Mark Porcheret

Annual consultation prevalence of regional musculoskeletal problems in primary care: an observational study.

BackgroundRegional musculoskeletal pain such as back or shoulder pain are commonly reported symptoms in the community. The extent of consultation to primary care with such problems is unknown as a variety of labels may be used to record such consultations. The objective was to classify musculoskeletal morbidity codes used in routine primary care by body region, and to determine the annual consultation prevalence of regional musculoskeletal problems.MethodsMusculoskeletal codes within the Read morbidity Code system were identified and grouped by relevant body region by four GPs. Consultations with these codes were then extracted from the recorded consultations at twelve general practices contributing to a general practice consultation database (CiPCA). Annual consultation prevalence per 10,000 registered persons for the year 2006 was determined, stratified by age and gender, for problems in individual regions and for problems affecting multiple regions.Results5,908 musculoskeletal codes were grouped into regions. One in seven of all recorded consultations were for a musculoskeletal problem. The back was the most common individual region recorded (591 people consulting per 10,000 registered persons), followed by the knee (324/10,000). In children, the foot was the most common region. Different age and gender trends were apparent across body regions although women generally had higher consultation rates. The annual consultation-based prevalence for problems encompassing more than one region was 556 people consulting per 10,000 registered persons and increased in older people and in females.ConclusionsThere is an extensive and varied regional musculoskeletal workload in primary care. Musculoskeletal problems are a major constituent of general practice. The output from this study can be used as a resource for planning future studies.

Data quality of general practice electronic health records: the impact of a program of assessments, feedback, and training

OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of a program of repeated assessments, feedback, and training on the quality of coded clinical data in general practice. DESIGN A prospective uncontrolled intervention study was conducted in a general practice research network. MEASUREMENTS Percentage of recorded consultations with a coded problem title and percentage of patients receiving a specific drug (e.g., tamoxifen) who had the relevant morbidity code (e.g., breast cancer) were calculated. Annual period prevalence of 12 selected morbidities was compared with parallel data derived from the fourth National Study of Morbidity Statistics from General Practice (MSGP4). RESULTS The first two measures showed variation between practices at baseline, but on repeat assessments all practices improved or maintained their levels of coding. The period prevalence figures also were variable, but over time rates increased to levels comparable with, or above, MSGP4 rates. Practices were able to provide time and resources for feedback and training sessions. CONCLUSION A program of repeated assessments, feedback, and training appears to improve data quality in a range of practices. The program is likely to be generalizable to other practices but needs a trained support team to implement it that has implications for cost and resources.

Paracetamol: not as safe as we thought? A systematic literature review of observational studies

Objectives We conducted a systematic literature review to assess the adverse event (AE) profile of paracetamol. Methods We searched Medline and Embase from database inception to 1 May 2013. We screened for observational studies in English, which reported mortality, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal (GI) or renal AEs in the general adult population at standard analgesic doses of paracetamol. Study quality was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Pooled or adjusted summary statistics were presented for each outcome. Results Of 1888 studies retrieved, 8 met inclusion criteria, and all were cohort studies. Comparing paracetamol use versus no use, of two studies reporting mortality one showed a dose–response and reported an increased relative rate of mortality from 0.95 (0.92 to 0.98) to 1.63 (1.58 to 1.68). Of four studies reporting cardiovascular AEs, all showed a dose–response with one reporting an increased risk ratio of all cardiovascular AEs from 1.19 (0.81 to 1.75) to 1.68 (1.10 to 2.57). One study reporting GI AEs reported a dose–response with increased relative rate of GI AEs or bleeds from 1.11 (1.04 to 1.18) to 1.49 (1.34 to 1.66). Of four studies reporting renal AEs, three reported a dose–response with one reporting an increasing OR of ≥30% decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate from 1.40 (0.79 to 2.48) to 2.19 (1.4 to 3.43). Discussion Given the observational nature of the data, channelling bias may have had an important impact. However, the dose–response seen for most endpoints suggests a considerable degree of paracetamol toxicity especially at the upper end of standard analgesic doses.

Addressing patient beliefs and expectations in the consultation

In this article, we specifically focus on the identification and management of patient beliefs and expectations during consultations with health-care professionals (HCPs). In examination of the nature and purpose of communication during consultations, we evaluate the research relating to doctor–patient communication, present the Calgary–Cambridge framework and highlight the identification and management of the patients beliefs and expectations as a key part of this process. Having identified what can go wrong, we identify the characteristics of effective consultations and consider strategies for improving communication. In recommending a clear and more focussed approach to the identification and management of patient beliefs and expectations, we consider not only the nature of the therapeutic climate, but also the style and content that could enhance the effectiveness of the communication. Having identified techniques for facilitating self-disclosure, we conclude by offering suggestions on how to ‘close down’ the consultation and hand over responsibility to the patient.

Development of a behaviour change intervention: a case study on the practical application of theory

BackgroundUse of theory in implementation of complex interventions is widely recommended. A complex trial intervention, to enhance self-management support for people with osteoarthritis (OA) in primary care, needed to be implemented in the Managing Osteoarthritis in Consultations (MOSAICS) trial. One component of the trial intervention was delivery by general practitioners (GPs) of an enhanced consultation for patients with OA. The aim of our case study is to describe the systematic selection and use of theory to develop a behaviour change intervention to implement GP delivery of the enhanced consultation.MethodsThe development of the behaviour change intervention was guided by four theoretical models/frameworks: i) an implementation of change model to guide overall approach, ii) the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to identify relevant determinants of change, iii) a model for the selection of behaviour change techniques to address identified determinants of behaviour change, and iv) the principles of adult learning. Methods and measures to evaluate impact of the behaviour change intervention were identified.ResultsThe behaviour change intervention presented the GPs with a well-defined proposal for change; addressed seven of the TDF domains (e.g., knowledge, skills, motivation and goals); incorporated ten behaviour change techniques (e.g., information provision, skills rehearsal, persuasive communication); and was delivered in workshops that valued the expertise and professional values of GPs. The workshops used a mixture of interactive and didactic sessions, were facilitated by opinion leaders, and utilised ‘context-bound communication skills training.’ Methods and measures selected to evaluate the behaviour change intervention included: appraisal of satisfaction with workshops, GP report of intention to practise and an assessment of video-recorded consultations of GPs with patients with OA.ConclusionsA stepped approach to the development of a behaviour change intervention, with the utilisation of theoretical frameworks to identify determinants of change matched with behaviour change techniques, has enabled a systematic and theory-driven development of an intervention designed to enhance consultations by GPs for patients with OA. The success of the behaviour change intervention in practice will be evaluated in the context of the MOSAICS trial as a whole, and will inform understanding of practice level and patient outcomes in the trial.

Implementing the NICE osteoarthritis guidelines: A mixed methods study and cluster randomised trial of a model osteoarthritis consultation in primary care - the Management of OsteoArthritis In Consultations (MOSAICS) study protocol

BackgroundThere is as yet no evidence on the feasibility of implementing recommendations from the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) osteoarthritis (OA) guidelines in primary care, or of the effect these recommendations have on the condition. The primary aim of this study is to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of a model OA consultation (MOAC), implementing the core recommendations from the NICE OA guidelines in primary care. Secondary aims are to investigate the impact, feasibility and acceptability of the MOAC intervention; to develop and evaluate a training package for management of OA by general practitioners (GPs) and practice nurses; test the feasibility of deriving `quality markers’ of OA management using a new consultation template and medical record review; and describe the uptake of core NICE OA recommendations in participants aged 45 years and over with joint pain.DesignA mixed methods study with a nested cluster randomised controlled trial.MethodThis study was developed according to a defined theoretical framework (the Whole System Informing Self-management Engagement). An overarching model (the Normalisation Process Theory) will be employed to undertake a comprehensive `whole-system’ evaluation of the processes and outcomes of implementing the MOAC intervention. The primary outcome is general physical health (Short Form-12 Physical component score [PCS]) (Ware 1996). The impact, acceptability and feasibility of the MOAC intervention at practice level will be assessed by comparing intervention and control practices using a Quality Indicators template and medical record review. Impact and acceptability of the intervention for patients will be assessed via self-completed outcome measures and semi-structured interviews. The impact, acceptability and feasibility of the MOAC intervention and training for GPs and practice nurses will be evaluated using a variety of methods including questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, and observations.DiscussionThe main output from the study will be to determine whether the MOAC intervention is clinically and cost effective. Additional outputs will be the development of the MOAC for patients consulting with joint pain in primary care, training and educational materials, and resources for patients and professionals regarding supported self-management and uptake of NICE guidance.Trial registrationISRCTN number: ISRCTN06984617.

Maximising response from GPs to questionnaire surveys: do length or incentives make a difference?

BackgroundGeneral Practitioners (GPs) respond poorly to postal surveys. Consequently there is potential for reduced data quality and bias in the findings. In general population surveys, response to postal questionnaires may be improved by reducing their length and offering incentives. The aim of this study was to investigate whether questionnaire length and/or the offer of an incentive improves the response of GPs to a postal questionnaire survey.MethodsA postal questionnaire survey was sent to 800 UK GPs randomly selected from Binley’s database; a database containing contact details of professionals working in UK general practices. The random sample of GPs was assigned to one of four groups of 200, each receiving a different questionnaire, either a standard (eight sides of A4) or an abbreviated (four sides of A4) questionnaire, with or without the offer of an incentive (a prize draw entry for a £100 voucher) for completion. The effects of questionnaire length and offer of incentive on response were calculated.ResultsOf 800 mailed questionnaires, 19 GPs did not meet inclusion criteria and 172 (adjusted response 22.0%) completed questionnaires were received. Among the four groups, response ranged from 20.1% (standard questionnaire with no incentive and abbreviated questionnaire with incentive) through 21.8% (standard questionnaire with incentive), to 26.0% (abbreviated questionnaire with no incentive). There were no significant differences in response between the four groups (p = 0.447), between the groups receiving the standard versus the abbreviated questionnaire (% difference -2.1% (95% confidence interval (CI) -7.9, 3.7)) or the groups offered an incentive versus no incentive (% difference -2.1% (95% CI -7.9, 3.7).ConclusionsStrategies known to improve response to postal questionnaire surveys in the general population do not significantly improve the response to postal questionnaire surveys among GPs. Further refinements to these strategies, or more novel strategies, aimed at increasing response specifically among GPs need to be identified in order to maximise data quality and generalisability of research results.

New Models for Primary Care Are Needed for Osteoarthritis

Musculoskeletal problems are the most common cause of restriction in daily life in most countries. Most health care for musculoskeletal problems is provided in primary care settings, and back pain and joint problems together represent the largest workload of cases of chronic disease seen and managed there. This article reflects on aspects of the occurrence, natural history, prognosis, and management of common joint problems in primary care. Although the biomedical model has contributed to major advances, a model that embraces chronic pain management and its psychological and social components is needed. In particular, primary care is the ideal arena to achieve high-impact secondary prevention of pain and disability in people with osteoarthritis. Physical therapists are in a crucial position in primary care to provide support for self-management of this condition, especially for interventions related to exercise and behavioral change.

Developing a model osteoarthritis consultation: a Delphi consensus exercise

BackgroundOsteoarthritis (OA) is a common condition managed in general practice, but often not in line with published guidance. The ideal consultation for a patient presenting with possible OA is not known. The aim of the study was to develop the content of a model OA consultation for the assessment and treatment of older adults presenting in general practice with peripheral joint problems.MethodsA postal Delphi consensus exercise was undertaken with two expert groups: i) general practitioners (GPs) with expertise in OA management and ii) patients with experience of living with OA. An advisory group generated 61 possible consultation tasks for consideration in the consensus exercise. Expert groups were asked to consider which tasks should be included in the model OA consultation. The exercise was completed by 15 GPs and 14 patients. The level of agreement for inclusion in the model was set at 90%.ResultsThe model OA consultation included 25 tasks to be undertaken during the initial consultation between a GP and a patient presenting with peripheral joint pain. The 25 tasks provide detailed advice on how the following elements of the consultation should be addressed: i) assessment of chronic joint pain, ii) patient’s ideas and concerns, iii) exclusion of red flags, iv) examination, v) provision of the diagnosis and written information, vi) promotion of exercise and weight loss, vii) initial pain management and viii) arranging a follow-up appointment. Both groups prioritised a bio-medical approach to the consultation, rather than a bio-psycho-social one, suggesting a discordance between current thinking and research evidence.ConclusionsThis study has enabled the priorities of GPs and patients to be identified for a model OA consultation. The results of this consensus study will inform the development of best practice for the management of OA in primary care and the implementation of evidence-based guidelines for OA in primary care.

Inequalities in primary care management of knee pain and disability in older adults: an observational cohort study

Objectives. To describe primary care management of knee pain, in relation to National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) OA guidelines, and examine variation in management by patient characteristics. Methods. Subjects were 755 adults aged ≥50 years who responded to baseline and 3-year surveys and had consulted primary care for knee pain. Medical records (1997–2006) were searched. Associations of having interventions from the outer circle (adjunctive treatments or Step 3) of the NICE guidelines with self-reported socio-demographic and knee-specific factors were determined. Results. Eighty per cent had received a Step 3 intervention. Thirty-eight per cent had been referred to secondary care, and 10% had received a knee replacement. Forty-three per cent had been prescribed an opioid and 41% an NSAID. Severe knee pain or disability at baseline and follow-up was the main association with receiving a Step 3 intervention [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 2.26; 95% CI 1.38, 3.70] and with referral (OR 2.57; 95% CI 1.72, 3.83). Older patients were less likely to be referred. Although non-significant, those of higher social class, in more affluent areas, older age or overweight or obese, appeared more likely to receive a knee replacement. Fifty per cent of those reporting severe knee pain or disability in both surveys had not been referred to secondary care. Conclusion. Most of the older adults who consult primary care with knee pain receive at least one Step 3 intervention from the OA guidelines. Inequalities in the management and referral of knee problems in primary care were generally not observed, although there were some trends towards differences in likelihood of total knee replacement.