Richard Lowrie

Pharmacist intervention in primary care to improve outcomes in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction

BACKGROUND Meta-analysis of small trials suggests that pharmacist-led collaborative review and revision of medical treatment may improve outcomes in heart failure. METHODS AND RESULTS We studied patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction in a cluster-randomized controlled, event driven, trial in primary care. We allocated 87 practices (1090 patients) to pharmacist intervention and 87 practices (1074 patients) to usual care. The intervention was delivered by non-specialist pharmacists working with family doctors to optimize medical treatment. The primary outcome was a composite of death or hospital admission for worsening heart failure. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN70118765. The median follow-up was 4.7 years. At baseline, 86% of patients in both groups were treated with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker. In patients not receiving one or other of these medications, or receiving less than the recommended dose, treatment was started, or the dose increased, in 33.1% of patients in the intervention group and in 18.5% of the usual care group [odds ratio (OR) 2.26, 95% CI 1.64-3.10; P< 0.001]. At baseline, 62% of each group were treated with a β-blocker and the proportions starting or having an increase in the dose were 17.9% in the intervention group and 11.1% in the usual care group (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.31-2.35; P< 0.001). The primary outcome occurred in 35.8% of patients in the intervention group and 35.4% in the usual care group (hazard ratio 0.97, 95% CI 0.83-1.14; P = 0.72). There was no difference in any secondary outcome. CONCLUSION A low-intensity, pharmacist-led collaborative intervention in primary care resulted in modest improvements in prescribing of disease-modifying medications but did not improve clinical outcomes in a population that was relatively well treated at baseline.

Experiences of a community pharmacy service to support adherence and self-management in chronic heart failure.

Background Heart failure (HF) is common, disabling and deadly. Patients with HF often have poor self-care and medicines non-adherence, which contributes to poor outcomes. Community pharmacy based cognitive services have the potential to help, but we do not know how patients view community-pharmacist-led services for patients with HF. Objective We aimed to explore and portray in detail, the perspectives of patients receiving, and pharmacists delivering an enhanced, pay for performance community pharmacy HF service. Setting Community pharmacies and community-based patients in Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Scotland. Methods Focus groups with pharmacists and semi-structured interviews with individual patients by telephone. Cross sectional thematic analysis of qualitative data used Normalization Process Theory to understand and describe patient’s reports. Main outcome measure Experiences of receiving and delivering an enhanced HF service. Results Pharmacists voiced their confidence in delivering the service and highlighted valued aspects including the structured consultation and repeated contacts with patients enabling the opportunity to improve self care and medicines adherence. Discussing co-morbidities other than HF was difficult and persuading patients to modify behaviour was challenging. Patients were comfortable discussing symptoms and medicines with pharmacists; they identified pharmacists as fulfilling roles that were needed but not currently addressed. Patients reported the service helped them to enact HF medicines and HF self care management strategies. Conclusion Both patients receiving and pharmacists delivering a cognitive HF service felt that it addressed a shortfall in current care. There may be a clearly defined role for pharmacists in supporting patients to address the burden of understanding and managing their condition and treatment, leading to better self management and medicines adherence. This study may inform the development of strategies or policies to improve the process of care for patients with HF and has implications for the development of other extended role services.

A Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial of a Pharmacist-Led Collaborative Intervention to Improve Statin Prescribing and Attainment of Cholesterol Targets in Primary Care

Background Small trials with short term follow up suggest pharmacists’ interventions targeted at healthcare professionals can improve prescribing. In comparison with clinical guidance, contemporary statin prescribing is sub-optimal and achievement of cholesterol targets falls short of accepted standards, for patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease who are at highest absolute risk and who stand to obtain greatest benefit. We hypothesised that a pharmacist-led complex intervention delivered to doctors and nurses in primary care, would improve statin prescribing and achievement of cholesterol targets for incident and prevalent patients with vascular disease, beyond one year. Methods We allocated general practices to a 12-month Statin Outreach Support (SOS) intervention or usual care. SOS was delivered by one of 11 pharmacists who had received additional training. SOS comprised academic detailing and practical support to identify patients with vascular disease who were not prescribed a statin at optimal dose or did not have cholesterol at target, followed by individualised recommendations for changes to management. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving cholesterol targets. Secondary outcomes were: the proportion of patients prescribed simvastatin 40 mg with target cholesterol achieved; cholesterol levels; prescribing of simvastatin 40 mg; prescribing of any statin and the proportion of patients with cholesterol tested. Outcomes were assessed after an average of 1.7 years (range 1.4–2.2 years), and practice level simvastatin 40 mg prescribing was assessed after 10 years. Findings We randomised 31 practices (72 General Practitioners (GPs), 40 nurses). Prior to randomisation a subset of eligible patients were identified to characterise practices; 40% had cholesterol levels below the target threshold. Improvements in data collection procedures allowed identification of all eligible patients (n = 7586) at follow up. Patients in practices allocated to SOS were significantly more likely to have cholesterol at target (69.5% vs 63.5%; OR 1.11, CI 1.00–1.23; p = 0.043) as a result of improved simvastatin prescribing. Subgroup analysis showed the primary outcome was achieved by prevalent but not incident patients. Statistically significant improvements occurred in all secondary outcomes for prevalent patients and all but one secondary outcome (the proportion of patients with cholesterol tested) for incident patients. SOS practices prescribed more simvastatin 40 mg than usual care practices, up to 10 years later. Interpretation Through a combination of educational and organisational support, a general practice based pharmacist led collaborative intervention can improve statin prescribing and achievement of cholesterol targets in a high-risk primary care based population. Trial Registration International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Register ISRCTN61233866

Physical health indicators in major mental illness: analysis of QOF data across UK general practice

BACKGROUND The Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) has specific targets for body mass index (BMI) and blood pressure recording in major mental illness (MMI), diabetes, and chronic kidney disease (CKD). Although aspects of MMI (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and related psychoses) are incentivised, barriers to care may occur. AIM To compare payment, population achievement, and exception rates for blood pressure and BMI recording in MMI relative to diabetes and CKD across the UK. DESIGN AND SETTING Analysis of 2012/2013 QOF data from 9731 UK general practices 2 years after the introduction of the mental health, BMI, and blood pressure QOF indicators. METHOD Payment, exception, and population achievement rates for the MMI and CKD blood pressure indicators and the MMI and diabetes BMI indicators were calculated and compared. RESULTS UK payment and population achievement rates for BMI recording for MMI were significantly lower than for diabetes (payment: 92.7% versus 95.5% and population achievement: 84.0% versus 92.5%, P<0.001) and exception rates were higher (8.1% versus 2.0%, P<0.001). For blood pressure recording, UK payment and population achievement rates were significantly lower for MMI than for CKD (94.1% versus 97.8% and 87.0% versus 97.1%, P<0.001), while exception rate was higher (6.5% versus 0.0%, P<0.001). This was observed for all countries. Compared with England, Northern Ireland had higher population achievement rates for both mental health indicators, whereas Scotland and Wales had lower rates. There were no cross-jurisdiction differences for CKD and diabetes. CONCLUSION Differences in payment, exception, and population achievement rates for blood pressure and BMI recording for MMI relative to CKD and diabetes were observed across the UK. These findings suggest potential inequalities in the monitoring of physical health in MMI within the UK primary care system.

The Heart failure and Optimal Outcomes from Pharmacy Study (HOOPS): rationale, design, and baseline characteristics.

The effect on mortality and morbidity of pharmacist‐led intervention to optimize pharmacological therapy in patients with systolic heart failure (HF) has not been tested in a large‐scale, long‐term, clinical trial.

A cluster randomised controlled trial of pharmacist led statin outreach support (SOS) in primary care: design and baseline characteristics.

BACKGROUND Statins reduce the risk of vascular events, however statin prescribing is often sub optimal and better evidence is needed to inform quality improvements. The Statin Outreach Support (SOS) trial was designed to test the efficacy of pharmacist led educational outreach directed at General Practices, aiming to improve statin prescribing for community dwelling patients with vascular disease. This paper describes the study rationale, design, methods and baseline characteristics of participants. DESIGN The SOS trial was designed to investigate whether practices receiving SOS improve their statin prescribing and patients achieve reduced cholesterol levels. It was a prospective, single blind, cluster randomised controlled trial with a follow-up period of 5months minimum post SOS intervention delivery. RESULTS Thirty one practices were recruited from the UKs largest Health Board area. At randomisation, 16 practices were allocated to SOS and 15 to usual care with 4040 patients included at baseline. Participating practices showed few differences compared with non-participating practices; practices and patients randomised to each arm of the study had similar distributions with respect to age, complications, cholesterol levels and statin prescribing. Baseline data compared favourably with landmark, placebo-controlled statin trials. CONCLUSIONS Compared with existing implementation research, SOS trial has more participants, a detailed description of baseline characteristics and over 90% power (at 5% significance) to detect a difference of 12% in the proportion of patients with controlled cholesterol after SOS.

Interventions by healthcare professionals to improve management of physical long-term conditions in adults who are homeless: a systematic review protocol

Introduction People experiencing homelessness are at increased risk of, and have poorer outcomes from, a range of physical long-term conditions (LTCs). It is increasingly recognised that interventions targeting people who are homeless should be tailored to the specific needs of this population. This systematic review aims to identify, describe and appraise trials of interventions that aim to manage physical LTCs in homeless adults and are delivered by healthcare professionals. Methods and analysis Seven electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Assia, Scopus, PsycINFO and CINAHL) will be searched from 1960 (or inception) to October 2016 and supplemented by forward citation searching, handsearching of reference lists and searching grey literature. Two reviewers will independently review titles, abstract and full-texts using DistillerSR software. Inclusion criteria include (1) homeless adults with any physical LTC, (2) interventions delivered by a healthcare professional (any professional trained to provide any form of healthcare, but excluding social workers and professionals without health-related training), (3) comparison with usual care or an alternative intervention, (4) report outcomes such as healthcare usage, physical and psychological health or well-being or cost-effectiveness, (5) randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, controlled before-after studies. Quality will be assessed using the Cochrane EPOC Risk of Bias Tool. A meta-analysis will be performed if sufficient data are identified; however, we anticipate a narrative synthesis will be performed. Ethics and dissemination This review will synthesise existing evidence for interventions delivered by healthcare professionals to manage physical LTCs in adults who are homeless. The findings will inform the development of future interventions and research aiming to improve the management of LTCs for people experiencing homelessness. Ethical approval will not be required for this systematic review as it does not contain individual patient data. We will disseminate the results of this systematic review via conference presentations, healthcare professional networks, social media and peer-reviewed publication. Trial registration number PROSPERO registration number: CRD42016046183.

Incentivised chronic disease management and the inverse equity hypothesis: findings from a longitudinal analysis of Scottish primary care practice-level data

BackgroundThe inverse equity hypothesis asserts that new health policies initially widen inequality, then attenuate inequalities over time. Since 2004, the UK’s pay-for-performance scheme for chronic disease management (CDM) in primary care general practices (the Quality and Outcomes Framework) has permitted practices to except (exclude) patients from attending annual CDM reviews, without financial penalty. Informed dissent (ID) is one component of exception rates, applied to patients who have not attended due to refusal or non-response to invitations. ‘Population achievement’ describes the proportion receiving care, in relation to those eligible to receive it, including excepted patients. Examination of exception reporting (including ID) and population achievement enables the equity impact of the UK pay-for-performance contract to be assessed. We conducted a longitudinal analysis of practice-level rates and of predictors of ID, overall exceptions and population achievement for CDM to examine whether the inverse equity hypothesis holds true.MethodsWe carried out a retrospective, longitudinal study using routine primary care data, analysed by multilevel logistic regression. Data were extracted from 793 practices (83% of Scottish general practices) serving 4.4 million patients across Scotland from 2010/2011 to 2012/2013, for 29 CDM indicators covering 11 incentivised diseases. This provided 68,991 observations, representing a total of 15 million opportunities for exception reporting.ResultsAcross all observations, the median overall exception reporting rate was 7.0% (7.04% in 2010–2011; 7.02% in 2011–2012 and 6.92% in 2012–2013). The median non-attendance rate due to ID was 0.9% (0.76% in 2010–2011; 0.88% in 2011–2012 and 0.96% in 2012–2013). Median population achievement was 83.5% (83.51% in 2010–2011; 83.41% in 2011–2012 and 83.63% in 2012–2013). The odds of ID reporting in 2012/2013 were 16.0% greater than in 2010/2011 (p < 0.001). Practices in Scotland’s most deprived communities were twice as likely to report non-attendance due to ID (odds ratio 2.10, 95% confidence interval 1.83–2.40, p < 0.001) compared with those in the least deprived; rural practices reported lower levels of non-attendance due to ID. These predictors were also independently associated with overall exceptions. Rates of population achievement did not change over time, with higher levels (higher remuneration) associated with increased rates of overall and ID exception and more affluent practices.ConclusionsNon-attendance for CDM due to ID has risen over time, and higher rates are seen in patients from practices located in disadvantaged areas. This suggests that CDM incentivisation does not conform to the inverse equity hypothesis, because inequalities are widening over time with lower uptake of anticipatory care health checks and CDM reviews noted among those most in need. Incentivised CDM needs to include incentives for engaging with the ‘hard to reach’ if inequalities in healthcare delivery are to be tackled.

Physical health indicators in major mental illness: data from the Quality and Outcome Framework in the UK.

BACKGROUND In the UK, the Quality and Outcome Framework (QOF) has specific targets for general practictioners to record body-mass index (BMI) and blood pressure (BP) in major mental illness, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease. Although incentives are given for aspects of major mental illness (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and related psychoses), barriers to care can occur. Our aim was to compare recording of specific targets for BP and BMI in individuals with major mental illness relative to diabetes and chronic kidney disease across the UK. METHODS Using 2012 and 2013 QOF data from 9731 general practices across all four countries in the UK, we calculated median payment, population achievement, and exception rates for BP indicators in major mental illness and chronic kidney disease and BMI indicators in major mental illness and diabetes. Differences in unweighted rates between practices in the same UK country were tested with a sign test. Differences in population achievement rate between practices in different countries were compared with those in England by use of a quantile regression analysis. FINDINGS UK payment and population achievement rates for BMI recording in major mental illness were significantly lower than were those in diabetes (payment 92·7% vs 95·5% and population achievement 84·0% vs 92·5%, p<0·0001) and exception rates were higher (8·1% vs 2·0%, p<0·0001). For BP recording, UK payment and population achievement rates were significantly lower for major mental illness than for chronic kidney disease (94·1% vs 97·8% and 87·0% vs 97·1%, p<0·0001), whereas exception rate was higher (6·5% vs 0·0%, p<0·0001). This difference was observed for all UK countries. Median population achievement rates for BMI and BP recording in major mental illness were significantly lower in Scotland than in England (for BMI -1·5%, 99% CI -2·7 to -0·3, and for BP -1·8%, -2·7 to -0·9; p<0·0001 for both). There were no cross-jurisdiction differences for chronic kidney disease and diabetes. INTERPRETATION We found lower payment rates, higher exception rates, and lower population achievement rates for BMI and BP recording in major mental illness than in diabetes and chronic kidney disease throughout the UK. We also found variation in these rates between countries. This finding is probably multifactorial, reflecting a combination of patient, clinician, and wider organisational factors; however, it might also suggest inequality in access to certain aspects of health care for people with major mental illness. FUNDING None.

A non-randomised controlled pilot study of clinical pharmacist collaborative intervention for community dwelling patients with COPD

AbstractUK, home-based patients with COPD receive specialist care from respiratory physicians, nurses, and general practitioners (GPs), but increasing complexity of therapeutic options and a GP/Nurse workforce crisis suggests merit in testing the role of home visits by a clinical pharmacist. We conducted a non-randomised intervention study with a contemporaneous comparator group, in Glasgow (Scotland). A clinical pharmacist (working closely with a consultant respiratory physician) visited patients with COPD living at home, assessing respiratory and other co-morbid conditions, and medicines then, with patient approval, agreed treatment modifications with a consultant physician. Comparator group-patients were drawn from another hospital out-patient clinic. Main outcomes were exacerbations during 4-months of follow-up and respiratory hospitalisations (number and duration) after 1 year. In the intervention group, 86 patients received a median of three home visits; 87 received usual care (UC). At baseline, patients in the intervention group were similar to those in UC in terms of respiratory hospitalisations although slightly younger, more likely to receive specific maintenance antibiotics/Prednisolone and to have had exacerbations. Sixty-two (72.1%) of the intervention group received dose changes; 45 (52.3%) had medicines stopped/started and 21 (24.4%) received an expedited review at the specialist respiratory consultant clinic; 46 (53.5%) were referred to other healthcare services. Over one-third were referred for bone scans and 11% received additional investigations. At follow-up, 54 (63.5%) of intervention group participants had an exacerbation compared with 75 (86.2%) in the UC group (p = 0.001); fewer had respiratory hospitalisations (39 (45.3%) vs. 66 (76.7%); p < 0.001). Hospitalisations were shorter in the intervention group. Pharmacist-consultant care for community dwelling patients with COPD, changed clinical management and improved outcomes. A randomised controlled trial would establish causality.COPD: At-home pharmacist visits improve health outcomesClinical pharmacists, working in collaboration with respiratory specialists, can help people who live at home with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) better manage their medications and symptoms. In a non-randomised pilot study, Richard Lowrie from the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde,
UK, and colleagues found that patients with COPD who receive standard at-home care—which includes visits to GP surgeries and hospital-based respiratory out-patient clinics, and visits from respiratory specialist nurses—were more likely to experience exacerbations and need lengthy hospital stays than those who additionally received home visits from a clinical pharmacist. The pharmacist, in consultation with the patient’s respiratory physician, often proposed medication changes and suggested additional testing or referrals that presumably explain the improved health outcomes. The authors conclude that a large, randomised trial is warranted to further evaluate the merits of this collaborative intervention for community dwelling patients with COPD.