Development and validation of a risk model for prediction of hazardous alcohol consumption in general practice attendees : the PredictAL study

Background: Little is known about the risk of progression to hazardous alcohol use in people currently drinking at safe limits. We aimed to develop a prediction model (predictAL) for the development of hazardous drinking in safe drinkers. Methods: A prospective cohort study of adult general practice attendees in six European countries and Chile followed up over 6 months. We recruited 10,045 attendees between April 2003 to February 2005. 6193 European and 2462 Chilean attendees recorded AUDIT scores below 8 in men and 5 in women at recruitment and were used in modelling risk. 38 risk factors were measured to construct a risk model for the development of hazardous drinking using stepwise logistic regression. The model was corrected for over fitting and tested in an external population. The main outcome was hazardous drinking defined by an AUDIT score >= 8 in men and >= 5 in women. Results: 69.0% of attendees were recruited, of whom 89.5% participated again after six months. The risk factors in the final predictAL model were sex, age, country, baseline AUDIT score, panic syndrome and lifetime alcohol problem. The predictAL model's average c-index across all six European countries was 0.839 (95% CI 0.805, 0.873). The Hedge's g effect size for the difference in log odds of predicted probability between safe drinkers in Europe who subsequently developed hazardous alcohol use and those who did not was 1.38 (95% CI 1.25, 1.51). External validation of the algorithm in Chilean safe drinkers resulted in a c-index of 0.781 (95% CI 0.717, 0.846) and Hedge's g of 0.68 (95% CI 0.57, 0.78). Conclusions: The predictAL risk model for development of hazardous consumption in safe drinkers compares favourably with risk algorithms for disorders in other medical settings and can be a useful first step in prevention of alcohol misuse.

How critical is timing for the diagnosis of influenza in general practice?

QUESTIONS UNDER STUDY: The diagnostic significance of clinical symptoms/signs of influenza has mainly been assessed in the context of controlled studies with stringent inclusion criteria. There was a need to extend the evaluation of these predictors not only in the context of general practice but also according to the duration of symptoms and to the dynamics of the epidemic. PRINCIPLES: A prospective study conducted in the Medical Outpatient Clinic in the winter season 1999-2000. Patients with influenza-like syndrome were included, as long as the primary care physician envisaged the diagnosis of influenza. The physician administered a questionnaire, a throat swab was performed and a culture acquired to document the diagnosis of influenza. RESULTS: 201 patients were included in the study. 52% were culture positive for influenza. By univariate analysis, temperature >37.8 degrees C (OR 4.2; 95% CI 2.3-7.7), duration of symptoms <48 hours (OR 3.2; 1.8-5.7), cough (OR 3.2; 1-10.4) and myalgia (OR 2.8; 1.0-7.5) were associated with a diagnosis of influenza. In a multivariable logistic analysis, the best model predicting influenza was the association of a duration of symptom <48 hours, medical attendance at the beginning of the epidemic (weeks 49-50), fever >37.8 and cough, with a sensitivity of 79%, specificity of 69%, positive predictive value of 67%, negative predictive value of 73% and an area under the ROC curve of 0.74. CONCLUSIONS: Besides relevant symptoms and signs, the physician should also consider the duration of symptoms and the epidemiological context (start, peak or end of the epidemic) in his appraisal, since both parameters considerably modify the value of the clinical predictors when assessing the probability of a patient having influenza.

Investigating the prevalence and causes of prescribing errors in general practice: the PRACtICe Study

Aim: To determine the prevalence and nature of prescribing errors in general practice; to explore the causes, and to identify defences against error. Methods: 1) Systematic reviews; 2) Retrospective review of unique medication items prescribed over a 12 month period to a 2% sample of patients from 15 general practices in England; 3) Interviews with 34 prescribers regarding 70 potential errors; 15 root cause analyses, and six focus groups involving 46 primary health care team members Results: The study involved examination of 6,048 unique prescription items for 1,777 patients. Prescribing or monitoring errors were detected for one in eight patients, involving around one in 20 of all prescription items. The vast majority of the errors were of mild to moderate severity, with one in 550 items being associated with a severe error. The following factors were associated with increased risk of prescribing or monitoring errors: male gender, age less than 15 years or greater than 64 years, number of unique medication items prescribed, and being prescribed preparations in the following therapeutic areas: cardiovascular, infections, malignant disease and immunosuppression, musculoskeletal, eye, ENT and skin. Prescribing or monitoring errors were not associated with the grade of GP or whether prescriptions were issued as acute or repeat items. A wide range of underlying causes of error were identified relating to the prescriber, patient, the team, the working environment, the task, the computer system and the primary/secondary care interface. Many defences against error were also identified, including strategies employed by individual prescribers and primary care teams, and making best use of health information technology. Conclusion: Prescribing errors in general practices are common, although severe errors are unusual. Many factors increase the risk of error. Strategies for reducing the prevalence of error should focus on GP training, continuing professional development for GPs, clinical governance, effective use of clinical computer systems, and improving safety systems within general practices and at the interface with secondary care.

Description and process evaluation of pharmacists’ interventions in a pharmacist-led information technology-enabled multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial for reducing medication errors in general practice (PINCER trial)

Objective To undertake a process evaluation of pharmacists' recommendations arising in the context of a complex IT-enabled pharmacist-delivered randomised controlled trial (PINCER trial) to reduce the risk of hazardous medicines management in general practices. Methods PINCER pharmacists manually recorded patients’ demographics, details of interventions recommended, actions undertaken by practice staff and time taken to manage individual cases of hazardous medicines management. Data were coded and double entered into SPSS v15, and then summarised using percentages for categorical data (with 95% CI) and, as appropriate, means (SD) or medians (IQR) for continuous data. Key findings Pharmacists spent a median of 20 minutes (IQR 10, 30) reviewing medical records, recommending interventions and completing actions in each case of hazardous medicines management. Pharmacists judged 72% (95%CI 70, 74) (1463/2026) of cases of hazardous medicines management to be clinically relevant. Pharmacists recommended 2105 interventions in 74% (95%CI 73, 76) (1516/2038) of cases and 1685 actions were taken in 61% (95%CI 59, 63) (1246/2038) of cases; 66% (95%CI 64, 68) (1383/2105) of interventions recommended by pharmacists were completed and 5% (95%CI 4, 6) (104/2105) of recommendations were accepted by general practitioners (GPs), but not completed at the end of the pharmacists’ placement; the remaining recommendations were rejected or considered not relevant by GPs. Conclusions The outcome measures were used to target pharmacist activity in general practice towards patients at risk from hazardous medicines management. Recommendations from trained PINCER pharmacists were found to be broadly acceptable to GPs and led to ameliorative action in the majority of cases. It seems likely that the approach used by the PINCER pharmacists could be employed by other practice pharmacists following appropriate training.

The prevalence and nature of prescribing and monitoring errors in English general practice – a retrospective case note review

Objective To determine the prevalence and nature of prescribing and monitoring errors in general practices in England. Design Retrospective case note review of unique medication items prescribed over a 12 month period to a 2% random sample of patients. Mixed effects logistic regression was used to analyse the data. Setting Fifteen general practices across three primary care trusts in England. Data sources Examination of 6048 unique prescription items prescribed over the previous 12 months for 1777 patients. Main outcome measures Prevalence of prescribing and monitoring errors, and severity of errors, using validated definitions. Results Prescribing and/or monitoring errors were detected in 4.9% (296/6048) of all prescription items (95% confidence interval 4.4 - 5.5%). The vast majority of errors were of mild to moderate severity, with 0.2% (11/6048) of items having a severe error. After adjusting for covariates, patient-related factors associated with an increased risk of prescribing and/or monitoring errors were: age less than 15 (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.87, 1.19 to 2.94, p=0.006) or greater than 64 years (OR 1.68, 1.04 to 2.73, p=0.035), and higher numbers of unique medication items prescribed (OR 1.16, 1.12 to 1.19, p<0.001). Conclusion Prescribing and monitoring errors are common in English general practice, although severe errors are unusual. Many factors increase the risk of error. Having identified the most common and important errors, and the factors associated with these, strategies to prevent future errors should be developed based on the study findings.

Comparing expectations and experiences of care for sexually transmitted infections in general practice: a qualitative study

Background A key aim of England's National Strategy for Sexual Health is to extend high-quality sexual health services in primary care. Objectives To explore the expectations and experiences of men and women who initially presented at their general practice with a suspected sexually transmitted infection in order to identify areas where change could improve service delivery. Methods Semi-structured interviews were carried out in six general practices and two genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinics in Brent primary care trust (London) and Bristol (southwest England). Patients within general practice, and GUM patients who had initially attended general practice were eligible to participate. Interview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. Results 49 patients (29 women, 20 men) were interviewed. Patients approaching their GP practice typically expected written referral or in-house care, but this expectation was often not met. Absence of formal referral, lack of information and perceived avoidance of sexual health matters by practitioners were commonly cited as reasons for disappointment. However, a dedicated service within general practice met expectations well. Conclusion Purchasers and providers of all general practice services should ensure that any patient consulting in primary care with a suspected sexually transmitted infection can either receive appropriate care there, or a formal and supported referral to a specialised GUM clinic or primary care service.

Testing for sexually transmitted infections in general practice: cross-sectional study

Background Primary care is an important provider of sexual health care in England. We sought to explore the extent of testing for chlamydia and HIV in general practice and its relation to associated measures of sexual health in two contrasting geographical settings. Methods We analysed chlamydia and HIV testing data from 64 general practices and one genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinic in Brent (from mid-2003 to mid-2006) and 143 general practices and two GUM clinics in Avon (2004). We examined associations between practice testing status, practice characteristics and hypothesised markers of population need (area level teenage conception rates and Index of Multiple Deprivation, IMD scores). Results No HIV or chlamydia testing was done in 19% (12/64) of general practices in Brent, compared to 2.1% (3/143) in Avon. In Brent, the mean age of general practitioners (GPs) in Brent practices that tested for chlamydia or HIV was lower than in those that had not conducted testing. Practices where no HIV testing was done had slightly higher local teenage conception rates (median 23.5 vs. 17.4/1000 women aged 15-44, p = 0.07) and served more deprived areas (median IMD score 27.1 vs. 21.8, p = 0.05). Mean yearly chlamydia and HIV testing rates, in practices that did test were 33.2 and 0.6 (per 1000 patients aged 15-44 years) in Brent, and 34.1 and 10.3 in Avon, respectively. In Brent practices only 20% of chlamydia tests were conducted in patients aged under 25 years, compared with 39% in Avon. Conclusions There are substantial geographical differences in the intensity of chlamydia and HIV testing in general practice. Interventions to facilitate sexually transmitted infection and HIV testing in general practice are needed to improve access to effective sexual health care. The use of routinely-collected laboratory, practice-level and demographic data for monitoring sexual health service provision and informing service planning should be more widely evaluated.

Health risk appraisal for older people 4: case finding for hypertension, hyperlipidaemia and diabetes mellitus in older people in English general practice before the introduction of the Quality and Outcomes Framework

Early intervention can help to reduce the burden of disability in the older population, but many do not access preventive care. There is uncertainty over what factors influence case finding in older patients in general practice.

Study protocol: Transition from localized low back pain to chronic widespread pain in general practice: identification of risk factors, preventive factors and key elements for treatment--a cohort study

Background Chronic localized pain syndromes, especially chronic low back pain (CLBP), are common reasons for consultation in general practice. In some cases chronic localized pain syndromes can appear in combination with chronic widespread pain (CWP). Numerous studies have shown a strong association between CWP and several physical and psychological factors. These studies are population-based cross-sectional and do not allow for assessing chronology. There are very few prospective studies that explore the predictors for the onset of CWP, where the main focus is identifying risk factors for the CWP incidence. Until now there have been no studies focusing on preventive factors keeping patients from developing CWP. Our aim is to perform a cross sectional study on the epidemiology of CLBP and CWP in general practice and to look for distinctive features regarding resources like resilience, self-efficacy and coping strategies. A subsequent cohort study is designed to identify the risk and protective factors of pain generalization (development of CWP) in primary care for CLBP patients. Methods/Design Fifty-nine general practitioners recruit consecutively, during a 5 month period, all patients who are consulting their family doctor because of chronic low back pain (where the pain is lasted for 3 months). Patients are asked to fill out a questionnaire on pain anamnesis, pain-perception, co-morbidities, therapy course, medication, socio demographic data and psychosomatic symptoms. We assess resilience, coping resources, stress management and self-efficacy as potential protective factors for pain generalization. Furthermore, we raise risk factors for pain generalization like anxiety, depression, trauma and critical life events. During a twelve months follow up period a cohort of CLBP patients without CWP will be screened on a regular basis (3 monthly) for pain generalization (outcome: incident CWP). Discussion This cohort study will be the largest study which prospectively analyzes predictors for transition from CLBP to CWP in primary care setting. In contrast to the typically researched risk factors, which increase the probability of pain generalization, this study also focus intensively on protective factors, which decrease the probability of pain generalization.

Opportunistic and systematic screening for chlamydia: a study of consultations by young adults in general practice

BACKGROUND: Opportunistic screening for genital chlamydia infection is being introduced in England, but evidence for the effectiveness of this approach is lacking. There are insufficient data about young peoples' use of primary care services to determine the potential coverage of opportunistic screening in comparison with a systematic population-based approach. AIM: To estimate use of primary care services by young men and women; to compare potential coverage of opportunistic chlamydia screening with a systematic postal approach. DESIGN OF STUDY: Population based cross-sectional study. SETTING: Twenty-seven general practices around Bristol and Birmingham. METHOD: A random sample of patients aged 16-24 years were posted a chlamydia screening pack. We collected details of face-to-face consultations from general practice records. Survival and person-time methods were used to estimate the cumulative probability of attending general practice in 1 year and the coverage achieved by opportunistic and systematic postal chlamydia screening. RESULTS: Of 12 973 eligible patients, an estimated 60.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 58.3 to 62.5%) of men and 75.3% (73.7 to 76.9%) of women aged 16-24 years attended their practice at least once in a 1-year period. During this period, an estimated 21.3% of patients would not attend their general practice but would be reached by postal screening, 9.2% would not receive a postal invitation but would attend their practice, and 11.8% would be missed by both methods. CONCLUSIONS: Opportunistic and population-based approaches to chlamydia screening would both fail to contact a substantial minority of the target group, if used alone. A pragmatic approach combining both strategies might achieve higher coverage.

Effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of homeopathy in general practice - summarized health technology assessment

Introduction: The Health Technology Assessment report on effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and appropriateness of homeopathy was compiled on behalf of the Swiss Federal Office for Public Health (BAG) within the framework of the 'Program of Evaluation of Complementary Medicine (PEK)'. Materials and Methods: Databases accessible by Internet were systematically searched, complemented by manual search and contacts with experts, and evaluated according to internal and external validity criteria. Results: Many high-quality investigations of pre-clinical basic research proved homeopathic high-potencies inducing regulative and specific changes in cells or living organisms. 20 of 22 systematic reviews detected at least a trend in favor of homeopathy. In our estimation 5 studies yielded results indicating clear evidence for homeopathic therapy. The evaluation of 29 studies in the domain 'Upper Respiratory Tract Infections/Allergic Reactions' showed a positive overall result in favor of homeopathy. 6 out of 7 controlled studies were at least equivalent to conventional medical interventions. 8 out of 16 placebocontrolled studies were significant in favor of homeopathy. Swiss regulations grant a high degree of safety due to product and training requirements for homeopathic physicians. Applied properly, classical homeopathy has few side-effects and the use of high-potencies is free of toxic effects. A general health-economic statement about homeopathy cannot be made from the available data. Conclusion: Taking internal and external validity criteria into account, effectiveness of homeopathy can be supported by clinical evidence and professional and adequate application be regarded as safe. Reliable statements of cost-effectiveness are not available at the moment. External and model validity will have to be taken more strongly into consideration in future studies.

The PRO-AGE study: an international randomised controlled study of health risk appraisal for older persons based in general practice

BACKGROUND: This paper describes the study protocol, the recruitment, and base-line data for evaluating the success of randomisation of the PRO-AGE (PRevention in Older people-Assessment in GEneralists' practices) project. METHODS/DESIGN: A group of general practitioners (GPs) in London (U.K.), Hamburg (Germany) and Solothurn (Switzerland) were trained in risk identification, health promotion, and prevention in older people. Their non-disabled older patients were invited to participate in a randomised controlled study. Participants allocated to the intervention group were offered the Health Risk Appraisal for Older Persons (HRA-O) instrument with a site-specific method for reinforcement (London: physician reminders in electronic medical record; Hamburg: one group session or two preventive home visits; Solothurn: six-monthly preventive home visits over a two-year period). Participants allocated to the control group received usual care. At each site, an additional group of GPs did not receive the training, and their eligible patients were invited to participate in a concurrent comparison group. Primary outcomes are self-reported health behaviour and preventative care use at one-year follow-up. In Solothurn, an additional follow-up was conducted at two years. The number of older persons agreeing to participate (% of eligible persons) in the randomised controlled study was 2503 (66.0%) in London, 2580 (53.6%) in Hamburg, and 2284 (67.5%) in Solothurn. Base-line findings confirm that randomisation of participants was successful, with comparable characteristics between intervention and control groups. The number of persons (% of eligible) enrolled in the concurrent comparison group was 636 (48.8%) in London, 746 (35.7%) in Hamburg, and 1171 (63.0%) in Solothurn. DISCUSSION: PRO-AGE is the first large-scale randomised controlled trial of health risk appraisal for older people in Europe. Its results will inform about the effects of implementing HRA-O with different methods of reinforcement.

Osteoporosis case finding in the general practice: phalangeal radiographic absorptiometry with and without risk factors for osteoporosis to select postmenopausal women eligible for lumbar spine and hip densitometry

Mass screening for osteoporosis using DXA measurements at the spine and hip is presently not recommended by health authorities. Instead, risk factor questionnaires and peripheral bone measurements may facilitate the selection of women eligible for axial bone densitometry. The aim of this study was to validate a case finding strategy for postmenopausal women who would benefit most from subsequent DXA measurement by using phalangeal radiographic absorptiometry (RA) alone or in combination with risk factors in a general practice setting. The sensitivity and specificity of this strategy in detecting osteoporosis (T-score < or =2.5 SD at the spine and/or the hip) were compared with those of the current reimbursement criteria for DXA measurements in Switzerland. Four hundred and twenty-three postmenopausal women with one or more risk factors for osteoporosis were recruited by 90 primary care physicians who also performed the phalangeal RA measurements. All women underwent subsequent DXA measurement of the spine and the hip at the Osteoporosis Policlinic of the University Hospital of Berne. They were allocated to one of two groups depending on whether they matched with the Swiss reimbursement conditions for DXA measurement or not. Logistic regression models were used to predict the likelihood of osteoporosis versus "no osteoporosis" and to derive ROC curves for the various strategies. Differences in the areas under the ROC curves (AUC) were tested for significance. In women lacking reimbursement criteria, RA achieved a significantly larger AUC (0.81; 95% CI 0.72-0.89) than the risk factors associated with patients' age, height and weight (0.71; 95% C.I. 0.62-0.80). Furthermore, in this study, RA provided a better sensitivity and specificity in identifying women with underlying osteoporosis than the currently accepted criteria for reimbursement of DXA measurement. In the Swiss environment, RA is a valid case finding tool for patients with risk factors for osteoporosis, especially for those who do not qualify for DXA reimbursement.

Promotion of health in older people: a randomised controlled trial of health risk appraisal in British general practice

BACKGROUND: there is inadequate evidence to support currently formulated NHS strategies to achieve health promotion and preventative care in older people through broad-based screening and assessment in primary care. The most extensively evaluated delivery instrument for this purpose is Health Risk Appraisal (HRA). This article describes a trial using HRA to evaluate the effect on health behaviour and preventative-care uptake in older people in NHS primary care. METHODS: a randomised controlled trial was undertaken in three London primary care group practices. Functionally independent community-dwelling patients older than 65 years (n = 2,503) received a self-administered Health Risk Appraisal for Older Persons (HRA-O) questionnaire leading to computer-generated individualised written feedback to participants and general practitioners (GPs), integrated into practice information-technology (IT) systems. All primary care staff received training in preventative health in older people. The main outcome measures were self-reported health behaviour and preventative care uptake at 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: of 2,503 individuals randomised, 2,006 respondents (80.1%) (intervention, n = 940, control n = 1,066) were available for analysis. Intervention group respondents reported slightly higher pneumococcal vaccination uptake and equivocal improvement in physical activity levels compared with controls. No significant differences were observed for any other categories of health behaviour or preventative care measures at 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: HRA-O implemented in this way resulted in minimal improvement of health behaviour or uptake of preventative care measures in older people. Supplementary reinforcement involving contact by health professionals with patients over and above routine clinical encounters may be a prerequisite to the effectiveness of IT-based delivery systems for health promotion in older people.