Matthew J Ridd

How should continuity of care in primary health care be assessed

Recent changes in the organisation of primary health care have increased the range of professionals that patients may encounter, leading to renewed interest in the importance of continuity of care. To assess whether organisational changes have had an impact on continuity, it is necessary to define and measure the term. Researchers seeking to assess continuity face many conceptual and practical difficulties. This article argues that it is important to distinguish between three distinct but related concepts: longitudinal continuity from a minimum number of health professionals, caring relationships between patients and professionals, and well-coordinated care between professionals. An evaluation of Advanced Access as a case study is used to illustrate how researchers need to make several value judgements in operationalising longitudinal continuity. These include whether continuity should be measured from the perspective of patient, doctor, or healthcare system, the types of professionals and consultations that should be considered, the time period to be assessed, the measure to be used, and also practical considerations about data collection. It is argued that decisions about these issues should be based on an underlying hypothesis about why continuity may be important in the particular context. Distinguishing between longitudinal continuity, patient-professional relationships, and coordinated care makes it possible to examine interactions between these different concepts, and to examine relationships with outcomes such as patient satisfaction and quality of care. It will also give greater clarity to debates about whether new models of primary care reduce continuity.

Report from the fourth international consensus meeting to harmonize core outcome measures for atopic eczema/dermatitis clinical trials (HOME initiative)

This article is a report of the fourth meeting of the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative held in Malmö, Sweden on 23–24 April 2015 (HOME IV). The aim of the meeting was to achieve consensus over the preferred outcome instruments for measuring patient‐reported symptoms and quality of life for the HOME core outcome set for atopic eczema (AE). Following presentations, which included data from systematic reviews, consensus discussions were held in a mixture of whole group and small group discussions. Small groups were allocated a priori to ensure representation of different stakeholders and countries. Decisions were voted on using electronic keypads. For the patient‐reported symptoms, the group agreed by vote that itch, sleep loss, dryness, redness/inflamed skin and irritated skin were all considered essential aspects of AE symptoms. Many instruments for capturing patient‐reported symptoms were discussed [including the Patient‐Oriented SCOring Atopic Dermatitis index, Patient‐Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), Self‐Administered Eczema Area and Severity Index, Itch Severity Scale, Atopic Dermatitis Quickscore and the Nottingham Eczema Severity Score] and, by consensus, POEM was selected as the preferred instrument to measure patient‐reported symptoms. Further work is needed to determine the reliability and measurement error of POEM. Further work is also required to establish the importance of pain/soreness and the importance of collecting information regarding the intensity of symptoms in addition to their frequency. Much of the discussion on quality of life concerned the Dermatology Life Quality Index and Quality of Life Index for Atopic Dermatitis; however, consensus on a preferred instrument for measuring this domain could not be reached. In summary, POEM is recommended as the HOME core outcome instrument for measuring AE symptoms.

The Eczema Priority Setting Partnership: a collaboration between patients, carers, clinicians and researchers to identify and prioritize important research questions for the treatment of eczema.

Background  Eczema is a common condition, yet there are uncertainties regarding many frequently used treatments. Knowing which of these uncertainties matter to patients and clinicians is important, because they are likely to have different priorities from those of researchers and funders.

The content of general practice consultations: cross-sectional study based on video recordings.

BACKGROUND Demographic and policy changes appear to be increasing the complexity of consultations in general practice. AIM To describe the number and types of problems discussed in general practice consultations, differences between problems raised by patients or doctors, and between problems discussed and recorded in medical records. DESIGN AND SETTING Cross-sectional study based on video recordings of consultations in 22 general practices in Bristol and North Somerset. METHOD Consultations were examined between 30 representative GPs and adults making a pre-booked day-time appointment. The main outcome measures were number and types of problems and issues discussed; who raised each problem/issue; consultation duration; whether problems were recorded and coded. RESULTS Of 318 eligible patients, 229 (72.0%) participated. On average, 2.5 (95% CI = 2.3 to 2.6) problems were discussed in each consultation, with 41% of consultations involving at least three problems. Seventy-two per cent (165/229) of consultations included problems in multiple disease areas. Mean consultation duration was 11.9 minutes (95% CI = 11.2 to 12.6). Most problems discussed were raised by patients, but 43% (99/229) of consultations included problems raised by doctors. Consultation duration increased by 2 minutes per additional problem. Of 562 problems discussed, 81% (n = 455) were recorded in notes, but only 37% (n = 206) were Read Coded. CONCLUSION Consultations in general practice are complex encounters, dealing with multiple problems across a wide range of disease areas in a short time. Additional problems are dealt with very briefly. GPs, like patients, bring an agenda to consultations. There is systematic bias in the types of problems coded in electronic medical records databases.

Patient-Doctor Depth-of-Relationship Scale: Development and Validation

PURPOSE Because patient-doctor continuity has been measured in its longitudinal rather than its personal dimension, evidence to show that seeing the same doctor leads to better patient care is weak. Existing relational measures of patient-doctor continuity are limited, so we developed a new patient self-completion instrument designed to specifically measure patient-doctor depth of relationship. METHODS Draft versions of the questionnaire were tested with patients in face-to-face interviews and 2 rounds of pilot testing. The final instrument was completed by patients attending routine appointments with their general practitioner, and some were sent a follow-up questionnaire. Scale structure, validity, and reliability were assessed. RESULTS Face validity of candidate items was confirmed in interviews with 11 patients. Data from the pilot rounds 1 (n = 375) and 2 (n = 154) were used to refine and shorten the questionnaire. The final instrument comprised a single scale of 8 items and had good internal reliability (Cronbach’s α = .93). In the main study (N = 490), seeing the same doctor was associated with deep patient-doctor relationships, but the relationship appeared to be nonlinear (overall adjusted odds ratio = 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2–1.8). Test-retest reliability in a sample of participants (n = 154) was good (intracluster correlation coefficient 0.87; 95% CI, 0.53–0.97). CONCLUSIONS The Patient-Doctor Depth-of-Relationship Scale is a novel, conceptually grounded questionnaire that is easy for patients to complete and is psychometrically robust. Future research will further establish its validity and answer whether patient-doctor depth of relationship is associated with improved patient care.

Diagnostic Intervals and Its Association with Breast, Prostate, Lung and Colorectal Cancer Survival in England: Historical Cohort Study Using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink

Rapid diagnostic pathways for cancer have been implemented, but evidence whether shorter diagnostic intervals (time from primary care presentation to diagnosis) improves survival is lacking. Using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, we identified patients diagnosed with female breast (8,639), colorectal (5,912), lung (5,737) and prostate (1,763) cancers between 1998 and 2009, and aged >15 years. Presenting symptoms were classified as alert or non-alert, according to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance. We used relative survival and excess risk modeling to determine associations between diagnostic intervals and five-year survival. The survival of patients with colorectal, lung and prostate cancer was greater in those with alert, compared with non-alert, symptoms, but findings were opposite for breast cancer. Longer diagnostic intervals were associated with lower mortality for colorectal and lung cancer patients with non-alert symptoms, (colorectal cancer: Excess Hazards Ratio, EHR >6 months vs <1 month: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.72-1.00; Lung cancer: EHR 3-6 months vs <1 month: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.80-0.95; EHR >6 months vs <1 month: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.74-0.89). Prostate cancer mortality was lower in patients with longer diagnostic intervals, regardless of type of presenting symptom. The association between diagnostic intervals and cancer survival is complex, and should take into account cancer site, tumour biology and clinical practice. Nevertheless, unnecessary delay causes patient anxiety and general practitioners should continue to refer patients with alert symptoms via the cancer pathways, and actively follow-up patients with non-alert symptoms in the community.

The current health of the signing Deaf community in the UK compared with the general population: a cross-sectional study

Objectives To assess the current health of the Deaf community in the UK and compare with the general population. Design A quota sample of adult Deaf British Sign Language (BSL) users underwent a health assessment and interview in 2012–2013. Comparative data were obtained from the Health Survey for England (HSE) 2011 and the Quality Outcomes Framework (QOF) 2012. Setting Participants completed a structured interview and health assessment at seven Bupa centres across the UK, supported in BSL by Deaf advisers and interpreters. Participants 298 Deaf people, 20–82 years old, 47% male, with 12% from ethnic minorities. Main outcome measures Self–reported health conditions, medication usage, tobacco and alcohol consumption; measured blood pressure (BP), body mass index, fasting blood sugar and lipid profile. Results Rates of obesity in the Deaf sample were high, especially in those over 65 years, and 48% were in a high risk group for serious illness. High BP readings were obtained in 37% of Deaf people (21% in HSE): 29% were unaware of this (6% in HSE). Only 42% of Deaf people being treated for hypertension had adequate control, compared with 62% of the general population. Deaf people with self-reported cardiovascular disease (CVD) were significantly less than the general population. One-third of Deaf participants had total cholesterol >5 mmol/L but although control rates were high compared with HSE, treatment rates for self-reported CVD were half the general population rate. Eleven per cent of Deaf participants had blood sugar at prediabetic or diabetic levels, and 77% of those at prediabetic levels were unaware of it. Deaf respondents self-reported more depression (31% of women, 14% of men), but less smoking (8%) and alcohol intake (2–8 units/week). Conclusions Deaf peoples health is poorer than that of the general population, with probable underdiagnosis and undertreatment of chronic conditions putting them at risk of preventable ill health.

Identifying acne treatment uncertainties via a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership

Objectives The Acne Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) was set up to identify and rank treatment uncertainties by bringing together people with acne, and professionals providing care within and beyond the National Health Service (NHS). Setting The UK with international participation. Participants Teenagers and adults with acne, parents, partners, nurses, clinicians, pharmacists, private practitioners. Methods Treatment uncertainties were collected via separate online harvesting surveys, embedded within the PSP website, for patients and professionals. A wide variety of approaches were used to promote the surveys to stakeholder groups with a particular emphasis on teenagers and young adults. Survey submissions were collated using keywords and verified as uncertainties by appraising existing evidence. The 30 most popular themes were ranked via weighted scores from an online vote. At a priority setting workshop, patients and professionals discussed the 18 highest-scoring questions from the vote, and reached consensus on the top 10. Results In the harvesting survey, 2310 people, including 652 professionals and 1456 patients (58% aged 24 y or younger), made submissions containing at least one research question. After checking for relevance and rephrasing, a total of 6255 questions were collated into themes. Valid votes ranking the 30 most common themes were obtained from 2807 participants. The top 10 uncertainties prioritised at the workshop were largely focused on management strategies, optimum use of common prescription medications and the role of non-drug based interventions. More female than male patients took part in the harvesting surveys and vote. A wider range of uncertainties were provided by patients compared to professionals. Conclusions Engaging teenagers and young adults in priority setting is achievable using a variety of promotional methods. The top 10 uncertainties reveal an extensive knowledge gap about widely used interventions and the relative merits of drug versus non-drug based treatments in acne management.

Choice of Moisturiser for Eczema Treatment (COMET): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundEczema is common in children and in the UK most cases are managed in primary care. The foundation of all treatment is the regular use of leave-on emollients to preserve and restore moisture to the skin. This not only improves comfort but may also reduce the need for rescue treatment for ‘flares’, such as topical corticosteroids. However, clinicians can prescribe many different types of emollient and there is a paucity of evidence to guide this choice. One reason for this may be the challenges of conducting a clinical trial: are parents or carers of young children willing to be randomly allocated an emollient and followed up for a meaningful amount of time?DesignThis is a single-centre feasibility study of a pragmatic, four-arm, single-masked, randomized trial. Children with eczema who are eligible (from 1 month to less than 5 years of age, not known to be sensitive or allergic to any of study emollients or their constituents) are recruited via their general practices. Participants are allocated Aveeno® lotion, Diprobase® cream, Doublebase® gel or Hydromol® ointment via a web-based system, using a simple randomization process in a 1:1:1:1 fashion. Researchers are masked to the study emollient. Participants are assessed at baseline and followed up for 3 months. Data are collected by daily diaries, monthly researcher visits and review of electronic medical records. Because this is a feasibility study, a formal sample size calculation for the estimation of treatment effectiveness has not be made but we aim to recruit 160 participants.DiscussionRecruitment is on-going. At the end of the study, as well as being able to answer the question, ‘Is it is possible to recruit and retain children with eczema from primary care into a four-arm randomized trial of emollients?’, we will also have collected important data on the acceptability and effectiveness of four commonly used emollients.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN21828118 and Clinical Trials Register EudraCT2013-003001-26.

The 'One in a Million' study: creating a database of UK primary care consultations

Background Around 1 million primary care consultations happen in England every day. Despite this, much of what happens in these visits remains a ‘black box’. Aim To create an archive of videotaped consultations and linked data based on a large sample of routine face-to-face doctor–patient consultations with consent for use in future research and training. Design and setting Cross-sectional study in 12 general practices in the west of England, UK. Method Up to two GPs from each practice took part in the study. Over 1 to 2 days, consecutive patients were approached until up to 20 eligible patients for each GP consented to be videotaped. Eligible patients were aged ≥18 years, consulting on their own behalf, fluent in English, and with capacity to consent. GP questionnaires were self-administered. Patient questionnaires were self-administered immediately pre-consultation and post-consultation, and GPs filled in a checklist after each recording. A follow-up questionnaire was sent to patients after 10 days, and data about subsequent related consultations were collected from medical records 3 months later. Results Of the 485 patients approached, 421 (86.8%) were eligible. Of the eligible patients, 334 (79.3%) consented to participate and 327 consultations with 23 GPs were successfully taped (307 video, 20 audio-only). Most patients (n = 300, 89.8%) consented to use by other researchers, subject to specific ethical approval. Conclusion Most patients were willing to allow their consultations to be videotaped, and, with very few exceptions, to allow recordings and linked data to be stored in a data repository for future use for research and training.