Development of a resource-use measure to capture costs of diabetic foot ulcers to the United Kingdom National Health Service, patients and society.

Background: Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) add a significant burden to the lives of people with diabetes in the United Kingdom. They can have a considerable impact on a patient's daily life, with treatment requiring frequent changes of dressings and clinic attendances. Nurses and other allied health professionals (AHPs) within the community provide most wound care representing the primary cost driver. Aims: To collaboratively explore key resource use related to the management of DFUs to develop, and pilot, a participant-reported measure to inform economic evaluations. Methods: A literature search and semi-structured interviews determined health and non-health resource use in management of DFUs. A consensus view of the selected items was established in a modified Delphi study and further tested for acceptability and validity in a pilot study. Results: Primary care consultations with a podiatrist or orthotist, district nurse visits, out-of-hours and emergency care, scans and investigations, and consumables provided in clinics were rated as the most important resource use items. Conclusions: This work has informed the development of a measure that captures resource use considered important by the people most affected by DFUs; patients, family members and carers, and the healthcare professionals key to DFU management.

Improving primary care identification of familial breast cancer risk using proactive invitation and decision support.

Family history of breast cancer is a key risk factor, accounting for up to 10% of cancers. We evaluated the proactive assessment of familial breast cancer (FBC) risk in primary care. Eligible women (30 to 60 years) were recruited from eight English general practices. Practices were trained on FBC risk assessment. In four randomly-assigned practices, women were invited to complete a validated, postal family history questionnaire, which practice staff inputted into decision support software to determine cancer risk. Those with increased risk were offered specialist referral. Usual care was observed in the other four practices. In intervention practices, 1127/7012 women (16.1%) returned family history questionnaires, comprising 1105 (98%) self-reported white ethnicity and 446 (39.6%) educated to University undergraduate or equivalent qualification, with 119 (10.6%) identified at increased breast cancer risk and offered referral. Sixty-seven (56%) women recommended referral were less than 50 years old. From 66 women attending specialists, 26 (39.4%) were confirmed to have high risk and recommended annual surveillance (40-60 years) and surgical prevention; while 30 (45.5%) were confirmed at moderate risk, with 19 offered annual surveillance (40-50 years). The remaining 10 (15.2%) managed in primary care. None were recommended chemoprevention. In usual care practices, only ten women consulted with concerns about breast cancer family history. This study demonstrated proactive risk assessment in primary care enables accurate identification of women, including many younger women, at increased risk of breast cancer. To improve generalisability across the population, more active methods of engagement need to be explored.Trial registration: CRUK Clinical Trials Database 11779.

Incidence, nature and causes of avoidable significant harm in primary care in England: retrospective case note review.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incidence of avoidable significant harm in primary care in England; describe and classify the associated patient safety incidents and generate suggestions to mitigate risks of ameliorable factors contributing to the incidents. DESIGN: Retrospective case note review. Patients with significant health problems were identified and clinical judgements were made on avoidability and severity of harm. Factors contributing to avoidable harm were identified and recorded. SETTING: Primary care. PARTICIPANTS: Thirteen general practitioners (GPs) undertook a retrospective case note review of a sample of 14 407 primary care patients registered with 12 randomly selected general practices from three regions in England (total list size: 92 255 patients). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The incidence of significant harm considered at least 'probably avoidable' and the nature of the safety incidents. RESULTS: The rate of significant harm considered at least probably avoidable was 35.6 (95% CI 23.3 to 48.0) per 100 000 patient-years (57.9, 95% CI 42.2 to 73.7, per 100 000 based on a sensitivity analysis). Overall, 74 cases of avoidable harm were detected, involving 72 patients. Three types of incident accounted for more than 90% of the problems: problems with diagnosis accounted for 45/74 (60.8%) primary incidents, followed by medication-related problems (n=19, 25.7%) and delayed referrals (n=8, 10.8%). In 59 (79.7%) cases, the significant harm could have been identified sooner (n=48) or prevented (n=11) if the GP had taken actions aligned with evidence-based guidelines. CONCLUSION: There is likely to be a substantial burden of avoidable significant harm attributable to primary care in England with diagnostic error accounting for most harms. Based on the contributory factors we found, improvements could be made through more effective implementation of existing information technology, enhanced team coordination and communication, and greater personal and informational continuity of care.

Identifying 'avoidable harm' in family practice: a RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method consensus study.

BACKGROUND: Health care-related harm is an internationally recognized threat to public health. The United Kingdom's national health services demonstrate that upwards of 90% of health care encounters can be delivered in ambulatory settings. Other countries are transitioning to more family practice-based health care systems, and efforts to understand avoidable harm in these settings is needed. METHODS: We developed 100 scenarios reflecting a range of diseases and informed by the World Health Organization definition of 'significant harm'. Scenarios included different types of patient safety incidents occurring by commission and omission, demonstrated variation in timeliness of intervention, and conditions where evidence-based guidelines are available or absent. We conducted a two-round RAND / UCLA Appropriateness Method consensus study with a panel of family practitioners in England to define "avoidable harm" within family practice. Panelists rated their perceptions of avoidability for each scenario. We ran a k-means cluster analysis of avoidability ratings. RESULTS: Panelists reached consensus for 95 out of 100 scenarios. The panel agreed avoidable harm occurs when a patient safety incident could have been probably, or totally, avoided by the timely intervention of a health care professional in family practice (e.g. investigations, treatment) and / or an administrative process (e.g. referrals, alerts in electronic health records, procedures for following up results) in accordance with accepted evidence-based practice and clinical governance. Fifty-four scenarios were deemed avoidable, whilst 31 scenarios were rated unavoidable and reflected outcomes deemed inevitable regardless of family practice intervention. Scenarios with low avoidability ratings (1 s or 2 s) were not represented by the categories that were used to generate scenarios, whereas scenarios with high avoidability ratings (7 s 8 s or 9 s) were represented by these a priori categories. DISCUSSION: The findings from this RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method study define the characteristics and conditions that can be used to standardize measurement of outcomes for primary care patient safety. CONCLUSION: We have developed a definition of avoidable harm that has potential for researchers and practitioners to apply across primary care settings, and bolster international efforts to design interventions to target avoidable patient safety incidents that cause the most significant harm to patients.

Understanding the epidemiology of avoidable significant harm in primary care: protocol for a retrospective cross-sectional study.

INTRODUCTION: Most patient safety research has focused on specialist-care settings where there is an appreciation of the frequency and causes of medical errors, and the resulting burden of adverse events. There have, however, been few large-scale robust studies that have investigated the extent and severity of avoidable harm in primary care. To address this, we will conduct a 12-month retrospective cross-sectional study involving case note review of primary care patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct electronic searches of general practice (GP) clinical computer systems to identify patients with avoidable significant harm. Up to 16 general practices from 3 areas of England (East Midlands, London and the North West) will be recruited based on practice size, to obtain a sample of around 100 000 patients. Our investigations will include an 'enhanced sample' of patients with the highest risk of avoidable significant harm. We will estimate the incidence of avoidable significant harm and express this as 'per 100 000 patients per year'. Univariate and multivariate analysis will be conducted to identify the factors associated with avoidable significant harm. ETHICS/DISSEMINATION: The decision regarding participation by general practices in the study is entirely voluntary; the consent to participate may be withdrawn at any time. We will not seek individual patient consent for the retrospective case note review, but if patients respond to publicity about the project and say they do not wish their records to be included, we will follow these instructions. We will produce a report for the Department of Health's Policy Research Programme and several high-quality peer-reviewed publications in scientific journals. The study has been granted a favourable opinion by the East Midlands Nottingham 2 Research Ethics Committee (reference 15/EM/0411) and Confidentiality Advisory Group approval for access to medical records without consent under section 251 of the NHS Act 2006 (reference 15/CAG/0182).