Improving Medicines use in People with Polypharmacy in Primary Care (IMPPP): Protocol for a multicentre cluster randomised trial comparing a complex intervention for medication optimization against usual care.

Introduction: Polypharmacy is increasingly common, and associated with undesirable consequences. Polypharmacy management necessitates balancing therapeutic benefits and risks, and varying clinical and patient priorities. Current guidance for managing polypharmacy is not supported by high quality evidence. The aim of the Improving Medicines use in People with Polypharmacy in Primary Care (IMPPP) trial is to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention to optimise medication use for patients with polypharmacy in a general practice setting. Methods: This trial will use a multicentre, open-label, cluster-randomised controlled approach, with two parallel groups. Practices will be randomised to a complex intervention comprising structured medication review (including interprofessional GP/pharmacist treatment planning and patient-facing review) supported by performance feedback, financial incentivisation, clinician training and clinical informatics (intervention), or usual care (control). Patients with polypharmacy and triggering potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) indicators will be recruited in each practice using a computerised search of health records. 37 practices will recruit 50 patients, and review them over a 26-week intervention delivery period. The primary outcome is the mean number of PIP indicators triggered per patient at 26 weeks follow-up, determined objectively from coded GP electronic health records. Secondary outcomes will include patient reported outcome measures, and health and care service use. The main intention-to-treat analysis will use linear mixed effects regression to compare number of PIP indicators triggered at 26 weeks post-review between groups, adjusted for baseline (pre-randomisation) values. A nested process evaluation will explore implementation of the intervention in primary care. Ethics and dissemination: The protocol and associated study materials have been approved by the Wales REC 6, NHS Research Ethics Committee (REC reference 19/WA/0090), host institution and Health Research Authority. Research outputs will be published in peer-reviewed journals and relevant conferences, and additionally disseminated to patients and the public, clinicians, commissioners and policy makers. ISRCTN Registration: 90146150 (28/03/2019).

Modifications to the delivery of NHS face-to-face general practice consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic in England.

Background: To minimise transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus causing COVID-19, delivery of English general practice consultations was modified in March 2020 to enable separation of diagnosed or suspected COVID-19 patients from others. Remote triage and consultations became the default, with adapted face-to-face contact used only when clinically necessary. This study aimed to identify the modified face-to-face delivery models used nationwide in spring/summer 2020. Information was also sought concerning COVID-19 outbreaks linked to English general practice. Methods: In June 2020, a survey was sent by email to the 135 Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in England to identify local organisation of face-to-face general practice consultations since March 2020. An email was  sent to Public Health England (PHE) requesting data on COVID-19 outbreaks linked to general practice. Results: All CCGs responded. Between March and July 2020, separation of COVID-19 patients from others was achieved using combinations of the following models: zoned surgeries (reported by 47% of CCGs), where COVID-19 and other patients were separated within their own practice;'hot' or 'cold' hubs (reported by 90% of CCGs), separate sites where COVID-19 or other patients registered at one of several collaborating practices were seen;'hot' and 'cold' home visits (reported by 70% of CCGs). One of seven combinations of these models was used across each CCG, with some flexibility shown according to changing demand through hub availability. PHE data indicated 25 possible or confirmed COVID-19 outbreaks or clusters in English general practice to July 31st 2020. Conclusions: Varied, flexible ways of delivering face-to-face general practice consultations were identified.  Analysis of the modified delivery in terms of management of COVID-19 and other conditions, and impacts on staff and patients, together with learning from investigations into confirmed COVID-19 outbreaks, may both aid future pandemic management and identify beneficial elements for practice beyond this.

Novel multi-virus rapid respiratory microbiological point-of-care testing in primary care: a mixed-methods feasibility evaluation.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Rapid multi-viral respiratory microbiological point-of-care tests (POCTs) have not been evaluated in UK primary care. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of a multi-viral microbiological POCT for suspected respiratory tract infections (RTIs). METHODS: In this observational, mixed-methods feasibility study practices were provided with a POCT machine for any patient aged ≥3 months with suspected RTI. Dual throat/nose swabs tested for 17 respiratory viruses and three atypical bacteria, 65 minutes per sample. RESULTS: Twenty clinicians recruited 93 patients (estimated 1:3 of all RTI cases). Patient's median age was 29, 57% female, and 44% with co-morbidities. Pre-test diagnoses: upper RTI (48%); lower RTI (30%); viral/influenza-like illness (18%); other (4%). Median set-up time was 2.72 minutes, with 72% swabs processed <4 hours, 90% <24 hours. Tests detected ≥1 virus in 58%, no pathogen 37% and atypical bacteria 2% (3% inconclusive). Antibiotics were prescribed pre-test to 35% of patients with no pathogen detected and 25% with a virus. Post-test diagnoses changed in 20%, and diagnostic certainty increased (P = 0.02), more so when the test was positive rather than negative (P < 0.001). Clinicians predicted decreased antibiotic benefit post-test (P = 0.02). Interviews revealed the POCT has clear potential, was easy to use and well-liked, but limited by time-to-result and the absence of testing for typical respiratory bacteria. CONCLUSIONS: This POCT was acceptable and appeared to influence clinical reasoning. Clinicians wanted faster time-to-results and more information about bacteria. Randomized trials are needed to understand the safety, efficacy and patient perceptions of these POCTs.

The UK government has called for the introduction of rapid diagnostics to curb overuse of antibiotics for common infections. Multi-viral respiratory 'point-of-care' tests (POCTs) are available but have not been used in UK primary care before. These POCTs use samples from the nose or back of the throat and give results quickly, to see if viruses or bacteria are there. In this study, four GP practices were given POCT machines for 6 weeks to see how they were used. Of the 93 patient samples tested, 3% were inconclusive, 37% tested negative, 58% had at least one virus and only 2% had a bacterial infection. Clinicians were more certain of patient diagnoses after testing especially when a virus or bacterium was detected and they were also less likely to predict the patient would benefit from antibiotics. Clinical diagnoses changed in 20% of patients after testing but less than 10% were contacted to change their treatment plan. During interviews, clinicians revealed they liked the test finding it easy-to-use but wanted faster time-to-results and testing for more bacteria. Clinical trials are needed to see if these POCTs can safely and cost-effectively reduce antibiotic prescribing in primary care.

Public perception of NHS general practice during the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic in England.

Background: In March 2020, the delivery of NHS general practice consultations was rapidly modified to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. Remote triage and consultations became the default, with adapted models for face-to-face contact if clinically required. This study aimed to gain insight into public perception of these adaptations. Methods: Two online surveys were developed, and conducted in August and September 2020. Survey A, open to adults (>18 years) receiving the link to it, considered respondents' perspectives on healthcare contacts since March 2020, and their understanding of the adapted delivery. Survey B, open to survey A respondents only, then considered how healthcare communication had been received and individual preferences for this. Survey participation was voluntary. Results: The perceptions of 150 members of the public were obtained. 105 had considered contacting general practice, although half avoided this or delayed doing so for longer than usual. While some patients did so 'to help the NHS', others experienced reduced access for reasons including concerns about telephone consultations and about COVID-19 safety. Some however reported benefitting from remote consultation availability and regular texts/emails from their practice. 68% (102/150) of respondents were unaware that patients with COVID-19 were seen separately from other patients during general practice appointments. 27% in survey B who had avoided or delayed contact said they would have felt more comfortable contacting general practice had they known this. Conclusions: Experience and use of the adapted general practice models varied. Some patients felt their access to healthcare was reduced, often due to technological requirements. For some who found attending face-to-face appointments difficult however, remote contact was advantageous. Most of those surveyed were unaware of the COVID-19 control measures in place during face-to-face general practice consultations. Assessment of adapted delivery model accessibility and clearer public messaging about the changes may help reduce inequalities.

Do NHS GP surgeries employing GPs additionally trained in integrative or complementary medicine have lower antibiotic prescribing rates? Retrospective cross-sectional analysis of national primary care prescribing data in England in 2016.

OBJECTIVE: To determine differences in antibiotic prescription rates between conventional General Practice (GP) surgeries and GP surgeries employing general practitioners (GPs) additionally trained in integrative medicine (IM) or complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) (referred to as IM GPs) working within National Health Service (NHS) England. DESIGN: Retrospective study on antibiotic prescription rates per STAR-PU (Specific Therapeutic group Age-sex weighting Related Prescribing Unit) using NHS Digital data over 2016. Publicly available data were used on prevalence of relevant comorbidities, demographics of patient populations and deprivation scores. SETTING: Primary Care. PARTICIPANTS: 7283 NHS GP surgeries in England. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: The association between IM GPs and antibiotic prescribing rates per STAR-PU with the number of antibiotic prescriptions (total, and for respiratory tract infection (RTI) and urinary tract infection (UTI) separately) as outcome. RESULTS: IM GP surgeries (n=9) were comparable to conventional GP surgeries in terms of list sizes, demographics, deprivation scores and comorbidity prevalence. Negative binomial regression models showed that statistically significant fewer total antibiotics (relative risk (RR) 0.78, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.97) and RTI antibiotics (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.94) were prescribed at NHS IM GP surgeries compared with conventional NHS GP surgeries. In contrast, the number of antibiotics prescribed for UTI were similar between both practices. CONCLUSION: NHS England GP surgeries employing GPs additionally trained in IM/CAM have lower antibiotic prescribing rates. Accessibility of IM/CAM within NHS England primary care is limited. Main study limitation is the lack of consultation data. Future research should include the differences in consultation behaviour of patients self-selecting to consult an IM GP or conventional surgery, and its effect on antibiotic prescription. Additional treatment strategies for common primary care infections used by IM GPs should be explored to see if they could be used to assist in the fight against antimicrobial resistance.