Paul Carder

Prescribed opioids in primary care: cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses of influence of patient and practice characteristics

Objectives To examine trends in opioid prescribing in primary care, identify patient and general practice characteristics associated with long-term and stronger opioid prescribing, and identify associations with changes in opioid prescribing. Design Trend, cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses of routinely recorded patient data. Setting 111 primary care practices in Leeds and Bradford, UK. Participants We observed 471 828 patient-years in which all patients represented had at least 1 opioid prescription between April 2005 and March 2012. A cross-sectional analysis included 99 847 patients prescribed opioids between April 2011 and March 2012. A longitudinal analysis included 49 065 patient-years between April 2008 and March 2012. We excluded patients with cancer or treated for substance misuse. Main outcome measures Long-term opioid prescribing (4 or more prescriptions within 12 months), stronger opioid prescribing and stepping up to or down from stronger opioids. Results Opioid prescribing in the adult population almost doubled for weaker opioids over 2005–2012 and rose over sixfold for stronger opioids. There was marked variation among general practices in the odds of patients stepping up to stronger opioids compared with those not stepping up (range 0.31–3.36), unexplained by practice-level variables. Stepping up to stronger opioids was most strongly associated with being underweight (adjusted OR 3.26, 1.49 to 7.17), increasing polypharmacy (4.15, 3.26 to 5.29 for 10 or more repeat prescriptions), increasing numbers of primary care appointments (3.04, 2.48 to 3.73 for over 12 appointments in the year) and referrals to specialist pain services (5.17, 4.37 to 6.12). Compared with women under 50 years, men under 50 were less likely to step down once prescribed stronger opioids (0.53, 0.37 to 0.75). Conclusions While clinicians should be alert to patients at risk of escalated opioid prescribing, much prescribing variation may be attributable to clinical behaviour. Effective strategies targeting clinicians and patients are needed to curb rising prescribing, especially of stronger opioids.

Is palliative care support associated with better quality end-of-life care indicators for patients with advanced cancer? A retrospective cohort study

Objectives This study aimed to establish the association between timing and provision of palliative care (PC) and quality of end-of-life care indicators in a population of patients dying of cancer. Setting This study uses linked cancer patient data from the National Cancer Registry, the electronic medical record system used in primary care (SystmOne) and the electronic medical record system used within a specialist regional cancer centre. The population resided in a single city in Northern England. Participants Retrospective data from 2479 adult cancer decedents who died between January 2010 and February 2012 were registered with a primary care provider using the SystmOne electronic health record system, and cancer was certified as a cause of death, were included in the study. Results Linkage yielded data on 2479 cancer decedents, with 64.5% who received at least one PC event. Decedents who received PC were significantly more likely to die in a hospice (39.4% vs 14.5%, P<0.005) and less likely to die in hospital (23.3% vs 40.1%, P<0.05), and were more likely to receive an opioid (53% vs 25.2%, P<0.001). PC initiated more than 2 weeks before death was associated with avoiding a hospital death (≥2 weeks, P<0.001), more than 4 weeks before death was associated with avoiding emergency hospital admissions and increased access to an opioid (≥4 weeks, P<0.001), and more than 33 weeks before death was associated with avoiding late chemotherapy (≥33 weeks, no chemotherapy P=0.019, chemotherapy over 4 weeks P=0.007). Conclusion For decedents with advanced cancer, access to PC and longer duration of PC were significantly associated with better end-of-life quality indicators.

`Just another incentive scheme’: a qualitative interview study of a local pay-for-performance scheme for primary care

BackgroundA range of policy initiatives have addressed inequalities in healthcare and health outcomes. Local pay-for-performance schemes for primary care have been advocated as means of enhancing clinical ownership of the quality agenda and better targeting local need compared with national schemes such as the UK Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF). We investigated whether professionals’ experience of a local scheme in one English National Health Service (NHS) former primary care trust (PCT) differed from that of the national QOF in relation to the goal of reducing inequalities.MethodsWe conducted retrospective semi-structured interviews with primary care professionals implementing the scheme and those involved in its development. We purposively sampled practices with varying levels of population socio-economic deprivation and achievement. Interviews explored perceptions of the scheme and indicators, likely mechanisms of influence on practice, perceived benefits and harms, and how future schemes could be improved. We used a framework approach to analysis.ResultsThirty-eight professionals from 16 general practices and six professionals involved in developing local indicators participated. Our findings cover four themes: ownership, credibility of the indicators, influences on behaviour, and exacerbated tensions. We found little evidence that the scheme engendered any distinctive sense of ownership or experiences different from the national scheme. Although the indicators and their evidence base were seldom actively questioned, doubts were expressed about their focus on health promotion given that eventual benefits relied upon patient action and availability of local resources. Whilst practices serving more affluent populations reported status and patient benefit as motivators for participating in the scheme, those serving more deprived populations highlighted financial reward. The scheme exacerbated tensions between patient and professional consultation agendas, general practitioners benefitting directly from incentives and nurses who did much of the work, and practices serving more and less affluent populations which faced different challenges in achieving targets.ConclusionsThe contentious nature of pay-for-performance was not necessarily reduced by local adaptation. Those developing future schemes should consider differential rewards and supportive resources for practices serving more deprived populations, and employing a wider range of levers to promote professional understanding and ownership of indicators.

Variations in achievement of evidence-based, high-impact quality indicators in general practice: An observational study

Background There are widely recognised variations in the delivery and outcomes of healthcare but an incomplete understanding of their causes. There is a growing interest in using routinely collected ‘big data’ in the evaluation of healthcare. We developed a set of evidence-based ‘high impact’ quality indicators (QIs) for primary care and examined variations in achievement of these indicators using routinely collected data in the United Kingdom (UK). Methods Cross-sectional analysis of routinely collected, electronic primary care data from a sample of general practices in West Yorkshire, UK (n = 89). The QIs covered aspects of care (including processes and intermediate clinical outcomes) in relation to diabetes, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, chronic kidney disease (CKD) and ‘risky’ prescribing combinations. Regression models explored the impact of practice and patient characteristics. Clustering within practice was accounted for by including a random intercept for practice. Results Median practice achievement of the QIs ranged from 43.2% (diabetes control) to 72.2% (blood pressure control in CKD). Considerable between-practice variation existed for all indicators: the difference between the highest and lowest performing practices was 26.3 percentage points for risky prescribing and 100 percentage points for anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation. Odds ratios associated with the random effects for practices emphasised this; there was a greater than ten-fold difference in the likelihood of achieving the hypertension indicator between the lowest and highest performing practices. Patient characteristics, in particular age, gender and comorbidity, were consistently but modestly associated with indicator achievement. Statistically significant practice characteristics were identified less frequently in adjusted models. Conclusions Despite various policy and improvement initiatives, there are enduring inappropriate variations in the delivery of evidence-based care. Much of this variation is not explained by routinely collected patient or practice variables, and is likely to be attributable to differences in clinical and organisational behaviour.

New models of care: a liaison psychiatry service for medically unexplained symptoms and frequent attenders in primary care

Aims and method This paper describes the process of setting up and the early results from a new liaison psychiatry service in primary care for people identified as frequent general practice attenders with long-term conditions or medically unexplained symptoms. Using a rapid evidence synthesis, we identified existing service models, mechanisms to identify and refer patients, and outcomes for the service. Considering this evidence, with local contingencies we defined options and resources. We agreed a model to set up a service in three diverse general practices. An evaluation explored the feasibility of the service and of collecting data for clinical, service and economic outcomes. Results High levels of patient and staff satisfaction, and reductions in the utilisation of primary and secondary healthcare, with associated cost savings are reported. Clinical implications A multidisciplinary liaison psychiatry service integrated in primary care is feasible and may be evaluated using routinely collected data.

Optimising participation and generalisability: the use of opt-out recruitment for an implementation trial in primary care

Action to Support Practices Implementing Research Evidence (ASPIRE) is an NIHR-funded programme aiming to develop and evaluate interventions to promote the uptake of NICE recommendations in general practice. Multifaceted intervention packages targeting key recommendations will be evaluated using anonymised, routinely collected electronic health records in two parallel cluster randomised controlled trials (cRCTs) in 144 general practices across West Yorkshire. We will replicate the ‘real-life’ conditions under which quality improvement initiatives are conducted: ensuring that a wide range of general practices typically targeted by such initiatives is therefore critical to the generalisability of the trial findings. To eliminate the risk of over-estimating the quality of care from self-selected, motivated practices, we used an opt-out recruitment approach, where eligible practices were informed of the research and excluded only if they confirmed they were unwilling to participate. Fifty-six of the 242 eligible practices opted-out and eight were excluded for other reasons. One hundred and seventy eight practices were randomised. Consequently, the programme exceeded its original target sample sizes for the trials at greater efficiency than the alternative, traditional opt-in method. We will share our rationale for this recruitment approach and present reasons why practices chose to opt-out. We will present aggregate practice level data to compare characteristics of the recruited and non-recruited practices to demonstrate the generalisability of the findings. We propose that the use of opt-out in ‘low-risk’ research, particularly implementation research, can increase both participation and generalisability of the findings. It also provides an efficient use of resource.

To what extent can behaviour change techniques be identified within an adaptable implementation package for primary care? A prospective directed content analysis

BackgroundInterpreting evaluations of complex interventions can be difficult without sufficient description of key intervention content. We aimed to develop an implementation package for primary care which could be delivered using typically available resources and could be adapted to target determinants of behaviour for each of four quality indicators: diabetes control, blood pressure control, anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation and risky prescribing. We describe the development and prospective verification of behaviour change techniques (BCTs) embedded within the adaptable implementation packages.MethodsWe used an over-lapping multi-staged process. We identified evidence-based, candidate delivery mechanisms—mainly audit and feedback, educational outreach and computerised prompts and reminders. We drew upon interviews with primary care professionals using the Theoretical Domains Framework to explore likely determinants of adherence to quality indicators. We linked determinants to candidate BCTs. With input from stakeholder panels, we prioritised likely determinants and intervention content prior to piloting the implementation packages. Our content analysis assessed the extent to which embedded BCTs could be identified within the packages and compared them across the delivery mechanisms and four quality indicators.ResultsEach implementation package included at least 27 out of 30 potentially applicable BCTs representing 15 of 16 BCT categories. Whilst 23 BCTs were shared across all four implementation packages (e.g. BCTs relating to feedback and comparing behaviour), some BCTs were unique to certain delivery mechanisms (e.g. ‘graded tasks’ and ‘problem solving’ for educational outreach). BCTs addressing the determinants ‘environmental context’ and ‘social and professional roles’ (e.g. ‘restructuring the social and ‘physical environment’ and ‘adding objects to the environment’) were indicator specific. We found it challenging to operationalise BCTs targeting ‘environmental context’, ‘social influences’ and ‘social and professional roles’ within our chosen delivery mechanisms.ConclusionWe have demonstrated a transparent process for selecting, operationalising and verifying the BCT content in implementation packages adapted to target four quality indicators in primary care. There was considerable overlap in BCTs identified across the four indicators suggesting core BCTs can be embedded and verified within delivery mechanisms commonly available to primary care. Whilst feedback reports can include a wide range of BCTs, computerised prompts can deliver BCTs at the time of decision making, and educational outreach can allow for flexibility and individual tailoring in delivery.

Developing a complex intervention to support timely engagement with palliative care for patients with advanced cancer in primary and secondary care in the UK: a study protocol

Introduction For patients with advanced cancer, timely access to palliative care can improve quality of life and enable patients to participate in decisions about their end-of-life care. However, in a UK population of 2500 patients who died from cancer, one-third did not receive specialist palliative care, and of those who did, the duration of involvement was too short to maximise the benefits. Initiating a conversation about palliative care is challenging for some health professionals and patients often have unmet information needs and misconceptions about palliative care. We will work closely with patients and health professionals to develop a patient decision aid and health professional training module designed to facilitate a timely and informed conversation about palliative care. Methods and analysis This study is being conducted over 24 months from November 2017 to October 2019 and follows the UK Medical Research Council framework for developing complex interventions and the International Patient Decision Aids Guideline. The Ottawa Decision Support Framework underpins the study. The Supporting Timely Engagement with Palliative care (STEP) intervention will be developed though an iterative process informed by interviews and focus groups with patients with advanced cancer, oncologists, general practitioners and palliative care doctors. An expert panel will also review each iteration. The expert panel will consist of a patient representative with experience of palliative care, health professionals who are involved in advanced cancer care decision-making, a medical education expert and the National Council for Palliative Care director of transformation. The feasibility and acceptability of the decision aid and doctor training will be tested in oncology and general practice settings. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval for the study has been granted by the Office for Research Ethics Committees Northern Ireland (ORECNI), approval reference 17/NI/0249. Dissemination and knowledge transfer will be conducted via publications, national bodies and networks, and patient and family groups.

Self-management toolkit and delivery strategy for end-of-life pain : the mixed methods feasibility study

BACKGROUND Pain affects most people approaching the end of life and can be severe for some. Opioid analgesia is effective, but evidence is needed about how best to support patients in managing these medicines. OBJECTIVES To develop a self-management support toolkit (SMST) and delivery strategy and to test the feasibility of evaluating this intervention in a future definitive trial. DESIGN Phase I - evidence synthesis and qualitative interviews with patients and carers. Phase II - qualitative semistructured focus groups and interviews with patients, carers and specialist palliative care health professionals. Phase III - multicentre mixed-methods single-arm pre-post observational feasibility study. PARTICIPANTS Phase I - six patients and carers. Phase II - 15 patients, four carers and 19 professionals. Phase III - 19 patients recruited to intervention that experienced pain, living at home and were treated with strong opioid analgesia. Process evaluation interviews with 13 patients, seven carers and 11 study nurses. INTERVENTION Self-Management of Analgesia and Related Treatments at the end of life (SMART) intervention comprising a SMST and a four-step educational delivery approach by clinical nurse specialists in palliative care over 6 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Recruitment rate, treatment fidelity, treatment acceptability, patient-reported outcomes (such as scores on the Brief Pain Inventory, Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease Scale, Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale, EuroQol-5 Dimensions, Satisfaction with Information about Medicines Scale, and feasibility of collecting data on health-care resource use for economic evaluation). RESULTS Phase I - key themes on supported self-management were identified from evidence synthesis and qualitative interviews. Phase II - the SMST was developed and refined. The delivery approach was nested within a nurse-patient consultation. Phase III - intervention was delivered to 17 (89%) patients, follow-up data at 6 weeks were available on 15 patients. Overall, the intervention was viewed as acceptable and valued. Descriptive analysis of patient-reported outcomes suggested that interference from pain and self-efficacy were likely to be candidates for primary outcomes in a future trial. No adverse events related to the intervention were reported. The health economic analysis suggested that SMART could be cost-effective. We identified key limitations and considerations for a future trial: improve recruitment through widening eligibility criteria, refine the SMST resources content, enhance fidelity of intervention delivery, secure research nurse support at recruiting sites, refine trial procedures (including withdrawal process and data collection frequency), and consider a cluster randomised design with nurse as cluster unit. LIMITATIONS (1) The recruitment rate was lower than anticipated. (2) The content of the intervention was focused on strong opioids only. (3) The fidelity of intervention delivery was limited by the need for ongoing training and support. (4) Recruitment sites where clinical research nurse support was not secured had lower recruitment rates. (5) The process for recording withdrawal was not sufficiently detailed. (6) The number of follow-up visits was considered burdensome for some participants. (7) The feasibility trial did not have a control arm or assess randomisation processes. CONCLUSIONS A future randomised controlled trial is feasible and acceptable. STUDY AND TRIAL REGISTRATION This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013572; Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN35327119; and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Portfolio registration 162114. FUNDING The NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme.