Andrew W. Murphy

The prevalence of multimorbidity in primary care and its effect on health care utilization and cost

INTRODUCTION Multimorbidity is common among the heterogeneous primary care population, but little data exist on its association with health care utilization or cost. OBJECTIVE The aim of this observational study was to examine the prevalence and associated health care utilization and cost of patients with multimorbidity. METHODS All patients >50 years of age were eligible for the study which took place in three primary care practices in the West of Ireland. Chronic medical conditions and associated health care utilization in primary and secondary care were identified through patient record review. RESULTS In a sample of 3309 patients in the community, the prevalence of multimorbidity was 66.2% (95% CI: 64.5-67.8) in those >50 years of age. Health care utilization and cost was significantly increased among patients with multimorbidity (P < 0.001). After multivariate adjustment for age, gender and free medical care eligibility, the addition of each chronic condition led to an associated increase in primary care consultations (P = 0.001) (11.9 versus 3.7 for >4 conditions versus 0 conditions); hospital out-patient visits (P = 0.001) (3.6 versus 0.6 for >4 conditions versus 0 conditions); hospital admissions (P = 0.01) [adjusted odds ratio (OR) of 4.51 for >4 conditions versus 0 conditions] and total health care costs (P < 0.001) (€4,096.86 versus €760.20 for >4 conditions versus 0 conditions) over the previous 12 months. CONCLUSIONS Multimorbidity is very common in primary care and in a system with strong gatekeeping is associated with high health care utilization and cost across the health care system. Interventions to address quality and cost associated with multimorbidity must focus on primary as well as secondary care.

Randomised controlled trial of general practitioner versus usual medical care in an urban accident and emergency department: process, outcome, and comparative cost

Abstract Objective: To see whether care provided by general practitioners to non-emergency patients in an accident and emergency department differs significantly from care by usual accident and emergency staff in terms of process, outcome, and comparative cost. Design: A randomised controlled trial. Setting: A busy inner city hospitals accident and emergency department which employed three local general practitioners on a sessional basis. Patients: All new attenders categorised by the triage system as “semiurgent” or “delay acceptable.” 66% of all attenders were eligible for inclusion. Main outcome measures: Numbers of patients undergoing investigation, referral, or prescription; types of disposal; consultation satisfaction scores; reattendance to accident and emergency department within 30 days of index visit; health status at one month; comparative cost differences. Results: 4684 patients participated. For semiurgent patients, by comparison with usual accident and emergency staff, general practitioners investigated fewer patients (relative difference 20%; 95% confidence interval 16% to 25%), referred to other hospital services less often (39%; 28% to 47%), admitted fewer patients (45%; 32% to 56%), and prescribed more often (41%; 30% to 54%). A similar trend was found for patients categorised as delay acceptable and (in a separate analysis) by presenting complaint category. 393 (17%) patients who had been seen by general practitioner staff reattended the department within 30 days of the index visit; 418 patients (18%) seen by accident and emergency staff similarly reattended. 435 patients (72% of those eligible) completed the consultation satisfaction questionnaire and 258 (59% of those eligible) provided health status information one month after consultation. There were no differences between patients managed by general practitioners and those managed by usual staff regarding consultation satisfaction questionnaire scores or health status. For all patients seen by general practitioners during the study, estimated marginal and total savings were £Ir1427 and £Ir117005 respectively. Conclusion: General practitioners working as an integral part of an accident and emergency department manage non-emergency accident and emergency attenders safely and use fewer resources than do usual accident and emergency staff. Key messages Key messages A study extending this innovation shows that the care provided to non-emergency patients by general practitioners working as an integral part of an accident and emergency department also differs substantially from the care provided by the usual staff in terms of process Compared with the usual accident and emer- gency department staff, general practitioners investigate fewer patients, refer to other hospital services less often, more often refer patients back to their own general practitioners for follow up, admit fewer patients, and prescribe more often General practitioners within an accident and emergency department have no apparent effect on reattendance rates to the department within 30 days, patient satisfaction, or health status one month after the initial attendance As yet there are no explanations for these differ- ences, which warrant further research

Helping each other to learn – a process evaluation of peer assisted learning

BackgroundThe benefits of Peer Assisted Learning (PAL) are well established with positive effects on examination scores, student satisfaction and personal and professional development reported. PAL is increasingly utilised as a resource within medical education where the restrictions on resources have forced teachers to look at creating new educational environments which can be delivered at a lower cost. This study sought to evaluate the processes at work as the emphasis of PAL research to date has largely been on the consideration of student outcomes.MethodsFifth-year medical undergraduates, who had completed their communication skills modular training and attended a preparatory workshop, facilitated a role-play session for their second-year colleagues within an Early Patient Contact programme. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were used to collect data at different time points in order to establish the views of peer learners and tutors towards this new method of teaching. The data was analysed according to the principles framework analysis using N-vivo software. Themes were shared and debated with the multidisciplinary team of authors and a concordance of views on common themes was reached after discussion and debate.ResultsAnalysis of the data resulted in the emergence of three thematic categories: Learning Environment, Educational Exchange and Communication and Modelling. The data demonstrated a concordance of the views between peer tutors and learners on barriers and levers of this approach as well as a heightened awareness of the learning environment and the educational exchange occurring therein.ConclusionThe data is significant as it not only demonstrates a high level of acceptability among tutors and learners for PAL but also indicates the reciprocity of educational exchange that appears to occur within the PAL setting. This study highlights some of the unique characteristics of PAL and we recommend the development of further qualitative studies around peer learners and tutors views of this process.

Chronic pain in the Republic of Ireland—Community prevalence, psychosocial profile and predictors of pain-related disability: Results from the Prevalence, Impact and Cost of Chronic Pain (PRIME) study, Part 1

&NA; The aims of the PRIME study (Prevalence, Impact and Cost of Chronic Pain) were 3‐fold: (1) to determine the point prevalence of chronic pain in Ireland; (2) to compare the psychological and physical health profiles of those with and without chronic pain; and (3) to explore a predictive model of pain‐related disability. A postal survey of 3136 people was conducted with a representative community‐based sample of adults. Measures were obtained for sociodemographic variables, physical and psychological well‐being, depressive symptoms, presence of pain, pain severity, pain‐related disability, and illness perceptions. Responses were received from 1204 people. The prevalence of chronic pain was 35.5% (95% CI = 32.8–38.2) (n = 428). No gender difference in prevalence was found. Prevalence of pain increased with age and was associated with manual employment. The most commonly reported site of pain was the lower back (47.6%); however, multiple pain sites was the norm, with more than 80% of participants reporting more than 1 pain site. Approximately 12% of participants were unable to work or were on reduced work hours because of pain. Of those with chronic pain, 15% met the criteria for clinically relevant depression compared with 2.8% of those without pain. A multiple regression analysis, predicting 67% of variance, showed that pain intensity was the strongest predictor of pain‐related disability. Depression and illness perceptions were also predictive of pain‐related disability, after controlling for the effects of pain intensity. Chronic pain is a prevalent health problem in Ireland and is associated with significant psychological and functional disability. Psychological factors appear to influence the level of pain‐related disability. Chronic pain affects approximately one‐third of the population in Ireland, and depressive symptoms occur 5 times more often than in persons without chronic pain.

Effectiveness of a smartphone application to promote physical activity in primary care: the SMART MOVE randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Physical inactivity is a major, potentially modifiable, risk factor for cardiovascular disease, cancer, and other chronic diseases. Effective, simple, and generalisable interventions that will increase physical activity in populations are needed. AIM To evaluate the effectiveness of a smartphone application (app) to increase physical activity in primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING An 8-week, open-label, randomised controlled trial in rural, primary care in the west of Ireland. METHOD Android smartphone users >16 years of age were recruited. All participants were provided with similar physical activity goals and information on the benefits of exercise. The intervention group was provided with a smartphone app and detailed instructions on how to use it to achieve these goals. The primary outcome was change in physical activity, as measured by a daily step count between baseline and follow-up. RESULTS A total of 139 patients were referred by their primary care health professional or self-referred. In total, 37 (27%) were screened out and 12 (9%) declined to participate, leaving 90 (65%) patients who were randomised. Of these, 78 provided baseline data (intervention = 37; control = 41) and 77 provided outcome data (intervention = 37; control = 40). The mean daily step count at baseline for intervention and control groups was 4365 and 5138 steps per day respectively. After adjusting, there was evidence of a significant treatment effect (P = 0.009); the difference in mean improvement in daily step count from week 1 to week 8 inclusive was 1029 (95% confidence interval 214 to 1843) steps per day, favouring the intervention. Improvements in physical activity in the intervention group were sustained until the end of the trial. CONCLUSION A simple smartphone app significantly increased physical activity over 8 weeks in a primary care population.

Effect of tailored practice and patient care plans on secondary prevention of heart disease in general practice: cluster randomised controlled trial.

Objective To test the effectiveness of a complex intervention designed, within a theoretical framework, to improve outcomes for patients with coronary heart disease. Design Cluster randomised controlled multicentre trial. Setting General practices in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, regions with different healthcare systems. Participants 903 patients with established coronary heart disease registered with one of 48 practices. Intervention Tailored care plans for practices (practice based training in prescribing and behaviour change, administrative support, quarterly newsletter), and tailored care plans for patients (motivational interviewing, goal identification, and target setting for lifestyle change) with reviews every four months at the practices. Control practices provided usual care. Main outcome measures The proportion of patients at 18 month follow-up above target levels for blood pressure and total cholesterol concentration, and those admitted to hospital, and changes in physical and mental health status (SF-12). Results At baseline the numbers (proportions) of patients above the recommended limits were: systolic blood pressure greater than 140 mm Hg (305/899; 33.9%, 95% confidence interval 30.8% to 33.9%), diastolic blood pressure greater than 90 mm Hg (111/901; 12.3%, 10.2% to 14.5%), and total cholesterol concentration greater than 5 mmol/l (188/860; 20.8%, 19.1% to 24.6%). At the 18 month follow-up there were no significant differences between intervention and control groups in the numbers (proportions) of patients above the recommended limits: systolic blood pressure, intervention 98/360 (27.2%) v control, 133/405 (32.8%), odds ratio 1.51 (95% confidence interval 0.99 to 2.30; P=0.06); diastolic blood pressure, intervention 32/360 (8.9%) v control, 40/405 (9.9%), 1.40 (0.75 to 2.64; P=0.29); and total cholesterol concentration, intervention 52/342 (15.2%) v control, 64/391 (16.4%), 1.13 (0.63 to 2.03; P=0.65). The number of patients admitted to hospital over the 18 month study period significantly decreased in the intervention group compared with the control group: 107/415 (25.8%) v 148/435 (34.0%), 1.56 (1.53 to 2.60; P=0.03). Conclusions Admissions to hospital were significantly reduced after an intensive 18 month intervention to improve outcomes for patients with coronary heart disease, but no other clinical benefits were shown, possibly because of a ceiling effect related to improved management of the disease. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN24081411.

The Economic Cost of Chronic Noncancer Pain in Ireland: Results From the PRIME Study, Part 2

UNLABELLED To assess the economic cost of chronic pain in Ireland, information was gathered from 140 people with chronic pain. Direct and indirect costs attributable to chronic pain and medical conditions of which chronic pain was a feature were recorded retrospectively for 12 months. Mean cost per chronic pain patient was estimated at €5,665 per year across all grades of pain, with mean costs increasing according to the severity of pain. A small proportion of patients account for the bulk of costs-the top 5% most expensive patients accounted for 26.4% of costs, with a mean cost per patient of €29,936, and the 10% most expensive patients were responsible for 42.8% of all costs. Total cost for individuals aged 20 and above was estimated at €5.34 billion per year, or 2.86% of Irish GDP in 2008. Those with clinically elevated depression scores had costs that were twice as high as people who scored below the depression cut-off score. Chronic pain services in Ireland are generally underresourced. Improved coordination and better management of patients via interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation program is essential and may offer a means of reducing the sizeable economic burden of chronic pain. PERSPECTIVE The cost of chronic pain per patient was €5,665 per year extrapolated to €5.34 billion or 2.86% of GDP per year. Those with clinically significant depression had costs twice as high as those without depression. The significant burden of chronic pain highlights the need for cost effective interventions to reduce long-term disability.

Selection bias resulting from the requirement for prior consent in observational research: a community cohort of people with ischaemic heart disease.

Objective: To evaluate differences between adults who consent to participate in observational research and those who do not. Design: Prospective, population-based cohort study. Setting: 35 randomised Irish general practices. Participants: 1609 adults with ischaemic heart disease identified in 2000–1. Intervention: Medical records search, postal questionnaire and consent form in 2005–6. Main outcome measures: Differences in demographic and prognostic risk factors between consenters and non-consenters. Results: At follow-up, charts were located for 1592 patients (98.9%). Questionnaires were sent to 1269 patients and 876 were returned (69%). Of these, 574 (65.5%) gave consent for participation in further research. Logistic regression identified four characteristics as independently positively predictive of consent to participation in further research among questionnaire responders: having undergone percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty was associated with an increased odds of consent, with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.77 (95% CI 1.09 to 2.86), as was a last recorded blood pressure <140/90 mm Hg (OR = 1.45 (1.00 to 2.09)), a last recorded total cholesterol level <5 mmol/l (OR = 1.71 (1.16 to 2.54)) and being an ex-smoker rather than a current smoker or non-smoker (OR = 1.73 (1.17 to 2.57)). Conclusions: This research demonstrates the potential impact of consent bias in observational research on ischaemic heart disease, a disease of everyday clinical importance in Europe. It demonstrates that clinically important prognostic variables may be associated with consent preferences. Future cohorts, dependent upon prior written consent, may contain disproportionate numbers of those who have made healthy lifestyle decisions, have previously benefited from treatment or whose clinical risk factors are already well managed. As a result, the generalisability of such research may be diminished and the effects of treatments over- or underestimated.

Searching for the evidence in pre-hospital care: a review of randomised controlled trials. On behalf of the Ambulance Response Time Sub-Group of the National Ambulance Advisory Committee.

OBJECTIVES: To identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which evaluate aspects of pre-hospital care; to perform categorisation by theme; to compare the sensitivity and precision of the search databases. DATA SOURCES: August 1997 updates of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, using the Datastar online system. Papers published in 1987 or later were included, with no language restrictions. STUDY SELECTION: A trial was eligible for inclusion if it was judged, by two independent and blinded assessors, that participants followed up in the trial were definitely or possibly assigned prospectively to one of two or more alternative forms of healthcare with random allocation or a quasi-random method of allocation. RESULTS: The literature search retrieved 849 papers, of which 569 (67%) were in MEDLINE and 486 (57%) in EMBASE. Forty one (5%) were confirmed as reports of RCTs or quasi-RCTs, and the total number of individual trials was 38. Ten of these trials dealt with thrombolytic drugs; 14 were concerned with other drugs, 12 with equipment, and two with other interventions. Four trials were based on a sample size of more than 1000, and seven reported a statistically significant effect on mortality. All 41 papers were in EMBASE, and all but one were also in MEDLINE. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence based policy making with respect to the organisation of pre-hospital services cannot depend on RCTs. In the current relative absence of such evidence, practitioners and decision makers must use alternative information sources. A future review could examine a broader range of literature and be based on a wider search of published and unpublished material.

SMART MOVE - a smartphone-based intervention to promote physical activity in primary care: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundSedentary lifestyles are now becoming a major concern for governments of developed and developing countries with physical inactivity related to increased all-cause mortality, lower quality of life, and increased risk of obesity, diabetes, hypertension and many other chronic diseases. The powerful onboard computing capacity of smartphones, along with the unique relationship individuals have with their mobile phones, suggests that mobile devices have the potential to influence behavior. However, no previous trials have been conducted using smartphone technology to promote physical activity. This project has the potential to provide robust evidence in this area of innovation. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a smartphone application as an intervention to promote physical activity in primary care.Methods/designA two-group, parallel randomized controlled trial (RCT) with a main outcome measure of mean difference in daily step count between baseline and follow up over eight weeks. A minimum of 80 active android smartphone users over 16 years of age who are able to undertake moderate physical activity are randomly assigned to the intervention group (n = 40) or to a control group (n = 40) for an eight week period. After randomization, all participants will complete a baseline period of one week during which a baseline mean daily step count will be established. The intervention group will be instructed in the usability features of the smartphone application, will be encouraged to try to achieve 10,000 steps per day as an exercise goal and will be given an exercise promotion leaflet. The control group will be encouraged to try to walk an additional 30 minutes per day along with their normal activity (the equivalent of 10,000 steps) as an exercise goal and will be given an exercise promotion leaflet. The primary outcome is mean difference in daily step count between baseline and follow-up. Secondary outcomes are systolic and diastolic blood pressure, resting heart rate, mental health score using HADS and quality of life score using Euroqol. Randomization and allocation to the intervention and groups will be carried out by an independent researcher, ensuring the allocation sequence is concealed from the study researchers until the interventions are assigned. The primary analysis is based on mean daily step count, comparing the mean difference in daily step count between the baseline and the trial periods in the intervention and control groups at follow up.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN99944116