Mark Hann

Identifying predictors of high quality care in English general practice: observational study

Abstract Objectives: To assess variation in the quality of care in general practice and identify factors associated with high quality care. Design: Observational study. Setting: Stratified random sample of 60 general practices in six areas of England. Outcome measures: Quality of management of chronic disease (angina, asthma in adults, and type 2 diabetes) and preventive care (rates of uptake for immunisation and cervical smear), access to care, continuity of care, and interpersonal care (general practice assessment survey). Multiple logistic regression with multilevel modelling was used to relate each of the outcome variables to practice size, routine booking interval for consultations, socioeconomic deprivation, and team climate. Results: Quality of clinical care varied substantially, and access to care, continuity of care, and interpersonal care varied moderately. Scores for asthma, diabetes, and angina were 67%, 21%, and 17% higher in practices with 10 minute booking intervals for consultations compared with practices with five minute booking intervals. Diabetes care was better in larger practices and in practices where staff reported better team climate. Access to care was better in small practices. Preventive care was worse in practices located in socioeconomically deprived areas. Scores for satisfaction, continuity of care, and access to care were higher in practices where staff reported better team climate. Conclusions: Longer consultation times are essential for providing high quality clinical care. Good teamworking is a key part of providing high quality care across a range of areas and may need specific support if quality of care is to be improved. Additional support is needed to provide preventive care to deprived populations. No single type of practice has a monopoly on high quality care: different types of practice may have different strengths. What is already known on this topic Quality of care varies in virtually all aspects of medicine that have been studied Most studies look at quality of care from a single perspective or for a single condition What this study adds Quality of care varies for both clinical care and assessments by patients of access and interpersonal care Practices with longer booking intervals provide better management of chronic disease; preventive care is less good in practices in deprived areas No single type of practice has a monopoly on high quality care—small practices provide better access but poorer diabetes care Good team climate reported by staff is associated with a range of aspects of high quality care

The effect of panel membership and feedback on ratings in a two-round Delphi survey: results of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND Past observational studies of the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method have shown that the composition of panels affects the ratings that are obtained. Panels of mixed physicians make different judgments from panels of single specialty physicians, and physicians who use a procedure are more likely to rate it more highly than those who do not. OBJECTIVES To determine the effect of using physicians and health care managers within a panel designed to assess quality indicators for primary care and to test the effect of different types of feedback within the panel process. METHOD A two-round postal Delphi survey of health care managers and family physicians rated 240 potential indicators of quality of primary care in the United Kingdom to determine their face validity. Following round one, equal numbers of managers and physicians were randomly allocated to receive either collective (whole sample) or group-only (own professional group only) feedback, thus, creating four subgroups of two single-specialty panels and two mixed panels. RESULTS Overall, managers rated the indicators significantly higher than physicians. Second-round scores were moderated by the type of feedback received with those receiving collective feedback influenced by the other professional group. CONCLUSIONS This paper provides further experimental evidence that consensus panel judgments are influenced both by panel composition and by the type of feedback which is given to participants during the panel process. Careful attention must be given to the methods used to conduct consensus panel studies, and methods need to be described in detail when such studies are reported.

Integrated primary care for patients with mental and physical multimorbidity: cluster randomised controlled trial of collaborative care for patients with depression comorbid with diabetes or cardiovascular disease

Objective To test the effectiveness of an integrated collaborative care model for people with depression and long term physical conditions. Design Cluster randomised controlled trial. Setting 36 general practices in the north west of England. Participants 387 patients with a record of diabetes or heart disease, or both, who had depressive symptoms (≥10 on patient health questionaire-9 (PHQ-9)) for at least two weeks. Mean age was 58.5 (SD 11.7). Participants reported a mean of 6.2 (SD 3.0) long term conditions other than diabetes or heart disease; 240 (62%) were men; 360 (90%) completed the trial. Interventions Collaborative care included patient preference for behavioural activation, cognitive restructuring, graded exposure, and/or lifestyle advice, management of drug treatment, and prevention of relapse. Up to eight sessions of psychological treatment were delivered by specially trained psychological wellbeing practitioners employed by Improving Access to Psychological Therapy services in the English National Health Service; integration of care was enhanced by two treatment sessions delivered jointly with the practice nurse. Usual care was standard clinical practice provided by general practitioners and practice nurses. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was reduction in symptoms of depression on the self reported symptom checklist-13 depression scale (SCL-D13) at four months after baseline assessment. Secondary outcomes included anxiety symptoms (generalised anxiety disorder 7), self management (health education impact questionnaire), disability (Sheehan disability scale), and global quality of life (WHOQOL-BREF). Results 19 general practices were randomised to collaborative care and 20 to usual care; three practices withdrew from the trial before patients were recruited. 191 patients were recruited from practices allocated to collaborative care, and 196 from practices allocated to usual care. After adjustment for baseline depression score, mean depressive scores were 0.23 SCL-D13 points lower (95% confidence interval −0.41 to −0.05) in the collaborative care arm, equal to an adjusted standardised effect size of 0.30. Patients in the intervention arm also reported being better self managers, rated their care as more patient centred, and were more satisfied with their care. There were no significant differences between groups in quality of life, disease specific quality of life, self efficacy, disability, and social support. Conclusions Collaborative care that incorporates brief low intensity psychological therapy delivered in partnership with practice nurses in primary care can reduce depression and improve self management of chronic disease in people with mental and physical multimorbidity. The size of the treatment effects were modest and were less than the prespecified effect but were achieved in a trial run in routine settings with a deprived population with high levels of mental and physical multimorbidity. Trial registration ISRCTN80309252.

The SF-36 scales are not accurately summarised by independent physical and mental component scores

ObjectivesThe Short Form 36 Health Status Questionnaire (SF-36) has eight scales that can be condensed into two components: physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS). This paper investigates: (1) the assumption that PCS and MCS are orthogonal, (2) the applicability of a single model to different condition-specific subgroups, and (3) a reduced five-scale model.Study design and settingWe performed a secondary analysis of two large-scale data sets that utilised the SF-36: the Health Survey for England 1996 and the Welsh Health Survey 1998. We used confirmatory factor analysis to compare hypothetical orthogonal and oblique factor models, and exploratory factor analysis to derive data-driven models for condition-specific subgroups.ResultsOblique models gave the best fit to the data and indicated a considerable correlation between PCS and MCS. The loadings of the eight scales on the two component summaries varied significantly by disease condition. The choice of model made an important difference to norm-referenced scores for large minorities, particularly patients with a mental illness or mental–physical comorbidity.ConclusionsWe recommend that users of the SF-36 adopt the oblique model for calculating PCS and MCS. An oblique five-scale model provides a more universal factor structure without loss of predictive power or reliability.

Quality assessment for three common conditions in primary care: validity and reliability of review criteria developed by expert panels for angina, asthma and type 2 diabetes

Objectives: To field test the reliability, validity, and acceptability of review criteria for angina, asthma, and type 2 diabetes which had been developed by expert panels using a systematic process to combine evidence with expert opinion. Design: Statistical analysis of data derived from a clinical audit, and postal questionnaire and semi-structured interviews with general practitioners and practice nurses in a representative sample of general practices in England. Setting: 60 general practices in England. Main outcome measures: Clinical audit results for angina, asthma, and type 2 diabetes. General practitioner and practice nurse validity ratings from the postal questionnaire. Results: 54%, 59%, and 70% of relevant criteria rated valid by the expert panels for angina, asthma, and type 2 diabetes, respectively, were found to be usable, valid, reliable, and acceptable for assessing quality of care. General practitioners and practice nurses agreed with panellists that these criteria were valid but not that they should always be recorded in the medical record. Conclusion: Quality measures derived using expert panels need field testing before they can be considered valid, reliable, and acceptable for use in quality assessment. These findings provide additional evidence that the RAND panel method develops valid and reliable review criteria for assessing clinical quality of care.

Risk factors for hospital admissions associated with adverse drug events.

To identify predictors of hospital admissions associated with adverse drug events (ADEs) and to determine the preventability of ADEs in patients admitted to two hospitals.

Assessment of the speed and ease of insertion of three supraglottic airway devices by paramedics: a manikin study

Background Control of the airway is a priority during cardiopulmonary resuscitation and/or following a failed intubation attempt. Supraglottic airway devices provide more effective airway management than bag-valve-mask-ventilation (BVMV) and can be effectively used by non-anaesthetists. Methods 36 paramedic students were timed to ascertain how long it took them to place an Igel, laryngeal mask airway (LMA) or laryngeal tube airway (LTA) into a manikin. Following insertion, students were interviewed to see which device they preferred and why. Results The Igel was consistently the fastest airway device, taking a mean of 12.3 s (95% CI 11.5 to 13.1) to insert, the LTA took a mean time of 22.4 s (95% CI 20.3 to 24.5) and the LMA 33.8 s (95% CI 30.9 to 36.7). 63% of students would choose the Igel as their preferred intermediate airway device, stating ease of use and speed of insertion as the primary reasons. Conclusion The ease and speed at which a supraglottic airway can be inserted means that it is a viable alternative to the use of the BVMV.

Psychometric properties of the patient assessment of chronic illness care measure: acceptability, reliability and validity in United Kingdom patients with long-term conditions

BackgroundThe Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) is a US measure of chronic illness quality of care, based on the influential Chronic Care Model (CCM). It measures a number of aspects of care, including patient activation; delivery system design and decision support; goal setting and tailoring; problem-solving and contextual counselling; follow-up and coordination. Although there is developing evidence of the utility of the scale, there is little evidence about its performance in the United Kingdom (UK). We present preliminary data on the psychometric performance of the PACIC in a large sample of UK patients with long-term conditions.MethodWe collected PACIC, demographic, clinical and quality of care data from patients with long-term conditions across 38 general practices, as part of a wider longitudinal study. We assess rates of missing data, present descriptive and distributional data, assess internal consistency, and test validity through confirmatory factor analysis, and through associations between PACIC scores, patient characteristics and related measures.ResultsThere was evidence that rates of missing data were high on PACIC (9.6% - 15.9%), and higher than on other scales used in the same survey. Most PACIC sub-scales showed reasonable levels of internal consistency (alpha = 0.68 – 0.94), responses did not demonstrate high skewness levels, and floor effects were more frequent (up to 30.4% on the follow up and co-ordination subscale) than ceiling effects (generally <5%). PACIC demonstrated preliminary evidence of validity in terms of measures of long-term condition care. Confirmatory factor analysis suggested that the five factor PACIC structure proposed by the scale developers did not fit the data: reporting separate factor scores may not always be appropriate.ConclusionThe importance of improving care for long-term conditions means that the development and validation of measures is a priority. The PACIC scale has demonstrated potential utility in this regard, but further assessment is required to assess low levels of completion of the scale, and to explore the performance of the scale in predicting outcomes and assessing the effects of interventions.

Collaborative Interventions for Circulation and Depression (COINCIDE): study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial of collaborative care for depression in people with diabetes and/or coronary heart disease

BackgroundDepression is up to two to three times as common in people with long-term conditions. It negatively affects medical management of disease and self-care behaviors, and leads to poorer quality of life and high costs in primary care. Screening and treatment of depression is increasingly prioritized, but despite initiatives to improve access and quality of care, depression remains under-detected and under-treated, especially in people with long-term conditions. Collaborative care is known to positively affect the process and outcome of care for people with depression and long-term conditions, but its effectiveness outside the USA is still relatively unknown. Furthermore, collaborative care has yet to be tested in settings that resemble more naturalistic settings that include patient choice and the usual care providers. The aim of this study was to test the effectiveness of a collaborative-care intervention, for people with depression and diabetes/coronary heart disease in National Health Service (NHS) primary care, in which low-intensity psychological treatment services are delivered by the usual care provider - Increasing Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) services. The study also aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the intervention over 6 months, and to assess qualitatively the extent to which collaborative care was implemented in the intervention general practices.MethodsThis is a cluster randomized controlled trial of 30 general practices allocated to either collaborative care or usual care. Fifteen patients per practice will be recruited after a screening exercise to detect patients with recognized depression (≥10 on the nine-symptom Patient Health Questionnaire; PHQ-9). Patients in the collaborative-care arm with recognized depression will be offered a choice of evidence-based low-intensity psychological treatments based on cognitive and behavioral approaches. Patients will be case managed by psychological well-being practitioners employed by IAPT in partnership with a practice nurse and/or general practitioner. The primary outcome will be change in depressive symptoms at 6 months on the 90-item Symptoms Checklist (SCL-90). Secondary outcomes include change in health status, self-care behaviors, and self-efficacy. A qualitative process evaluation will be undertaken with patients and health practitioners to gauge the extent to which the collaborative-care model is implemented, and to explore sustainability beyond the clinical trial.DiscussionCOINCIDE will assess whether collaborative care can improve patient-centered outcomes, and evaluate access to and quality of care of co-morbid depression of varying intensity in people with diabetes/coronary heart disease. Additionally, by working with usual care providers such as IAPT, and by identifying and evaluating interventions that are effective and appropriate for routine use in the NHS, the COINCIDE trial offers opportunities to address translational gaps between research and implementation.Trial Registration NumberISRCTN80309252Trial StatusOpen

Care plans and care planning in the management of long-term conditions in the UK: a controlled prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND In the UK, the use of care planning and written care plans has been proposed to improve the management of long-term conditions, yet there is limited evidence concerning their uptake and benefits. AIM To explore the implementation of care plans and care planning in the UK and associations with the process and outcome of care. DESIGN AND SETTING A controlled prospective cohort study among two groups of patients with long-term conditions who were similar in demographic and clinical characteristics, but who were registered with general practices varying in their implementation of care plans and care planning. METHOD Implementation of care plans and care planning in general practice was assessed using the 2009-2010 GP Patient Survey, and relationships with patient outcomes (self-management and vitality) were examined using multilevel, mixed effects linear regression modelling. RESULTS The study recruited 38 practices and 2439 patients. Practices in the two groups (high and low users of written documents) were similar in structural and population characteristics. Patients in the two groups of practices were similar in demographics and baseline health. Patients did demonstrate significant differences in reported experiences of care planning, although the differences were modest. Very few patients in the cohort reported a written plan that could be confirmed. Analysis of outcomes suggested that most patients show limited change over time in vitality and self-management. Variation in the use of care plans at the practice level was very limited and not related to patient outcomes over time. CONCLUSION The use of written care plans in patients with long-term conditions is uncommon and unlikely to explain a substantive amount of variation in the process and outcome of care. More proactive efforts at implementation may be required to provide a rigorous test of the potential of care plans and care planning.