Patients' and health professionals' views on primary care for people with serious mental illness:focus group study

Objective: To explore the experience of providing and receiving primary care from the perspectives of primary care health professionals and patients with serious mental illness respectively. Design: Qualitative study consisting of six patient groups, six health professional groups, and six combined focus groups. Setting: Six primary care trusts in the West Midlands. Participants: Forty five patients with serious mental illness, 39 general practitioners (GPs), and eight practice nurses. Results: Most health professionals felt that the care of people with serious mental illness was too specialised for primary care. However, most patients viewed primary care as the cornerstone of their health care and preferred to consult their own GP, who listened and was willing to learn, rather than be referred to a different GP with specific mental health knowledge. Swift access was important to patients, with barriers created by the effects of the illness and the noisy or crowded waiting area. Some patients described how they exaggerated symptoms ("acted up") to negotiate an urgent appointment, a strategy that was also employed by some GPs to facilitate admission to secondary care. Most participants felt that structured reviews of care had value. However, whereas health professionals perceived serious mental illness as a lifelong condition, patients emphasised the importance of optimism in treatment and hope for recovery. Conclusions: Primary care is of central importance to people with serious mental illness. The challenge for health professionals and patients is to create a system in which patients can see a health professional when they want to without needing to exaggerate their symptoms. The importance that patients attach to optimism in treatment, continuity of care, and listening skills compared with specific mental health knowledge should encourage health professionals in primary care to play a greater role in the care of patients with serious mental illness.

Systematic review investigating the reporting of comorbidities and medication in randomized controlled trials of people with dementia

Objectives: dementia is a debilitating condition characterised by global loss of cognitive and intellectual functioning, which reduces social and occupational performance. This population frequently presents with medical co-morbidities such as hypertension, cardiovascular disease and diabetes. The CONSORT statement outlines recommended guidance on reporting of participant characteristics in clinical trials. It is, however, unclear how much these are adhered to in trials assessing people with dementia. This paper assesses the reporting of medical co-morbidities and prescribed medications for people with dementia within randomised controlled trial (RCT) reports. Design: a systematic review of the published literature from the databases AMED, CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Clinical Trial Registry from 1 January 1997 to 9 January 2014 was undertaken in order to identify RCTs detailing baseline medical co-morbidities and prescribed medications . Eligible studies were appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) RCT appraisal tool, and descriptive statistical analyses were calculated to determine point prevalence. Results: nine trials, including 1474 people with dementia, were identified presenting medical co-morbidity data. These indicated neurological disorders ( prevalence 91%), vascular disorders (prevalence 91%), cardiac disorders ( prevalence 74%) and ischaemic cerebrovascular disease ( prevalence 53%) were most frequently seen. Conclusions: published RCTs poorly report medical co-morbidities and medications for people with dementia. Future trials should include the report of these items to allow interpretation of whether the results are generalisable to frailer older populations.

The importance of detecting and managing comorbidities in people with dementia?

Dementia is a debilitating condition characterised by global loss of cognitive and intellectual functioning, which gradually interferes with social and occupational performance. It is a common worldwide condition with a significant impact on society. There are currently 36 million people worldwide with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other dementias [1]. This is expected to more than double by 2030 (65 million) and reach ∼115 million in 2050, unless a major breakthrough is made. The worldwide societal costs were estimated at USD 604 billion in 2010 and rising [2]. To date research on the specific physical healthcare needs of people with dementia has been neglected. Yet, physical comorbidities are reported as common in people with dementia [3] and have been shown to lead to increased disability and reduced quality of life for the affected person and their carer [4]. Dementia is most frequently associated with older people who often present with other medical conditions, known as co-morbidities. Such co-morbidities include diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, musculoskeletal disorders and chronic cardiac failure and are common, 61% of people with …

Nonprofit leaders and for-profit entrepreneurs:similar people with different motivation

Today's market conditions require nonprofit leaders to act in an increasingly business-like fashion. This study asks whether NPO leaders have a similar disposition to act entrepreneurially as for-profit entrepreneurs, but hold different underlying motives. For this purpose, the study contrasts a sample of 72 leaders of nonprofit organizations with 117 entrepreneurs on their personality traits and explicit motives using standard personality tests and interviews. Both groups exhibit similar general and entrepreneurship-specific personality traits but differ significantly regarding their motivation. While nonprofit leaders' motivation stems primarily from the meaningfulness of their work; entrepreneurs are mainly motivated by the independence as well as by the income and profit provided by their work. This paper helps us understand who leaders of nonprofit organizations are.

Efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin monotherapy in people with Type 2 diabetes:a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled 102-week trial

Aims: To assess initial pharmacotherapy of Type 2 diabetes with the sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor dapagliflozin. Methods: This double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, randomly allocated people with Type 2 diabetes aged 18-77 years and inadequate glycaemic control on diet and exercise [HbA1c 53-86 mmol/mol (7.0-10.0%)] to receive placebo (n = 75) or dapagliflozin monotherapy 2.5 mg (n = 65), 5 mg (n = 64) or 10 mg (n = 70) once daily in the morning. After 24 weeks, low-dose double-blind metformin 500 mg/day was added to the placebo group regimen (placebo+low-dose metformin group). Changes in HbA1c level, fasting plasma glucose and body weight, as well as adverse events, were assessed over 102 weeks. Results: Of the 274 participants randomized, 167 completed the study (60.9%). At 102 weeks, significant differences vs placebo+low-dose metformin with dapagliflozin 5 and 10 mg were observed for HbA1c (-5.8 mmol/mol [-0.53%], P = 0.018; and -4.8 mmol/mol [-0.44%], P = 0.048), respectively); and for FPG (-0.69 mmol/L, P = 0.044; and -1.12 mmol/l, P = 0.001, respectively). For body weight, the difference between the dapagliflozin 10-mg group and the placebo+low-dose metformin group was significant (-2.60 kg; P = 0.016). Hypoglycaemic events were uncommon, with rates of 5.3% for placebo+low-dose metformin group and 0-4.6% for the dapagliflozin groups. Genital infections and urinary tract infections were more common in the dapagliflozin groups than in the placebo+low-dose metformin group. Conclusions: Dapagliflozin as monotherapy in treatment-naïve people with early Type 2 diabetes improved glycaemic control and reduced weight without increasing hypoglycaemia over 102 weeks. Dapagliflozin may provide an alternative initial pharmacotherapy in such people.

Insulin therapy in people with type 2 diabetes:opportunities and challenges?

Given the continued interest in defining the optimal management of individuals with type 2 diabetes, the Editor of Diabetes Care convened a working party of diabetes specialists to examine this topic in the context of insulin therapy. This was prompted by recent new evidence on the use of insulin in such people. The group was aware of evidence that the benefits of insulin therapy are still usually offered late, and thus the aim of the discussion was how to define the optimal timing and basis for decisions regarding insulin and to apply these concepts in practice. It was noted that recent evidence had built upon that of the previous decades, together confirming the benefits and safety of insulin therapy, albeit with concerns about the potential for hypoglycemia and gain in body weight. Insulin offers a unique ability to control hyperglycemia, being used from the time of diagnosis in some circumstances, when metabolic control is disturbed by medical illness, procedures, or therapy, as well as in the longer term in ambulatory care. For those previously starting insulin, various other forms of therapy can be added later, which offer complementary effects appropriate to individual needs. Here we review current evidence and circumstances in which insulin can be used, consider individualized choices of alternatives and combination regimens, and offer some guidance on personalized targets and tactics for glycemic control in type 2 diabetes. © 2014 by the American Diabetes Association.

Medicines optimisation for young people with juvenile arthritis and other long-term conditions:system-level barriers to engagement

To explore the views of pharmacy and rheumatology stakeholders about system-related barriers to medicines optimisation activities with young people with long-term conditions. A three-phase consensus-building study comprising (1) focus groups with community and hospital pharmacists; (2) semi-structured telephone interviews with lay and professional adolescent rheumatology stakeholders and pharmacy policymakers, and (3) multidisciplinary discussion groups with community and hospital pharmacists and rheumatology staff. Qualitative verbatim transcripts from phases 1 and 2 were subjected to framework analysis. Themes from phase 1 underpinned a briefing for phase 2 interviewees. Themes from phases 1 and 2 generated elements of good pharmacy practice and current/future pharmacy roles for ranking in phase 3. Results from phase 3 prioritisation and ranking exercises were captured on self-completion data collection forms, entered into an Excel spreadsheet and subjected to descriptive statistical analysis. Institutional ethical approval was given by Aston University Health and Life Sciences Research Ethics Committee. Four focus groups were conducted with 18 pharmacists across England, Scotland and Wales (7 hospital, 10 community and 1 community/public health). Fifteen stakeholders took part in telephone interviews (3 pharmacist commissioners; 2 pharmacist policymakers; 2 pharmacy staff members (1 community and 1 hospital); 4 rheumatologists; 1 specialist nurse, and 3 lay juvenile arthritis advocates). Twenty-five participants took part in three discussion groups in adolescent rheumatology centres across England and Scotland (9 community pharmacists; 4 hospital pharmacists; 6 rheumatologists; 5 specialist nurses, and 1 physiotherapist). In all phases of the study, system-level issues were acknowledged as barriers to more engagement with young people and families. Community pharmacists in the focus groups reported that opportunities for engaging with young people were low if parents collected prescriptions alone, which was agreed by other stakeholders. Moreover, institutional/company prescription collection policies – an activity largely disallowed for a young person under 16 without an accompanying parent - were identified by hospital and community pharmacists as barriers to open discussion and engagement. Few community pharmacists reported using Medicines Use Review (England/Wales) or Chronic Medication Service (Scotland) as a medicines optimisation activity with young people; many were unsure about consent procedures. Despite these limitations, rheumatology stakeholders ranked highly the potential of pharmacists empowering young people with general health care skills, such as repeat prescription ordering. The pharmacy profession lacks vision for its role in the care of young people with long-term conditions. Pharmacists and rheumatology stakeholders identified system-level barriers to more engagement with young people who take medicines regularly. We acknowledge that the modest number of participants may have had a specific interest and thus bias for the topic, but this underscores their frank admission of the challenges. Professional guidance and policy, practice frameworks and institutional/company policies must promote flexibility for pharmacy staff to recognise and empower young people who are able to give consent and take responsibility for medicines activities. This will increase mutual confidence and trust, and foster pharmacy’s role in teaching general health care skills. In this way, pharmacists will be able to build long-term relationships with young people and families.

Natural history of retinopathy in children and young people with type 1 diabetes

Purpose: To describe the prevalence and natural history of retinopathy in a cohort of children and young people with type 1 diabetes attending a tertiary hospital diabetes clinic. Methods: We analysed retinopathy screening data from 2008 to 2010 on all eligible children using the 'Twinkle' diabetes database and the regional retinal screening database. Results: A total of 88% (149/169) of eligible children were screened in 2008, median age 14 years, 52% male. The prevalence of retinopathy was 19.5% (30/149). All children had background retinopathy grade R1. There was significant difference in median (range) duration of diabetes, 7.7 years (0.6–13.7) vs 5 years (0.2–12.5) (P<0.001) and median (range) HbA1C, 9.1% (7.2–14) vs 8.6% (5.6–13.1) (P=0.02), between the groups with and without retinopathy. At 2- years follow-up, 12/30 (40%) had unchanged retinopathy grade R1, 10/30 (33.3%) showed resolution of changes (R0), 1/30 progressed to maculopathy, and 7/30 had no follow-up data. Median (range) HbA1C in 2008 and 2010 for the groups with stable vs resolved changes was similar, 9.1% (7.2–14.0) and 9.2% (7–14.0) vs 9.5% (7.8–14.0) and 9.2% (8.7–14.0). Of the 119 without retinopathy in 2008, 27 (22.5%) had developed retinopathy within 2 years, including 1 with pre-proliferative retinopathy and 1 with maculopathy. There was no significant difference in HbA1c between those who progressed to retinopathy (8.7% (7.1–13.1)) (8.7% (7.1–13.1)), and those who did not (8.6% (6.3–12.2)). Conclusions: Prevalence of background retinopathy in our cohort was comparable to the previously published reports, with higher HbA1c and longer duration of diabetes being significant risk factors. On short-term follow-up, Grade 1 retinopathy is likely to resolve in a third of patients and remain unchanged in just over a third.