Comparison of estimates and calculations of risk of coronary heart disease by doctors and nurses using different calculation tools in general practice: cross sectional study

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of using different risk calculation tools on how general practitioners and practice nurses evaluate the risk of coronary heart disease with clinical data routinely available in patients' records. DESIGN: Subjective estimates of the risk of coronary heart disease and results of four different methods of calculation of risk were compared with each other and a reference standard that had been calculated with the Framingham equation; calculations were based on a sample of patients' records, randomly selected from groups at risk of coronary heart disease. SETTING: General practices in central England. PARTICIPANTS: 18 general practitioners and 18 practice nurses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Agreement of results of risk estimation and risk calculation with reference calculation; agreement of general practitioners with practice nurses; sensitivity and specificity of the different methods of risk calculation to detect patients at high or low risk of coronary heart disease. RESULTS: Only a minority of patients' records contained all of the risk factors required for the formal calculation of the risk of coronary heart disease (concentrations of high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol were present in only 21%). Agreement of risk calculations with the reference standard was moderate (kappa=0.33-0.65 for practice nurses and 0.33 to 0.65 for general practitioners, depending on calculation tool), showing a trend for underestimation of risk. Moderate agreement was seen between the risks calculated by general practitioners and practice nurses for the same patients (kappa=0.47 to 0.58). The British charts gave the most sensitive results for risk of coronary heart disease (practice nurses 79%, general practitioners 80%), and it also gave the most specific results for practice nurses (100%), whereas the Sheffield table was the most specific method for general practitioners (89%). CONCLUSIONS: Routine calculation of the risk of coronary heart disease in primary care is hampered by poor availability of data on risk factors. General practitioners and practice nurses are able to evaluate the risk of coronary heart disease with only moderate accuracy. Data about risk factors need to be collected systematically, to allow the use of the most appropriate calculation tools.

Pulse oximetry screening for congenital heart defects in newborn infants:an evaluation of acceptability to mothers

Background: Introducing neonatal screening procedures may not be readily accepted by parents and may increase anxiety. The acceptability of pulse oximetry screening to parents has not been previously reported. Objective: To assess maternal acceptability of pulse oximetry screening for congenital heart defects and to identify factors predictive of participation in screening. Design and setting: A questionnaire was completed by a cross-sectional sample of mothers whose babies were recruited into the PulseOx Study which investigated the test accuracy of pulse oximetry screening. Participants: A total of 119 mothers of babies with false-positive (FP) results, 15 with true-positive and 679 with true-negative results following screening. Main outcome measures: Questionnaires included measures of satisfaction with screening, anxiety, depression and perceptions of test results. Results: Participants were predominantly satisfied with screening. The anxiety of mothers given FP results was not significantly higher than that of mothers given true-negative results (median score 32.7 vs 30.0, p=0.09). White British/Irish mothers were more likely to participate in screening, with a decline rate of 5%; other ethnic groups were more likely to decline with the largest increase in declining being for Black African mothers (21%, OR 4.6, 95% CI 3.8 to 5.5). White British mothers were also less anxious (p<0.001) and more satisfied (p<0.001) than those of other ethnicities Conclusions: Pulse oximetry screening was acceptable to mothers and FP results were not found to increase anxiety. Factors leading to differences in participation and satisfaction across ethnic groups need to be identified so that staff can support parents appropriately.

Pulse oximetry as a screening test for congenital heart defects in newborn infants: a test accuracy study with evaluation of acceptability and cost-effectiveness

Background: Screening for congenital heart defects (CHDs) relies on antenatal ultrasound and postnatal clinical examination; however, life-threatening defects often go undetected. Objective: To determine the accuracy, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of pulse oximetry as a screening test for CHDs in newborn infants. Design: A test accuracy study determined the accuracy of pulse oximetry. Acceptability of testing to parents was evaluated through a questionnaire, and to staff through focus groups. A decision-analytic model was constructed to assess cost-effectiveness. Setting: Six UK maternity units. Participants: These were 20,055 asymptomatic newborns at = 35 weeks’ gestation, their mothers and health-care staff. Interventions: Pulse oximetry was performed prior to discharge from hospital and the results of this index test were compared with a composite reference standard (echocardiography, clinical follow-up and follow-up through interrogation of clinical databases). Main outcome measures: Detection of major CHDs – defined as causing death or requiring invasive intervention up to 12 months of age (subdivided into critical CHDs causing death or intervention before 28 days, and serious CHDs causing death or intervention between 1 and 12 months of age); acceptability of testing to parents and staff; and the cost-effectiveness in terms of cost per timely diagnosis. Results: Fifty-three of the 20,055 babies screened had a major CHD (24 critical and 29 serious), a prevalence of 2.6 per 1000 live births. Pulse oximetry had a sensitivity of 75.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 53.3% to 90.2%] for critical cases and 49.1% (95% CI 35.1% to 63.2%) for all major CHDs. When 23 cases were excluded, in which a CHD was already suspected following antenatal ultrasound, pulse oximetry had a sensitivity of 58.3% (95% CI 27.7% to 84.8%) for critical cases (12 babies) and 28.6% (95% CI 14.6% to 46.3%) for all major CHDs (35 babies). False-positive (FP) results occurred in 1 in 119 babies (0.84%) without major CHDs (specificity 99.2%, 95% CI 99.0% to 99.3%). However, of the 169 FPs, there were six cases of significant but not major CHDs and 40 cases of respiratory or infective illness requiring medical intervention. The prevalence of major CHDs in babies with normal pulse oximetry was 1.4 (95% CI 0.9 to 2.0) per 1000 live births, as 27 babies with major CHDs (6 critical and 21 serious) were missed. Parent and staff participants were predominantly satisfied with screening, perceiving it as an important test to detect ill babies. There was no evidence that mothers given FP results were more anxious after participating than those given true-negative results, although they were less satisfied with the test. White British/Irish mothers were more likely to participate in the study, and were less anxious and more satisfied than those of other ethnicities. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of pulse oximetry plus clinical examination compared with examination alone is approximately £24,900 per timely diagnosis in a population in which antenatal screening for CHDs already exists. Conclusions: Pulse oximetry is a simple, safe, feasible test that is acceptable to parents and staff and adds value to existing screening. It is likely to identify cases of critical CHDs that would otherwise go undetected. It is also likely to be cost-effective given current acceptable thresholds. The detection of other pathologies, such as significant CHDs and respiratory and infective illnesses, is an additional advantage. Other pulse oximetry techniques, such as perfusion index, may enhance detection of aortic obstructive lesions.

Undermining patient and public engagement and limiting its impact:the consequences of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 on collective patient and public involvement

Patient and public involvement has been at the heart of UK health policy for more than two decades. This commitment to putting patients at the heart of the British National Health Service (NHS) has become a central principle helping to ensure equity, patient safety and effectiveness in the health system. The recent Health and Social Care Act 2012 is the most significant reform of the NHS since its foundation in 1948. More radically, this legislation undermines the principle of patient and public involvement, public accountability and returns the power for prioritisation of health services to an unaccountable medical elite. This legislation marks a sea-change in the approach to patient and public involvement in the UK and signals a shift in the commitment of the UK government to patient-centred care. © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Milk for a girl and bananas for a boy:recipes and reasons for sex-preference practices in a British Internet forum

Using postings from an internet forum, this paper explores the ways in which some women try to influence the sex of a future child. The extensive reproductive work involved give an indication of the women’s commitment to being able to choose a particular sex; in this case a preference for girls rather than boys. The findings revealed stereotypical views of masculinity and femininity at the heart of the preference. The presumption of fixed gendered identities helped to frame this desire as ‘natural,’ lessen the threat to maternal identities, and reinforce the logic of ‘choice,’ and support their reproductive work practices.