Can goal-setting for patients with multimorbidity improve outcomes in primary care? Cluster randomised feasibility trial.

INTRODUCTION: Goal-setting is recommended for patients with multimorbidity, but there is little evidence to support its use in general practice. OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of goal-setting for patients with multimorbidity, before undertaking a definitive trial. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cluster-randomised controlled feasibility trial of goal-setting compared with control in six general practices. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with two or more long term health conditions and at risk of unplanned hospital admission. INTERVENTIONS: General practitioners (GPs) underwent training and patients were asked to consider goals before an initial goal-setting consultation and a follow-up consultation 6 months later. The control group received usual care planning. OUTCOME MEASURES: Health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), capability (ICEpop CAPability measure for Older people), Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care and healthcare use. All consultations were video-recorded or audio-recorded, and focus groups were held with participating GPs and patients. RESULTS: Fifty-two participants were recruited with a response rate of 12%. Full follow-up data were available for 41. In the goal-setting group, mean age was 80.4 years, 54% were female and the median number of prescribed medications was 13, compared with 77.2 years, 39% female and 11.5 medications in the control group. The mean initial consultation time was 23.0 min in the goal-setting group and 19.2 in the control group. Overall 28% of patient participants had no cognitive impairment. Participants set between one and three goals on a wide range of subjects, such as chronic disease management, walking, maintaining social and leisure interests, and weight management. Patient participants found goal-setting acceptable and would have liked more frequent follow-up. GPs unanimously liked goal-setting and felt it delivered more patient-centred care, and they highlighted the importance of training. CONCLUSIONS: This goal-setting intervention was feasible to deliver in general practice. A larger, definitive study is needed to test its effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN13248305; Post-results.

Does practice analysis agree with the ambulatory care sensitive conditions' list of avoidable unplanned admissions?: a cross-sectional study in the East of England.

OBJECTIVES: To use significant event audits (SEAs) in primary care to determine which of a sample of emergency (unplanned) admissions were potentially avoidable; and compare with the National Health Service (NHS) list of ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs). DESIGN: Analysis of unplanned medical admissions randomly identified in secondary care. SETTING: Primary care in the East of England. PARTICIPANTS: 20 general practice teams trained to use SEA on unplanned admissions to identify potentially preventable factors. INTERVENTIONS: SEA of admissions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Level of agreement between those admissions identified as potentially preventable by SEA and the NHS ACSC list. RESULTS: 132 (26%) of randomly selected patients with unplanned admissions gave consent and an SEA was performed by their primary practice team. 130 SEA reports had sufficient data for our analysis. Practices concluded that 17 (13%) admissions were potentially preventable. The NHS ACSC list identified 36 admissions (28%) as potentially preventable. There was a low level of agreement between the practices and the NHS list as to which admissions were preventable (kappa=0.253). The ACSC list consisted mainly of respiratory admissions whereas the practice list identified a wider range of cases and identified context-specific factors as important. CONCLUSIONS: There was disagreement between the NHS list and practice conclusions of potentially avoidable admissions. The SEAs suggest that the pathway into unplanned admission may be less dependent on the condition than on context-specific factors, and the assumption that unplanned admissions for ACSCs are reasonable indicators of performance for primary care may not be valid.

Evaluation of partnership working in cities in phase IV of the WHO Healthy Cities Network.

An intersectoral partnership for health improvement is a requirement of the WHO European Healthy Cities Network of municipalities. A review was undertaken in 59 cities based on responses to a structured questionnaire covering phase IV of the network (2003-2008). Cities usually combined formal and informal working partnerships in a pattern seen in previous phases. However, these encompassed more sectors than previously and achieved greater degrees of collaborative planning and implementation. Additional WHO technical support and networking in phase IV significantly enhanced collaboration with the urban planning sector. Critical success factors were high-level political commitment and a well-organized Healthy City office. Partnerships remain a successful component of Healthy City working. The core principles, purpose and intellectual rationale for intersectoral partnerships remain valid and fit for purpose. This applied to long-established phase III cities as well as newcomers to phase IV. The network, and in particular the WHO brand, is well regarded and encourages political and organizational engagement and is a source of support and technical expertise. A key challenge is to apply a more rigorous analytical framework and theory-informed approach to reviewing partnership and collaboration parameters.

Positive effect of a targeted intervention to improve access and availability of fruit and vegetables in an area of deprivation.

Increasing fruit and vegetable intake has the potential to prevent chronic disease risk but substantial inequalities in intake exist between advantaged and disadvantaged communities. Access and availability of fruit and vegetables have been shown to be important determinants of intake. The current study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a Mobile Food Store intervention to improve access to fruit and vegetables by making cost-price produce available to targeted communities. Postcode mapping identified communities with low fruit and vegetable intake and high chronic disease risk. The Mobile Food Store travelled to these communities each week. Evaluation of self-reported fruit and vegetable intake was collected by validated questionnaire for 255 users (62% response rate). Store use resulted in a significant increase in intake (1.2 portions per day, 95%CI 0.83-1.48; p<0.001) which was greater than all but one previous intervention in the UK. The targeted model of improving access to fruit and vegetables was effective in increasing intake; however future controlled trials are required to objectively examine potential effects on fruit and vegetable intake and health outcomes.

Partnership structures in the WHO European Healthy Cities project.

The development of new partnership structures for public health is an important goal of the World Health Organization's Healthy Cities project which covers a network of European municipalities. A review was carried out of the partnership structures and key changes arising from the project, based on the responses of 44 cities to a structured questionnaire, interviews with 24 city representatives and publications from the project from 1988 to 2003. Cities reported elaborate partnership mechanisms usually combining formal and informal working methods. Differences between cities could partly be related to differences in the way that local government is organized within countries and partly differences in local choices and circumstances. A relationship between the effectiveness of partnership arrangements and delivery of key elements of the project was discernable. Most cities reported having changed their processes for decision-making and planning for health as a result of membership of the WHO European Healthy Cities Network. One of the most potent stimuli for these changes was the action to which a city had committed as part of its membership of the Network.

The evolution of the WHO city health profiles: a content review.

The WHO European Healthy Cities project developed city health profiles (CHPs) to provide the evidence base for health planning. A CHP is a public health report that brings together key pieces of information on health and its determinants in the city and interprets and analyses the information. This CHP would then form the basis of a city health development plan that would set out strategies and programmes of intervention to improve the health of a city's population. A content review of the CHPs produced by the cities in the WHO European Healthy Cities Network in 1995 and repeated 10 years later, attempted to undertake a systematic and comprehensive content review of the CHPs. The results show that in both reviews, demographic information was covered comprehensively. The inadequate coverage of areas of health status and socio-economic conditions in the 1995 review was covered comprehensively in 2005. Coverage of lifestyles, infrastructures and public health policies and services had improved since the 1995 review. The findings indicate that profiles presenting information on health and its determinants provide an evidence-base to inform health planning for the city. However, problems were still encountered in undertaking appropriate analysis to identify inequalities within the city and make recommendations that could be translated into targets. Just as the cities have adapted and evolved throughout the WHO Healthy Cities project, so have CHPs. The range of health profiles produced by cities demonstrate how they have evolved from basic tools that started by collecting routinely available information on death and disease to sophisticated mechanisms that gather an array of relevant information from a wide variety of sources through a range of methods. Most cities have understood the concept of a CHP as an evidence-based tool to inform health policy and planning and to strengthen the public health agenda.

Effectiveness of visits from community pharmacists for patients with heart failure: HeartMed randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To test whether a drug review and symptom self management and lifestyle advice intervention by community pharmacists could reduce hospital admissions or mortality in heart failure patients. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Home based intervention in heart failure patients. PARTICIPANTS: 293 patients diagnosed with heart failure were included (149 intervention, 144 control) after an emergency admission. INTERVENTION: Two home visits by one of 17 community pharmacists within two and eight weeks of discharge. Pharmacists reviewed drugs and gave symptom self management and lifestyle advice. Controls received usual care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was total hospital readmissions at six months. Secondary outcomes included mortality and quality of life (Minnesota living with heart failure questionnaire and EQ-5D). RESULTS: Primary outcome data were available for 291 participants (99%). 136 (91%) intervention patients received one or two visits. 134 admissions occurred in the intervention group compared with 112 in the control group (rate ratio=1.15, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.48; P=0.28, Poisson model). 30 intervention patients died compared with 24 controls (hazard ratio=1.18, 0.69 to 2.03; P=0.54). Although EQ-5D scores favoured the intervention group, Minnesota living with heart failure questionnaire scores favoured controls; neither difference was statistically significant. CONCLUSION: This community pharmacist intervention did not lead to reductions in hospital admissions in contrast to those found in trials of specialist nurse led interventions in heart failure. Given that heart failure accounts for 5% of hospital admissions, these results present a problem for policy makers who are faced with a shortage of specialist provision and have hoped that skilled community pharmacists could produce the same benefits. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN59427925.

Does home based medication review keep older people out of hospital? The HOMER randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether home based medication review by pharmacists affects hospital readmission rates among older people. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Home based medication review after discharge from acute or community hospitals in Norfolk and Suffolk. PARTICIPANTS: 872 patients aged over 80 recruited during an emergency admission (any cause) if returning to own home or warden controlled accommodation and taking two or more drugs daily on discharge. INTERVENTION: Two home visits by a pharmacist within two weeks and eight weeks of discharge to educate patients and carers about their drugs, remove out of date drugs, inform general practitioners of drug reactions or interactions, and inform the local pharmacist if a compliance aid is needed. Control arm received usual care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Total emergency readmissions to hospital at six months. Secondary outcomes included death and quality of life measured with the EQ-5D. RESULTS: By six months 178 readmissions had occurred in the control group and 234 in the intervention group (rate ratio = 1.30, 95% confidence interval 1.07 to 1.58; P = 0.009, Poisson model). 49 deaths occurred in the intervention group compared with 63 in the control group (hazard ratio = 0.75, 0.52 to 1.10; P = 0.14). EQ-5D scores decreased (worsened) by a mean of 0.14 in the control group and 0.13 in the intervention group (difference = 0.01, -0.05 to 0.06; P = 0.84, t test). CONCLUSIONS: The intervention was associated with a significantly higher rate of hospital admissions and did not significantly improve quality of life or reduce deaths. Further research is needed to explain this counterintuitive finding and to identify more effective methods of medication review.