Continuity and breaches in GP care and their associations with mortality for patients with chronic disease: an observational study using Norwegian registry data.

BACKGROUND: Despite many benefits of continuity of care with a named regular GP (RGP), continuity is deteriorating in many countries. AIM: To investigate the association between RGP continuity and mortality, in a personal list system, in addition to examining how breaches in continuity affect this association for patients with chronic diseases. DESIGN AND SETTING: A registry-based observational study using Norwegian primary care consultation data for patients with asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes mellitus, or heart failure. METHOD: The Usual Provider of Care (UPC, value 0-1) Index was used to measure both disease-related (UPCdisease) and overall (UPCall) continuity with the RGP at the time of consultation. In most analyses, patients who changed RGP during the study period were excluded. In the combined group of all four chronic conditions, the proportion of consultations with other GPs and out-of-hours services was calculated. Cox regression models calculated the associations between continuity during 2013-2016 and mortality in 2017-2018. RESULTS: Patients with COPD with UPCdisease <0.25 had 47% increased risk of dying within 2 years (hazard ratio 1.47, 95% confidence interval = 1.22 to 1.64) compared with those with UPCdisease ≥0.75. Mortality also increased with decreasing UPCdisease for patients with heart failure and decreasing UPCall for those with diabetes. In the combined group of chronic conditions, mortality increased with decreasing UPCall. This latter association was also found for patients who had changed RGP. CONCLUSION: Higher disease-related and overall RGP UPC are both associated with lower mortality. However, changing RGP did not significantly affect mortality, indicating a compensatory benefit of informational and management continuity in a patient list system.

Operational failures in general practice: a consensus-building study on the priorities for improvement.

BACKGROUND: System problems, known as operational failures, can greatly affect the work of GPs, with negative consequences for patient and professional experience, efficiency, and effectiveness. Many operational failures are tractable to improvement, but which ones should be prioritised is less clear. AIM: To build consensus among GPs and patients on the operational failures that should be prioritised to improve NHS general practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: Two modified Delphi exercises were conducted online among NHS GPs and patients in several regions across England. METHOD: Between February and October 2021, two modified Delphi exercises were conducted online: one with NHS GPs, and a subsequent exercise with patients. Over two rounds, GPs rated the importance of a list of operational failures (n = 45) that had been compiled using existing evidence. The resulting shortlist was presented to patients for rating over two rounds. Data were analysed using median scores and interquartile ranges. Consensus was defined as 80% of responses falling within one value below and above the median. RESULTS: Sixty-two GPs responded to the first Delphi exercise, and 53.2% (n = 33) were retained through to round two. This exercise yielded consensus on 14 failures as a priority for improvement, which were presented to patients. Thirty-seven patients responded to the first patient Delphi exercise, and 89.2% (n = 33) were retained through to round two. Patients identified 13 failures as priorities. The highest scoring failures included inaccuracies in patients' medical notes, missing test results, and difficulties referring patients to other providers because of problems with referral forms. CONCLUSION: This study identified the highest-priority operational failures in general practice according to GPs and patients, and indicates where improvement efforts relating to operational failures in general practice should be focused.

Does shortage of GPs matter? A cross-sectional study of practice population life expectancy.

BACKGROUND: There are not enough GPs in England. Access to general practice and continuity of care are declining. AIM: To investigate whether practice characteristics are associated with life expectancy of practice populations. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional ecological study of patient life expectancy from 2015-2019. METHOD: Selection of independent variables was based on conceptual frameworks describing general practice's influence on outcomes. Sixteen non-correlated variables were entered into multivariable weighted regression models: population characteristics (Index of Multiple Deprivation, region, % White ethnicity, and % on diabetes register); practice organisation (total NHS payments to practices expressed as payment per registered patient, full-time equivalent fully qualified GPs, GP registrars, advanced nurse practitioners, other nurses, and receptionists per 1000 patients); access (% seen on the same day); clinical performance (% aged ≥45 years with blood pressure checked, % with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease vaccinated against flu, % with diabetes in glycaemic control, and % with coronary heart disease on antiplatelet therapy); and the therapeutic relationship (% continuity). RESULTS: Deprivation was strongly negatively associated with life expectancy. Regions outside London and White ethnicity were associated with lower life expectancy. Higher payment per patient, full-time equivalent fully qualified GPs per 1000 patients, continuity, % with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease having the flu vaccination, and % with diabetes with glycaemic control were associated with higher life expectancy; the % being seen on the same day was associated with higher life expectancy in males only. The variable aged ≥45 years with blood pressure checked was a negative predictor in females. CONCLUSION: The number of GPs, continuity of care, and access in England are declining, and it is worrying that these features of general practice were positively associated with life expectancy.

Identifying carers in general practice (STATUS QUO): a multicentre, cross-sectional study in England.

OBJECTIVES: To determine General Practice (GP) recording of carer status and the number of patients self-identifying as carers, while self-completing an automated check-in screen prior to a GP consultation. DESIGN: A descriptive cross-sectional study. SETTING: 11 GPs in the West Midlands, England. Recruitment commenced in September 2019 and concluded in January 2020. PARTICIPANTS: All patients aged 10 years and over, self-completing an automated check-in screen, were invited to participate during a 3-week recruitment period. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The current coding of carers at participating GPs and the number of patients identifying themselves as a carer were primary outcome measures. Secondary outcome measures included the number of responses attained from automated check-in screens as a research data collection tool and whether carers felt supported in their carer role. RESULTS: 80.3% (n=9301) of patients self-completing an automated check-in screen participated in QUantifying the identification Of carers in general practice (STATUS QUO Study) (62.6% (n=5822) female, mean age 52.9 years (10-98 years, SD=20.3)). Prior to recruitment, the clinical code used to denote a carer was identified in 2.7% (n=2739) of medical records across the participating GPs.10.1% (n=936) of participants identified themselves as a carer. They reported feeling supported with their own health and social care needs: always 19.3% (n=150), a lot of the time 13.2% (n=102), some of the time 40.8% (n=317) and never 26.7% (n=207). CONCLUSIONS: Many more participants self-identified as a carer than were recorded on participating GP lists. Improvements in the recording of the population's caring status need to be actioned, to ensure that supportive implementation strategies for carers are effectively received. Using automated check-in facilities for research continues to provide high participation rates.

Two-year follow-up of a clustered randomised controlled trial of a multicomponent general practice intervention for people at risk of poor health outcomes.

BACKGROUND: This study was a two-year follow-up evaluation of health service use and the cost-effectiveness of a multicomponent general practice intervention targeted at people at high risk of poor health outcomes. METHODS: A two-year follow-up study of a clustered randomised controlled trial was conducted in South Australia during 2018-19, recruiting 1044 patients from three cohorts: children; adults (aged 18-64 years with two or more chronic diseases); and older adults (aged ≥ 65 years). Intervention group practices (n = 10) provided a multicomponent general practice intervention for 12 months. The intervention comprised patient enrolment to a preferred general practitioner (GP), access to longer GP appointments and timely general practice follow-up after episodes of hospital care. Health service outcomes included hospital use, specialist services and pharmaceuticals. The economic evaluation was based on quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) calculated from EuroQoL 5 dimensions, 5 level utility scores and used an A$50,000 per QALY gained threshold for determining cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Over the two years, there were no statistically significant intervention effects for health service use. In the total sample, the mean total cost per patient was greater for the intervention than control group, but the number of QALYs gained in the intervention group was higher. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was A$18,211 per QALY gained, which is lower than the A$50,000 per QALY gained threshold used in Australia. However, the intervention's cost-effectiveness was shown to differ by cohort. For the adult cohort, the intervention was associated with higher costs and lower QALYs gained (vs the total cohort) and was not cost-effective. For the older adults cohort, the intervention was associated with lower costs (A$540 per patient), due primarily to lower hospital costs, and was more effective than usual care. CONCLUSIONS: The positive cost-effectiveness results from the 24-month follow-up warrant replication in a study appropriately powered for outcomes such as hospital use, with an intervention period of at least two years, and targeted to older people at high risk of poor health outcomes.

Non-dispensing pharmacists integrated into general practices as a new interprofessional model: a qualitative evaluation of general practitioners' experiences and views.

BACKGROUND: A new interprofessional model incorporating non-dispensing pharmacists in general practice teams can improve the quality of pharmaceutical care. However, results of the model are dependent on the context. Understanding when, why and how the model works may increase chances of successful broader implementation in other general practices. Earlier theories suggested that the results of the model are achieved by bringing pharmacotherapeutic knowledge into general practices. This mechanism may not be enough for successful implementation of the model. We wanted to understand better how establishing new interprofessional models in existing healthcare organisations takes place. METHODS: An interview study, with a realist informed evaluation was conducted. This qualitative study was part of the Pharmacotherapy Optimisation through Integration of a Non-dispensing pharmacist in primary care Teams (POINT) project. We invited the general practitioners of the 9 general practices who (had) worked closely with a non-dispensing pharmacist for an interview. Interview data were analysed through discussions about the coding with the research team where themes were developed over time. RESULTS: We interviewed 2 general practitioners in each general practice (18 interviews in total). In a context where general practitioners acknowledge the need for improvement and are willing to work with a non-dispensing pharmacist as a new team member, the following mechanisms are triggered. Non-dispensing pharmacists add new knowledge to current general practice. Through everyday talk (discursive actions) both general practitioners and non-dispensing pharmacists evolve in what they consider appropriate, legitimate and imaginable in their work situations. They align their professional identities. CONCLUSIONS: Not only the addition of new knowledge of non-dispensing pharmacist to the general practice team is crucial for the success of this interprofessional healthcare model, but also alignment of the general practitioners' and non-dispensing pharmacists' professional identities. This is essentially different from traditional pharmaceutical care models, in which pharmacists and GPs work in separate organisations. To induce the process of identity alignment, general practitioners need to acknowledge the need to improve the quality of pharmaceutical care interprofessionally. By acknowledging the aspect of interprofessionality, both general practitioners and non-dispensing pharmacists will explore and reflect on what they consider appropriate, legitimate and imaginable in carrying out their professional roles. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The POINT project was pre-registered in The Netherlands National Trial Register, with Trial registration number NTR-4389.

Association between onychomycosis and ulcerative complications in patients with diabetes: a longitudinal cohort study in Dutch general practice.

INTRODUCTION: Diabetic foot ulcers are feared complications of diabetes mellitus (DM), requiring extensive treatment and hospital admissions, ultimately leading to amputation and increased mortality. Different factors contribute to the development of foot ulcers and related complications. Onychomycosis, being more prevalent in patients with diabetes, could be an important risk factor for developing ulcers and related infections. However, the association between onychomycosis and diabetic complications has not been well studied in primary care. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: To determine the impact of onychomycosis on ulcer development and related complications in patients with diabetes in primary care, a longitudinal cohort study was carried out using routine care data from the Extramural Leiden University Medical Center Academic Network. Survival analyses were performed through Cox proportional hazards models with time-dependent covariates. RESULTS: Data from 48 212 patients with a mean age of 58 at diagnosis of DM, predominantly type 2 (87.8%), were analysed over a median follow-up of 10.3 years. 5.7% of patients developed an ulcer. Onychomycosis significantly increased the risk of ulcer development (HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.66), not affected by antimycotic treatment, nor after adjusting for confounders (HR 1.23, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.49). The same was found for surgical interventions (HR 1.54, 95% CI 1.35 to 1.75) and skin infections (HR 1.48, CI 95% 1.28 to 1.72), again not affected by treatment and significant after adjusting for confounders (HR 1.32, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.51 and HR 1.27, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.48, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Onychomycosis significantly increased the risk of ulcer development in patients with DM in primary care, independently of other risk factors. In addition, onychomycosis increased the risk of surgeries and infectious complications. These results underscore the importance of giving sufficient attention to onychomycosis in primary care and corresponding guidelines. Early identification of onychomycosis during screening and routine care provides a good opportunity for timely recognition of increased ulcer risk.

Improving access to general practice for and with people with severe and multiple disadvantage: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: People with severe and multiple disadvantage (SMD) who experience combinations of homelessness, substance misuse, violence, abuse, and poor mental health have high health needs and poor access to primary care. AIM: To improve access to general practice for people with SMD by facilitating collaborative service improvement meetings between healthcare staff, people with lived experience of SMD, and those who support them; participants were then interviewed about this work. DESIGN AND SETTING: The Bridging Gaps group is a collaboration between healthcare staff, researchers, women with lived experience of SMD, and a charity that supports them in a UK city. A project was co-produced by the Bridging Gaps group to improve access to general practice for people with SMD, which was further developed with three inner-city general practices. METHOD: Nine service improvement meetings were facilitated at three general practices, and six of these were formally observed. Nine practice staff and four women with lived experience of SMD were interviewed. Three women with lived experience of SMD and one staff member who supports them participated in a focus group. Data were analysed inductively and deductively using thematic analysis. RESULTS: By providing time and funding opportunities to motivated general practice staff and involving participants with lived experience of SMD, service changes were made in an effort to improve access for people with SMD. These included prioritising patients on an inclusion patient list with more flexible access, providing continuity for patients via a care coordinator and micro-team of clinicians, and developing an information-sharing document. The process and outcomes improved connections within and between general practices, support organisations, and people with SMD. CONCLUSION: The co-designed strategies described in this study could be adapted locally and evaluated in other areas. Investing in this focused way of working may improve accessibility to health care, health equity, and staff wellbeing.

Perceptions of general practitioners towards managing dental presentations in Australia: a qualitative study.

Background Patients presenting with dental pain are common in general practice, despite dental infections being most appropriately managed with dental treatment to address the cause of the infection. Although antibiotics are not appropriate for the management of localised toothache without signs of systemic spread, general practitioners (GPs) often prescribe antibiotics and analgesics for the management of dental pain. The aim of this study was to explore GPs' perceptions and management of dental presentations in Australia. Methods Twelve semi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs across Victoria, Australia, between October 2022 and January 2023. Data were thematically analysed. Results The study found that dental pain was the most common presenting complaint for patients attending general practice with a dental problem. Five major themes were identified in this study: knowledge, beliefs about capabilities, emotion, environmental context and resources, and social influences/social professional role and identity. In terms of knowledge and capabilities, GPs would advise patients to seek dental care, as they are aware that antibiotics would not resolve the underlying issue. Challenges for GPs included limited training in oral and dental treatment, as well as emotions, such as patient anxiety and phobia resulting in patients seeking dental care through a GP rather than a dentist. Barriers due to the context, such as access to dental care, long waiting lists within the public dental system and cost, were some of the reasons patients present to general practice rather than a seeing a dentist. Furthermore, issues that influenced GPs' antibiotic prescribing included patients' expectations for antibiotics to treat their dental pain, as well as dentists advising their patients to attend their GP for antibiotics prior to dental treatment. Conclusions This study identified factors that influenced GPs' management of patients with dental conditions. To address these issues, it is imperative to develop interventions addressing patients' knowledge around oral health, as well as providing improved access to dental care for these patients.