Health care needs and resources distribution: How to allocate financial resources in primary care trust?

A Work Project, presented as part of the requirements for the Award of a Masters Degree in Economics from the NOVA – School of Business and Economics

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...

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.

Estimating the scope for savings in referrals and drug prescription costs in the general Practice units of a UK primary care trust

This paper explores the potential for cost savings in the general Practice units of a Primary Care Trust (PCT) in the UK. We have used Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) to identify benchmark Practices, which offer the lowest aggregate referral and drugs costs controlling for the number, age, gender, and deprivation level of the patients registered with each Practice. For the remaining, non-benchmark Practices, estimates of the potential for savings on referral and drug costs were obtained. Such savings could be delivered through a combination of the following actions: (i) reducing the levels of referrals and prescriptions without affecting their mix (£15.74 m savings were identified, representing 6.4% of total expenditure); (ii) switching between inpatient and outpatient referrals and/or drug treatment to exploit differences in their unit costs (£10.61 m savings were identified, representing 4.3% of total expenditure); (iii) seeking a different profile of referral and drug unit costs (£11.81 m savings were identified, representing 4.8% of total expenditure). © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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.

Unused medicines with potential for misuse or abuse in primary care

To assess the quantity and nature of prescribed medicines with potential for misuse returned to community pharmacies and general practice surgeries. Setting Community pharmacies (n = 51, 85% total) and general practice surgeries (n = 42, 69%) within the boundaries of Eastern Birmingham Primary Care Trust, UK. Method Medicines returned spontaneously by patients to participating sites were collected over eight weeks in May and June 2003. Data were recorded for each medicinal item including: patient sex, recommended International Non-proprietary Name (rINN), strength, form, legal classification, quantity and number of doses per day. Medicines were categorised into BWF therapeutic groups. A 'medicinal item' was defined as the total number of dose units of a medicine of the same form, strength and date of issue, returned for a given patient. Key findings Medicines were returned from 910 patients comprising 3765 medicinal items (2782 (73.9%) prescription-only medicines and 356 (9.5%) controlled drugs). Substantial amounts of unused, prescribed medicines with potential to cause harm or for misuse were returned, with analgesics, psychoactive and antiepileptic agents comprising 19.4% of returned medicinal items. Medicines of note that were returned included paracetamol-containing medicines (16 630 tablets), morphine (56 g), diamorphine (4.3 g), tramadol (2840 tablets and capsules), benzodiazepines (677 tablets) and tricyclic antidepressants (2831 tablets). Conclusions Substantial quantities of prescribed medicines with potential to cause harm or be misused are routinely present in the community. The management of these unused medicines, and in particular controlled drugs, Is currently inadequate and further work is required to identify the legislative and patient-centred processes required to minimise the potential for these medicines to be misused or cause harm. © 2007 The Authors.

Craigavon & Banbridge Community HSS Trust - Primary Care Mental Health Services Triage Pilot Scheme (PDF 266 KB)

Craigavon & Banbridge Community HSS Trust's final report on Primary Care Mental Health Services Triage Pilot Scheme. Part of the Department's redesign of community nursing project.

Craigavon & Banbridge Community HSS Trust - Primary Care Mental Health Services Triage Pilot Scheme (PDF 266 KB)

Craigavon & Banbridge Community HSS Trust's final report on Primary Care Mental Health Services Triage Pilot Scheme. Part of the Department's redesign of community nursing project.

Consumer satisfaction with primary care provider choice and associated trust

Trust is important in medical relationships and for the achievement of better health outcomes. Developments in managed care in the recent years are believed to affect the quality of healthcare services delivery and to undermine trust in the healthcare provider. Physician choice has been identified as a strong predictor of provider trust but has not been studied in detail. Consumer satisfaction with primary care provider (PCP) choice includes having or not having physician choice. This dissertation developed a conceptual framework that guided the study of consumer satisfaction with PCP choice as a predictor of provider trust, and conducted secondary data analyses examining the association between PCP choice and trust, by identifying factors related to PCP choice satisfaction, and their relative importance in predicting provider trust. The study specific aims were: (1) to determine variables related to the factors: consumer characteristics and health status, information and consumer decision-making, consumer trust in providers in general and trust in the insurer, health plan financing and plan characteristics, and provider characteristics that may relate to PCP choice satisfaction; (2) to determine if the factors in aim one are related to PCP choice satisfaction; and (3) to analyze the association between PCP choice satisfaction and provider trust, controlling for potential confounders. Analyses were based on secondary data from a random national telephone survey in 1999, of residential households in the United States which included respondents aged over 20 and who had at least two visits with a health professional in the past two years. Among 1,117 eligible households interviewed (response rate 51.4%), 564 randomly selected to respond to insurer related questions made up the study sample. Analyses using descriptive statistics, and linear and logistic regressions found continual effective care and interaction with the PCP beyond the medical setting most predictive of PCP choice satisfaction. Four PCP choice satisfaction factors were also predictive of provider trust. Findings highlighted the importance of the PCP's professional and interpersonal competencies for the development of sustainable provider trust. Future research on the access, utilization, cognition, and helpfulness of provider specific information will further our understanding of consumer choice and trust. ^

Clinical relationships and ethical problems in primary care, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil

Objectives: Main Objective: to identify ethical problems in primary care according to nurses` and doctors` perceptions. Secondary Objective: to know ethical issues of patient-professional relationships in primary care. Design: Synthesis to integrate and reinterpret primary results of qualitative studies. Setting: Primary healthcare centers, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil. Participants and/or context: Incidental sample of 34 nurses and 36 medical doctors working in primary healthcare centers selected by convenience. Methods: Individual, semi-structured interviews to identity situations considered as sources of ethical problems. The sample is socially representative of primary care health centers and professionals. Data collection assured discourse saturation. Hermeneutic-dialectical discourse analysis was used to study the results. Results: Patient-professional relationships and team work were the main sources of ethical problems. The most important problems were patient information, privacy, confidentiality, interpersonal relationship, linkage and patient autonomy. These issues reflect the recent changes in clinical relation ships and show the peculiarities of primary care with its continuous care which lasts a long time. Healthcare involves multiprofessional team work in the midst of the patient claims for autonomy. Good care of patients needs requires a relationship based on communication and cooperation, and includes feelings and values, with communication skills. Conclusions: Ethical problems in primary care are common situations. For quality and humane primary care the relationship should consist of dialogue, trust and cooperation. (C) 2009 Elsevier Espana, S.L. All rights reserved.

South & East Belfast Community Nursing Project - Primary Care Integrated Nursing Model (PDF 524 KB)

South & East Belfast H&SS Trust's final report on Primary Care Integrated Nursing Model. Part of the Department's redesign of community nursing project

Patients âgées vulnérables au cabinet: comment les identifier et quelles ressources mobiliser [Vulnerable older patients in primary care how to identify them? Which ressources to mobilize? ].

Trust is essential to foster and preserve a long-term relationship between primary care physicians and their patients suffering from chronic diseases. However, this relation remains insufficient to successfully manage more complex situations, such as those of older patients with multiple diseases and disability. For the primary care physician, a significant limitation is the time required to plan and coordinate interventions supplied by different health and social care providers. This article describes a structured approach to support primary care physicians in this difficult task and help them to identify vulnerable older patients requiring to mobilize and coordinate health and social care resources. Current and future resources available to family physicians to complete this challenging task are further described.

Responding to Young People's Health Risks in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomised Trial of Training Clinicians in Screening and Motivational Interviewing.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a complex intervention implementing best practice guidelines recommending clinicians screen and counsel young people across multiple psychosocial risk factors, on clinicians' detection of health risks and patients' risk taking behaviour, compared to a didactic seminar on young people's health. DESIGN: Pragmatic cluster randomised trial where volunteer general practices were stratified by postcode advantage or disadvantage score and billing type (private, free national health, community health centre), then randomised into either intervention or comparison arms using a computer generated random sequence. Three months post-intervention, patients were recruited from all practices post-consultation for a Computer Assisted Telephone Interview and followed up three and 12 months later. Researchers recruiting, consenting and interviewing patients and patients themselves were masked to allocation status; clinicians were not. SETTING: General practices in metropolitan and rural Victoria, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: General practices with at least one interested clinician (general practitioner or nurse) and their 14-24 year old patients. INTERVENTION: This complex intervention was designed using evidence based practice in learning and change in clinician behaviour and general practice systems, and included best practice approaches to motivating change in adolescent risk taking behaviours. The intervention involved training clinicians (nine hours) in health risk screening, use of a screening tool and motivational interviewing; training all practice staff (receptionists and clinicians) in engaging youth; provision of feedback to clinicians of patients' risk data; and two practice visits to support new screening and referral resources. Comparison clinicians received one didactic educational seminar (three hours) on engaging youth and health risk screening. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were patient report of (1) clinician detection of at least one of six health risk behaviours (tobacco, alcohol and illicit drug use, risks for sexually transmitted infection, STI, unplanned pregnancy, and road risks); and (2) change in one or more of the six health risk behaviours, at three months or at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were likelihood of future visits, trust in the clinician after exit interview, clinician detection of emotional distress and fear and abuse in relationships, and emotional distress at three and 12 months. Patient acceptability of the screening tool was also described for the intervention arm. Analyses were adjusted for practice location and billing type, patients' sex, age, and recruitment method, and past health risks, where appropriate. An intention to treat analysis approach was used, which included multilevel multiple imputation for missing outcome data. RESULTS: 42 practices were randomly allocated to intervention or comparison arms. Two intervention practices withdrew post allocation, prior to training, leaving 19 intervention (53 clinicians, 377 patients) and 21 comparison (79 clinicians, 524 patients) practices. 69% of patients in both intervention (260) and comparison (360) arms completed the 12 month follow-up. Intervention clinicians discussed more health risks per patient (59.7%) than comparison clinicians (52.7%) and thus were more likely to detect a higher proportion of young people with at least one of the six health risk behaviours (38.4% vs 26.7%, risk difference [RD] 11.6%, Confidence Interval [CI] 2.93% to 20.3%; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.7, CI 1.1 to 2.5). Patients reported less illicit drug use (RD -6.0, CI -11 to -1.2; OR 0·52, CI 0·28 to 0·96), and less risk for STI (RD -5.4, CI -11 to 0.2; OR 0·66, CI 0·46 to 0·96) at three months in the intervention relative to the comparison arm, and for unplanned pregnancy at 12 months (RD -4.4; CI -8.7 to -0.1; OR 0·40, CI 0·20 to 0·80). No differences were detected between arms on other health risks. There were no differences on secondary outcomes, apart from a greater detection of abuse (OR 13.8, CI 1.71 to 111). There were no reports of harmful events and intervention arm youth had high acceptance of the screening tool. CONCLUSIONS: A complex intervention, compared to a simple educational seminar for practices, improved detection of health risk behaviours in young people. Impact on health outcomes was inconclusive. Technology enabling more efficient, systematic health-risk screening may allow providers to target counselling toward higher risk individuals. Further trials require more power to confirm health benefits. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN.com ISRCTN16059206.