Louise M Bentham

Presence and severity of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in a large prospective primary care cohort.

BACKGROUND & AIMS Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a common cause of abnormal LFTs in primary care, but there are no data defining its contribution nor reporting the range of NAFLD severity in this setting. This study seeks to calculate the range of disease severity of NAFLD in a primary care setting. METHODS Adult patients with incidental abnormal LFTs, in the absence of a previous history, or current symptoms/signs of liver disease were prospectively recruited from eight primary care practices in Birmingham. NAFLD was diagnosed as fatty liver on ultrasound, negative serological liver aetiology screen, and alcohol consumption ≤30 and ≤20 g/day in males and females, respectively. The NAFLD Fibrosis Score (NFS) was calculated to determine the presence or absence of advanced liver fibrosis in subjects identified with NAFLD. RESULTS Data from 1118 adult patients were analysed. The cause of abnormal LFTs was identified in 55% (614/1118) of subjects, with NAFLD (26.4%; 295/1118) and alcohol excess (25.3%; 282/1118) accounting for the majority. A high NFS (>0.676) suggesting the presence of advanced liver fibrosis was found in 7.6% of NAFLD subjects, whereas 57.2% of NAFLD patients had a low NFS (<-1.455) allowing advanced fibrosis to be confidently excluded. CONCLUSIONS NAFLD is the commonest cause of incidental LFT abnormalities in primary care (26.4%), of whom 7.6% have advanced fibrosis as calculated by the NFS. This study is the first of its kind to highlight the burden of NAFLD in primary care and provide data on disease severity in this setting.

Routine failures in the process for blood testing and the communication of results to patients in primary care in the UK: a qualitative exploration of patient and provider perspectives

Background The testing and result communication process in primary care is complex. Its successful completion relies on the coordinated efforts of a range of staff in primary care and external settings working together with patients. Despite the importance of diagnostic testing in provision of care, this complexity renders the process vulnerable in the face of increasing demand, stretched resources and a lack of supporting guidance. Methods We conducted a series of focus groups with patients and staff across four primary care practices using process-improvement strategies to identify and understand areas where either unnecessary delay is introduced, or the process may fail entirely. We then worked with both patients and staff to arrive at practical strategies to improve the current system. Results A total of six areas across the process were identified where improvements could be introduced. These were: (1) delay in phlebotomy, (2) lack of a fail-safe to ensure blood tests are returned to practices and patients, (3) difficulties in accessing results by telephone, (4) role of non-clinical staff in communicating results, (5) routine communication of normal results and (6) lack of a protocol for result communication. Conclusions A number of potential failures in testing and communicating results to patients were identified, and some specific ideas for improving existing systems emerged. These included same-day phlebotomy sessions, use of modern technology methods to proactively communicate routine results and targeted training for receptionists handling sensitive data. There remains an urgent need for further work to test these and other potential solutions.

Test result communication in primary care: clinical and office staff perspectives

Objective. To understand how the results of laboratory tests are communicated to patients in primary care and perceptions on how the process may be improved. Design. Qualitative study employing staff focus groups. Setting. Four UK primary care practices. Participants. Staff involved in the communication of test results. Findings. Five main themes emerged from the data: (i) the default method for communicating results differed between practices; (ii) clinical impact of results and patient characteristics such as anxiety level or health literacy influenced methods by which patients received their test result; (iii) which staff member had responsibility for the task was frequently unclear; (iv) barriers to communicating results existed, including there being no system or failsafe in place to determine whether results were returned to a practice or patient; (v) staff envisaged problems with a variety of test result communication methods discussed, including use of modern technologies, such as SMS messaging or online access. Conclusions. Communication of test results is a complex yet core primary care activity necessitating flexibility by both patients and staff. Dealing with the results from increasing numbers of tests is resource intensive and pressure on practice staff can be eased by greater utilization of electronic communication. Current systems appear vulnerable with no routine method of tracing delayed or missing results. Instead, practices only become aware of missing results following queries from patients. The creation of a test communication protocol for dissemination among patients and staff would help ensure both groups are aware of their roles and responsibilities.

What is the best strategy for investigating abnormal liver function tests in primary care? Implications from a prospective study

Objective Evaluation of predictive value of liver function tests (LFTs) for the detection of liver-related disease in primary care. Design A prospective observational study. Setting 11 UK primary care practices. Participants Patients (n=1290) with an abnormal eight-panel LFT (but no previously diagnosed liver disease). Main outcome measures Patients were investigated by recording clinical features, and repeating LFTs, specific tests for individual liver diseases, and abdominal ultrasound scan. Patients were characterised as having: hepatocellular disease; biliary disease; tumours of the hepato-biliary system and none of the above. The relationship between LFT results and disease categories was evaluated by stepwise regression and logistic discrimination, with adjustment for demographic and clinical factors. True and False Positives generated by all possible LFT combinations were compared with a view towards optimising the choice of analytes in the routine LFT panel. Results Regression methods showed that alanine aminotransferase (ALT) was associated with hepatocellular disease (32 patients), while alkaline phosphatase (ALP) was associated with biliary disease (12 patients) and tumours of the hepatobiliary system (9 patients). A restricted panel of ALT and ALP was an efficient choice of analytes, comparing favourably with the complete panel of eight analytes, provided that 48 False Positives can be tolerated to obtain one additional True Positive. Repeating a complete panel in response to an abnormal reading is not the optimal strategy. Conclusions The LFT panel can be restricted to ALT and ALP when the purpose of testing is to exclude liver disease in primary care.

Test result communication in primary care: a survey of current practice

Background The number of blood tests ordered in primary care continues to increase and the timely and appropriate communication of results remains essential. However, the testing and result communication process includes a number of participants in a variety of settings and is both complicated to manage and vulnerable to human error. In the UK, guidelines for the process are absent and research in this area is surprisingly scarce; so before we can begin to address potential areas of weakness there is a need to more precisely understand the strengths and weaknesses of current systems used by general practices and testing facilities. Methods We conducted a telephone survey of practices across England to determine the methods of managing the testing and result communication process. In order to gain insight into the perspectives from staff at a large hospital laboratory we conducted paired interviews with senior managers, which we used to inform a service blueprint demonstrating the interaction between practices and laboratories and identifying potential sources of delay and failure. Results Staff at 80% of practices reported that the default method for communicating normal results required patients to telephone the practice and 40% of practices required that patients also call for abnormal results. Over 80% had no fail-safe system for ensuring that results had been returned to the practice from laboratories; practices would otherwise only be aware that results were missing or delayed when patients requested results. Persistent sources of missing results were identified by laboratory staff and included sample handling, misidentification of samples and the inefficient system for collating and resending misdirected results. Conclusions The success of the current system relies on patients both to retrieve results and in so doing alert staff to missing and delayed results. Practices appear slow to adopt available technological solutions despite their potential for reducing the impact of recurring errors in the handling of samples and the reporting of results. Our findings will inform our continuing work with patients and staff to develop, implement and evaluate improvements to existing systems of managing the testing and result communication process.

Adaption, implementation and evaluation of collaborative service improvements in the testing and result communication process in primary care from patient and staff perspectives: a qualitative study

BackgroundIncreasing numbers of blood tests are being ordered in primary care settings and the swift and accurate communication of test results is central to providing high quality care. The process of testing and result communication is complex and reliant on the coordinated actions of care providers, external groups in laboratory and hospital settings, and patients. This fragmentation leaves it vulnerable to error and the need to improve an apparently fallible system is apparent. However, primary care is complex and does not necessarily adopt change in a linear and prescribed manner influenced by a range of factors relating to practice staff, patients and organisational factors. To account for these competing perspectives, we worked in conjunction with both staff and patients to develop and implement strategies intended to improve patient satisfaction and increase efficiency of existing processes.MethodsThe study applied the principles of ‘experience-based co-design’ to identify key areas of weakness and source proposals for change from staff and patients. The study was undertaken within two primary practices situated in South Birmingham (UK) of contrasting size and socio-economic environment. Senior practice staff were involved in the refinement of the interventions for introduction. We conducted focus groups singly constituted of staff and patients at each practice to determine suitability, applicability and desirability alongside the practical implications of their introduction.ResultsAt each practice four of the six proposals for change were implemented these were increased access to phlebotomy, improved receptionist training, proactive communication of results, and increased patient awareness of the tests ordered and the means of their communication. All were received favourably by both patients and staff. The remaining issues around the management of telephone calls and the introduction of electronic alerts for missing results were not addressed due to constraints of time and available resources.ConclusionsApproaches to tackling the same area of weakness differed at practices and was determined by individual staff attitudes and by organisational and patient characteristics. The long-term impact of the changes requires further quantitative evaluation.