Association between emergency department attendances, sociodemographic factors and long-term health conditions in the population of Norfolk and Waveney, England: Cross sectional study.

INTRODUCTION: Demand for urgent and emergency health care in England has grown over the last decade, for reasons that are not clear. Changes in population demographics may be a cause. This study investigated associations between individuals' characteristics (including socioeconomic deprivation and long term health conditions (LTC)) and the frequency of emergency department (ED) attendances, in the Norfolk and Waveney subregion of the East of England. METHODS: The study population was people who were registered with 91 of 106 Norfolk and Waveney general practices during one year from 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023. Linked primary and secondary care and geographical data included each individual's sociodemographic characteristics, and number of ED attendances during the same year and, for some individuals, LTCs and number of general practice (GP) appointments. Associations between these factors and ED attendances were estimated using Poisson regression models. RESULTS: 1,027,422 individuals were included of whom 57.4% had GP data on the presence or absence of LTC, and 43.1% had both LTC and general practitioner appointment data. In the total population ED attendances were more frequent in individuals aged under five years, (adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR) 1.25, 95% confidence interval 1.23 to 1.28) compared to 15-35 years); living in more socioeconomically deprived areas (IRR 0.61 (0.60 to 0.63)) for least deprived compared to most deprived,and living closer to the nearest ED. Among individuals with LTC data, each additional LTC was also associated with increased ED attendances (IRR 1.16 (1.15 to 1.16)). Among individuals with LTC and GP appointment data, each additional GP appointment was also associated with increased ED attendances (IRR 1.03 (1.026 to 1.027)). CONCLUSIONS: In the Norfolk and Waveney population, ED attendance rates were higher for young children and individuals living in more deprived areas and closer to EDs. In individuals with LTC and GP appointment data, both factors were also associated with higher ED attendance.

"I have travelled along on my own"-Experiences of seeking help for serious non-COVID health problems during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: During COVID-19 the UK general population has been given strong messages to stay at home. Concurrently unprecedented changes occurred in healthcare access with moves to remote/triage systems. Data have shown that the number of people accessing healthcare services decreased and there are significant concerns that the pandemic has negatively affected help-seeking for serious conditions, with potentially increased morbidity and mortality. An understanding of help-seeking is urgently needed to inform public campaigns. We aimed to develop an in-depth, theory-based understanding of how, when and why people sought help for potentially serious symptoms (e.g., related to major cardiovascular events or cancer diagnoses) during the pandemic, and what influenced their decisions. DESIGN: Qualitative semi-structured interviews. METHODS: We interviewed 25 adults recruited through a targeted social media campaign. Interviews were conducted via telephone or online platform. Our topic guide was informed by the Model of Pathways to Treatment and the Capability-Opportunity-Motivation-Behaviour model. RESULTS: The analysis identified four main themes: Delay in recognition, Holding on to concerns, Weighing it up and Long-term impacts. Multiple societal and environmental factors influenced participants' help-seeking and motivation, capability and opportunity to seek help, with long-term impacts on well-being and future help-seeking. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for clear guidance about pathways to raise concerns about symptoms and gain advice while usual healthcare contacts are paused or stopped. Recommendations for future interventions to support help-seeking during pandemics include clearer messaging, co-produced with end-users, on when, where and how to seek help.

Cholesteatoma and family history: An international survey.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the relative frequency of a family history of cholesteatoma in patients with known cholesteatoma, and whether bilateral disease or earlier diagnosis is more likely in those with a family history. Associations between cleft lip or palate and bilateral disease and age of diagnosis were also explored. DESIGN: An online survey of patients with diagnosed cholesteatoma was conducted between October 2017 and April 2019. PARTICIPANTS: The sample consisted of patients recruited from two UK clinics and self-selected respondents recruited internationally via social media. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Side of cholesteatoma, whether respondents had any family history of cholesteatoma, age of diagnosis and personal or family history of cleft lip or palate were recorded. RESULTS: Of 857 respondents, 89 (10.4%) reported a positive family history of cholesteatoma. Respondents with a family history of cholesteatoma were more likely to have bilateral cholesteatoma (P = .001, odds ratio (OR) 2.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.35-3.43), but there was no difference in the age of diagnosis (P = .23). Those with a history of cleft lip or palate were not more likely to have bilateral disease (P = .051, OR 2.71, CI 1.00-7.38), and there was no difference in age of diagnosis (P = .11). CONCLUSION: The relatively high proportion of respondents that reported a family history of cholesteatoma offers supporting evidence of heritability in cholesteatoma. The use of social media to recruit respondents to this survey means that the results cannot be generalised to other populations with cholesteatoma. Further population-based research is suggested to determine the heritability of cholesteatoma.

Setting goals with patients living with multimorbidity: qualitative analysis of general practice consultations.

BACKGROUND: Establishing patient goals is widely recommended as a way to deliver care that matters to the individual patient with multimorbidity, who may not be well served by single-disease guidelines. Though multimorbidity is now normal in general practice, little is known about how doctors and patients should set goals together. AIM: To determine the key components of the goal-setting process in general practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: In-depth qualitative analysis of goal-setting consultations in three UK general practices, as part of a larger feasibility trial. Focus groups with participating GPs and patients. The study took place between November 2016 and July 2018. METHOD: Activity analysis was applied to 10 hours of video-recorded doctor-patient interactions to explore key themes relating to how goal setting was attempted and achieved. Core challenges were identified and focus groups were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 22 patients and five GPs participated. Four main themes emerged around the goal-setting process: patient preparedness and engagement; eliciting and legitimising goals; collaborative action planning; and GP engagement. GPs were unanimously positive about their experience of goal setting and viewed it as a collaborative process. Patients liked having time to talk about what was most important to them. Challenges included eliciting goals from unprepared patients, and GPs taking control of the goal rather than working through it with the patient. CONCLUSION: Goal setting required time and energy from both parties. GPs had an important role in listening and bearing witness to their patients' goals. Goal setting worked best when both GP and patient were prepared in advance.

Improving primary care Access in Context and Theory (I-ACT trial): a theory-informed randomised cluster feasibility trial using a realist perspective.

BACKGROUND: Primary care access can be challenging for older, rural, socio-economically disadvantaged populations. Here we report the I-ACT cluster feasibility trial which aims to assess the feasibility of trial design and context-sensitive intervention to improve primary care access for this group and so expand existing theory. METHODS: Four general practices were recruited; three randomised to intervention and one to usual care. Intervention practices received £1500, a support manual and four meetings to develop local, innovative solutions to improve the booking system and transport. Patients aged over 64 years old and without household car access were recruited to complete questionnaires when booking an appointment or attending the surgery. Outcome measures at 6 months included: self-reported ease of booking an appointment and transport; health care use; patient activation; capability; and quality of life. A process evaluation involved observations and interviews with staff and participants. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients were recruited (26 female, eight male, mean age 81.6 years for the intervention group and 79.4 for usual care) of 1143 invited (3% response rate). Most were ineligible because of car access. Twenty-nine participants belonged to intervention practices and five to usual care. Practice-level data was available for all participants, but participant self-reported data was unavailable for three. Fifty-six appointment questionnaires were received based on 150 appointments (37.3%). Practices successfully designed and implemented the following context-sensitive interventions: Practice A: a stacked telephone system and promoting community transport; Practice B: signposting to community transport, appointment flexibility, mobility scooter charging point and promoting the role of receptionists; and Practice C: local taxi firm partnership and training receptionists. Practices found the process acceptable because it gave freedom, time and resource to be innovative or provided an opportunity to implement existing ideas. Data collection methods were acceptable to participants, but some found it difficult remembering to complete booking and appointment questionnaires. Expanded theory highlighted important mechanisms, such as reassurance, confidence, trust and flexibility. CONCLUSIONS: Recruiting older participants without access to a car proved challenging. Retention of participants and practices was good but only about a third of appointment questionnaires were returned. This study design may facilitate a shift from one-size-fits-all interventions to more context-sensitive interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN18321951 , Registered on 6 March 2017.

Access to primary care for socio-economically disadvantaged older people in rural areas: exploring realist theory using structural equation modelling in a linked dataset.

BACKGROUND: Realist approaches seek to answer questions such as 'how?', 'why?', 'for whom?', 'in what circumstances?' and 'to what extent?' interventions 'work' using context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations. Quantitative methods are not well-established in realist approaches, but structural equation modelling (SEM) may be useful to explore CMO configurations. Our aim was to assess the feasibility and appropriateness of SEM to explore CMO configurations and, if appropriate, make recommendations based on our access to primary care research. Our specific objectives were to map variables from two large population datasets to CMO configurations from our realist review looking at access to primary care, generate latent variables where needed, and use SEM to quantitatively test the CMO configurations. METHODS: A linked dataset was created by merging individual patient data from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing and practice data from the GP Patient Survey. Patients registered in rural practices and who were in the highest deprivation tertile were included. Three latent variables were defined using confirmatory factor analysis. SEM was used to explore the nine full CMOs. All models were estimated using robust maximum likelihoods and accounted for clustering at practice level. Ordinal variables were treated as continuous to ensure convergence. RESULTS: We successfully explored our CMO configurations, but analysis was limited because of data availability. Two hundred seventy-six participants were included. We found a statistically significant direct (context to outcome) or indirect effect (context to outcome via mechanism) for two of nine CMOs. The strongest association was between 'ease of getting through to the surgery' and 'being able to get an appointment' with an indirect mediated effect through convenience (proportion of the indirect effect of the total was 21%). Healthcare experience was not directly associated with getting an appointment, but there was a statistically significant indirect effect through convenience (53% mediated effect). Model fit indices showed adequate fit. CONCLUSIONS: SEM allowed quantification of CMO configurations and could complement other qualitative and quantitative techniques in realist evaluations to support inferences about strengths of relationships. Future research exploring CMO configurations with SEM should aim to collect, preferably continuous, primary data.

Access to primary care for socio-economically disadvantaged older people in rural areas: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: We aim to explore the barriers to accessing primary care for socio-economically disadvantaged older people in rural areas. METHODS: Using a community recruitment strategy, fifteen people over 65 years, living in a rural area, and receiving financial support were recruited for semi-structured interviews. Four focus groups were held with rural health professionals. Interviews and focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed. Thematic analysis was used to identify barriers to primary care access. FINDINGS: Older people's experience can be understood within the context of a patient perceived set of unwritten rules or social contract-an individual is careful not to bother the doctor in return for additional goodwill when they become unwell. However, most found it difficult to access primary care due to engaged telephone lines, availability of appointments, interactions with receptionists; breaching their perceived social contract. This left some feeling unwelcome, worthless or marginalised, especially those with high expectations of the social contract or limited resources, skills and/or desire to adapt to service changes. Health professionals' described how rising demands and expectations coupled with service constraints had necessitated service development, such as fewer home visits, more telephone consultations, triaging calls and modifying the appointment system. CONCLUSION: Multiple barriers to accessing primary care exist for this group. As primary care is re-organised to reduce costs, commissioners and practitioners must not lose sight of the perceived social contract and models of care that form the basis of how many older people interact with the service.

Service use of older people who participate in primary care health promotion: a latent class analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recruiting patients to health promotion programmes who will benefit is crucial to success. A key policy driver for health promotion in older people is to reduce health and social care use. Our aim was to describe service use among older people taking part in the Multi-dimensional Risk Appraisal for Older people primary care health promotion programme. METHODS: A random sample of 1 in 3 older people (≥65 years old) was invited to participate in the Multi-dimensional Risk Appraisal for Older people project across five general practices in London and Hertfordshire. Data collected included socio-demographic characteristics, well-being and functional ability, lifestyle factors and service use. Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to identify groups based on use of the following: secondary health care, primary health care, community health care, paid care, unpaid care, leisure and local authority resources. Differences in group characteristics were assessed using univariate logistic regression, weighted by probability of class assignation and clustered by GP practice. RESULTS: Response rate was 34% (526/1550) with 447 participants presenting sufficient data for analysis. LCA using three groups gave the most meaningful interpretation and best model fit. About a third (active well) were fit and active with low service use. Just under a third (high NHS users) had high impairments with high primary, secondary and community health care contact, but low non-health services use. Just over a third (community service users) with high impairments used community health and other services without much hospital use. CONCLUSION: Older people taking part in the Multi-dimensional Risk Appraisal for Older people primary care health promotion can be described as three groups: active well, high NHS users, and community service users.

Access to primary care for socioeconomically disadvantaged older people in rural areas: a realist review.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review is to identify and understand the contexts that effect access to high-quality primary care for socioeconomically disadvantaged older people in rural areas. DESIGN: A realist review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and EMBASE electronic databases and grey literature (from inception to December 2014). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Broad inclusion criteria were used to allow articles which were not specific, but might be relevant to the population of interest to be considered. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were assessed for rigour and relevance and coded for concepts relating to context, mechanism or outcome. ANALYSIS: An overarching patient pathway was generated and used as the basis to explore contexts, causal mechanisms and outcomes. RESULTS: 162 articles were included. Most were from the USA or the UK, cross-sectional in design and presented subgroup data by age, rurality or deprivation. From these studies, a patient pathway was generated which included 7 steps (problem identified, decision to seek help, actively seek help, obtain appointment, get to appointment, primary care interaction and outcome). Important contexts were stoicism, education status, expectations of ageing, financial resources, understanding the healthcare system, access to suitable transport, capacity within practice, the booking system and experience of healthcare. Prominent causal mechanisms were health literacy, perceived convenience, patient empowerment and responsiveness of the practice. CONCLUSIONS: Socioeconomically disadvantaged older people in rural areas face personal, community and healthcare barriers that limit their access to primary care. Initiatives should be targeted at local contextual factors to help individuals recognise problems, feel welcome, navigate the healthcare system, book appointments easily, access appropriate transport and have sufficient time with professional staff to improve their experience of healthcare; all of which will require dedicated primary care resources.

Weekend opening in primary care: analysis of the General Practice Patient Survey.

BACKGROUND: Seven-day opening in primary care is a key policy for the UK government. However, it is unclear if weekend opening will meet patients' needs or lead to additional demand. AIM: To identify patient groups most likely to use weekend opening in primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: The General Practice Patient Survey 2014, which sampled from all general practices in England, was used. METHOD: Logistic regression was used to measure the associations between perceived benefit from seeing or speaking to someone at the weekend and age, sex, deprivation, health conditions, functioning, work status, rurality, and quality of life. RESULTS: Out of 881 183 participants who responded to the questionnaire, 712 776 (80.9%) did not report any problems with opening times. Of the 168 407 responders (19.1%) who reported inconvenient opening times, 73.9% stated that Saturday opening, and 35.8% Sunday opening, would make it easier for them to see or speak to someone. Only 2.2% of responders reported that Sunday, but not Saturday, opening would make it easier for them. Younger people, those who work full time, and those who could not get time off work were more likely to report that weekend opening would help. People with Alzheimer's disease, learning difficulties, or problems with walking, washing, or dressing were less likely to report that weekend opening would help. CONCLUSION: Most people do not think they need weekend opening, but it may benefit certain patient groups, such as younger people in full-time work. Sunday opening, in addition to Saturday, is unlikely to improve access.

Primary care evidence in clinical guidelines: a mixed methods study of practitioners' views.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines are widely used in primary care, yet are not always based on applicable research. AIM: To explore primary care practitioners' views on the applicability to primary care patients of evidence underpinning National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline recommendations. DESIGN AND SETTING: Delphi survey and focus groups in primary care, England, UK. METHOD: Delphi survey of the perceived applicability of 14 guideline recommendations rated before and after a description of their evidence base, followed by two focus groups. RESULTS: GPs significantly reduced scores for their perceived likelihood of pursuing recommendations after finding these were based on studies with low applicability to primary care, but maintained their scores for recommendations based on highly applicable research. GPs reported they were more likely to use guidelines where evidence was applicable to primary care, and less likely if the evidence base came from a secondary care population. Practitioners in the focus groups accepted that guideline developers would use the most relevant evidence available, but wanted clearer signposting of those recommendations particularly relevant for primary care patients. Their main need was for brief, clear, and accessible guidelines. CONCLUSION: Guidelines should specify the extent to which the research evidence underpinning each recommendation is applicable to primary care. The relevance of guideline recommendations to primary care populations could be more explicitly considered at all three stages of guideline development: scoping and evidence synthesis, recommendation development, and publication. The relevant evidence base needs to be presented clearly and concisely, and in an easy to identify way.

Self-reported quality of care for older adults from 2004 to 2011: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: little is known about changes in the quality of medical care for older adults over time. OBJECTIVE: to assess changes in technical quality of care over 6 years, and associations with participants' characteristics. DESIGN: a national cohort survey covering RAND Corporation-derived quality indicators (QIs) in face-to-face structured interviews in participants' households. PARTICIPANTS: a total of 5,114 people aged 50 or more in four waves of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. METHODS: the percentage achievement of 24 QIs in 10 general medical and geriatric clinical conditions was calculated for each time point, and associations with participants' characteristics were estimated using logistic regression. RESULTS: participants were eligible for 21,220 QIs. QI achievement for geriatric conditions (cataract, falls, osteoarthritis and osteoporosis) was 41% [95% confidence interval (CI): 38-44] in 2004-05 and 38% (36-39) in 2010-11. Achievement for general medical conditions (depression, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, ischaemic heart disease, pain and cerebrovascular disease) improved from 75% (73-77) in 2004-05 to 80% (79-82) in 2010-11. Achievement ranged from 89% for cerebrovascular disease to 34% for osteoarthritis. Overall achievement was lower for participants who were men, wealthier, infrequent alcohol drinkers, not obese and living alone. CONCLUSION: substantial system-level shortfalls in quality of care for geriatric conditions persisted over 6 years, with relatively small and inconsistent variations in quality by participants' characteristics. The relative lack of variation by participants' characteristics suggests that quality improvement interventions may be more effective when directed at healthcare delivery systems rather than individuals.

Does the evidence referenced in NICE guidelines reflect a primary care population?

BACKGROUND: Guidelines are a common and important tool in providing high-quality health care. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines are now being used to set standards for assessing the quality of care in UK general practice, and so the evidence behind them needs to be relevant to primary care. AIM: To assess the extent to which guideline recommendations aimed at primary care are based on research conducted in a primary care setting. DESIGN OF STUDY: Purposeful selection of a sample of NICE guidelines for conditions commonly seen in general practice, with identification of the evidence underpinning recommendations that are relevant to primary care. METHOD: Three recent NICE guidelines were selected: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), hypertension, and respiratory tract infection in adults and children. Publications referenced as evidence for each individual primary care relevant recommendation were classified as to whether or not they were based in primary care relevant settings. RESULTS: In the three guidelines assessed, 160 studies were used to derive the 115 recommendations that were relevant to, or aimed at primary care. A wide variation was found in the proportion of studies that recruited patients from a setting relevant to primary care (range 26% to 80%). CONCLUSION: In this sample of three NICE guidelines, a significant proportion of studies underlying the primary care relevant recommendations were derived from studies that were not conducted in that setting. In producing guidelines for a primary care audience, the guideline development groups should include explicit information about the setting of studies underpinning the recommendations.

Developing the protocol for the evaluation of the health foundation's 'engaging with quality initiative' - an emergent approach.

In 2004 a UK charity, The Health Foundation, established the 'Engaging with Quality Initiative' to explore and evaluate the benefits of engaging clinicians in quality improvement in healthcare. Eight projects run by professional bodies or specialist societies were commissioned in various areas of acute care. A developmental approach to the initiative was adopted, accompanied by a two level evaluation: eight project self-evaluations and a related external evaluation. This paper describes how the protocol for the external evaluation was developed. The challenges faced included large variation between and within the projects (in approach, scope and context, and in understanding of quality improvement), the need to support the project teams in their self-evaluations while retaining a necessary objectivity, and the difficulty of evaluating the moving target created by the developmental approach adopted in the initiative. An initial period to develop the evaluation protocol proved invaluable in helping us to explore these issues.

Leaders, leadership and future primary care clinical research.

BACKGROUND: A strong and self confident primary care workforce can deliver the highest quality care and outcomes equitably and cost effectively. To meet the increasing demands being made of it, primary care needs its own thriving research culture and knowledge base. METHODS: Review of recent developments supporting primary care clinical research. RESULTS: Primary care research has benefited from a small group of passionate leaders and significant investment in recent decades in some countries. Emerging from this has been innovation in research design and focus, although less is known of the effect on research output. CONCLUSION: Primary care research is now well placed to lead a broad re-vitalisation of academic medicine, answering questions of relevance to practitioners, patients, communities and Government. Key areas for future primary care research leaders to focus on include exposing undergraduates early to primary care research, integrating this early exposure with doctoral and postdoctoral research career support, further expanding cross disciplinary approaches, and developing useful measures of output for future primary care research investment.

Effects of payment for performance in primary care: qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVES: To understand the effects of a large scale 'payment for performance' scheme (the Quality and Outcomes Framework [QOF]) on professional roles and the delivery of primary care in the English National Health Service. METHODS: Qualitative semi-structured interview study. Twenty-four clinicians were interviewed during 2006: one general practitioner and one practice nurse in 12 general practices in eastern England with a broad range of sociodemographic and organizational characteristics. RESULTS: Participants reported substantial improvements in teamwork and in the organization, consistency and recording of care for conditions incentivized in the scheme, but not for non-incentivized conditions. The need to carry out and record specific clinical activities was felt to have changed the emphasis from 'patient led' consultations and listening to patients' concerns. Loss of continuity of care and of patient choice were described. Nurses experienced increased workload but enjoyed more autonomy and job satisfaction. Doctors acknowledged improved disease management and teamwork but expressed unease about 'box-ticking' and increased demands of team supervision, despite better terms and conditions. Doctors were less motivated to achieve performance indicators where they disputed the evidence on which they were based. Participants expressed little engagement with results of patient surveys or patient involvement initiatives. Some participants described data manipulation to maximize practice income. Many felt overwhelmed by the flow of policy initiatives. CONCLUSIONS: Payment for performance is driving major changes in the roles and organization of English primary health care teams. Non-incentivized activities and patients' concerns may receive less clinical attention. Practitioners would benefit from improved dissemination of the evidence justifying the inclusion of new performance indicators in the QOF.