"They are saying it's high, but I think it's quite low": exploring cardiovascular disease risk communication in NHS health checks through video-stimulated recall interviews with patients - a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: NHS Health Check (NHSHC) is a national cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk identification and management programme. However, evidence suggests a limited understanding of the most used metric to communicate CVD risk with patients (10-year percentage risk). This study used novel application of video-stimulated recall interviews to understand patient perceptions and understanding of CVD risk following an NHSHC that used one of two different CVD risk calculators. METHODS: Qualitative, semi-structured video-stimulated recall interviews were conducted with patients (n = 40) who had attended an NHSHC using either the QRISK2 10-year risk calculator (n = 19) or JBS3 lifetime CVD risk calculator (n = 21). Interviews were transcribed and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Analysis resulted in the development of four themes: variability in understanding, relief about personal risk, perceived changeability of CVD risk, and positive impact of visual displays. The first three themes were evident across the two patient groups, regardless of risk calculator; the latter related to JBS3 only. Patients felt relieved about their CVD risk, yet there were differences in understanding between calculators. Heart age within JBS3 prompted more accessible risk appraisal, yet mixed understanding was evident for both calculators. Event-free survival age also resulted in misunderstanding. QRISK2 patients tended to question the ability for CVD risk to change, while risk manipulation through JBS3 facilitated this understanding. Displaying information visually also appeared to enhance understanding. CONCLUSIONS: Effective communication of CVD risk within NHSHC remains challenging, and lifetime risk metrics still lead to mixed levels of understanding in patients. However, visual presentation of information, alongside risk manipulation during NHSHCs can help to increase understanding and prompt risk-reducing lifestyle changes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN10443908. Registered 7th February 2017.

Using social media for patient and public involvement and engagement in health research: The process and impact of a closed Facebook group.

BACKGROUND: As part of a multifaceted approach to patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE), alongside traditional methods, a closed Facebook group was established to facilitate PPIE feedback on various aspects of a project that used video-recording to examine risk communication in NHS Health Checks between June 2017 and July 2019. OBJECTIVE: To explore the process and impact of conducting PPIE through a closed Facebook group and to identify the associated benefits and challenges. METHODS: Supported by reflections and information from project meetings used to document how this engagement informed the project, we describe the creation and maintenance of the Facebook Group and how feedback from the group members was obtained. Facebook data were used to investigate levels and types of engagement in the closed Facebook group. We reflect on the challenges of using this method of engaging the public in health research. RESULTS: A total of 289 people joined the 'Risk Communication of Cardiovascular disease in NHS Health Checks' PPIE closed Facebook group. They provided feedback, which was used to inform aspects of the study, including participant-facing documents, recruitment, camera position and how the methodology being used (video-recorded Health Checks and follow-up interviews) would be received by the public. DISCUSSION: Using a closed Facebook group to facilitate PPIE offered a flexible approach for both researchers and participants, enabled a more inclusive method to PPIE (compared with traditional methods) and allowed rapid feedback. Challenges included maintaining the group, which was more labour intensive than anticipated and managing members' expectations. Suggestions for best practice include clear communication about the purpose of the group, assigning a group co-ordinator to be the main point of contact for the group, and a research team who can dedicate the time necessary to maintain the group. CONCLUSION: The use of a closed Facebook group can facilitate effective PPIE. Its flexibility can be beneficial for researchers, patients and public who wish to engage in the research process. Dedicated time for sustained group engagement is important. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patient representatives were engaged with the development of the research described in this paper and a patient representative reviewed the manuscript.

Digital personal assistants are smart ways for assistive technology to aid the health and wellbeing of patients and carers.

BACKGROUND: Digital health solutions such as assistive technologies create significant opportunities to optimise the effectiveness of both health and social care delivery. Assistive technologies include 'low-tech' items, such as memory aids and digital calendars or 'high-tech' items, like health tracking devices and wearables. Depending on the type of assistive devices, they can be used to improve quality of life, effect lifestyle improvements and increase levels of independence. Acceptance of technology among patients and carers depends on various factors such as perceived skills and competencies in using the device, expectations, trust and reliability. This service evaluation explored the impact of a pilot service redesign focused on improving health and wellbeing by the use of a voice-activated device 'smart speaker', Alexa Echo Show 8. METHODS: A service evaluation/market research was conducted for a pilot service redesign programme. Data were collected via a survey in person or telephone and from two focus groups of patients (n = 44) and informal carers (n = 7). The age of the study participants ranged from 50 to 90 years. Also, the participants belonged to two types of cohort: one specifically focused on diabetes and the other on a range of long-term health conditions such as multiple sclerosis, dementia, depression and others. RESULTS: The device had a positive impact on the health and social well-being of the users; many direct and indirect benefits were identified. Both patients and carers had positive attitudes towards using the device. Self-reported benefits included: reminders for medications and appointments improved adherence and disease control; increased independence and productivity; and for those living alone, the device helped combat their loneliness and low mood. CONCLUSION: The findings from the study help to realise the potential of assistive technology for empowering supporting health/social care. Especially, the season of COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for remote management of health, the use of assistive technology could have a pivotal role to play with the sustainability of health/social care provision by promoting shared care between the care provider and service user. Further evaluation can explore the key drivers and barriers for implementing assistive technologies, especially in people who are ageing and with long-term health conditions.

Cardiovascular disease risk communication in NHS Health Checks using QRISK®2 and JBS3 risk calculators: the RICO qualitative and quantitative study.

BACKGROUND: The NHS Health Check is a national cardiovascular disease prevention programme. There is a lack of evidence on how health checks are conducted, how cardiovascular disease risk is communicated to foster risk-reducing intentions or behaviour, and the impact on communication of using different cardiovascular disease risk calculators. OBJECTIVES: RIsk COmmunication in Health Check (RICO) study aimed to explore practitioner and patient understanding of cardiovascular disease risk, the associated advice or treatment offered by the practitioner, and the response of the patients in health checks supported by either the QRISK®2 or the JBS3 lifetime risk calculator. DESIGN: This was a qualitative study with quantitative process evaluation. SETTING: Twelve general practices in the West Midlands of England, stratified on deprivation of the local area (bottom 50% vs. top 50%), and with matched pairs randomly allocated to use QRISK2 or JBS3 during health checks. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 173 patients eligible for NHS Health Check and 15 practitioners. INTERVENTIONS: The health check was delivered using either the QRISK2 10-year risk calculator (usual practice) or the JBS3 lifetime risk calculator, with heart age, event-free survival age and risk score manipulation (intervention). RESULTS: Video-recorded health checks were analysed quantitatively (n = 173; JBS3, n = 100; QRISK2, n = 73) and qualitatively (n = 128; n = 64 per group), and video-stimulated recall interviews were undertaken with 40 patients and 15 practitioners, with 10 in-depth case studies. The duration of the health check varied (6.8-38 minutes), but most health checks were short (60% lasting < 20 minutes), with little cardiovascular disease risk discussion (average < 2 minutes). The use of JBS3 was associated with more cardiovascular disease risk discussion and fewer practitioner-dominated consultations than the use of QRISK2. Heart age and visual representations of risk, as used in JBS3, appeared to be better understood by patients than 10-year risk (QRISK2) and, as a result, the use of JBS3 was more likely to lead to discussion of risk factors and their management. Event-free survival age was not well understood by practitioners or patients. However, a lack of effective cardiovascular disease risk discussion in both groups increased the likelihood of a maladaptive coping response (i.e. no risk-reducing behaviour change). In both groups, practitioners often missed opportunities to check patient understanding and to tailor information on cardiovascular disease risk and its management during health checks, confirming apparent practitioner verbal dominance. LIMITATIONS: The main limitations were under-recruitment in some general practices and the resulting imbalance between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Communication of cardiovascular disease risk during health checks was brief, particularly when using QRISK2. Patient understanding of and responses to cardiovascular disease risk information were limited. Practitioners need to better engage patients in discussion of and action-planning for their cardiovascular disease risk to reduce misunderstandings. The use of heart age, visual representation of risk and risk score manipulation was generally seen to be a useful way of doing this. Future work could focus on more fundamental issues of practitioner training and time allocation within health check consultations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10443908. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 50. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

In England, NHS Health Checks aim to prevent cardiovascular diseases, such as heart attack and stroke. Health checks are conducted in primary care by a health-care assistant or practice nurse, who should measure the patient's risk of cardiovascular disease before advising them on how to reduce their risk. Cardiovascular disease risk is measured using a cardiovascular disease risk calculator. These calculators use various patient characteristics (e.g. age, sex, blood pressure and cholesterol) to predict how likely patients are to have a heart attack or stroke in the future. The aim of this study was to compare how practitioners explain cardiovascular disease risk to patients during health checks when using two risk calculators: QRISK^®2, which measures the risk of heart attack or stroke over the next 10 years (current usual practice), and JBS3 (a newer risk calculator), which gives this risk across the lifetime, is more interactive and has various visual displays of risk. We were interested to see if using JBS3 in health checks would lead to better practitioner and patient understanding of cardiovascular disease risk and result in patients intending to change, or actually changing, their behaviour to reduce their cardiovascular disease risk (compared with QRISK2). Health checks were video-recorded: 73 using QRISK2 and 100 using JBS3. Patients and members of the public advised on the study design, methods and management. Most consultations lasted < 20 minutes, with most time spent discussing the causes of cardiovascular disease. There was evidence that, compared with health checks using JBS3, those using QRISK2 led to less discussion of risk and practitioners speaking far more than patients. Sixty-four health checks from each risk calculator group were examined in depth. Opportunities to check whether or not patients understood the cardiovascular disease risk information and to encourage ways to lower risk were missed, making it less likely that patients would change their behaviour. The way that risk is presented by JBS3 seems to be more easily understood by patients than that presented by QRISK2. Nineteen patients in the QRISK2 group and 21 patients in the JBS3 group were interviewed 4 weeks after the consultation, and the practitioners were interviewed after they had completed all of their health checks. Patients found it difficult to understand and remember what they had been told about their cardiovascular disease risk during their health check. Their understanding and motivation to change behaviour appeared to be higher when they were visually shown how behaviour changes could lower their risk. Practitioners sometimes misunderstood risk and used patients' reactions to judge whether or not they understood, rather than asking them. Our findings should help to improve how cardiovascular disease risk is communicated during health checks in future, through simple changes to the consultations (e.g. using aspects of JBS3) and by highlighting a gap in practitioners' training.

Cardiovascular disease risk communication in NHS Health Checks: a qualitative video-stimulated recall interview study with practitioners.

BACKGROUND: NHS Health Check (NHSHC) is a national programme to identify and manage cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Practitioners delivering the programme should be competent in discussing CVD risk, but there is evidence of limited understanding of the recommended 10-year percentage CVD risk scores. Lifetime CVD risk calculators might improve understanding and communication of risk. AIM: To explore practitioner understanding, perceptions, and experiences of CVD risk communication in NHSHCs when using two different CVD risk calculators. DESIGN & SETTING: Qualitative video-stimulated recall (VSR) study with NHSHC practitioners in the West Midlands. METHOD: VSR interviews were conducted with practitioners who delivered NHSHCs using either the QRISK2 10-year risk calculator (n = 7) or JBS3 lifetime CVD risk calculator (n = 8). Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: In total, nine healthcare assistants (HCAs) and six general practice nurses (GPNs) were interviewed. There was limited understanding and confidence of 10-year risk, which was used to guide clinical decisions through determining low-, medium-, or high-risk thresholds, rather than as a risk communication tool. Potential benefits of some JBS3 functions were evident, particularly heart age, risk manipulation, and visual presentation of risk. CONCLUSION: There is a gap between the expectation and reality of practitioners' understanding, competencies, and training in CVD risk communication for NHSHCs. Practitioners would welcome heart age and risk manipulation functions of JBS3 to promote patient understanding of CVD risk, but there is a more fundamental need for practitioner training in CVD risk communication.

A qualitative exploration of two risk calculators using video-recorded NHS health check consultations.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to explore practitioner-patient interactions and patient responses when using QRISK®2 or JBS3 cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk calculators. Data were from video-recorded NHS Health Check (NHSHC) consultations captured as part of the UK RIsk COmmunication (RICO) study; a qualitative study of video-recorded NHSHC consultations from 12 general practices in the West Midlands, UK. Participants were those eligible for NHSHC based on national criteria (40-74 years old, no existing diagnoses for cardiovascular-related conditions, not on statins), and practitioners, who delivered the NHSHC. METHOD: NHSHCs were video-recorded. One hundred twenty-eight consultations were transcribed and analysed using deductive thematic analysis and coded using a template based around Protection Motivation Theory. RESULTS: Key themes used to frame the analysis were Cognitive Appraisal (Threat Appraisal, and Coping Appraisal), and Coping Modes (Adaptive, and Maladaptive). Analysis showed little evidence of CVD risk communication, particularly in consultations using QRISK®2. Practitioners often missed opportunities to check patient understanding and encourage risk- reducing behaviour, regardless of the risk calculator used resulting in practitioner verbal dominance. JBS3 appeared to better promote opportunities to initiate risk-factor discussion, and Heart Age and visual representation of risk were more easily understood and impactful than 10-year percentage risk. However, a lack of effective CVD risk discussion in both risk calculator groups increased the likelihood of a maladaptive coping response. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis demonstrates the importance of effective, shared practitioner-patient discussion to enable adaptive coping responses to CVD risk information, and highlights a need for effective and evidence-based practitioner training. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN10443908 . Registered 7th February 2017.

Quantitative examination of video-recorded NHS Health Checks: comparison of the use of QRISK2 versus JBS3 cardiovascular risk calculators.

OBJECTIVES: Quantitatively examine the content of National Health Service Health Check (NHSHC), patient-practitioner communication balance and differences when using QRISK2 versus JBS3 cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk calculators. DESIGN: RIsk COmmunication in NHSHC was a qualitative study with quantitative process evaluation, comparing NHSHC using QRISK2 or JBS3. We present data from the quantitative process evaluation. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Twelve general practices in the West Midlands (England) conducted NHSHC using JBS3 or QRISK2 (6/group). Patients were eligible for NHSHC based on national criteria (aged 40-74, no existing cardiovascular-related diagnoses, not taking statins). Recruitment was stratified by patients' age, gender and ethnicity. METHODS: Video recordings of NHSHC were coded, second-by-second, to quantify who was speaking and what was being discussed. Outcomes included consultation duration, practitioner verbal dominance (ratio of practitioner:patient speaking time (pr:pt ratio)) and proportion of time discussing CVD risk, risk factors and risk management. RESULTS: 173 video-recorded NHSHC were analysed (73 QRISK, 100 JBS3). The sample was 51% women, 83% white British, with approximately equal proportions across age groups. NHSHC duration varied greatly (6.8-38.0 min). Most (60%) lasted less than 20 min. On average, CVD risk was discussed for less than 2 min (9.06%±4.30% of consultation time). There were indications that, compared with NHSHC using JBS3, those with QRISK2 involved less CVD risk discussion (JBS3 M=10.24%, CI: 8.01-12.48 vs QRISK2 M=7.44%, CI: 5.29-9.58) and were more verbally dominated by practitioners (pr:pt ratio JBS3 M=3.21%, CI: 2.44-3.97 vs QRISK2=2.35%, CI: 1.89-2.81). The largest proportion of NHSHC time was spent discussing causal risk factors (M=37.54%, CI: 32.92-42.17). CONCLUSIONS: There was wide variation in NHSHC duration. Many were short and practitioner-dominated, with little time discussing CVD risk. JBS3 appears to extend CVD risk discussion and patient contribution. Qualitative examination of how it is used is necessary to fully understand the potential benefits of these differences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10443908.

Telescopic otology referrals: Evaluation of feasibility and acceptability.

OBJECTIVE: A remote telemedical otology referral and advice service was introduced to interested general practices. General practitioners (GPs) were given a new device, "endoscope-i" that combines an optimized smartphone high definition video app with an otoendoscope. They were specifically trained to examine and capture images of patients' eardrums, which were sent electronically with a summary of clinical information and an in-app hearing testing (if required), for specialist advice to two ear, nose, and throat (ENT) consultants. We describe the findings from an evaluation of the first 6 months of this service to establish the feasibility and acceptability of an otology telemedical referral and advice service. METHODS: The new service was advertised to GP practices in Northern Staffordshire. All interested GPs were provided with training and equipment to deliver the remote referral service. Data were collected from GPs at baseline, informal feedback in response to referral outcomes and end of service feedback. Referral data were collected routinely during the service delivery. RESULTS: Fifteen GP leads from 15 practices received training and equipment. One quickly lost the equipment. Of the remaining 14 practices, eight sent a total of 53 remote referrals using this technology over 6 months. The most common reason for referral was an uncertainty of what could be seen in or around the eardrum. The primary barrier for implementation was lack of wireless internet connections within practices. GPs reported that they used this technology to share examination findings with patients. CONCLUSIONS: GPs were positive about the technology, from initial engagement with training and after advice were given. Some GPs expanded the role of the technology to a consultation aid. Referral volume was manageable. Commissioners should consider tariffs structures for such services; empirical cost-effectiveness and workload-impact evaluation would inform this.

Creating digitally ready nurses in general practice.

Digital healthcare provision in England has been driven mainly by a 'top-down' approach and a focus on digital infrastructure rather than front-line delivery. This has laid the foundation, but digital care delivery still has a long way to go. This article describes an action learning programme to create digitally ready nurses. The programme, which underpins action six of NHS England's ten-point plan for general practice nursing, shows that a 'ground-up' approach to upskill and empower front-line clinicians is central to embedding technology-enabled care services (TECS). Following completion of the action learning sets (ALSs), 24 general practice nursing digital champions across Staffordshire have used TECS to deliver a range of benefits for their practice teams. This has informed the introduction and extension of the programme, with national funding for a further 12 regional pilot ALSs across England in 2018-19. Importantly, the active learning individualised approach provides a digitally ready workforce with the ability and support to adopt TECS in areas of clinical need. This ability is central to the next stage in the digital transformation of healthcare.

A qualitative study of cardiovascular disease risk communication in NHS Health Check using different risk calculators: protocol for the RIsk COmmunication in NHS Health Check (RICO) study.

BACKGROUND: NHS Health Check is a national cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment programme for 40-74 year olds in England, in which practitioners should assess and communicate CVD risk, supported by appropriate risk-management advice and goal-setting. This requires effective communication, to equip patients with knowledge and intention to act. Currently, the QRISK®2 10-year CVD risk score is most common way in which CVD risk is estimated. Newer tools, such as JBS3, allow manipulation of risk factors and can demonstrate the impact of positive actions. However, the use, and relative value, of these tools within CVD risk communication is unknown. We will explore practitioner and patient CVD risk perceptions when using QRISK®2 or JBS3, the associated advice or treatment offered by the practitioner, and patients' responses. METHODS: RIsk COmmunication in NHS Health Check (RICO) is a qualitative study with quantitative process evaluation. Twelve general practices in the West Midlands of England will be randomised to one of two groups: usual practice, in which practitioners use QRISK®2 to assess and communicate CVD risk; intervention, in which practitioners use JBS3. Twenty Health Checks per practice will be video-recorded (n = 240, 120 per group), with patients stratified by age, gender and ethnicity. Post-Health Check, video-stimulated recall (VSR) interviews will be conducted with 48 patients (n = 24 per group) and all practitioners (n = 12-18), using video excerpts to enhance participant recall/reflection. Patient medical record reviews will detect health-protective actions in the first 12-weeks following a Health Check (e.g., lifestyle referrals, statin prescription). Risk communication, patient response and intentions for health-protective behaviours in each group will be explored through thematic analysis of video-recorded Health Checks (using Protection Motivation Theory as a framework) and VSR interviews. Process evaluation will include between-group comparisons of quantitatively coded Health Check content and post-Health Check patient outcomes. Finally, 10 patients with the most positive intentions or behaviours will be selected for case study analysis (using all data sources). DISCUSSION: This study will produce novel insights about the utility of QRISK®2 and JBS3 to promote patient and practitioner understanding and perception of CVD risk and associated implications for patient intentions with respect to health-protective behaviours (and underlying mechanisms). Recommendations for practice will be developed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN10443908 . Registered 7th February 2017.

An evaluation of a multifaceted, local Quality Improvement Framework for long-term conditions in UK primary care.

BACKGROUND: The evidence that large pay-for-performance schemes improve the health of populations is mixed-evidence regarding locally implemented schemes is limited. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the effects in Stoke-on-Trent of a local, multifaceted Quality Improvement Framework including pay for performance in general practice introduced in 2009 in the context of the national Quality and Outcomes Framework that operated from 2004. METHODS: We compared age-standardized mortality data from all 326 local authorities in England with the rates in Stoke-on-Trent using Difference-in-Differences, estimating a fixed-effects linear regression model with an interaction effect. RESULTS: In addition to the existing downward trend in cardiovascular deaths, we find an additional annual reduction of 36 deaths compared with the national mean for coronary heart disease and 13 deaths per 100000 from stroke in Stoke-on-Trent. Compared with the national mean, there was an additional reduction of 9 deaths per 100000 people per annum for coronary heart disease and 14 deaths per 100000 people per annum for stroke following the introduction of the 2009 Stoke-on-Trent Quality Improvement Framework. CONCLUSION: There are concerns about the unintended consequences of large pay-for-performance schemes in health care, but in a population with a high prevalence of disease, they may at least initially be beneficial. This study also provides evidence that a local, additional scheme may further improve the health of populations. Such schemes, whether national or local, require periodic review to evaluate the balance of their benefits and risks.

Facebook in general practice: a service evaluation in one health economy.

BACKGROUND: Social media has been utilised in a variety of healthcare settings. While its potential for extending healthcare services is recognised by the NHS, potential pitfalls exist. The place, benefits and practical problems of using Facebook in general practice are unclear. AIM: To understand the utilisation of Facebook by general practices, whether Facebook provides novel insights when compared to other centrally-hosted feedback platforms, and the prevalence of unofficial Facebook pages. DESIGN & SETTING: Eighty-three general practices in North Staffordshire. METHOD: Publicly available information and feedback relating to general practices on official and unofficial Facebook sites was examined and compared to other, centrally-hosted feedback platforms (NHS Choices and Patient Satisfaction ratings). Thematic and descriptive analyses were undertaken to understand the nature of the content. RESULTS: Thirty-one practices had publicly-accessible, practice-owned, official Facebook sites which, overall, had received over 7000 likes. Two had integrated booking systems, 14 allowed reviews and all had accurate practice information. Most remaining practices (41/52) were found to have an unofficial Facebook page. CONCLUSION: General practice use of open Facebook pages is variable, but most commonly used to provide generic practice information and for gaining patient feedback. Patient engagement with pages suggests demand for this technology. Risks associated with unmoderated unofficial pages can be mitigated by practices having official pages hosted by the practice with appropriate protocols in place for managing them. Practices need to be supported to better understand meaningful uses of this technology and the potential risks of unofficial practice Facebook pages.

The potential clinical benefits of medicines optimisation through comprehensive geriatric assessment, carried out by secondary care geriatricians, in a general practice care setting in North Staffordshire, UK: a feasibility study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the feasibility and potential clinical benefits of medicines optimisation through comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) of frail patients with multiple conditions, by secondary care geriatricians in a general practice care setting. METHODS: Seven general practitioner (GP) practices in one region of Stoke-on-Trent volunteered to take part. GPs selected patients (n=186) who were local permanent residents, at least 65 years old and on eight or more medications per day. Patients were sent a written invitation outlining the assessment purpose/format. Prior to patient assessments, primary care staff prepared packs detailing patient medical history, recent consultations, current medications, recent laboratory tests and social circumstances. One hour was allocated for the CGA per patient, with one of three geriatricians, to enable sufficient time to explore all relevant aspects. Assessment comprised a full history, thorough clinical examination, assessment of balance and mobility, mental function and information on home environment and support arrangements. After consultation, geriatricians made recommendations regarding further assessments, investigations or medication changes. Geriatricians entered their main findings and recommendations onto a standard template. RESULTS: In total, 687 recommendations for changes in patients' medication regimens were made for 169 (91%) patients. In 17 (9%) patients there was no recommendation to alter medications. This resulted in an average of four alterations in medication per patient. The predominant changes to medications were to stop medications (34%) or to reduce the dosage (24%). Starting a new medication represented 18% of all the medication changes. Adherence rates to geriatrician medication recommendations were 72% at 6 months and 65% at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: CGA of older patients with complex needs, by geriatricians in a general practice care setting, is feasible. Our study demonstrated constructive collaboration between GPs and geriatricians from secondary care, suggesting further studies and clinical trials are feasible and have scope to yield beneficial outcomes.

How well are national guidelines relating to the general sales of aspirin and paracetamol, adhered to by retail stores: a mystery shopper study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether non-pharmaceutical retail outlets are aboding to the current Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) national guidelines for over-the-counter (OTC) sales of aspirin and paracetamol. METHODS: Stages 1 and 2 of the study deployed eight and four medical students, respectively, to undertake a mystery shopper style investigation. Stage 1: eight medical students attempted to buy ≥ 96 tablets/capsules aspirin or paracetamol in one transaction in 62 shops. Stage 2: four medical students attempted to purchase 32 paracetamol 500 mg along with a 'flu remedy preparation also containing paracetamol, in 54 shops. RESULTS: Stage 1 data revealed that 58% and 57% retailers sold more than the MHRA guidelines recommended for paracetamol and aspirin, respectively. We observed that 23% and 28% retailers were willing to sell ≥ 96 tablets of paracetamol or aspirin with no questions asked. Stage 2 results showed that 57% retailers sold 32 × 500 mg paracetamol in conjunction with a paracetamol-containing 'flu preparation; while 98% shops sold 16 × paracetamol 500 mg along with a paracetamol-containing 'flu remedy, with no questions asked of the shopper or advice given. DISCUSSION: MHRA national guidelines for OTC medicines sales appear to be poorly adhered to in non-pharmacy shops. Sales of aspirin and paracetamol OTC must be better regulated in the UK to ultimately reduce morbidity and mortality rates of deliberate and accidental overdoses.