Amitriptyline at Low-Dose and Titrated for Irritable Bowel Syndrome as Second-Line Treatment in primary care (ATLANTIS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are managed in primary care. When first-line therapies for IBS are ineffective, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline suggests considering low- dose tricyclic antidepressants as second-line treatment, but their effectiveness in primary care is unknown, and they are infrequently prescribed in this setting. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (Amitriptyline at Low-Dose and Titrated for Irritable Bowel Syndrome as Second-Line Treatment [ATLANTIS]) was conducted at 55 general practices in England. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, with Rome IV IBS of any subtype, and ongoing symptoms (IBS Severity Scoring System [IBS-SSS] score ≥75 points) despite dietary changes and first-line therapies, a normal full blood count and C-reactive protein, negative coeliac serology, and no evidence of suicidal ideation. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to low-dose oral amitriptyline (10 mg once daily) or placebo for 6 months, with dose titration over 3 weeks (up to 30 mg once daily), according to symptoms and tolerability. Participants, their general practitioners, investigators, and the analysis team were all masked to allocation throughout the trial. The primary outcome was the IBS-SSS score at 6 months. Effectiveness analyses were according to intention-to-treat; safety analyses were on all participants who took at least one dose of the trial medication. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN48075063) and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between Oct 18, 2019, and April 11, 2022, 463 participants (mean age 48·5 years [SD 16·1], 315 [68%] female to 148 [32%] male) were randomly allocated to receive low-dose amitriptyline (232) or placebo (231). Intention-to-treat analysis of the primary outcome showed a significant difference in favour of low-dose amitriptyline in IBS-SSS score between groups at 6 months (-27·0, 95% CI -46·9 to -7·10; p=0·0079). 46 (20%) participants discontinued low-dose amitriptyline (30 [13%] due to adverse events), and 59 (26%) discontinued placebo (20 [9%] due to adverse events) before 6 months. There were five serious adverse reactions (two in the amitriptyline group and three in the placebo group), and five serious adverse events unrelated to trial medication. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this is the largest trial of a tricyclic antidepressant in IBS ever conducted. Titrated low-dose amitriptyline was superior to placebo as a second-line treatment for IBS in primary care across multiple outcomes, and was safe and well tolerated. General practitioners should offer low-dose amitriptyline to patients with IBS whose symptoms do not improve with first-line therapies, with appropriate support to guide patient-led dose titration, such as the self-titration document developed for this trial. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (grant reference 16/162/01).

Development of a Supported Self-management Intervention for People With Severe Mental Illness and Type 2 Diabetes: Theory and Evidence-Based Co-design Approach.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes is 2 to 3 times more common among people with severe mental illness (SMI). Self-management is crucial, with additional challenges faced by people with SMI. Therefore, it is essential that any diabetes self-management program for people with SMI addresses the unique needs of people living with both conditions and the inequalities they experience within health care services. OBJECTIVE: We combined theory, empirical evidence, and co-design approaches to develop a type 2 diabetes self-management intervention for people with SMI. METHODS: The development process encompassed 4 steps: step 1 involved prioritizing the mechanisms of action (MoAs) and behavior change techniques (BCTs) for the intervention. Using findings from primary qualitative research and systematic reviews, we selected candidate MoAs to target in the intervention and candidate BCTs to use. Expert stakeholders then ranked these MoAs and BCTs using a 2-phase survey. The average scores were used to generate a prioritized list of MoAs and BCTs. During step 2, we presented the survey results to an expert consensus workshop to seek expert agreement with the definitive list of MoAs and BCTs for the intervention and identify potential modes of delivery. Step 3 involved the development of trigger films using the evidence from steps 1 and 2. We used animations to present the experiences of people with SMI managing diabetes. These films were used in step 4, where we used a stakeholder co-design approach. This involved a series of structured workshops, where the co-design activities were informed by theory and evidence. RESULTS: Upon the completion of the 4-step process, we developed the DIAMONDS (diabetes and mental illness, improving outcomes and self-management) intervention. It is a tailored self-management intervention based on the synthesis of the outputs from the co-design process. The intervention incorporates a digital app, a paper-based workbook, and one-to-one coaching designed to meet the needs of people with SMI and coexisting type 2 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention development work was underpinned by the MoA theoretical framework and incorporated systematic reviews, primary qualitative research, expert stakeholder surveys, and evidence generated during co-design workshops. The intervention will now be tested for feasibility before undergoing a definitive evaluation in a pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

Healthcare resource use and costs for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus with and without severe mental illness in England: longitudinal matched-cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 60 000 people in England have coexisting type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and severe mental illness (SMI). They are more likely to have poorer health outcomes and require more complex care pathways compared with those with T2DM alone. Despite increasing prevalence, little is known about the healthcare resource use and costs for people with both conditions. AIMS: To assess the impact of SMI on healthcare resource use and service costs for adults with T2DM, and explore the predictors of healthcare costs and lifetime costs for people with both conditions. METHOD: This was a matched-cohort study using data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked to Hospital Episode Statistics for 1620 people with comorbid SMI and T2DM and 4763 people with T2DM alone. Generalised linear models and the Bang and Tsiatis method were used to explore cost predictors and mean lifetime costs respectively. RESULTS: There were higher average annual costs for people with T2DM and SMI (£1930 higher) than people with T2DM alone, driven primarily by mental health and non-mental health-related hospital admissions. Key predictors of higher total costs were older age, comorbid hypertension, use of antidepressants, use of first-generation antipsychotics, and increased duration of living with both conditions. Expected lifetime costs were approximately £35 000 per person with both SMI and T2DM. Extrapolating nationally, this would generate total annual costs to the National Health Service of around £250 m per year. CONCLUSIONS: Our estimates of resource use and costs for people with both T2DM and SMI will aid policymakers and commissioners in service planning and resource allocation.

Experiences of patients with heart failure with medicines at transition intervention: Findings from the process evaluation of the Improving the Safety and Continuity of Medicines management at Transitions of care (ISCOMAT) programme.

BACKGROUND: Medicines are often suboptimally managed for heart failure patients across the transition from hospital to home, potentially leading to poor patient outcomes. The Improving the Safety and Continuity Of Medicines management at Transitions of care programme included: understanding the problems faced by patients and healthcare professionals; developing and co-designing the Medicines at Transitions of care Intervention (MaTI); a cluster randomized controlled trial testing the effectiveness of a complex behavioural MaTI aimed at improving medicines management at the interface between hospitals discharge and community care for patients with heart failure; and a process evaluation. The MaTI included a patient-held My Medicines Toolkit; enhanced communication between the hospital and the patient's community pharmacist and increased engagement of the community pharmacist postdischarge. This paper reports on the patients' experiences of the MaTI and its implementation from the process evaluation. DESIGN: Twenty one-to-one semi-structured patient interviews from six intervention sites were conducted between November 2018 and January 2020. Data were analysed using the Framework method, involving patients as co-analysts. Interview data were triangulated with routine trial data, the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and a logic model. RESULTS: Within the hospital setting patients engaged with the toolkit according to whether staff raised awareness of the My Medicines Toolkit's importance and the time and place of its introduction. Patients' engagement with community pharmacy depended on their awareness of the community pharmacist's role, support sources and perceptions of involvement in medicines management. The toolkit's impact on patients' medicines management at home included reassurance during gaps in care, increased knowledge of medicines, enhanced ability to monitor health and seek support and supporting sharing medicines management between formal and informal care networks. CONCLUSION: Many patients perceived that the MaTI offered them support in their medicines management when transitioning from hospital into the community. Importantly, it can be incorporated into and built upon patients' lived experiences of heart failure. Key to its successful implementation is the quality of engagement of healthcare professionals in introducing the intervention. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients were involved in the study design, as qualitative data co-analysts and as co-authors.

The effects of an evidence- and theory-informed feedback intervention on opioid prescribing for non-cancer pain in primary care: A controlled interrupted time series analysis.

BACKGROUND: The rise in opioid prescribing in primary care represents a significant international public health challenge, associated with increased psychosocial problems, hospitalisations, and mortality. We evaluated the effects of a comparative feedback intervention with persuasive messaging and action planning on opioid prescribing in primary care. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A quasi-experimental controlled interrupted time series analysis used anonymised, aggregated practice data from electronic health records and prescribing data from publicly available sources. The study included 316 intervention and 130 control primary care practices in the Yorkshire and Humber region, UK, serving 2.2 million and 1 million residents, respectively. We observed the number of adult patients prescribed opioid medication by practice between July 2013 and December 2017. We excluded adults with coded cancer or drug dependency. The intervention, the Campaign to Reduce Opioid Prescribing (CROP), entailed bimonthly, comparative, and practice-individualised feedback reports to practices, with persuasive messaging and suggested actions over 1 year. Outcomes comprised the number of adults per 1,000 adults per month prescribed any opioid (main outcome), prescribed strong opioids, prescribed opioids in high-risk groups, prescribed other analgesics, and referred to musculoskeletal services. The number of adults prescribed any opioid rose pre-intervention in both intervention and control practices, by 0.18 (95% CI 0.11, 0.25) and 0.36 (95% CI 0.27, 0.46) per 1,000 adults per month, respectively. During the intervention period, prescribing per 1,000 adults fell in intervention practices (change -0.11; 95% CI -0.30, -0.08) and continued rising in control practices (change 0.54; 95% CI 0.29, 0.78), with a difference of -0.65 per 1,000 patients (95% CI -0.96, -0.34), corresponding to 15,000 fewer patients prescribed opioids. These trends continued post-intervention, although at slower rates. Prescribing of strong opioids, total opioid prescriptions, and prescribing in high-risk patient groups also generally fell. Prescribing of other analgesics fell whilst musculoskeletal referrals did not rise. Effects were attenuated after feedback ceased. Study limitations include being limited to 1 region in the UK, possible coding errors in routine data, being unable to fully account for concurrent interventions, and uncertainties over how general practices actually used the feedback reports and whether reductions in prescribing were always clinically appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: Repeated comparative feedback offers a promising and relatively efficient population-level approach to reduce opioid prescribing in primary care, including prescribing of strong opioids and prescribing in high-risk patient groups. Such feedback may also prompt clinicians to reconsider prescribing other medicines associated with chronic pain, without causing a rise in referrals to musculoskeletal clinics. Feedback may need to be sustained for maximum effect.

Living with diabetes alongside a severe mental illness: A qualitative exploration with people with severe mental illness, family members and healthcare staff.

AIMS: Diabetes is two to three times more prevalent in people with severe mental illness, yet little is known about the challenges of managing both conditions from the perspectives of people living with the co-morbidity, their family members or healthcare staff. Our aim was to understand these challenges and to explore the circumstances that influence access to and receipt of diabetes care for people with severe mental illness. METHODS: Framework analysis of qualitative semi-structured interviews with people with severe mental illness and diabetes, family members, and staff from UK primary care, mental health and diabetes services, selected using a maximum variation sampling strategy between April and December 2018. RESULTS: In all, 39 adults with severe mental illness and diabetes (3 with type 1 diabetes and 36 with type 2 diabetes), nine family members and 30 healthcare staff participated. Five themes were identified: (a) Severe mental illness governs everyday life including diabetes management; (b) mood influences capacity and motivation for diabetes self-management; (c) cumulative burden of managing multiple physical conditions; (d) interacting conditions and overlapping symptoms and (e) support for everyday challenges. People living with the co-morbidity and their family members emphasised the importance of receiving support for the everyday challenges that impact diabetes management, and identified barriers to accessing this from healthcare providers. CONCLUSIONS: More intensive support for diabetes management is needed when people's severe mental illness (including symptoms of depression) or physical health deteriorates. Interventions that help people, including healthcare staff, distinguish between symptoms of diabetes and severe mental illness are also needed.

An adaptable implementation package targeting evidence-based indicators in primary care: A pragmatic cluster-randomised evaluation.

BACKGROUND: In primary care, multiple priorities and system pressures make closing the gap between evidence and practice challenging. Most implementation studies focus on single conditions, limiting generalisability. We compared an adaptable implementation package against an implementation control and assessed effects on adherence to four different evidence-based quality indicators. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We undertook two parallel, pragmatic cluster-randomised trials using balanced incomplete block designs in general practices in West Yorkshire, England. We used 'opt-out' recruitment, and we randomly assigned practices that did not opt out to an implementation package targeting either diabetes control or risky prescribing (Trial 1); or blood pressure (BP) control or anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation (AF) (Trial 2). Within trials, each arm acted as the implementation control comparison for the other targeted indicator. For example, practices assigned to the diabetes control package acted as the comparison for practices assigned to the risky prescribing package. The implementation package embedded behaviour change techniques within audit and feedback, educational outreach, and computerised support, with content tailored to each indicator. Respective patient-level primary endpoints at 11 months comprised the following: achievement of all recommended levels of haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), BP, and cholesterol; risky prescribing levels; achievement of recommended BP; and anticoagulation prescribing. Between February and March 2015, we recruited 144 general practices collectively serving over 1 million patients. We stratified computer-generated randomisation by area, list size, and pre-intervention outcome achievement. In April 2015, we randomised 80 practices to Trial 1 (40 per arm) and 64 to Trial 2 (32 per arm). Practices and trial personnel were not blind to allocation. Two practices were lost to follow-up but provided some outcome data. We analysed the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, adjusted for potential confounders at patient level (sex, age) and practice level (list size, locality, pre-intervention achievement against primary outcomes, total quality scores, and levels of patient co-morbidity), and analysed cost-effectiveness. The implementation package reduced risky prescribing (odds ratio [OR] 0.82; 97.5% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-0.99, p = 0.017) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £1,359 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), but there was insufficient evidence of effect on other primary endpoints (diabetes control OR 1.03, 97.5% CI 0.89-1.18, p = 0.693; BP control OR 1.05, 97.5% CI 0.96-1.16, p = 0.215; anticoagulation prescribing OR 0.90, 97.5% CI 0.75-1.09, p = 0.214). No statistically significant effects were observed in any secondary outcome except for reduced co-prescription of aspirin and clopidogrel without gastro-protection in patients aged 65 and over (adjusted OR 0.62; 97.5% CI 0.39-0.99; p = 0.021). Main study limitations concern our inability to make any inferences about the relative effects of individual intervention components, given the multifaceted nature of the implementation package, and that the composite endpoint for diabetes control may have been too challenging to achieve. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that a multifaceted implementation package was clinically and cost-effective for targeting prescribing behaviours within the control of clinicians but not for more complex behaviours that also required patient engagement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN91989345).

General practitioners' perceptions of irritable bowel syndrome: a Q-methodological study.

Background: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common disorder that imposes a significant burden upon societies, health care and quality of life, worldwide. While a diverse range of patient viewpoints on IBS have been explored, the opinions of the GPs they ideally need to develop therapeutic partnerships with are less well defined. Objective: To explore how GPs perceive IBS, using Q-methodology, which allows quantitative interpretation of qualitative data. Design and Setting: A Q-methodological study of GPs in Leeds, UK. Method: Thirty-three GPs completed an online Q-sort in which they ranked their level of agreement with 66 statements. Factor analysis of the Q-sorts was performed to determine the accounts that predominated in understandings of IBS. Ten of the GPs were interviewed in person and responses to the statements recorded to help explain the accounts. Results: Analysis yielded one predominant account shared by all GPs-that IBS was a largely psychological disorder. This account overshadowed a debate represented by a minority, polarized between those who viewed IBS as almost exclusively psychological, versus those who believed IBS had an organic basis, with a psychological component. The overwhelming similarity in responses indicates that all GPs shared a common perspective on IBS. Interviews suggested degrees of uncertainty and discomfort around the aetiology of IBS. Conclusion: There was overwhelming agreement in the way GPs perceived IBS. This contrasts with the range of patient accounts of IBS and may explain why both GPs and their patients face difficult negotiations in achieving therapeutic relationships.

Patients understanding of depression associated with chronic physical illness: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Detection of depression can be difficult in primary care, particularly when associated with chronic illness. Patient beliefs may affect detection and subsequent engagement with management. We explored patient beliefs about the nature of depression associated with physical illness. METHODS: A qualitative interview study of patients registered with general practices in Leeds, UK. We invited patients with coronary heart disease or diabetes from primary care to participate in semi-structured interviews exploring their beliefs and experiences. We analysed transcripts using a thematic approach, extended to consider narratives as important contextual elements. RESULTS: We interviewed 26 patients, including 17 with personal experience of depression. We developed six themes: recognising a problem, complex causality, the role of the primary care, responsibility, resilience, and the role of their life story. Participants did not consistently talk about depression as an illness-like disorder. They described a change in their sense of self against the background of their life stories. Participants were unsure about seeking help from general practitioners (GPs) and felt a personal responsibility to overcome depression themselves. Chronic illness, as opposed to other life pressures, was seen as a justifiable cause of depression. CONCLUSIONS: People with chronic illness do not necessarily regard depression as an easily defined illness, especially outside of the context of their life stories. Efforts to engage patients with chronic illness in the detection and management of depression may need further tailoring to accommodate beliefs about how people view themselves, responsibility and negative views of treatment.

Overprescribing of potentially harmful medication: an observational study in England's general practice.

BACKGROUND: Overprescribing of potentially harmful medication in UK general practice has a complex association with socioeconomic deprivation. AIM: To assess trends in general practice prescribing of five high-risk medications and their relationship with deprivation. DESIGN & SETTING: An observational study was conducted using general practice data from three English regions with varied sociodemographic factors: West Yorkshire and Harrogate (WY), Black Country and West Birmingham (BC), and Surrey and East Sussex (SE). METHOD: Practice-level prescribing data were obtained from 2016-2021 for five drug classes: opioids, hypnotics, gabapentinoids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and antibacterials. Prescribing trends were demonstrated using a linear model. RESULTS: Reduction in NSAID, opioid, hypnotic and antibacterial prescriptions, and the increase in gabapentinoid prescriptions, were significant at each financial year time period. Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) was positively associated with all drug classes except antibacterials, which showed a positive association when incorporating the interaction term between IMD and age.When adjusting for IMD and population, region was independently associated with prescribing rate. Compared with WY, IMD had a smaller association with prescribing in BC for NSAIDs (coefficient = -0.01578, P = 0.004) and antibacterials (coefficient = -0.02769, P = 0.007), whereas IMD had a greater association with prescribing in SE for NSAIDs (coefficient = 0.02443, P<0.001), opioids (coefficient = 0.08919, P<0.001), hypnotics (coefficient = 0.09038, P<0.001), gabapentinoids (coefficient = 0.1095, P<0.001), and antibacterials (coefficient = 0.01601, P = 0.19). CONCLUSION: The association of socioeconomic deprivation with overprescribing of high-risk medication in general practice varies by region and drug type. Geographical location is associated with overprescribing, independent of socioeconomic status.

Exploring the content and delivery of feedback facilitation co-interventions: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Policymakers and researchers recommend supporting the capabilities of feedback recipients to increase the quality of care. There are different ways to support capabilities. We aimed to describe the content and delivery of feedback facilitation interventions delivered alongside audit and feedback within randomised controlled trials. METHODS: We included papers describing feedback facilitation identified by the latest Cochrane review of audit and feedback. The piloted extraction proforma was based upon a framework to describe intervention content, with additional prompts relating to the identification of influences, selection of improvement actions and consideration of priorities and implications. We describe the content and delivery graphically, statistically and narratively. RESULTS: We reviewed 146 papers describing 104 feedback facilitation interventions. Across included studies, feedback facilitation contained 26 different implementation strategies. There was a median of three implementation strategies per intervention and evidence that the number of strategies per intervention is increasing. Theory was used in 35 trials, although the precise role of theory was poorly described. Ten studies provided a logic model and six of these described their mechanisms of action. Both the exploration of influences and the selection of improvement actions were described in 46 of the feedback facilitation interventions; we describe who undertook this tailoring work. Exploring dose, there was large variation in duration (15-1800 min), frequency (1 to 42 times) and number of recipients per site (1 to 135). There were important gaps in reporting, but some evidence that reporting is improving over time. CONCLUSIONS: Heterogeneity in the design of feedback facilitation needs to be considered when assessing the intervention's effectiveness. We describe explicit feedback facilitation choices for future intervention developers based upon choices made to date. We found the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change to be valuable when describing intervention components, with the potential for some minor clarifications in terms and for greater specificity by intervention providers. Reporting demonstrated extensive gaps which hinder both replication and learning. Feedback facilitation providers are recommended to close reporting gaps that hinder replication. Future work should seek to address the 'opportunity' for improvement activity, defined as factors that lie outside the individual that make care or improvement behaviour possible. REVIEW REGISTRATION: The study protocol was published at: https://www.protocols.io/private/4DA5DE33B68E11ED9EF70A58A9FEAC02 .

A cluster randomised controlled trial, process and economic evaluation of quality improvement collaboratives aligned to a national audit to improve the care for people with diabetes (EQUIPD): study protocol.

BACKGROUND: People with type 1 diabetes and raised glucose levels are at greater risk of retinopathy, nephropathy, neuropathy, cardiovascular disease, sexual health problems and foot disease. The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends continuous subcutaneous 'insulin pump' therapy for people with type 1 diabetes whose HbA1c is above 69 mmol/mol. Insulin pump use can improve quality of life, cut cardiovascular risk and increase treatment satisfaction. About 90,000 people in England and Wales meet NICE criteria for insulin pumps but do not use one. Insulin pump use also varies markedly by deprivation, ethnicity, sex and location. Increasing insulin pump use is a key improvement priority. Audit and feedback is a common but variably effective intervention. Limited capabilities of healthcare providers to mount effective responses to feedback from national audits, such as the National Diabetes Audit (NDA), undermines efforts to improve care. We have co-developed a theoretically and empirically informed quality improvement collaborative (QIC) to strengthen local responses to feedback with patients and carers, national audits and healthcare providers. We will evaluate whether the QIC improves the uptake of insulin pumps following NDA feedback. METHODS: We will undertake an efficient cluster randomised trial using routine data. The QIC will be delivered alongside the NDA to specialist diabetes teams in England and Wales. Our primary outcome will be the proportion of people with type 1 diabetes and an HbA1c above 69 mmol/mol who start and continue insulin pump use during the 18-month intervention period. Secondary outcomes will assess change in glucose control and duration of pump use. Subgroup analyses will explore impacts upon inequalities by ethnicity, sex, age and deprivation. A theory-informed process evaluation will explore diabetes specialist teams' engagement, implementation, fidelity and tailoring through observations, interviews, surveys and documentary analysis. An economic evaluation will micro-cost the QIC, estimate cost-effectiveness of NDA feedback with QIC and estimate the budget impact of NHS-wide QIC roll out. DISCUSSION: Our study responds to a need for more head-to-head trials of different ways of reinforcing feedback delivery. Our findings will have implications for other large-scale audit and feedback programmes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN82176651 Registered 18 October 2022.

Best practice guidance for antibiotic audit and feedback interventions in primary care: a modified Delphi study from the Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial resistance: Primary Care Antibiotic Audit and Feedback Network (JPIAMR-PAAN).

BACKGROUND: Primary care is a critical partner for antimicrobial stewardship efforts given its high human antibiotic usage. Peer comparison audit and feedback (A&F) is often used to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. The design and implementation of A&F may impact its effectiveness. There are no best practice guidelines for peer comparison A&F in antibiotic prescribing in primary care. OBJECTIVE: To develop best practice guidelines for peer comparison A&F for antibiotic prescribing in primary care in high income countries by leveraging international expertise via the Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial Resistance-Primary Care Antibiotic Audit and Feedback Network. METHODS: We used a modified Delphi process to achieve convergence of expert opinions on best practice statements for peer comparison A&F based on existing evidence and theory. Three rounds were performed, each with online surveys and virtual meetings to enable discussion and rating of each best practice statement. A five-point Likert scale was used to rate consensus with a median threshold score of 4 to indicate a consensus statement. RESULTS: The final set of guidelines include 13 best practice statements in four categories: general considerations (n = 3), selecting feedback recipients (n = 1), data and indicator selection (n = 4), and feedback delivery (n = 5). CONCLUSION: We report an expert-derived best practice recommendations for designing and evaluating peer comparison A&F for antibiotic prescribing in primary care. These 13 statements can be used by A&F designers to optimize the impact of their quality improvement interventions, and improve antibiotic prescribing in primary care.

Regional and national antimicrobial stewardship activities: a survey from the Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial Resistance-Primary Care Antibiotic Audit and Feedback Network (JPIAMR-PAAN).

Background: Antibiotic overuse and misuse in primary care are common, highlighting the importance of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) efforts in this setting. Audit and feedback (A&F) interventions can improve professional practice and performance in some settings. Objectives and methods: To leverage the expertise from international members of the Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial Resistance - Primary care Antibiotic Audit and feedback Network (JPIAMR-PAAN). Network members all have experience of designing and delivering A&F interventions to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing in primary care settings. We aim to introduce the network and explore ongoing A&F activities in member regions. An online survey was administered to all network members to collect regional information. Results: Fifteen respondents from 11 countries provided information on A&F activities in their country, and national/regional antibiotic stewardship programmes or policies. Most countries use electronic medical records as the primary data source, antibiotic appropriateness as the main outcome of feedback, and target GPs as the prescribers of interest. Funding sources varied across countries, which could influence the frequency and quality of A&F interventions. Nine out of 11 countries reported having a national antibiotic stewardship programme or policy, which aim to provide systematic support to ongoing AMS efforts and aid sustainability. Conclusions: The survey identified gaps and opportunities for AMS efforts that include A&F across member countries in Europe, Canada and Australia. JPIAMR-PAAN will continue to leverage its members to produce best practice resources and toolkits for antibiotic A&F interventions in primary care settings and identify research priorities.

How patients understand depression associated with chronic physical disease--a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians are encouraged to screen people with chronic physical illness for depression. Screening alone may not improve outcomes, especially if the process is incompatible with patient beliefs. The aim of this research is to understand people's beliefs about depression, particularly in the presence of chronic physical disease. METHODS: A mixed method systematic review involving a thematic analysis of qualitative studies and quantitative studies of beliefs held by people with current depressive symptoms. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PSYCHINFO, CINAHL, BIOSIS, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, UKCRN portfolio, National Research Register Archive, Clinicaltrials.gov and OpenSIGLE were searched from database inception to 31st December 2010. A narrative synthesis of qualitative and quantitative data, based initially upon illness representations and extended to include other themes not compatible with that framework. RESULTS: A range of clinically relevant beliefs was identified from 65 studies including the difficulty in labeling depression, complex causal factors instead of the biological model, the roles of different treatments and negative views about the consequences of depression. We found other important themes less related to ideas about illness: the existence of a self-sustaining 'depression spiral'; depression as an existential state; the ambiguous status of suicidal thinking; and the role of stigma and blame in depression. CONCLUSIONS: Approaches to detection of depression in physical illness need to be receptive to the range of beliefs held by patients. Patient beliefs have implications for engagement with depression screening.

Embedded trials within national clinical audit programmes: A qualitative interview study of enablers and barriers.

BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback entails systematic documentation of clinical performance based on explicit criteria or standards which is then fed back to professionals in a structured manner. There are potential significant returns on investment from partnerships between existing clinical audit programmes in coordinated programmes of research to test ways of improving the effect of their feedback to drive greater improvements in health care delivery and population outcomes. We explored barriers to and enablers of embedding audit and feedback trials within clinical audit programmes. METHODS: We purposively recruited participants with varied experience in embedded trials in audit programmes. We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews, guided by behavioural theory, with researchers, clinical audit programme staff and health care professionals. Recorded interviews were transcribed, and data coded and thematically analysed. RESULTS: We interviewed 31 participants (9 feedback researchers, 14 audit staff and 8 healthcare professionals, many having dual roles). We identified barriers and enablers for all 14 theoretical domains but no relationship between domains and participant role. We identified four optimal conditions for sustainable collaboration from the perspectives of stakeholders: resources, that is, recognition that audit programmes need to create capacity to participate in research, and research must be adapted to fit within each programme's constraints; logistics, namely, that partnerships need to address data sharing and audit quality, while securing research funding to ensure operational success; leadership, that is, enthusiastic and engaged audit programme leaders must motivate their team and engage local stakeholders; and relationships, meaning that trust between researchers and audit programmes must be established over time by identifying shared priorities and meeting each partner's needs. CONCLUSION: Successfully embedding research within clinical audit programmes is likely to require compromise, logistical expertise, leadership and trusting relationships to overcome perceived risks and fully realise benefits.

Using routine healthcare data to evaluate the impact of the Medicines at Transitions Intervention (MaTI) on clinical outcomes of patients hospitalised with heart failure: protocol for the Improving the Safety and Continuity Of Medicines management at Transitions of care (ISCOMAT) cluster randomised controlled trial with embedded process evaluation, health economics evaluation and internal pilot.

INTRODUCTION: Heart failure affects 26 million people globally, approximately 900 thousand people in the UK, and is increasing in incidence. Appropriate management of medicines for heart failure at the time of hospital discharge reduces readmissions, improves quality of life and increases survival. The Improving the Safety and Continuity Of Medicines management at Transitions (ISCOMAT) trial tests the effectiveness of the Medicines at Transition Intervention (MaTI), which aims to enhance self-care and increase community pharmacy involvement in the medicines management of heart failure patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: ISCOMAT is a parallel-group cluster randomised controlled trial, randomising 42 National Health Service trusts with cardiology wards in England on a 1:1 basis to implement the MaTI or treatment as usual. Around 2100 patients over the age of 18 admitted to hospital with heart failure with at least moderate left ventricular systolic dysfunction within the last 5 years, and planned discharge to the geographical area of the cluster will be recruited. The MaTI consists of training for staff, a toolkit for participants, transfer of discharge information to community pharmacies and a medicines reconciliation/review. Treatment as usual is determined by local policy and practices. The primary outcome is a composite of all-cause mortality and heart failure-related hospitalisation at 12 months postregistration obtained from national electronic health records. The key secondary outcome is continued prescription of guideline-indicated therapies at 12 months measured via patient-reported data and Hospital Episode Statistics. The trial contains a parallel mixed-methods process evaluation and an embedded health economics study. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study obtained approval from the Yorkshire and the Humber-Bradford Leeds Research Ethics Committee; REC reference 18/YH/0017. Findings will be disseminated via academic and policy conferences, peer-reviewed publications and social media. Amendments to the protocol are disseminated to all relevant parties as required. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN66212970; Pre-results.

A randomised fractional factorial screening experiment to predict effective features of audit and feedback.

BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback aims to improve patient care by comparing healthcare performance against explicit standards. It is used to monitor and improve patient care, including through National Clinical Audit (NCA) programmes in the UK. Variability in effectiveness of audit and feedback is attributed to intervention design; separate randomised trials to address multiple questions about how to optimise effectiveness would be inefficient. We evaluated different feedback modifications to identify leading candidates for further "real-world" evaluation. METHODS: Using an online fractional factorial screening experiment, we randomised recipients of feedback from five UK NCAs to different combinations of six feedback modifications applied within an audit report excerpt: use effective comparators, provide multimodal feedback, recommend specific actions, provide optional detail, incorporate the patient voice, and minimise cognitive load. Outcomes, assessed immediately after exposure to the online modifications, included intention to enact audit standards (primary outcome, ranked on a scale of -3 to +3, tailored to the NCA), comprehension, user experience, and engagement. RESULTS: We randomised 1241 participants (clinicians, managers, and audit staff) between April and October 2019. Inappropriate repeated participant completion occurred; we conservatively excluded participant entries during the relevant period, leaving a primary analysis population of 638 (51.4%) participants. None of the six feedback modifications had an independent effect on intention across the five NCAs. We observed both synergistic and antagonistic effects across outcomes when modifications were combined; the specific NCA and whether recipients had a clinical role had dominant influences on outcome, and there was an antagonistic interaction between multimodal feedback and optional detail. Among clinical participants, predicted intention ranged from 1.22 (95% confidence interval 0.72, 1.72) for the least effective combination in which multimodal feedback, optional detail, and reduced cognitive load were applied within the audit report, up to 2.40 (95% CI 1.88, 2.93) for the most effective combination including multimodal feedback, specific actions, patient voice, and reduced cognitive load. CONCLUSION: Potentially important synergistic and antagonistic effects were identified across combinations of feedback modifications, audit programmes, and recipients, suggesting that feedback designers must explicitly consider how different features of feedback may interact to achieve (or undermine) the desired effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN41584028.

Amitriptyline at low-dose and titrated for irritable bowel syndrome as second-line treatment (The ATLANTIS trial): protocol for a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common functional bowel disorder that has a considerable impact on patient quality of life and substantial societal and health care resource costs. Current treatments are often ineffective. Tricyclic antidepressants have shown promise in secondary care populations but their effectiveness in a primary care setting remains unclear. METHODS: ATLANTIS is a randomised, multi-centre, parallel-group, two-arm, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of low-dose amitriptyline as a second-line treatment for IBS in primary care. Participants will be invited by letter, or recruited opportunistically, from general practices in three regions of England (West Yorkshire, Wessex, and West of England) and screened for eligibility. A total of 518 adult patients with IBS, who are symptomatic despite first-line therapies, will be randomised 1:1 to amitriptyline or identical placebo for 6 months. Treatment will commence at a dose of 10 mg (or one placebo tablet) daily at night, with dose titration up to a maximum of 30 mg at night, depending on side effects and response to treatment. Participant-reported assessments will be conducted at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months post-randomisation. The primary objective is to determine the effectiveness of amitriptyline, compared with placebo, in improving participant-reported global symptoms of IBS at 6 months (using the IBS Severity Scoring System). Secondary outcomes include relief of IBS symptoms, effect on IBS-associated somatic symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-12), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), ability to work and participate in other activities (Work and Social Adjustment Scale), acceptability and tolerability of treatment, self-reported health care use, health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-3L), and cost-effectiveness. A nested, qualitative study will explore patient and general practitioner experiences of treatments and trial participation, including acceptability, adherence, unanticipated effects, and implications for wider use of amitriptyline for IBS in primary care. DISCUSSION: Determining the clinical and cost-effectiveness of low-dose amitriptyline as a second-line treatment for IBS in primary care will provide robust evidence to inform management decisions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN48075063 . Registered on 7th June 2019.

Establishing a primary care audit and feedback implementation laboratory: a consensus study.

BACKGROUND: There is a significant variation among individual primary care providers in prescribing of potentially problematic, low-value medicines which cause avoidable patient harm. Audit and feedback is generally effective at improving prescribing. However, progress has been hindered by research waste, leading to unanswered questions about how to include audit and feedback for specific problems and circumstances. Trials of different ways of providing audit and feedback in implementation laboratories have been proposed as a way of improving population healthcare while generating robust evidence on feedback effects. However, there is limited experience in their design and delivery. AIM: To explore priorities, feasibility, and ethical challenges of establishing a primary care prescribing audit and feedback implementation laboratory. DESIGN AND SETTING: Two-stage Delphi consensus process involving primary care pharmacy leads, audit and feedback researchers, and patient and public. METHOD: Participants initially scored statements relating to priorities, feasibility, and ethical considerations for an implementation laboratory. These covered current feedback practice, priority topics for feedback, usefulness of feedback in improving prescribing and different types of prescribing data, acceptability and desirability of different organization levels of randomization, options for trial consent, different methods of delivering feedback, and interest in finding out how effective different ways of presenting feedback would be. After receiving collated results, participants then scored the items again. The consensus was defined using the GRADE criteria. The results were analyzed by group and overall score. RESULTS: Fourteen participants reached consensus for 38 out of 55 statements. Addressing antibiotic and opioid prescribing emerged as the highest priorities for action. The panel supported statements around addressing high-priority prescribing issues, taking an "opt-out" approach to practice consent if waiving consent was not permitted, and randomizing at lower rather than higher organizational levels. Participants supported patient-level prescribing data and further research evaluating most of the different feedback methods we presented them with. CONCLUSIONS: There is a good level of support for evaluating a wide range of potential enhancements to improve the effects of feedback on prescribing. The successful design and delivery of a primary care audit and feedback implementation laboratory depend on identifying shared priorities and addressing practical and ethical considerations.