Coproduction and health: Public and clinicians' perceptions of the barriers and facilitators.

BACKGROUND: Coproduction is an approach increasingly recognized across public services internationally. However, awareness of the term and the barriers and facilitators to its implementation in the NHS are not widely understood. This study examines clinician and public perceptions of coproduction within the context of the Prudent Healthcare initiative. OBJECTIVES: To provide insights into how coproduction is viewed by clinicians and the public and identify perceived barriers and facilitators to its implementation. DESIGN: Using qualitative research methods, interviews were conducted with the public (n = 40) and clinicians (n = 40). Five focus groups were also conducted with the public (n = 45) and six focus groups with clinicians (n = 26). The COM-B model was used to analyse the data; key domains include Capability, Opportunity and Motivation. SETTING: This is an all-Wales study, involving six Health Boards, an NHS trust and community and patient groups. RESULTS: Key barriers relating to Capability include lack of awareness of the term coproduction and inadequate communication between clinicians and citizens. Opportunity-centred barriers include service and time constraints. Conversely, facilitators included utilizing partnerships with community organizations. Motivation-related barriers included preconceptions about patients' limitations to coproduce. CONCLUSIONS: There were broadly positive perceptions among participants regarding coproduction, despite initial unfamiliarity with the term. Despite study limitations including underrepresentation of employed public participants and junior doctors, our analysis may assist researchers and policymakers who are designing, implementing and evaluating interventions to promote coproduction.

Primary care screening for peripheral arterial disease: a cross-sectional observational study.

BACKGROUND: Early identification of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and subsequent instigation of risk modification strategies could minimise disease progression and reduce overall risk of cardiovascular (CV) mortality. However, the feasibility and value of primary care PAD screening is uncertain. AIM: This study (the PIPETTE study - Peripheral arterial disease In Primary carE: Targeted screening and subsequenT managEment) aimed to determine the value of a proposed primary care PAD screening strategy. Outcomes assessed were: prevalence of PAD and agreement of ankle- brachial index (ABI)-defined PAD (ABI ≤0.9) with QRISK®2-defined high CV risk (≥20). DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional observational study was undertaken in a large general practice in Merthyr Tydfil, Wales. METHOD: In total, 1101 individuals with ≥2 pre-identified CV risk factors but no known CV disease or diabetes were invited to participate. Participants underwent ABI measurement and QRISK2 assessment, and completed Edinburgh Claudication Questionnaires. RESULTS: A total of 368 people participated in the study (participation rate: 33%). Prevalence of PAD was 3% (n = 12). The number needed to screen (NNS) to detect one new case of PAD was 31. Refining the study population to those aged ≥50 years with a smoking history reduced the NNS to 14, while still identifying 100% of PAD cases. Of participants with PAD, 33% reported severe lifestyle-limiting symptoms of intermittent claudication that warranted subsequent endovascular intervention, yet had not previously presented to their GP. The QRISK2 score predicted high CV risk in 92% of participants with PAD. CONCLUSION: The low PAD yield and the fact that QRISK2 was largely comparable to the ABI in predicting high CV risk suggests that routine PAD screening may be unwarranted. Instead, strategies to improve public awareness of PAD are needed.

Prevalencia de la fibrilación auricular en la población general y en grupos de alto riesgo: estudio ECHOES

Resumen Objetivos: establecer la prevalencia de la fibrilación auricular (FA) en la población general en el Reino Unido y en los individuos con factores de riesgo. Método y resultados: se estableció la prevalencia de la FA electrocardiográfica en grupos seleccionados de forma prospectiva; se seleccionaron aleatoriamente 3.960 individuos de la población, mayores de 45 años; 782 tenían diagnóstico previo de insuficiencia cardíaca y 1.062 con antecedente de infarto de miocardio, hipertensión, angina de pecho o diabetes. Los pacientes también fueron evaluados clínicamente y mediante ecocardiografía. Se hizo un seguimiento de la mortalidad durante ocho años. Se encontró FA en 78 de la muestra aleatoria de la población (2,0%). La prevalencia fue de 1,6% en las mujeres y de 2,4% en los hombres, aumentando con la edad, yendo desde 0,2% en los sujetos de entre 45 y 54 años, hasta 8,0% en los de 75 años o mayores. La mitad de todos los casos eran en pacientes de 75 años o mayores. Solo 23 de los 78 (29,5%) con diagnóstico de FA estaban recibiendo warfarina. De los 782 pacientes, 175 (22,4%) con diagnóstico de insuficiencia cardíaca presentaban FA, y 95 (54,3%) de ellos tenían una función ventricular izquierda normal. Se constató FA en 14 de los 244 (5,7%) pacientes con antecedentes de infarto de miocardio; en 15 de los 388 (3,9%) pacientes con hipertensión; en 15 de los 321 (4,7%) pacientes con angina, y en 11 de los 208 (5,3%) pacientes diabéticos. Ajustando por edad y sexo, la mortalidad fue 1,57 veces mayor en quienes presentaban FA. Conclusión: la FA es frecuente en ancianos y en personas con factores de riesgo clínico. Un tamizaje de estos grupos permitiría identificar a muchos individuos con FA. El uso de anticoagulación era bajo en la época en que se hizo la evaluación inicial, a fines de los años 90, pero la práctica puede haber cambiado en los últimos tiempos.

Summary Aim: To establish the prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) in the general population in the UK, and in those with risk factors. Methods and results: The prevalence of AF on electrocardiography was established in prospectively selected groups: 3960 randomly selected from the population, aged 45+; 782 with a previous diagnosis of heart failure; and 1062 with a record of myocardial infarction, hypertension, angina, or diabetes. Patients were also assessed clinically and with echocardiography. Mortality was tracked for 8 years. Atrial fibrillation was found in 78 of the random population sample (2.0%). Prevalence was 1.6% in women and 2.4% in men, rising with age from 0.2% in those aged 45-54 to 8.0% in those aged 75 and older. Half of all cases were in patients aged 75 and older. Only 23 of the 78 (29.5%) of those in AF took warfarin. Of the 782 patients, 175 (22.4%) with a diagnosis of heart failure were in AF, with normal left ventricular function in 95 (54.3%) of these. Atrial fibrillation was found in 14 of the 244 (5.7%) of those with a history of myocardial infarction, 15 of the 388 (3.9%) of those with hypertension, 15 of the 321 (4.7%) of those with angina, and 11 of the 208 (5.3%) of diabetics. Adjusting for age and sex, mortality was 1.57 times higher for those in AF. Conclusion: Atrial fibrillation is common in the elderly and those with clinical risk factors. Screening these groups would identify many with AF. Use of anticoagulation was low at the time of the initial assessments in the late 1990s; practice may have changed recently

Prevalence of atrial fibrillation in the general population and in high-risk groups: the ECHOES study.

AIMS: To establish the prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) in the general population in the UK, and in those with risk factors. METHODS AND RESULTS: The prevalence of AF on electrocardiography was established in prospectively selected groups: 3960 randomly selected from the population, aged 45+; 782 with a previous diagnosis of heart failure; and 1062 with a record of myocardial infarction, hypertension, angina, or diabetes. Patients were also assessed clinically and with echocardiography. Mortality was tracked for 8 years. Atrial fibrillation was found in 78 of the random population sample (2.0%). Prevalence was 1.6% in women and 2.4% in men, rising with age from 0.2% in those aged 45-54 to 8.0% in those aged 75 and older. Half of all cases were in patients aged 75 and older. Only 23 of the 78 (29.5%) of those in AF took warfarin. Of the 782 patients, 175 (22.4%) with a diagnosis of heart failure were in AF, with normal left ventricular function in 95 (54.3%) of these. Atrial fibrillation was found in 14 of the 244 (5.7%) of those with a history of myocardial infarction, 15 of the 388 (3.9%) of those with hypertension, 15 of the 321 (4.7%) of those with angina, and 11 of the 208 (5.3%) of diabetics. Adjusting for age and sex, mortality was 1.57 times higher for those in AF. CONCLUSION: Atrial fibrillation is common in the elderly and those with clinical risk factors. Screening these groups would identify many with AF. Use of anticoagulation was low at the time of the initial assessments in the late 1990s; practice may have changed recently.

A comparison of Bayesian and maximum likelihood methods to determine the performance of a point of care test for Helicobacter pylori in the office setting.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluations of point of care tests (PCT) are often hampered by a lack of appropriate gold standards. This study aimed to compare the results of a Bayesian statistical analysis and a maximum likelihood method to evaluate the performance of a PCT for Helicobacter pylori in primary care. METHODS: The Helisal Rapid Blood Test (Cortecs Diagnostics) was performed in 311 patients from 6 primary care centers, and a concurrent venous sample was taken for 2 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) performed at the laboratory, blind to the PCT result. The Bayesian analysis was conducted using Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods (WinBUGS). The performance characteristics of the PCT and the 2 ELISA tests were estimated together with 95% credible intervals (95% CIs). RESULTS: The estimate of prevalence of H. pylori in this population was 64% (95% CI, 59% to 70%), the sensitivity and specificity of the PCT were 89% (84% to 94%) and 84% (77% to 91%), respectively (likelihood ratios positive 5.6, negative 0.13). The equivalent maximum likelihood results were prevalence, 65%; sensitivity, 90%; and specificity, 83%. CONCLUSIONS: The Helisal Rapid Blood Test performed as well as laboratory-based ELISA tests in this cohort of patients. The Bayesian analysis and the maximum likelihood method gave similar results, the Bayesian method also simultaneously estimating 95% CIs.

Breaking bones, breaking budgets: a clinical and economic evaluation of a prospective, randomized, practice controlled, intervention study in the prevention of accidents in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: This longitudinal study was designed to assess the effect of an educational training package for primary health care teams in accident prevention for older people, with reference to the incidence of accidents and their associated economic consequence. METHODS: Nineteen general practices in the West Midlands serving a population of 138 397 were allocated randomly at the practice level either to receive training or continue normal practice. Study data was collated from the initial telephone call, reporting an accident, to the surgery, advice/treatment given at the practice and/or the community, casualty, inpatient care, written correspondence to the patient's GP and any subsequent follow-up visits for accidents to people aged 65 years or older. RESULTS: One thousand, six hundred and sixty-six (8.2%) patients aged 65 years or older registered with the participating practices experienced one accident or more, costing the NHS pound 1.4 million. Extrapolated nationally, annual costs to the NHS for accidents to older people amount to pound 568 million. The educational package had no significant impact on the incidence of accidents. A paucity of general safety advice was given [48 (1.8%) occasions]. CONCLUSIONS: Budgets are being eroded and patients are suffering unnecessarily due to lack of accident prevention advice. This should be considered a priority within the primary health care team. Educational packages alone do not appear to be a cost-effective approach to accident prevention in primary care.