Screening for increased cardiometabolic risk in primary care: a systematic review

Background

Many programmes to detect and prevent cardiovascular disease (CVD) have been performed, but the optimal strategy is not yet clear.

Aim

To present a systematic review of cardiometabolic screening programmes performed among apparently healthy people (not yet known to have CVD, diabetes, or cardiometabolic risk factors) and mixed populations (apparently healthy people and people diagnosed with risk factor or disease) to define the optimal screening strategy.

Design and setting

Systematic review of studies performed in primary care in Western countries.

Method

MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases were searched for studies screening for increased cardiometabolic risk. Exclusion criteria were studies designed to assess prevalence of risk factors without follow-up or treatment; without involving a GP; when fewer than two risk factors were considered as the primary outcome; and studies constrained to ethnic minorities.

Results

The search strategy yielded 11 445 hits; 26 met the inclusion criteria. Five studies (1995–2012) were conducted in apparently healthy populations: three used a stepwise method. Response rates varied from 24% to 79%. Twenty-one studies (1967–2012) were performed in mixed populations; one used a stepwise method. Response rates varied from 50% to 75%. Prevalence rates could not be compared because of heterogeneity of used thresholds and eligible populations. Observed time trends were a shift from mixed to apparently healthy populations, increasing use of risk scores, and increasing use of stepwise screening methods.

Conclusion

The optimal screening strategy in primary care is likely stepwise, in apparently healthy people, with the use of risk scores. Increasing public awareness and actively involving GPs might facilitate screening efficiency and uptake.     

Practice size and service provision in primary care: an observational study

Background

In 2004, primary care payments for basic services and enhanced services were separated. This change has greatly facilitated the evaluation of the breadth and volume of services.

Aim

To determine whether larger practices produce a higher volume and greater diversity of enhanced services.

Design of study

Cross-sectional observational study using practice data obtained under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Setting

A total of 384 practices in 14 English primary care trusts.

Method

Practice data for all practices were collated for enhanced services, practice size, and deprivation. Diversity and volume of enhanced services were used as dependent variables in a series of multiple regression models to ascertain the effect of practice size, and any relationship with deprivation.

Results

Larger practices provided a greater diversity of services (P = 0.002), although this effect was not present in practices with more than 6330 patients. Practice size seems to influence the volume of enhanced services in general medical services, but this effect disappeared when deprivation was taken into account. Deprivation had a negative influence on the volume of enhanced services provided (P = 0.019). The effect of deprivation on volume persisted in practices with more than 6330 patients.

Conclusion

Current average-sized practices provide similar volume and diversity of enhanced services as those in the largest quartile; therefore, there seems to be little merit in creating ‘supersurgeries’ if the aim is to transfer work from secondary to primary care. There does not seem to be an upper threshold above which practice size creates spare capacity and expertise to deliver a significantly greater volume or more diversity of extra services.     

Practitioners' views on managing childhood obesity in primary care: a qualitative study

Background

In 2006 the Department of Health and the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) published guidance on the management of childhood obesity, for use by primary care practitioners. Little is known, however, about practitioners'' views and experiences of managing childhood obesity in primary care.

Aim

To explore practitioners'' views of primary care as a setting in which to treat childhood obesity.

Design of study

Qualitative interview study.

Setting

Primary care and other community settings based in Bristol, England.

Method

Interviews explored practitioners'' views and experiences of managing childhood obesity and their knowledge of the recent guidance provided by the Department of Health and NICE. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Analysis was thematic and comparisons made both within and across the interviews.

Results

Thirty practitioners were interviewed: 12 GPs, 10 practice nurses, four school nurses, and four health visitors. Participants varied in their views about whether primary care is an appropriate treatment setting for childhood obesity. However, all described factors that limited the extent to which they could intervene effectively: a lack of expertise, resources, and contact with primary school children; the causes of childhood obesity; and the need to work with parents. It was also apparent that very few participants had knowledge of the recent guidance.

Conclusion

Practitioners do not currently view primary care as an effective treatment setting for childhood obesity and it is unlikely that the guidance from the Department of Health and NICE will have a meaningful impact on their management of this condition.     

Advance care planning for cancer patients in primary care: a feasibility study

Background

Advance care planning is being promoted as a central component of end-of-life policies in many developed countries, but there is concern that professionals find its implementation challenging.

Aim

To assess the feasibility of implementing advance care planning in UK primary care.

Design of study

Mixed methods evaluation of a pilot educational intervention.

Setting

Four general practices in south-east Scotland.

Method

Interviews with 20 GPs and eight community nurses before and after a practice-based workshop; this was followed by telephone interviews with nine other GPs with a special interest in palliative care from across the UK.

Results

End-of-life care planning for patients typically starts as an urgent response to clear evidence of a short prognosis, and aims to achieve a ‘good death’. Findings suggest that there were multiple barriers to earlier planning: prognostic uncertainty; limited collaboration with secondary care; a desire to maintain hope; and resistance to any kind of ‘tick-box’ approach. Following the workshop, participants'' knowledge and skills were enhanced but there was little evidence of more proactive planning. GPs from other parts of the UK described confusion over terminology and were concerned about the difficulties of implementing inflexible, policy-driven care.

Conclusion

A clear divide was found between UK policy directives and delivery of end-of-life care in the community that educational interventions targeting primary care professionals are unlikely to address. Advance care planning has the potential to promote autonomy and shared decision making about end-of-life care, but this will require a significant shift in attitudes.     

Implementation of pay for performance in primary care: a qualitative study 8 years after introduction

Background

Pay for performance is now a widely adopted quality improvement initiative in health care. One of the largest schemes in primary care internationally is the English Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF).

Aim

To obtain a longer term perspective on the implementation of the QOF.

Design and setting

Qualitative study with 47 health professionals in 23 practices across England.

Method

Semi-structured interviews.

Results

Pay for performance is accepted as a routine part of primary care in England, with previous more individualistic and less structured ways of working seen as poor practice. The size of the QOF and the evidence-based nature of the indicators are regarded as key to its success. However, pay for performance may have had a negative impact on some aspects of medical professionalism, such as clinical autonomy, and led a significant minority of GPs to prioritise their own pay rather than patients’ best interests. A small minority of GPs tried to increase their clinical autonomy with further unintended consequences.

Conclusion

Pay for performance indicators are now welcomed by primary healthcare teams and GPs across generations. Almost all interviewees wanted to see a greater emphasis on involving front line practice teams in developing indicators. However, almost all GPs and practice managers described a sense of decreased clinical autonomy and loss of professionalism. Calibrating the appropriate level of clinical autonomy is critical if pay for performance schemes are to have maximal impact on patient care.     

Views of cancer care reviews in primary care: a qualitative study

Background

The Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) provides an incentive for practices to establish a cancer register and conduct a review with cancer patients within 6 months of diagnosis, but implementation is unknown.

Aim

To describe: (1) implementation of the QOF cancer care review; (2) patients'' experiences of primary care over the first 3 years following a cancer diagnosis; (3) patients'' views on optimal care; and (4) the views of primary care professionals regarding their cancer care.

Design of study

Qualitative study using thematic analysis and a framework approach.

Setting

Six general practices in the Thames Valley area.

Method

Semi-structured interviews with cancer patients and focus groups with primary care teams.

Results

Thirty-eight adults with 12 different cancer types were interviewed. Seventy-one primary care team members took part in focus groups. Most cancer care reviews are conducted opportunistically. Thirty-five patients had had a review; only two could recall this. Patients saw acknowledgement of their diagnosis and provision of general support as important and not always adequately provided. An active approach and specific review appointment would legitimise the raising of concerns. Primary care teams considered cancer care to be part of their role. GPs emphasised the importance of being able to respond to individual patients'' needs and closer links with secondary care to facilitate a more involved role.

Conclusion

Patients and primary care teams believe primary care has an important role to play in cancer care. Cancer care reviews in their current format are not helpful, with considerable scope for improving practice in this area. An invitation to attend a specific appointment at the end of active treatment may aid transition from secondary care and improve satisfaction with follow-up in primary care.     

Judgements about fellow professionals and the management of patients receiving palliative care in primary care: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Policies emphasise the importance of collaborative working in community palliative care. Collaborations are generally formed through formal and informal referral processes, but little is known about what influences professionals' decisions to refer to such services. AIM: To explore the influences on referrals within general and specialist community palliative care services. DESIGN OF STUDY: Qualitative, multiple-case study. SETTING: Three primary care trusts in the north-west of England. METHOD: Multiple data collection methods were employed, including documentary analysis, observation of referral team meetings and interviews. This paper primarily reports data from interviews with 47 health professionals, including GPs, district nurses, and specialist palliative care professionals. RESULTS: Judgements -- positive and negative -- about aspects of fellow professionals' performances appeared to influence referral decisions and ongoing collaboration and care. Attributes upon which these judgements were based included professional responsiveness and communication, respect, working and workload management practices, perceived expertise, and notions of elite practice. The effects of such judgements on referral and healthcare practices were altered by professional "game playing" to achieve professionals' desired outcomes. CONCLUSION: Palliative care policies and protocols need to take account of these complex and subtle influences on referrals and collaboration. In particular, teamwork and partnership are encouraged within palliative care work, but critical judgements indicate that such partnerships may be difficult or fragile. It is likely that such judgemental attitudes and practices affect many aspects of primary care, not just palliative care.     

Implementing the role of the primary care mental health worker: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND: Primary care mental health workers are a new role recently introduced into primary care in England to help manage patients with common mental health problems. AIM: To explore the views of GPs, primary care teams and patients on the value and development of the new role of primary care mental health workers in practice. DESIGN OF STUDY: Qualitative study. SETTING: The Heart of Birmingham Primary Care Teaching Trust in the West Midlands, UK. METHOD: Thirty-seven semi-structured interviews involving seven primary care mental health workers, 21 patients and 11 focus groups involving 38 members of primary care teams were held with six teams with a worker. Two teams asked for the worker to be removed. Six practice managers also took part in the study. RESULTS: A number of different approaches were used to implement this new role. Strategies that incorporated the views of primary care trust senior management, primary care teams and workers' views appeared most successful. Rapid access to a healthcare professional at times of stress and the befriending role of the worker were also highly valued. Workers felt that their role left them professionally isolated at times. A number of workers described tension around ownership of the role. CONCLUSION: Primary care mental health workers appear to provide a range of skills valued by patients and the primary care teams and can increase patient access and choice in this area of health care. Successful implementation strategies highlighted in this study may be generalisable to other new roles in primary care.     

Exploring preferences for symptom management in primary care: a discrete choice experiment using a questionnaire survey

BackgroundSymptoms are important drivers for the use of primary care services. Strategies aimed at shifting the focus away from the GP have broadened the range of primary healthcare available.AimTo explore preferences for managing symptoms and investigate trade-offs that the public are willing to make when deciding between different primary care services.MethodA discrete choice experiment examined management preferences for three symptoms of differing seriousness (diarrhoea, dizziness, and chest pain). Willingness-to-pay estimates compared preferences between symptoms, and by sex, age, and income.ResultsPreferences differed significantly between symptoms. ‘Self-care’ was the preferred action for diarrhoea and ‘consulting a GP’ for dizziness and chest pain. ‘Waiting time’ and ‘chance of a satisfactory outcome’ were important factors for all three symptoms, although their relative importance differed. Broadly, people were more prepared to wait longer and less prepared to trade a good chance of a satisfactory outcome for symptoms rated as more serious. Generally, preferences within subgroups followed similar patterns as for the whole sample, although there were differences in the relative strength of preferences.ConclusionDespite increased choices in primary care, ‘traditional’ actions of ‘self-care’ for minor symptoms and ‘GP consultation’ for more serious symptoms were preferred. The present findings suggest, however, that people may be willing to trade between different health services, particularly for less serious symptoms. Understanding the relative importance of different factors may help inform interventions aimed at changing management behaviour or improving services.     

Carrier screening for cystic fibrosis in primary care: evaluation of a project in South Wales The South Wales Cystic Fibrosis Carrier Screening Research Team

Population carrier screening for cystic fibrosis (CF) was offered to all patients aged 16–45 in one general practice in South Wales, excluding those in couples with a current pregnancy. Out of 1553 patients in this group, 481 subjects were tested, giving an overall uptake rate of more than 30%. The rate of uptake varied with the mode of invitation. Twenty-six carriers were identified, giving a prevalence of identified carriers of 5.4% (1 in 18.5) for those with no family history of CF. A further 18 carriers were identified by cascade testing of these 26. We describe the practical difficulties encountered in setting up this programme in primary care in South Wales. Questionnaires were administered or distributed to all subjects before and after testing. The response rate for the pre-test questionnaire was 95%, and 40–50% for the post-test questionnaires. These showed that, at 3 months post-test, 1 in 4 screen-negative subjects did not appreciate that they had a residual risk of being a carrier. At the same time, 15% of this group thought that there was a 1 in 4 chance of a child being affected if one parent was screen-positive (carried an identified mutation) and the other was screen-negative, and 40% thought there was no risk. Anxiety in relation to testing did not appear to be a major problem, although individual patterns of response to carrier status varied widely and more sensitive indicators of psychosocial impact of genetic tests are required. A pilot study of couple screening showed that this approach is unlikely to be useful in primary care, although we did not assess couple testing during pregnancy. For any programme of CF carrier screening to be established in primary care, it will be necessary to involve the primary care team from the earliest planning stage, so that the opportunity costs, training needs and other costs of the programme can be fully resourced.     

Clinical features of kidney cancer in primary care: a case-control study using primary care records

Background

Kidney cancer accounts for over 4000 UK deaths annually, and is one of the cancer sites with a poor mortality record compared with Europe.

Aim

To identify and quantify all clinical features of kidney cancer in primary care.

Design

Case-control study, using General Practice Research Database records.

Method

A total of 3149 patients aged ≥40 years, diagnosed with kidney cancer between 2000 and 2009, and 14 091 age, sex and practice-matched controls, were selected. Clinical features associated with kidney cancer were identified, and analysed using conditional logistic regression. Positive predictive values for features of kidney cancer were estimated.

Results

Cases consulted more frequently than controls in the year before diagnosis: median 16 consultations (interquartile range 10–25) versus 8 (4–15): P<0.001. Fifteen features were independently associated with kidney cancer: visible haematuria, odds ratio 37 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 28 to 49), abdominal pain 2.8 (95% CI = 2.4 to 3.4), microcytosis 2.6 (95% CI = 1.9 to 3.4), raised inflammatory markers 2.4 (95% CI = 2.1 to 2.8), thrombocytosis 2.2 (95% CI = 1.7 to 2.7), low haemoglobin 1.9 (95% CI = 1.6 to 2.2), urinary tract infection 1.8 (95% CI = 1.5 to 2.1), nausea 1.8 (95% CI = 1.4 to 2.3), raised creatinine 1.7 (95% CI = 1.5 to 2.0), leukocytosis 1.5 (95% CI = 1.2 to 1.9), fatigue 1.5 (95% CI = 1.2 to 1.9), constipation 1.4 (95% CI = 1.1 to 1.7), back pain 1.4 (95% CI = 1.2 to 1.7), abnormal liver function 1.3 (95% CI = 1.2 to 1.5), and raised blood sugar 1.2 (95% CI = 1.1 to 1.4). The positive predictive value for visible haematuria in patients aged ≥60 years was 1.0% (95% CI = 0.8 to 1.3).

Conclusion

Visible haematuria is the commonest and most powerful single predictor of kidney cancer, and the risk rises when additional symptoms are present. When considered alongside the risk of bladder cancer, the overall risk of urinary tract cancer from haematuria warrants referral.     

Antenatal needs of couples following fertility treatment: a qualitative study in primary care

Background

It is known that couples may experience emotional distress while undergoing infertility treatment, but less is known about their experience of pregnancy following successful conception. Typically, couples are discharged from the fertility clinic to receive standard antenatal care. Recent research has raised questions about whether this care adequately meets their needs.

Aim

To explore the antenatal experiences of females and males who have successfully conceived through infertility treatment.

Design and setting

An exploratory qualitative approach was undertaken, using individual, in-depth interviews with females and males who had successfully undergone infertility treatment in one of three fertility clinics in the south of England.

Method

Twenty participants were interviewed (12 females and eight male partners) when their pregnancy had reached 28 weeks’ gestation. Participants were asked about their experiences of infertility treatment, pregnancy, and antenatal care. Interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed, and analysed thematically.

Results

Analysis of the interviews suggested females and males experienced a ‘gap’ in their care, in terms of time and intensity, when discharged from the fertility clinic to standard antenatal care. This gap, combined with their previous experience of infertility treatment, heightened their fear of pregnancy loss and increased their need for support from their health professionals. Participants’ previous experience of infertility treatment also appeared to deter them from preparing for the birth and parenthood, and disclosing negative feelings to others about the pregnancy.

Conclusion

Females and males who have successfully undergone infertility treatment may require additional support in primary care to address anxiety during pregnancy, enable disclosure of negative feelings, and to help them prepare for childbirth and parenthood.     

Recorded quality of primary care for osteoarthritis: an observational study

Background

Osteoarthritis is the most common chronic disease in the UK, with greater prevalence in women, older people, and those with poorer socioeconomic status. Effective treatments are available, yet little is known about the quality of primary care for this disabling condition.

Aim

To measure the recorded quality of primary care for osteoarthritis, and assess variavariations by patient and/or practice characteristics.

Design of study

Retrospective observational study.

Setting

Eighteen general practices in England.

Method

Records of 320/393 randomly selected patients with osteoarthritis (response rate 81%) were reviewed. High-quality health care was specified by nine quality indicators. Logistic regression modelling assessed variations in quality by age, sex, deprivation, severity, time since diagnosis, and practice size.

Results

There was substantial variation in the recorded achievement of individual indicators (range 5% to 90%). The percentage of eligible patients whose records show that they received care in the form of information provision ranged from 17% to 30%. For regular assessment indicators the range was 27% to 43%, and for treatment indicators the range was 5% to 90%. Recorded achievement of quality indicators was higher in those with more severe osteoarthritis (odds ratio [OR] 1.38, 95% CI = 1.13 to 1.69) and in older patients (OR 1.14, 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.28). There were no significant variations by deprivation score.

Conclusion

This study has demonstrated the feasibility of using existing robust quality indicators to measure the quality of primary care for osteoarthritis, and has found considerable scope for improvement in the recording of high-quality care. The lack of variation between practices suggests that system-level initiatives may be needed to achieve improvement. One challenge will be to improve care for all, without losing the equitable distribution of care identified.     

The benefits and costs of a master's programme in primary health care: a cross-sectional postal survey

Background

Master''s programmes can provide continuing professional development, equipping GPs to teach, research, and lead general practice. A previous evaluation of the MSc in primary health care found that graduates were contributing significantly to the discipline of general practice. Given the changes in general practice over the last 10 years, it was considered useful to investigate longer-term outcomes.

Aim

To assess the benefits GPs have derived from the MSc in terms of the intended learning outcomes and their own plans for involvement in research and teaching.

Design of study

A cross-sectional survey using a postal questionnaire.

Setting

Department of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, King''s College London.

Method

A postal questionnaire was sent to the graduates of MSc in primary health care from 1997 until 2008.

Results

A total of 50 completed questionnaires were returned (response rate 76%). After graduation, 22 GPs had completed another degree or diploma and 21 had work accepted for publication, resulting in 74 papers. Nine held academic posts at lecturer or senior lecturer level, 21 were GP trainers, and 21 undergraduate teachers. Twenty-five GPs held more than one teaching-related post. The majority of the graduates confirmed the attainment of the MSc''s intended outcomes. Positive influences of the MSc were identified, including career development, personal development, and job satisfaction.

Conclusion

Graduates reported a number of benefits to themselves, their practices, and their patients. As the requirements for continuing professional development of GPs become more stringent, and with the advent of revalidation, the current ad hoc approach to career development in general practice is becoming unsustainable. To enhance its credibility as an academic discipline, general practice must continue to develop its capacity for research and scholarship. Master''s programmes are likely to have an important role in supporting professional development in general practice in the future.     

Cancer diagnosis in primary care

Around a quarter of those in the developed world die of cancer. Most cancers present to primary care with symptoms, even when there is a screening test for the particular cancer. However, the symptoms of cancer are also symptoms of benign disease, and the GP has to judge whether cancer is a possible explanation. Very little research examined this process until relatively recently. This review paper examines the process of primary care diagnosis, especially the selection of patients for rapid investigation. It concentrates on the four commonest UK cancers: breast, lung, colon, and prostate as these have been the subject of most recent studies.     

Use of cancer susceptibility testing among primary care physicians

Primary care physicians (PCPs) are assuming greater roles in cancer risk assessment and susceptibility testing of patients. The objective of this study was to assess the beliefs and practices of PCPs relative to genetic susceptibility testing for cancer. A cross-sectional survey was mailed to 726 PCPs in community-based practices in southeastern Pennsylvania and southern New Jersey. Data were collected on physician background, cognitive and psychosocial factors, practice environment, and patient factors. The main outcome measure was physician self-reported recommendation or referral of patients for cancer genetic susceptibility testing in a 12-month period prior to the survey. Of those surveyed, 475 (65%) PCPs responded. Complete survey data were available for 433 PCPs. Multivariable analyses show that factors positively associated with PCP recommendation/referral included: patient inquiry about their need for genetic testing for cancer (p < 0.001); PCP belief that patient age is the best predictor of cancer risk (p = 0.01); PCP self-reported frequency of collecting patient diet information (p = 0.01) and medical history information (p = 0.01); and PCP participation in an integrated health system (p = 0.01). PCP use of cancer genetic susceptibility testing may be influenced by patient inquiry, provider beliefs about factors that affect cancer risk, provider collection of risk-assessment data, and provider practice environment.