Association Between Quality of Primary Care and Hospitalization for Coronary Heart Disease in England: National Cross-sectional Study

BACKGROUND A new pay-for-performance scheme for primary care physicians was introduced in England in 2004 as part of an initiative to link the quality of primary care with physician pay. OBJECTIVE To investigate the association between the quality of primary care and rates of hospital admissions for coronary heart disease. DESIGN Ecological cross-sectional study using data from the Quality and Outcomes Framework for family practice, hospital admissions, and census data. PARTICIPANTS All 303 primary care trusts in England, covering approximately 50 million people. MEASUREMENTS Rates of elective and unplanned hospital admissions for coronary heart disease and rates of coronary angioplasty and coronary artery bypass grafting were regressed against quality-of-care measures from the Quality and Outcomes Framework, area socioeconomic scores, and disease prevalence. RESULTS Correlations between prevalence, area socioeconomic scores, and admission rates were generally weak. The strongest relations were seen between area socioeconomic scores and elective and unplanned hospital admissions and revascularization procedures among the age group 45–74 years. Among those aged 75 years and over, the only positive association observed was between area socioeconomic scores and unplanned hospital admissions. CONCLUSIONS The lack of an association between quality scores and admission rates suggests that improving the quality of primary care may not reduce demands on the hospital sector and that other factors are much better predictors of hospitalization for coronary heart disease.     

Why Do Patients with Inflammatory Arthritis Often Score States “Worse than Death” on the EQ-5D? An Investigation of the EQ-5D Classification System

Objective:  Using inflammatory arthritis patients as an example, we investigate EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) profiles resulting in states worse than death (WTD), and the heath status of patients occupying these states.
Methods:  Baseline data from two UK trials were used that reflected the range of arthritis states/severity found in routine practice. EQ-5D profiles resulting in negative valuations (i.e., states WTD) based on UK weights were identified. EQ-5D scores for these profiles from alternative valuation sets, including a reanalysis of the UK weights, were compared. The health status and characteristics of patients, and factors associated with patients in the low distribution of the EQ-5D and those with WTD EQ-5D scores were identified.
Results:  Seven hundred patients were included in the analysis. Sixty-two (9%) patients occupied states WTD. Patients occupied 9 of the possible 84health profiles with negative scores (53% occupied one profile); this profile was not rated WTD by any of the alternative EQ-5D scoring algorithms. All WTD profiles included severe pain/discomfort plus moderate problems in ≥3 other domains. Patients with WTD valuations reported higher levels of pain, and feeling downhearted and low on alternative health status measures.
Conclusions:  Pain was the predominant factor in the WTD EQ-5D profiles occupied by arthritis patients. Patients occupying states WTD have poorer health-related quality of life than patients in low "better than death" states. Valuations of profiles vary according to how sets of preference weights for health profiles were developed. Further research should explore whether WTD valuations are supported by qualitative evidence and reflect the patient's health and experience of disease.     

Expectations and values about expanded newborn screening: a public engagement study

Objectives

Newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) panels have expanded to include conditions for which treatment effects are less certain, creating debate about population‐based screening criteria. We investigated Canadian public expectations and values regarding the types of conditions that should be included in NBS and whether parents should provide consent.

Methods

Eight focus groups (FG; n = 60) included education, deliberative discussion and pre‐/post‐questionnaires. Data were analysed quantitatively and qualitatively.

Results

Quantitatively, the majority supported NBS for serious disorders for which treatment is not available (95–98, 82%). A majority endorsed screening without explicit consent (77–88%) for treatable disorders, but 62% supported unpressured choice for screening for untreatable disorders. Qualitatively, participants valued treatment‐related benefits for infants and informational benefits for families. Concern for anxiety, stigma and unwanted knowledge depended upon disease context and strength of countervailing benefits.

Conclusions

Anticipated benefits of expanded infant screening were prioritized over harms, with information provision perceived as a mechanism for mitigating harms and enabling choice. However, we urge caution around the potential for public enthusiasm to foster unlimited uptake of infant screening technologies.     

The use of mechanistic evidence in drug approval

The role of mechanistic evidence tends to be under‐appreciated in current evidence‐based medicine (EBM), which focusses on clinical studies, tending to restrict attention to randomized controlled studies (RCTs) when they are available. The EBM+ programme seeks to redress this imbalance, by suggesting methods for evaluating mechanistic studies alongside clinical studies. Drug approval is a problematic case for the view that mechanistic evidence should be taken into account, because RCTs are almost always available. Nevertheless, we argue that mechanistic evidence is central to all the key tasks in the drug approval process: in drug discovery and development; assessing pharmaceutical quality; devising dosage regimens; assessing efficacy, harms, external validity, and cost‐effectiveness; evaluating adherence; and extending product licences. We recommend that, when preparing for meetings in which any aspect of drug approval is to be discussed, mechanistic evidence should be systematically analysed and presented to the committee members alongside analyses of clinical studies.     

Establishing local priorities for a health research agenda

Aim/Background

To describe the two‐stage prioritization process being used by the UK National Institute for Health Research''s Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care for the South‐West Peninsula (or PenCLAHRC) – a joint health service and university partnership and reflect on implications for the wider context of priority setting in health‐care research.

Method

PenCLAHRC''s process establishes the priorities of Stakeholders including service users across a regional health system for locally relevant health services research and implementation. Health research questions are collected from clinicians, academics and service users in Devon and Cornwall (UK) using a web‐based question formulation tool. There is a two‐stage prioritization process which uses explicit criteria and a wide Stakeholder group, including service users to identify important research questions relevant to the south‐west peninsula locality.

Results

To date, a wide variety of health research topics have been prioritized by the PenCLAHRC Stakeholders. The research agenda reflects the interests of academics, clinicians and service users in the local area. Potential challenges to implementation of the process include time constraints, variable quality of questions (including the language of research) and initiating and maintaining engagement in the process. Shared prioritization of local health research needs can be achieved between Stakeholders from a wide range of perspectives.

Conclusions

The processes developed have been successful and, with minor changes, will continue to be used during subsequent rounds of prioritization. Engagement of Stakeholders in establishing a research agenda encourages the most relevant health questions to be asked and may improve implementation of research findings and take up by service users.     

Chronic Care Model Decision Support and Clinical Information Systems Interventions for People Living with HIV: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The Chronic Care Model is an effective framework for improving chronic disease management. There is scarce literature describing this model for people living with HIV. Decision Support (DS) and Clinical Information Systems (CIS) are two components of this model that aim to improve care by changing health care provider behavior.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to assess the effectiveness of DS and CIS interventions for individuals with HIV, through a systematic literature review.

DESIGN

We performed systematic electronic searches from 1996 to February 2011 of the medical (E.g. Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL) and grey literature. Effectiveness was measured by the frequency of statistically significant outcome improvement. Data and key equity indicator extraction and synthesis was completed.

PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS

We included comparative studies of people living with HIV that examined the impact of DS or CIS interventions on outcomes.

MAIN MEASURES

The following measures were assessed: outcome (immunological/virological, medical, psychosocial, economic measures) and health care process/performance measures.

KEY RESULTS

Records were screened for relevance (n = 10,169), full-text copies of relevant studies were obtained (n = 123), and 16 studies were included in the review. Overall, 5/9 (55.6%) and 17/41 (41.5%) process measures and 5/12 (41.7%) and 3/9 (33.3%) outcome measures for DS and CIS interventions, respectively, were statistically significantly improved. DS–explicit mention of implementation of guidelines and CIS-reminders showed the most frequent improvement in outcomes. DS-only interventions were more effective than CIS-only interventions in improving both process and outcome measures. Clinical, statistical and methodological heterogeneity among studies precluded meta-analysis. Primary studies were methodologically weak and often included multifaceted interventions that made assessment of effectiveness challenging.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, DS and CIS interventions may modestly improve care for people living with HIV, having a greater impact on process measures compared to outcome measures. These interventions should be considered as part of strategies to improve HIV care through changing provider performance.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11606-012-2145-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.KEY Words: HIV/AIDS, chronic disease management, Chronic Care Model, decision support, clinical information systems, practice guidelines, systematic review