Acceptability of a proposed practice pharmacist-led review for opioid-treated patients with persistent pain: A qualitative study to inform intervention development.

Introduction: Regular review of patients prescribed opioids for persistent non-cancer pain (PCNP) is recommended but not routinely undertaken. The PROMPPT (Proactive clinical Review of patients taking Opioid Medicines long-term for persistent Pain led by clinical Pharmacists in primary care Teams) research programme aims to develop and test a pharmacist-led pain review (PROMPPT) to reduce inappropriate opioid use for persistent pain in primary care. This study explored the acceptability of the proposed PROMPPT review to inform early intervention development. Methods: Interviews (n = 15) and an online discussion forum (n = 31) with patients prescribed opioids for PCNP and interviews with pharmacists (n = 13), explored acceptability of a proposed PROMPPT review. A prototype PROMPPT review was then tested and refined through 3 iterative cycles of in-practice testing (IPT) (n = 3 practices, n = 3 practice pharmacists, n = 13 patients). Drawing on the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA), a framework was generated (including a priori TFA constructs) allowing for deductive and inductive thematic analysis to identify aspects of prospective and experienced acceptability. Results: Patients felt uncertain about practice pharmacists delivering the proposed PROMPPT review leading to development of content for the invitation letter for IPT (introducing the pharmacist and outlining the aim of the review). After IPT, patients felt that pharmacists were suited to the role as they were knowledgeable and qualified. Pharmacists felt that the proposed reviews would be challenging. Although challenges were experienced during delivery of PROMPPT reviews, pharmacists found that they became easier to deliver with time, practise and experience. Recommendations for optimisations after IPT included development of the training to include examples of challenging consultations. Conclusions: Uptake of new healthcare interventions is influenced by perceptions of acceptability. Exploring prospective and experienced acceptability at multiple time points during early intervention development, led to mini-optimisations of the prototype PROMPPT review ahead of a non-randomised feasibility study.

Health literacy and gout characteristics in a primary care cohort.

Objectives: To examine the cross-sectional association between health literacy and gout characteristics. Methods: In a primary care cohort of adults living with gout, the prevalence of poor health literacy was defined using the Single-Item Literacy Screener (SILS). Multiple logistic regression was used to obtain adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for the cross-sectional associations between health literacy and individual gout characteristics (frequency of flares, age at gout onset, history of oligo-/polyarticular flares, allopurinol use, allopurinol dose and serum urate level) with 95% CIs and adjustment for age, sex, deprivation and further education. Results: Of 551 participants [mean age 54.4 years (s.d. 11.2), 498 (90.4%) male], 163 (30.1%) reported two or more flares in the previous 12 months. Fifty-one (9.4%) had poor health literacy. Poor health literacy was associated with having two or more flares in the preceding 12 months [adjusted OR 4.10 (95% CI 2.04, 8.19)] and a history of oligo-/polyarticular flares [OR 1.93 (95% CI 1.06, 3.55)]. No associations were identified between health literacy and age at gout onset [OR 0.99 (95% CI 0.96, 1.01)], allopurinol use [OR 0.88 (95% CI 0.46, 1.65)] or dose [OR 1.00 OR (95% CI 1.00, 1.00)] or serum urate [most recent serum urate OR 1.0 (95% CI 1.00, 1.00)]. Conclusions: Frequent flares and a history of oligo-/polyarticular flares were associated with poor health literacy. Since health literacy is an important determinant of health outcomes, it is important to consider health literacy when providing information and education to people with gout.

Designing a primary care pharmacist-led review for people treated with opioids for persistent pain: a multi-method qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are frequently prescribed for persistent non-cancer pain despite limited evidence of long-term effectiveness and risk of harm. Evidence-based interventions to address inappropriate opioid prescribing are lacking. AIM: To explore perspectives of people living with persistent pain to understand barriers and facilitators in reducing opioids in the context of a pharmacist-led primary care review, and identify review components and features for optimal delivery. DESIGN & SETTING: Primary care multi-method qualitative study. METHOD: Adults with experience of persistent pain and taking opioids participated in semi-structured interviews (n=15, 73% female) and an online discussion forum (n=31). The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) provided a framework for data collection and thematic analysis, involving deductive analysis to TDF domains, inductive analysis within-domains to generate subthemes, and subtheme comparison to form across-domain overarching themes. The behaviour change technique taxonomy v.1 and motivational behaviour change technique classification system were used to systematically map themes to behaviour change techniques to identify potential review components and delivery features. RESULTS: 32 facilitator and barrier subthemes for patients reducing opioids were identified across 13 TDF domains. These combined into six overarching themes: learning to live with pain, opioid reduction expectations, assuming a medical model, pharmacist-delivered reviews, pharmacist-patient relationship and patient engagement. Subthemes mapped to 21 unique behaviour change techniques, yielding 17 components and five delivery features for the proposed PROMPPT review. CONCLUSION: This study generated theoretically-informed evidence for design of a practice pharmacist-led PROMPPT review. Future research will test the feasibility and acceptability of the PROMPPT review and pharmacist training.

Impact of research activity on performance of general practices: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that engaging in research is directly associated with better performance. If this relationship is to be strengthened, it is necessary to understand the mechanisms which might underlie that relationship. AIM: To explore the perspectives of staff and wider stakeholders about mechanisms by which research activity might impact on the performance of general practices. DESIGN & SETTING: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with general practice professionals and wider stakeholders in England. METHOD: Individual interviews with 41 purposively sampled staff in 'research ready' or 'research active' general practices and 21 other stakeholders. Interviews were independently coded by three researchers using a Framework approach. RESULTS: Participants described potential 'direct' and 'indirect' impacts on their work. 'Direct' impacts included research changing practice work (eg, additional records searches for particular conditions), bringing in additional resources (eg, access to investigations or staff) and improving relationships with patients. 'Indirect' impacts included job satisfaction (eg, perception of practice as a centre of excellence and innovation, and the variety afforded by research activity reducing burnout) and staff recruitment (increasing the attractiveness of the practice as a place to work). Respondents identified few negative impacts. CONCLUSIONS: Staff and stakeholders identified a range of potential impacts of research activity on practice performance, with impacts on their working lives most salient. Negative impacts were not generally raised. Nevertheless, respondents generally discussed potential impacts rather than providing specific examples of those impacts. This may reflect the type of research activity conducted in general practice, often led by external collaborators.

Risk of adverse outcomes during gabapentinoid therapy and factors associated with increased risk in UK primary care using the clinical practice research datalink: a cohort study.

ABSTRACT: Growing evidence from pharmacovigilance data and postmortem toxicology reports highlights the misuse potential of gabapentinoids. This study aimed to investigate the risk of serious adverse outcomes (drug misuse, overdose, major trauma), and their risk factors, in primary care patients who are prescribed gabapentinoids. Using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a matched cohort study calculated adverse event rates separately for gabapentinoid-exposed and unexposed cohorts. In the exposed cohort, event rates for exposure to a range of potential risk factors were calculated. Event rates were compared using Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for age, sex, deprivation, previous mental health diagnosis, and coprescribing with potentially interacting medicines. Substance misuse (gabapentin adjusted hazard ratio [95% CI]: 2.40 [2.25-2.55]), overdose (2.99 [2.56-3.49]), and major trauma (0-2.5 years: 1.35 [1.28-1.42]; 2.5 to 10 years: 1.73 [1.56-1.95]) were more common among patients prescribed gabapentinoids than matched individuals who were not. The association with overdose was stronger for pregabalin than gabapentin. All adverse outcomes were significantly associated with smoking, history of substance misuse, overdose, or a mental health condition and prescription of opioids, benzodiazepines, antidepressants, and Z-drug hypnotics (eg, gabapentin hazard ratios for association of concurrent opioid use: misuse 1.49 [1.47-1.51]; overdose 1.87 [1.78-1.96]; major trauma 1.28 [1.26-1.30]). Our findings highlight the importance of careful patient selection when prescribing gabapentinoids and the need to educate prescribers about the risks of these drugs, particularly in combination with other central nervous system depressants.

Indirect impact of the war in Ukraine on primary percutaneous coronary interventions for ST-elevation myocardial infarction in Poland.

INTRODUCTION: The Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 resulted in the displacement of approximately 12.5 million refugees to adjacent countries including Poland, that may have strained healthcare service delivery. OBJECTIVES: Using the ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) data, we aimed to evaluate whether the Russian invasion of Ukraine has indirectly impacted the delivery of acute cardiovascular care in Poland. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed all adult patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) for STEMI across Poland between 25th February 2017 to 24th May 2022. Centers were allocated to regions of <100km and >100km of the Polish-Ukraine border. Mixed effect generalized linear regression models with random effects per hospital were used to explore the associations between the war in Ukraine starting with several outcomes of interest, and whether these associations differed across regions of 100km from the Polish-Ukraine border. RESULTS: A total of 90,115 procedures were included in the analysis. The average number of procedures per-month was similar to predicted volume for centers in the >100km region, while the average number of PCI was higher than expected (by an estimated 15 (11-19)) for the <100km region. There was no difference in adjusted fatality rate or quality of care outcomes pre- vs. during-war in both <100 and >100 km regions, with no evidence of a difference-in-difference across regions. CONCLUSIONS: Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, there was only a modest and temporary increase in primary PCI predominantly in centers situated within 100km of the border, although no significant impact on in-hospital fatality rate.

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.

Prognostic factors for colchicine prophylaxis-related adverse events when initiating allopurinol for gout: retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Colchicine is commonly used to prevent flares when starting urate-lowering therapy for gout. Patients with gout are frequently concurrently prescribed other medications (such as statins) that may interact with colchicine, increasing the risk of adverse events. The aim of this study was to describe potential prognostic factors for adverse events in patients prescribed colchicine when initiating allopurinol. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study in linked UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink and Hospital Episode Statistics datasets. Adults initiating allopurinol for gout with colchicine (01/04/1997-30/11/2016) were included. Potential prognostic factors were defined, and the likelihood of adverse events, including diarrhoea, nausea or vomiting, myocardial infarction (MI), neuropathy, myalgia, myopathy, rhabdomyolysis, and bone marrow suppression, were estimated. RESULTS: From 01/04/1997-30/11/2016, 13 945 people with gout initiated allopurinol with colchicine prophylaxis (mean age 63.9 (SD 14.7) years, 78.2% male). One quarter (26%, 95% CI 25% to 27%) were prescribed ≥1 potentially interacting medicines, most commonly statins (21%, 95% CI 20% to 22%). Statins were not associated with increased adverse events, although other drugs were associated with some adverse outcomes. Diarrhoea and MI were associated with more comorbidities and more severe CKD. CONCLUSION: People were given colchicine prophylaxis despite commonly having preexisting prescriptions for medications with potential to interact with colchicine. Adverse events were more common in people who had more comorbidities and certain potentially interacting medications. Our findings will provide much-needed information about prognostic factors for colchicine-related adverse events that can inform treatment decisions about prophylaxis when initiating allopurinol.

Characteristics of primary care practices associated with patient education during COVID-19: results of the cross-sectional PRICOV-19 study in 38 countries.

BACKGROUND: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the World Health Organization established a number of key recommendations such as educational activities especially within primary care practices (PCPs) which are a key component of this strategy. This paper aims to examine the educational activities of PCPs during COVID-19 pandemic and to identify the factors associated with these practices across 38 countries. METHODS: A "Patient Education (PE)" score was created based on responses to six items from the self-reported questionnaire among PCPs (n = 3638) compiled by the PRICOV-19 study. Statistical analyses were performed on 3638 cases, with PCPs with missing PE score values were excluded. RESULTS: The PE score features a mean of 2.55 (SD = 0.68) and a median of 2.50 (2.16 - 3.00), with a maximum of 4.00, and varies quite widely between countries. Among all PCPs characteristics, these factors significantly increase the PE score: the payment system type (with a capitation payment system or another system compared to the fee for service), the perception of average PCP with patients with chronic conditions and the perception of adequate governmental support. CONCLUSION: The model presented in this article is still incomplete and requires further investigation to identify other configuration elements favorable to educational activities. However, the results already highlight certain levers that will enable the development of this educational approach appropriate to primary care.

Barriers and facilitators in diagnosing axial spondyloarthritis: a qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) is frequently delayed for years after symptom onset. However, little is known about patient and healthcare professional (HCP) perspectives on barriers and facilitators in axSpA diagnosis. This study explored the experiences and perceptions of both groups regarding the factors affecting the timely diagnosis of axSpA. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews with patients with axSpA and axSpA-interested HCPs from the United Kingdom (UK) were performed by telephone or Microsoft Teams and focussed on the individuals' perspective of the diagnostic journey for axSpA. Interview transcripts were thematically analysed. RESULTS: Fourteen patients with axSpA (10 female, 4 male) and 14 UK based HCPs were recruited, the latter comprising of 5 physiotherapists, 4 General Practitioners, 3 rheumatologists, a nurse, and an occupational therapist. Barriers to diagnosis identified by patients and HCPs were: difficult to diagnose, a lack of awareness, unclear referral pathways, patient behaviour and patient/HCP communication. Patient-identified facilitators of diagnosis were patient advocacy, clear referral processes and pathways, increased awareness, and serendipity. HCPs identified promoting awareness as a facilitator of diagnosis, along with symptom recognition, improvements to healthcare practice and patient/HCP communications. CONCLUSION: Poor communication and a lack of understanding of axSpA in the professional and public spheres undermine progress towards timely diagnosis of axSpA. Improving communication and awareness for patients and HCPs, along with systemic changes in healthcare (such as improved referral pathways) could reduce diagnostic delay.

"We have to change our mindsets": a qualitative study of barriers and facilitators in research collaboration across integrated care system organisations.

The introduction of Integrated Care Systems (ICS) in England aimed to increase joint planning and delivery of health and social care, and other services, to better meet the needs of local communities. There is an associated duty to undertake collaborative research across ICS partners to inform this new integrated approach, which might be challenging given that organisations span health, local authority, voluntary and community sector, and research. This study aimed to explore the appetite for collaborative Research and Innovation (R&I) across ICSs, potential barriers and solutions. This qualitative study involved semi-structured interviews with 24 stakeholders who held senior positions within organisations across two ICS areas (Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent; Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin). Interview transcripts were analysed using inductive and deductive analysis, first mapping to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), then considering key influences on organisational behaviour in terms of Capability, Opportunity and Motivation from the COM-B Behaviour Change Wheel. There were fundamental limitations on organisational opportunities for collaborative R&I: a historical culture of competition (rather than collaboration), a lack of research culture and prioritisation, compounded by a challenging adverse economic environment. However, organisations were motivated to undertake collaborative R&I. They recognised the potential benefits (e.g., skill-sharing, staff development, attracting large studies and funding), the need for collaborative research that mirrors integrated care, and subsequent benefits for care recipients. Related barriers included negative experiences of collaboration, fear of failing and low confidence. Capability varied across organisations in terms of research skills and confidence, which reflected the range of partners (from local authorities to NHS Trusts, primary care, and academic institutions). These findings indicate a need to shift from a culture of competition to collaboration, and to help organisations across ICS to prioritise research, and share resources and skills to mitigate the limiting effects of a constrained economic environment. This could be further explored using a systems change approach, to develop the collaborative research efforts alongside the overarching move towards integrated care.

Talking in primary care (TIP): protocol for a cluster-randomised controlled trial in UK primary care to assess clinical and cost-effectiveness of communication skills e-learning for practitioners on patients' musculoskeletal pain and enablement.

INTRODUCTION: Effective communication can help optimise healthcare interactions and patient outcomes. However, few interventions have been tested clinically, subjected to cost-effectiveness analysis or are sufficiently brief and well-described for implementation in primary care. This paper presents the protocol for determining the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a rigorously developed brief eLearning tool, EMPathicO, among patients with and without musculoskeletal pain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A cluster randomised controlled trial in general practitioner (GP) surgeries in England and Wales serving patients from diverse geographic, socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds. GP surgeries are randomised (1:1) to receive EMPathicO e-learning immediately, or at trial end. Eligible practitioners (eg, GPs, physiotherapists and nurse practitioners) are involved in managing primary care patients with musculoskeletal pain. Patient recruitment is managed by practice staff and researchers. Target recruitment is 840 adults with and 840 without musculoskeletal pain consulting face-to-face, by telephone or video. Patients complete web-based questionnaires at preconsultation baseline, 1 week and 1, 3 and 6 months later. There are two patient-reported primary outcomes: pain intensity and patient enablement. Cost-effectiveness is considered from the National Health Service and societal perspectives. Secondary and process measures include practitioner patterns of use of EMPathicO, practitioner-reported self-efficacy and intentions, patient-reported symptom severity, quality of life, satisfaction, perceptions of practitioner empathy and optimism, treatment expectancies, anxiety, depression and continuity of care. Purposive subsamples of patients, practitioners and practice staff take part in up to two qualitative, semistructured interviews. ETHICS APPROVAL AND DISSEMINATION: Approved by the South Central Hampshire B Research Ethics Committee on 1 July 2022 and the Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research Wales on 6 July 2022 (REC reference 22/SC/0145; IRAS project ID 312208). Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed academic publications, conference presentations and patient and practitioner outlets. If successful, EMPathicO could quickly be made available at a low cost to primary care practices across the country. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN18010240.

Uptake and safety of pneumococcal vaccination in adults with immune mediated inflammatory diseases: a UK wide observational study.

OBJECTIVE: The uptake and safety of pneumococcal vaccination in people with immune mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) is poorly understood. We investigated the UK wide pneumococcal vaccine uptake in adults with IMIDs and explored the association between vaccination and IMID flare. METHODS: Adults with IMIDs diagnosed on or before 01/09/2018, prescribed steroid-sparing drugs within the last 12 months and contributing data to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Gold were included. Vaccine uptake was assessed using a cross-sectional study design. Self-controlled case series (SCCS) analysis investigated the association between pneumococcal vaccination and IMID flare. The SCCS observation period was up-to six-month before and after pneumococcal vaccination. This was partitioned into a 14-day pre-vaccination induction, 90-days post-vaccination exposed, and the remaining unexposed periods. RESULTS: We included 32 277 patients, 14 151 with RA, 13 631 with IBD, 3,804 with axial spondyloarthritis and 691 with SLE. Overall, 57% were vaccinated against pneumococcus. Vaccine uptake was lower in those younger than 45 years (32%), with IBD (42%), and without additional indication(s) for vaccination (46%). In the vaccine-safety study, data for 1,067, 935, and 451vaccinated patients with primary-care consultations for joint pain, AIRD flare and IBD flare respectively were included. Vaccination against pneumococcal pneumonia was not associated with primary-care consultations for joint pain, AIRD flare and IBD flare in the exposed period with incidence rate ratios (95% Confidence Interval) 0.95 (0.83-1.09), 1.05 (0.92-1.19), and 0.83 (0.65-1.06) respectively. CONCLUSION: Uptake of pneumococcal vaccination in UK patients with IMIDs was suboptimal. Vaccination against pneumococcal disease was not associated with IMID flare.

Patient and health professional views on risk-stratified monitoring of immune-suppressing treatment in adults with inflammatory diseases.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the acceptability of an individualised risk-stratified approach to monitoring for target-organ toxicity in adult patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases established on immune-suppressing treatment(s). METHODS: Adults (≥18 years) taking immune-suppressing treatment(s) for at-least six months, and healthcare professionals (HCPs) with experience of either prescribing and/or monitoring immune-suppressing drugs were invited to participate in a single, remote, one-to-one, semi-structured interview. Interviews were conducted by a trained qualitative researcher and explored their views and experiences of current monitoring and acceptability of a proposed risk-stratified monitoring plan. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and inductively analysed using thematic analysis in NVivo. RESULTS: Eighteen patients and 13 HCPs were interviewed. While participants found monitoring of immune-suppressing drugs with frequent blood-tests reassuring, the current frequency of these was considered burdensome by patients and HCPs alike, and to be a superfluous use of healthcare resources. Given abnormalities rarely arose during long-term treatment, most felt that monitoring blood-tests were not needed as often. Patients and HCPs found it acceptable to increase the interval between monitoring blood-tests from three-monthly to six-monthly or annually depending on the patients' risk profiles. Conditions of accepting such a change included: allowing for clinician and patient autonomy in determining an individuals' frequency of monitoring blood-tests, the flexibility to change monitoring frequency if someone's risk profile changed, and endorsement from specialist societies and healthcare providers such as the National Health Service. CONCLUSION: A risk-stratified approach to monitoring was acceptable to patients and HCPs. Guideline groups should consider these findings when recommending blood-test monitoring intervals.

Exploring the potential extended role of community pharmacy in the management of osteoarthritis: A multi-methods study with pharmacy staff and other healthcare professionals.

INTRODUCTION: Osteoarthritis is the commonest form of chronic joint pain, which patients often self-manage before seeking healthcare advice. Patients frequently seek advice from community pharmacies, and a recent policy has recommended integrating community pharmacies into long-term condition pathways. This study explored community pharmacy teams' (CPs) and other healthcare professionals' (HCPs) views on community pharmacies providing an extended role for osteoarthritis management, identifying potential barriers and facilitators to this. METHODS: A multi-methods study comprising surveys of CPs and other HCPs, followed by qualitative interviews. Descriptive statistics were used in an exploratory analysis of the survey data. Qualitative data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis and the identified barriers and facilitators were mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework. RESULT: CPs and other HCPs in the surveys and interviews reported that an extended role for osteoarthritis management could include: a subjective assessment, explaining the joint problem and its treatment, medication management and support for self-care. There was less consensus on diagnosing the problem as OA and completing an objective assessment. A key facilitator was training to deliver the role, whilst barriers were high workload and lack of access to General Practitioner medical records. DISCUSSION: Acceptable elements of an extended community pharmacy role for osteoarthritis centre around the provision of information, advice on medication and supported self-management. CONCLUSION: CPs are well placed to contribute towards evidenced-based osteoarthritis management. Feasibility testing of delivering the extended role is needed and future implementation requires training for CPs and raising public awareness of the extended role.

Risk-stratified monitoring for sulfasalazine toxicity: prognostic model development and validation.

BACKGROUND: Sulfasalazine-induced cytopenia, nephrotoxicity and hepatotoxicity is uncommon during long-term treatment. Some guidelines recommend 3 monthly monitoring blood tests indefinitely during long-term treatment while others recommend stopping monitoring after 1 year. To rationalise monitoring, we developed and validated a prognostic model for clinically significant blood, liver or kidney toxicity during established sulfasalazine treatment. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: UK primary care. Data from Clinical Practice Research Datalink Gold and Aurum formed independent development and validation cohorts. PARTICIPANTS: Age ≥18 years, new diagnosis of an inflammatory condition and sulfasalazine prescription. STUDY PERIOD: 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2019. OUTCOME: Sulfasalazine discontinuation with abnormal monitoring blood-test result. ANALYSIS: Patients were followed up from 6 months after first primary care prescription to the earliest of outcome, drug discontinuation, death, 5 years or 31 December 2019. Penalised Cox regression was performed to develop the risk equation. Multiple imputation handled missing predictor data. Model performance was assessed in terms of calibration and discrimination. RESULTS: 8936 participants were included in the development cohort (473 events, 23 299 person-years) and 5203 participants were included in the validation cohort (280 events, 12 867 person-years). Nine candidate predictors were included. The optimism adjusted R2 D and Royston D statistic in the development data were 0.13 and 0.79, respectively. The calibration slope (95% CI) and Royston D statistic (95% CI) in validation cohort was 1.19 (0.96 to 1.43) and 0.87 (0.67 to 1.07), respectively. CONCLUSION: This prognostic model for sulfasalazine toxicity uses readily available data and should be used to risk-stratify blood-test monitoring during established sulfasalazine treatment.

Systematic Review of the Association of the Hospital Frailty Risk Score with Mortality in Patients with Cerebrovascular and Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: There is limited systematic data on the association between the Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) and characteristics and mortality in patients with cerebrovascular and cardiovascular disease (CVD). This systematic review aimed to summarise the use of the HFRS in describing the prevalence of frailty in patients with CVD, the clinical characteristics of patients with CVD, and the association between frailty on the likelihood of mortality in patients with CVD. METHODS: A systematic literature search for observational studies using terms related to CVD, cerebrovascular disease, and the HFRS was conducted using 6 databases in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies were appraised using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). RESULTS: Seventeen observational studies were included, all rated 'good' quality according to the NOS. One study investigated 5 different CVD cohorts (atrial fibrillation (AF), heart failure (HF), hypotension, hypertension, and chronic ischemic heart disease), 1 study investigated 2 different CVD cohorts (AF and acute myocardial infarction (AMI)), 6 studies investigated HF, 3 studies investigated AMI, 4 studies investigated stroke, 1 study investigated AF, and 1 study investigated cardiac arrest. Increasing frailty risk category was associated with increased age, female sex, and non-white racial group across all CVD. Increasing frailty risk category is also associated with increased length of hospital stay, total costs, and increased odds of 30-day all-cause mortality across all CVD. CONCLUSIONS: The HFRS is an efficient and effective tool for stratifying frailty in patients with CVD and predicting adverse health outcomes.

Evaluating the impact of the supporting the advancement of research skills (STARS) programme on research knowledge, engagement and capacity-building in a health and social care organisation in England.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact a novel education programme - to improve research engagement, awareness, understanding and confidence - had on a diverse health and social care workforce. Barriers and facilitators to engagement were explored together with research capacity-building opportunities and ways to embed a research culture. The programme is entitled 'Supporting The Advancement of Research Skills' (STARS programme); the paper reports findings from a health and social care setting in England, UK. METHODS: A four-level outcome framework guided the approach to evaluation and was further informed by key principles of research capacity development and relevant theory. Quantitative data were collected from learners before and after engagement; these were analysed descriptively. Semi-structured online interviews were conducted with learners and analysed thematically. A purposive sample was achieved to include a diversity in age, gender, health and social care profession, and level of attendance (regular attendees, moderate attendees and non-attenders). RESULTS: The evaluation spanned 18 half-day workshops and 11 seminars delivered by expert educators. 165 (2% of total staff at Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust (MPFT)) staffs booked one or more education sessions; 128 (77%) including Allied Health Professionals (AHPs), psychologists, nursing and midwifery, and social workers attended one or more session. Key themes of engagement with teaching sessions, relevance and impact of training and promoting a research active environment were identified with relevant sub-themes. Positive impacts of training were described in terms of research confidence, intentions, career planning and application of research skills as a direct result of training. Lack of dedicated time for research engagement, work pressures and time commitments required for the programme were key barriers. Facilitators that facilitated engagement are also described. CONCLUSIONS: Findings demonstrate the impact that a free, virtual and high-quality research education programme had at individual and organisational levels. The programme is the product of a successful collaboration between health and social care and academic organisations; this provides a useful framework for others to adapt and adopt. Key barriers to attendance and engagement spoke to system-wide challenges that an education programme could not address in the short-term. Potential solutions are discussed in relation to protecting staff time, achieving management buy-in, recognising research champions, and having a clear communication strategy.

Co-development and testing of an extended community pharmacy model of service delivery for managing osteoarthritis: protocol for a sequential, multi-methods study (PharmOA).

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis is a common, painful and disabling long-term condition. Delivery of high-quality guideline-informed osteoarthritis care that successfully promotes and maintains supported self-management is imperative. However, osteoarthritis care remains inconsistent, including under use of core non-pharmacological approaches of education, exercise and weight loss. Community pharmacies are an accessible healthcare provider. United Kingdom government initiatives are promoting their involvement in a range of long-term conditions, including musculoskeletal conditions. It is not known what an enhanced community pharmacy role for osteoarthritis care should include, what support is needed to deliver such a role, and whether it would be feasible and acceptable to community pharmacy teams. In this (PharmOA) study, we aim to address these gaps, and co-design and test an evidence-based extended community pharmacy model of service delivery for managing osteoarthritis. METHODS: Informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework, Normalisation Process Theory, and the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for developing complex interventions, we will undertake a multi-methods study involving five phases: 1. Systematic review to summarise currently available evidence on community pharmacy roles in supporting adults with osteoarthritis and other chronic (non-cancer) pain. 2. Cross-sectional surveys and one-to-one qualitative interviews with patients, healthcare professionals and pharmacy staff to explore experiences of current, and potential extended community pharmacy roles, in delivering osteoarthritis care. 3. Stakeholder co-design to: a) agree on the extended role of community pharmacies in osteoarthritis care; b) develop a model of osteoarthritis care within which the extended roles could be delivered (PharmOA model of service delivery); and c) refine existing tools to support community pharmacies to deliver extended osteoarthritis care roles (PharmOA tools). 4. Feasibility study to explore the acceptability and feasibility of the PharmOA model of service delivery and PharmOA tools to community pharmacy teams. 5. Final stakeholder workshop to: a) finalise the PharmOA model of service delivery and PharmOA tools, and b) if applicable, prioritise recommendations for its wider future implementation. DISCUSSION: This novel study paves the way to improving access to and availability of high-quality guideline-informed, consistent care for people with osteoarthritis from within community pharmacies.

EULAR recommendations for the non-pharmacological core management of hip and knee osteoarthritis: 2023 update.

INTRODUCTION: Hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) are increasingly common with a significant impact on individuals and society. Non-pharmacological treatments are considered essential to reduce pain and improve function and quality of life. EULAR recommendations for the non-pharmacological core management of hip and knee OA were published in 2013. Given the large number of subsequent studies, an update is needed. METHODS: The Standardised Operating Procedures for EULAR recommendations were followed. A multidisciplinary Task Force with 25 members representing 14 European countries was established. The Task Force agreed on an updated search strategy of 11 research questions. The systematic literature review encompassed dates from 1 January 2012 to 27 May 2022. Retrieved evidence was discussed, updated recommendations were formulated, and research and educational agendas were developed. RESULTS: The revised recommendations include two overarching principles and eight evidence-based recommendations including (1) an individualised, multicomponent management plan; (2) information, education and self-management; (3) exercise with adequate tailoring of dosage and progression; (4) mode of exercise delivery; (5) maintenance of healthy weight and weight loss; (6) footwear, walking aids and assistive devices; (7) work-related advice and (8) behaviour change techniques to improve lifestyle. The mean level of agreement on the recommendations ranged between 9.2 and 9.8 (0-10 scale, 10=total agreement). The research agenda highlighted areas related to these interventions including adherence, uptake and impact on work. CONCLUSIONS: The 2023 updated recommendations were formulated based on research evidence and expert opinion to guide the optimal management of hip and knee OA.