Reducing the time before consulting with symptoms of lung cancer:a randomised controlled trial in primary care

Background: Most individuals with lung cancer have symptoms for several months before presenting to their GP. Earlier consulting may improve survival. Aim: To evaluate whether a theory-based primary care intervention increased timely consulting of individuals with symptoms of lung cancer. Design and setting: Open randomised controlled trial comparing intervention with usual care in two general practices in north-east Scotland. Method: Smokers and ex-smokers aged ≥55 years were randomised to receive a behavioural intervention or usual care. The intervention comprised a single nurse consultation at participants' general practice and a self-help manual. The main outcomes were consultations within target times for individuals with new chest symptoms (≤3 days haemoptysis, ≤3 weeks other symptoms) in the year after the intervention commenced, and intentions about consulting with chest symptoms at 1 and 6 months. Results: Two hundred and twelve participants were randomised and 206 completed the trial. The consultation rate for new chest symptoms in the intervention group was 1.19 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.92 to 1.53; P = 0.18) times higher than in the usual-care group and the proportion of consultations within the target time was 1.11 (95% CI = 0.41 to 3.03; P = 0.83) times higher. One month after the intervention commenced, the intervention group reported intending to consult with chest symptoms 31 days (95% CI = 7 to 54; P = 0.012) earlier than the usual care group, and at 6 months this was 25 days (95% CI = 1.5 to 48; P = 0.037) earlier. Conclusion: Behavioural intervention in primary care shortened the time individuals at high risk of lung disease intended to take before consulting with new chest symptoms (the secondary outcome of the study), but increases in consultation rates and the proportions of consultations within target times were not statistically significant. © British Journal of General Practice.

W Primary Care Trust v TB & Ors [2009] EWHC 1737

The primary issue in this case related to TB’s clear and expressed desire to leave V, in order that she might be admitted to an NHS hospital for treatment of what she believed to be a physical, as opposed to a psychological, condition...

A pharmacy workforce survey in the West Midlands: 3 primary care pharmacists

In a study to quantify the extent of current and planned employment of primary care pharmacists (PCPs) and to explore the experiences of PCPs and the perceptions of other pharmacists who aspire to become PCPs, it was found that the satisfaction experienced by primary care pharmacists appears to offset to some extent the dissatisfaction expressed about traditional pharmacy work in community pharmacy. The high level of interest in PCP work may also be a proxy for pharmacists' dissatisfaction.

Primary care pharmacists: a profile

A survey was carried out in 1998 in 43 English health authorities of primary care pharmacists (employed to provide prescribing advice to GPs at medical practice level). 119 responses were received (66%). Most combined working as a PCP with another occupation, usually community pharmacy (57%), hospital pharmacy (13%) or as an academic (7%). 53% of respondents worked 8 hours or less per week as a PCP. Only 18 respondents were employed full-time as a PCP. The most common activities were drug information (91%), PACT analysis (90%), drug cost containment (90%) and review of individual patient medication (88%). (7 refs.)

The training experience of primary care pharmacists

Objectives — To map the tasks, activities and training provision for primary care pharmacists (PCPs) and to identify perceived future training needs. Methods — Survey undertaken in 1998/1999 using a pre-piloted, postal, self-completion questionnaire to two samples of PCPs. Setting — PCPs in (a) the West Midlands and (b) England (outside West Midlands). Key findings — The response rate was 66 per cent. A majority (68 per cent) had worked in the role for less than two years. Eighty per cent had some form of continuing education or training for the role although only 50 per cent had a formal qualification. Over two-thirds had contributed to the funding of their training, with one-third providing all funding. Seventy-four per cent of PCPs agreed that pharmacists should go through a procedure to ensure competence (accreditation) before being allowed to work for a general medical practice or primary care group. Views on the need for formal education/training prior to work differed: 82 per cent of those with formal qualifications, but only 46 per cent of those without, considered that this should be a requirement. There was general agreement that training/education had met training needs. Views on future training closely reflected previous training experiences, with a focus upon pharmaceutical roles rather than upon generic skill development and the acquisition of management skills. Conclusions — The study provides a snapshot in time of the experience of pioneer PCPs and the training available to them. PCPs will need further training or updating if they are to provide the wider roles required by the developing needs of the National Health Service. Consideration should be given to formal recognition of the training of PCPs in order to assure competence. The expectation that pharmacists should fund their own training is likely to be a barrier to uptake of training and uncertainties over funding will militate against consistency of training.

An analysis of returned medicines in primary care

Objective: The number of pharmaceutical items issued on prescription is continually rising and contributing to spiralling healthcare costs. Although there is some data highlighting the quantity, in terms of weight of medicines returned specifically to community pharmacies, little is known about the specific details of such returns or other destinations for wasted medications. This pilot study has been designed to investigate the types and amounts of medicines returned to both general practices (GPs) and associated local community pharmacies determining the reasons why these medicines have been returned. Method: The study was conducted in eight community pharmacies and five GP surgeries within East Birmingham over a 4-week period. Main outcome Measure: Reason for return and details of returned medication. Results: A total of 114 returns were made during the study: 24 (21.1) to GP surgeries and 90 (78.9) to community pharmacies. The total returns comprised 340 items, of which 42 (12.4) were returned to GPs and 298 (87.6) to pharmacies, with the mean number of items per return being 1.8 and 3.3, respectively. Half of the returns in the study were attributed to the doctor changing or stopping the medicine; 23.7 of returns were recorded as excess supplies or clearout often associated with patients' death and 3.5 of returns were related to adverse drug reactions. Cardiovascular drugs were most commonly returned, amounting to 28.5 of the total drugs returned during the study. Conclusions: The results from this pilot study indicate that unused medicines impose a significant financial burden on the National Health Service as well as a social burden on the United Kingdom population. Further studies are examining the precise nature of returned medicines and possible solutions to these issues. © Springer 2005.

Correlates of spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions within primary care: the paradox of low prescribers who are high reporters

AIM(S) To examine Primary Care Trust (PCT) demographics influencing general practitioner (GP) involvement in pharmacovigilance. METHODS PCT adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports to the Yellow Card scheme between April 2004 and March 2006 were obtained for the UK West Midlands region. Reports were analysed by all drugs, and most commonly reported drugs (‘top drugs’). PCT data, adjusted for population size, were aggregated. Prescribing statistics and other characteristics were obtained for each PCT, and associations between these characteristics and ADR reporting rates were examined. RESULTS During 2004–06, 1175 reports were received from PCTs. Two hundred and eighty (24%) of these reports were for 14 ‘top drugs’. The mean rate of reporting for PCTs was 213 reports per million population. A total of 153 million items were prescribed during 2004–06, of which 33% were ‘top drugs’. Reports for all drugs and ‘top drugs’ were inversely correlated with the number of prescriptions issued per thousand population (rs = -0.413, 95% CI -0.673, -0.062, P < 0.05, and r = -0.420, 95% CI -0.678, -0.071, P < 0.05, respectively). Reporting was significantly negatively correlated with the percentages of male GPs within a PCT, GPs over 55 years of age, single-handed GPs within a PCT, the average list size of a GP within a PCT, the overall deprivation scores and average QOF total points. ADR reports did not correlate significantly with the proportion of the population over 65 years old. CONCLUSIONS Some PCT characteristics appear to be associated with low levels of ADR reporting. The association of low prescribing areas with high ADR reporting rates replicates previous findings.

Evaluation of the Heart of Birmingham teaching Primary Care Trust (HoBtPCT): My Choice Weight Management Programme:report commissioned by Heart of Birmingham teaching Primary Care Trust

This report details an evaluation of the My Choice Weight Management Programme undertaken by a research team from the School of Pharmacy at Aston University. The My Choice Weight Management Programme is delivered through community pharmacies and general practitioners (GPs) contracted to provide services by the Heart of Birmingham teaching Primary Care Trust. It is designed to support individuals who are ‘ready to change’ by enabling the individual to work with a trained healthcare worker (for example, a healthcare assistant, practice nurse or pharmacy assistant) to develop a care plan designed to enable the individual to lose 5-10% of their current weight. The Programme aims to reduce adult obesity levels; improve access to overweight and obesity management services in primary care; improve diet and nutrition; promote healthy weight and increased levels of physical activity in overweight or obese patients; and support patients to make lifestyle changes to enable them to lose weight. The Programme is available for obese patients over 18 years old who have a Body Mass Index (BMI) greater than 30 kg/m2 (greater than 25 kg/m2 in Asian patients) or greater than 28 kg/m2 (greater than 23.5 kg/m2 in Asian patients) in patients with co-morbidities (diabetes, high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease). Each participant attends weekly consultations over a twelve session period (the final iteration of these weekly sessions is referred to as ‘session twelve’ in this report). They are then offered up to three follow up appointments for up to six months at two monthly intervals (the final of these follow ups, taking place at approximately nine months post recruitment, is referred to as ‘session fifteen’ in this report). A review of the literature highlights the dearth of published research on the effectiveness of primary care- or community-based weight management interventions. This report may help to address this knowledge deficit. A total of 451 individuals were recruited on to the My Choice Weight Management Programme. More participants were recruited at GP surgeries (n=268) than at community pharmacies (n=183). In total, 204 participants (GP n=102; pharmacy n=102) attended session twelve and 82 participants (GP n=22; pharmacy 60) attended session fifteen. The unique demographic characteristics of My Choice Weight Management Programme participants – participants were recruited from areas with high levels of socioeconomic deprivation and over four-fifths of participants were from Black and Minority Ethnic groups; populations which are traditionally underserved by healthcare interventions – make the achievements of the Programme particularly notable. The mean weight loss at session 12 was 3.8 kg (equivalent to a reduction of 4.0% of initial weight) among GP surgery participants and 2.4 kg (2.8%) among pharmacy participants. At session 15 mean weight loss was 2.3 kg (2.2%) among GP surgery participants and 3.4 kg (4.0%) among pharmacy participants. The My Choice Weight Management Programme improved the general health status of participants between recruitment and session twelve as measured by the validated SF-12 questionnaire. While cost data is presented in this report, it is unclear which provider type delivered the Programme more cost-effectively. Attendance rates on the Programme were consistently better among pharmacy participants than among GP participants. The opinions of programme participants (both those who attended regularly and those who failed to attend as expected) and programme providers were explored via semi-structured interviews and, in the case of the participants, a selfcompletion postal questionnaire. These data suggest that the Programme was almost uniformly popular with both the deliverers of the Programme and participants on the Programme with 83% of questionnaire respondents indicating that they would be happy to recommend the Programme to other people looking to lose weight. Our recommendations, based on the evidence provided in this report, include: a. Any consideration of an extension to the study also giving comparable consideration to an extension of the Programme evaluation. The feasibility of assigning participants to a pharmacy provider or a GP provider via a central allocation system should also be examined. This would address imbalances in participant recruitment levels between provider type and allow for more accurate comparison of the effectiveness in the delivery of the Programme between GP surgeries and community pharmacies by increasing the homogeneity of participants at each type of site and increasing the number of Programme participants overall. b. Widespread dissemination of the findings from this review of the My Choice Weight Management Project should be undertaken through a variety of channels. c. Consideration of the inclusion of the following key aspects of the My Choice Weight Management Project in any extension to the Programme: i. The provision of training to staff in GP surgeries and community pharmacies responsible for delivery of the Programme prior to patient recruitment. ii. Maintaining the level of healthcare staff input to the Programme. iii. The regular schedule of appointments with Programme participants. iv. The provision of an increased variety of printed material. d. A simplification of the data collection method used by the Programme commissioners at the individual Programme delivery sites.

Enhancing delivery of health behaviour change interventions in primary care: a meta-synthesis of views and experiences of primary care nurses

Objective To systematically find and synthesise qualitative studies that elicited views and experiences of nurses involved in the delivery of health behaviour change (HBC) interventions in primary care, with a focus on how this can inform enhanced delivery and adherence to a structured approach for HBC interventions. Methods Systematic search of five electronic databases and additional strategies to maximise identification of studies, appraisal of studies and use of meta-synthesis to develop an inductive and interpretative form of knowledge synthesis. Results Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Synthesis resulted in the development of four inter-linking themes; (a) actively engaging nurses in the process of delivering HBC interventions, (b) clarifying roles and responsibilities of those involved, (c) engaging practice colleagues, (d) communication of aims and potential outcomes of the intervention. Conclusion The synthesis of qualitative evidence resulted in the development of a conceptual framework that remained true to the findings of primary studies. This framework describes factors that should be actively promoted to enhance delivery of and adherence to HBC interventions by nurses working in primary care. Practice implications The findings can be used to inform strategies for researchers, policymakers and healthcare providers to enhance fidelity and support delivery of HBC interventions.