Developing 'high impact' guideline-based quality indicators for UK primary care: a multi-stage consensus process.

BACKGROUND: Quality indicators (QIs) are an important tool for improving clinical practice and are increasingly being developed from evidence-based guideline recommendations. We aimed to identify, select and apply guideline recommendations to develop a set of QIs to measure the implementation of evidence-based practice using routinely recorded clinical data in United Kingdom (UK) primary care. METHODS: We reviewed existing national clinical guidelines and QIs and used a four-stage consensus development process to derive a set of 'high impact' QIs relevant to primary care based upon explicit prioritisation criteria. We then field tested the QIs using remotely extracted, anonymised patient records from 89 randomly sampled primary care practices in the Yorkshire region of England. RESULTS: Out of 2365 recommendations and QIs originally reviewed, we derived a set of 18 QIs (5 single, 13 composites - comprising 2-9 individual recommendations) for field testing. QIs predominantly addressed chronic disease management, in particular diabetes, cardiovascular and renal disease, and included both processes and outcomes of care. Field testing proved to be critical for further refinement and final selection. CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated a rigorous and transparent methodology to develop a set of high impact, evidence-based QIs for primary care from clinical guideline recommendations. While the development process was successful in developing a limited set of QIs, it remains challenging to derive robust new QIs from clinical guidelines in the absence of established systems for routine, structured recording of clinical care.

Variations in achievement of evidence-based, high-impact quality indicators in general practice: An observational study.

BACKGROUND: There are widely recognised variations in the delivery and outcomes of healthcare but an incomplete understanding of their causes. There is a growing interest in using routinely collected 'big data' in the evaluation of healthcare. We developed a set of evidence-based 'high impact' quality indicators (QIs) for primary care and examined variations in achievement of these indicators using routinely collected data in the United Kingdom (UK). METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of routinely collected, electronic primary care data from a sample of general practices in West Yorkshire, UK (n = 89). The QIs covered aspects of care (including processes and intermediate clinical outcomes) in relation to diabetes, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, chronic kidney disease (CKD) and 'risky' prescribing combinations. Regression models explored the impact of practice and patient characteristics. Clustering within practice was accounted for by including a random intercept for practice. RESULTS: Median practice achievement of the QIs ranged from 43.2% (diabetes control) to 72.2% (blood pressure control in CKD). Considerable between-practice variation existed for all indicators: the difference between the highest and lowest performing practices was 26.3 percentage points for risky prescribing and 100 percentage points for anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation. Odds ratios associated with the random effects for practices emphasised this; there was a greater than ten-fold difference in the likelihood of achieving the hypertension indicator between the lowest and highest performing practices. Patient characteristics, in particular age, gender and comorbidity, were consistently but modestly associated with indicator achievement. Statistically significant practice characteristics were identified less frequently in adjusted models. CONCLUSIONS: Despite various policy and improvement initiatives, there are enduring inappropriate variations in the delivery of evidence-based care. Much of this variation is not explained by routinely collected patient or practice variables, and is likely to be attributable to differences in clinical and organisational behaviour.

Barriers to effective management of type 2 diabetes in primary care: qualitative systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of evidence-based guidance, many patients with type 2 diabetes do not achieve treatment goals. AIM: To guide quality improvement strategies for type 2 diabetes by synthesising qualitative evidence on primary care physicians' and nurses' perceived influences on care. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of qualitative studies with findings organised using the Theoretical Domains Framework. METHOD: Databases searched were MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and ASSIA from 1980 until March 2014. Studies included were English-language qualitative studies in primary care of physicians' or nurses' perceived influences on treatment goals for type 2 diabetes. RESULTS: A total of 32 studies were included: 17 address general diabetes care, 11 glycaemic control, three blood pressure, and one cholesterol control. Clinicians struggle to meet evolving treatment targets within limited time and resources, and are frustrated with resulting compromises. They lack confidence in knowledge of guidelines and skills, notably initiating insulin and facilitating patient behaviour change. Changing professional boundaries have resulted in uncertainty about where clinical responsibility resides. Accounts are often couched in emotional terms, especially frustrations over patient compliance and anxieties about treatment intensification. CONCLUSION: Although resources are important, many barriers to improving care are amenable to behaviour change strategies. Improvement strategies need to account for differences between clinical targets and consider tailored rather than 'one size fits all' approaches. Training targeting knowledge is necessary but insufficient to bring about major change; approaches to improve diabetes care need to delineate roles and responsibilities, and address clinicians' skills and emotions around treatment intensification and facilitation of patient behaviour change.

General practitioners' views on using a prescribing substitution application (ScriptSwitch(®)).

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) are increasingly pressured to prescribe cost-effectively, due to rising prescribing expenditure and limited budgets. A computerised prescribing substitution application (ScriptSwitch(®)) provides 'pop-ups' of cost-saving drug switches at the point of prescribing. It has been used by some United Kingdom local health commissioning organisations as part of a medicines management strategy. OBJECTIVE: To explore GPs' views on using this prescribing substitution application in their day-to-day clinical practice. METHODS: Qualitative study employing face-to-face semi-structured interviews, undertaken with a convenience sample of eight GPs across five practices within one local health commissioning area in the North of England. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. RESULTS: Six themes were identified including: (1) GPs' acceptance, (2) the application's impact, (3) external control, (4) disruption to workflow, (5) GP willingness to switch and (6) patient willingness to switch. CONCLUSIONS: Clinician, patient and organisational factors were identified which were assumed by GPs to affect the engagement with the application. Despite general acceptance of the application to enhance cost-effective prescribing, its impact was perceived to be limited within the context of existing cost-effective prescribing initiatives. The application's perceived lack of 'learning'-e.g. offering the same switch despite the prescriber repeatedly declining this-devalued users' confidence in it. With patients varying in amenability and acceptance to drug switches, GPs appear to experience tension between considering individual patient choice and wider practice population prescribing priorities. Giving GPs more control in adapting the application to their own local prescribing priorities may enhance its success.

Primary care career advice: a student perspective.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, undergraduate curricula have evolved to include a greater proportion of community-based teaching. However, for most students it still remains predominantly a hospital-based training experience. With 50 per cent of all medical graduates in the UK now expected to work in the community, students need to be fully informed about career pathways and opportunities within primary care. CONTEXT: A key driver for curriculum change in the UK has been the General Medical Council's guidance in Tomorrow's Doctors, which advocates experience in a variety of health care settings together with career advice at undergraduate level. However, the existing career guidance provision may be inadequate for the current needs of students. INNOVATION: We explore what students are doing to combat the lack of primary care focused career guidance: from taking a year out to intercalate in primary care to setting up and running student-led primary care groups. We report on a new UK venture that we hope to launch in consultation with national primary care bodies to provide support and guidance for students considering a career in primary care. IMPLICATIONS: Primary care-focused career advice should be incorporated into the undergraduate curriculum. Student-led primary care groups can offer an alternative source of support and guidance.

Foundation Programme doctors as teachers.

BACKGROUND: Teaching is a core competency outlined in the Foundation Programme curriculum in the UK. This article reports data from a larger postal questionnaire study asking general practitioner (GP) trainers and GP programme directors in the Yorkshire & Humber Deanery whether Foundation Year 2 (FY2) doctors were undertaking teaching roles during primary care posts. We also aimed to explore their attitudes towards FY2s as teachers. METHODS: A questionnaire was designed asking whether FY2s had been present in the practice, and if so what teaching methods they had undertaken. The responder was then asked how comfortable they would feel with an FY2 doctor undertaking certain teaching roles. Responses were prompted using a nine-point Likert scale. RESULTS: The response rate was 74 per cent (216/291). Of the respondents, 37 per cent (80/216) stated that FY2s had been present in their surgery in the last 12 months; 16 per cent (13/80) went on to say that those FY2 doctors had undertaken teaching roles. Respondents felt more comfortable with FY2s undertaking the teaching of practical skills (median score 6, interquartile range 5-7, on the Likert scale) and giving one-to-one tutorials to medical students (median score 6, interquartile range range 4-7), but were uncomfortable with them clinically supervising medical students (median score 3, interquartile range 2-5) and giving one-to-one tutorials to fellow FY2s (median 4, interquartile range 2-5). DISCUSSION: With reduced hours resulting in a decrease in exposure to teaching experience during hospital rotations, it is important that these doctors are given adequate opportunities during primary care placements to improve skills in this area.

Comparison of methadone and buprenorphine for opiate detoxification (LEEDS trial): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Many opiate users require prescribed medication to help them achieve abstinence, commonly taking the form of a detoxification regime. In UK prisons, drug users are nearly universally treated for their opiate use by primary care clinicians, and once released access GP services where 40% of practices now treat drug users. There is a paucity of evidence evaluating methadone and buprenorphine (the two most commonly prescribed agents in the UK) for opiate detoxification. AIM: To evaluate whether buprenorphine or methadone help to achieve drug abstinence at completion of a reducing regimen for heroin users presenting to UK prison health care for detoxification. DESIGN: Open-label, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial in three prison primary healthcare departments in the north of England. METHOD: Prisoners (n = 306) using illicit opiates were recruited and given daily sublingual buprenorphine or oral methadone, in the context of routine care, over a standard reduced regimen of not more than 20 days. The primary outcome measure was abstinence from illicit opiates at 8 days post detoxification, as indicated by urine test (self-report/clinical notes where urine sample was not feasible). Secondary outcomes were also recorded. RESULTS: Abstinence was ascertained for 73.7% at 8 days post detoxification (urine sample = 52.6%, self report = 15.2%, clinical notes = 5.9%). There was no statistically significant difference in the odds of achieving abstinence between methadone and buprenorphine (odds ratio [OR] = 1.69; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.81 to 3.51; P = 0.163). Abstinence was associated solely with whether or not the participant was still in prison at that time (15.22 times the odds; 95% CI = 4.19 to 55.28). The strongest association for lasting abstinence was abstinence at an earlier time point. CONCLUSION: There is equal clinical effectiveness between methadone and buprenorphine in achieving abstinence from opiates at 8 days post detoxification within prison.

The Leeds Evaluation of Efficacy of Detoxification Study (LEEDS) Prisons Project Study: protocol for a randomised controlled trial comparing methadone and buprenorphine for opiate detoxification.

BACKGROUND: In the United Kingdom (UK), there is an extensive market for the class 'A' drug heroin and many heroin users spend time in prison. People addicted to heroin often require prescribed medication when attempting to cease their drug use. The most commonly used detoxification agents in UK prisons are currently buprenorphine and methadone, both are recommended by national clinical guidelines. However, these agents have never been compared for opiate detoxification in the prison estate and there is a general paucity of research evaluating the most effective treatment for opiate detoxification in prisons. This study seeks to address this paucity by evaluating the most routinely used interventions amongst drug users within UK prisons. METHODS/DESIGN: This study uses randomised controlled trial methodology to compare the open use of buprenorphine and methadone for opiate detoxification, given in the context of routine care, within three UK prisons. Prisoners who are eligible and give informed consent will be entered into the trial. The primary outcome will be abstinence status eight days after detoxification, as determined by a urine test. Secondary outcomes will be recorded during the detoxification and then at one, three and six months post-detoxification. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN58823759.