A comparison of research general practices and their patients with other practices--a cross-sectional survey in Trent.

BACKGROUND: When interpreting results of studies undertaken by research networks we need to know how representative volunteer practices and their registered patients are of the total population of practices and patients in their locality. AIM: To compare the following in research and non-research general practices in one region: practice and population demography, morbidity and mortality, selected performance indicators, and health outcomes. DESIGN OF STUDY: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Sixty-six Trent Focus Collaborative Research Network general practices and 749 other general practices in Trent, United Kingdom. METHOD: Practice characteristics and GP contract data were obtained from the NHS Executive, Quarry House, Leeds. The Trent Regional NHS Hospital Admission Database was searched to identify all relevant admissions to hospital from all practices between 1 April 1993 and 31 March 1997. Ward-linked data on cancer were obtained from the Trent Cancer Registry. RESULTS: Of the 815 general practices in Trent Region in the study period, 66 (8%) were in the Trent Focus network. They were more likely to be involved in training GPs and to have a female partner. They tended to be larger, with fewer single-handed doctors and younger GPs. Network practices prescribed a higher proportion of generics (median % prescribed/practice = 70%, versus 51%, Mann-Whitney U = 1615, P<0.0001). There were no clinically important differences between hospital admission rates between the two groups or waiting times for surgical procedures. There was no difference in the incidence of cancer and standardised mortality ratios related to the electoral wards of the GP surgery. CONCLUSION: Although there were differences in practice structure and some aspects of performance, we found no important differences in the demography of registered patients, nor in morbidity, mortality, or access to or use of secondary care.     

Identifying undiagnosed diabetes: cross-sectional survey of 3.6 million patients' electronic records.

BACKGROUND: Around 1% of the UK population has diabetes that is either undiagnosed or unrecorded on practice disease registers. AIM: To estimate the number of people in UK primary care databases with biochemical evidence of undiagnosed diabetes. To develop simple practice-based search techniques to support early recognition of diabetes. DESIGN OF STUDY: Cross-sectional survey of 3 630 296 electronic records. SETTING: Four hundred and eighty UK practices contributing to the QRESEARCH database. METHOD: Electronic searches to identify people with no diabetes diagnosis in one of two categories (A and B), using the most recently recorded blood glucose measurement: random blood glucose level >or=11.1 mmol/l or fasting blood glucose level >or=7.0 mmol/l (A); either a random or a fasting blood glucose level >or=7.0 mmol/l (B). An additional outcome measure was the proportion of the population with at least one blood glucose measurement in the record. RESULTS: The number (percentage) identified in category A was 3758 (0.10% of the total population); the number in category B was 32 785 (0.90%). Projected to a practice of 7000 patients, around eight patients have biochemical evidence of undiagnosed diabetes, and 68 have results suggesting the need for further follow-up. One-third of people aged over 40 years without diabetes have a blood glucose measurement in the past 2 years in their record. CONCLUSION: People with possible undiagnosed diabetes are readily identifiable in UK primary care databases through electronic searches using blood glucose data. People with borderline levels, who may benefit from interventions to reduce their risk of progression to diabetes, can also be identified using practice-based software.     

The current status of risk-stratified breast screening

Apart from high-risk scenarios such as the presence of highly penetrant genetic mutations, breast screening typically comprises mammography or tomosynthesis strategies defined by age. However, age-based screening ignores the range of breast cancer risks that individual women may possess and is antithetical to the ambitions of personalised early detection. Whilst screening mammography reduces breast cancer mortality, this is at the risk of potentially significant harms including overdiagnosis with overtreatment, and psychological morbidity associated with false positives. In risk-stratified screening, individualised risk assessment may inform screening intensity/interval, starting age, imaging modality used, or even decisions not to screen. However, clear evidence for its benefits and harms needs to be established. In this scoping review, the authors summarise the established and emerging evidence regarding several critical dependencies for successful risk-stratified breast screening: risk prediction model performance, epidemiological studies, retrospective clinical evaluations, health economic evaluations and qualitative research on feasibility and acceptability. Family history, breast density or reproductive factors are not on their own suitable for precisely estimating risk and risk prediction models increasingly incorporate combinations of demographic, clinical, genetic and imaging-related parameters. Clinical evaluations of risk-stratified screening are currently limited. Epidemiological evidence is sparse, and randomised trials only began in recent years.Subject terms: Breast cancer, Cancer epidemiology     

Coronary heart disease prevention and age inequalities: the first year of the National Service Framework for CHD

BACKGROUND: The National Service Framework for Heart Disease sets national standards and defines service models for coronary heart disease (CHD). Little is known about the impact of this intervention on age inequalities. AIM: To determine the changes in the uptake of coronary prevention measures before and after the first year of implementation of the National Service Framework for Coronary Heart Disease, and to compare these changes in uptake of coronary prevention in patients aged 75 years and over with younger patients. DESIGN OF STUDY: Repeated cross-sectional survey using routinely collected data. SETTING: Seventeen general practices in 17 primary care groups in the Trent Region. METHOD: All registered patients at baseline and follow-up aged >/=35 years were categorised into three groups: those with either coronary heart disease or a history of stroke; those with diabetes or hypertension who were not in in the first group; and the remaining population. Data from electronic records was collected to show differences in the proportions of patients with coronary risk factors recorded in the previous year. Data was also collected about differences in the proportions of patients with adequate disease control measures. RESULTS: Improvements were demonstrated in the recording of coronary risk factors and of disease control measures. However, compared with patients aged <75 years, older patients were significantly less likely to have a serum cholesterol level recorded at baseline; to be on lipid lowering drugs; to be on beta blockers post myocardial infarction and to have well controlled blood pressure. These differences persisted at follow-up. CONCLUSION: There have been substantial improvements in both the recording of coronary risk factors and disease control measures following the implementation of the National Service Framework for Coronary Heart Disease. However, there needs to be an effort to strengthen the focus on the care of older patients.