447 (0-3321) patients per practice at high risk respectively, with wide geographic variation. Within the high-risk population, there was a high prevalence of CVD risk factors; in the QRISK2 population, for example 82.6% were physically inactive. To reduce risk in those at high CVD risk, we estimate the total costs of the Programme to be £176 million using QRISK2 or £378 million using JBS2. CONCLUSIONS: A large number of high-risk patients will be identified by the Programme; health service commissioners must ensure the adequate provision and the targeted allocation of risk reduction services for the Programme to be effective. The NHS must consider whether extra costs using JBS2 are warranted. The Programme must be fully monitored to ensure its cost effectiveness and appropriate outcomes such as the numbers at high risk assessed.

Automated Risk Assessment for Stroke in Atrial Fibrillation (AURAS-AF)--an automated software system to promote anticoagulation and reduce stroke risk: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) are at significantly increased risk of stroke. Oral anticoagulants (OACs) substantially reduce this risk, with gains seen across the spectrum of baseline risk. Despite the benefit to patients, OAC prescribing remains suboptimal in the United Kingdom (UK). We will investigate whether an automated software system, operating within primary care electronic medical records, can improve the management of AF by identifying patients eligible for OAC therapy and increasing uptake of this treatment. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a cluster randomised controlled trial, involving general practices using the Egton Medical Information Systems (EMIS) Web clinical system. We will randomise practices to use an electronic software tool or to continue with usual care. The tool will a) produce (and continually refresh) a list of patients with AF who are eligible for OAC therapy--practices will invite these patients to discuss therapy at the start of the trial--and b) generate electronic screen reminders in the medical records of those eligible, appearing throughout the trial. The software will run for 6 months in 23 intervention practices. A total of 23 control practices will manage their AF register in line with the usual care offered. The primary outcome is change in proportion of eligible patients with AF who have been prescribed OAC therapy after six months. Secondary outcomes are incidence of stroke, transient ischaemic attack, other major thromboembolism, major haemorrhage and reports of inappropriate OAC prescribing in the data collection sample--those deemed eligible for OACs. We will conduct a process evaluation in parallel with the randomised trial. We will use qualitative methods to examine patient and practitioner views of the intervention and its impact on primary care practice, including its time implications. DISCUSSION: AURAS-AF will investigate whether a simple intervention, using electronic primary care records, can improve OAC uptake in a high risk group for stroke. Given previous concerns about safety, especially surrounding inappropriate prescribing, we will also examine whether electronic reminders safely impact care in this clinical area. TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://ISRCTN 55722437.

The nationwide systematic prevention of cardiovascular disease: the UK's health check programme.

High-income countries have witnessed marked reductions in cardiovascular disease (CVD) in recent years. Aging populations, however, maintain CVD as a major threat to public health and health system's financial stability. England has commenced on a population-wide screening and prevention program for CVD, the NHS Health Check program, the first national program of its type. We outline the program, its implications for public health and primary care, potential threats to the program, and its implications for the US health system. We conclude that the universal approach adopted contains a number of risks and uncertainties. The program's ongoing evaluation is vital and will provide internationally valuable data.

Assessment of cardiovascular risk factors prior to NHS Health Checks in an urban setting: cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the completeness of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor recording and levels of risk factors in patients eligible for the NHS Health Check. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Twenty-eight general practices located in Hammersmith and Fulham, London, UK. PARTICIPANTS: 42,306 patients aged 40 to 74 years without existing cardiovascular disease or diabetes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: MEASUREMENT AND LEVEL OF CVD RISK FACTORS: blood pressure, cholesterol, body mass index (BMI), blood glucose and smoking status. RESULTS: There was a high recording of smoking status (86.1%) and blood pressure (82.5%); whilst BMI, cholesterol and glucose recording was lower. There was large variation in BMI, cholesterol, glucose recording between practices (29.7-91.5% for BMI). Women had significantly better risk factor recording than men (AOR = 1.70 [1.61-1.80] for blood pressure). All risk factors were better recorded in the least deprived patient group (AOR = 0.79 [0.73-0.85] for blood pressure) and patients with diagnosed hypertension (AOR = 7.24 [6.67-7.86] for cholesterol). Risk factor recording varied considerably between practices but was more strongly associated with patient than practice level characteristics. Age-adjusted levels of cholesterol and BMI were not significantly different between men and women. More men had raised blood glucose, blood pressure and BMI than women (29.7% [29.1-30.4] compared to 19.8% [19.3-20.3] for blood pressure). CONCLUSIONS: Before the NHS Health Check, CVD risk factor recording varied considerably by practice and patient characteristics. We identified significant elevated levels of raised CVD risk factors in the population eligible for a Health Check, which will require considerable work to manage.