An online clinical decision tool to screen for vertebral fragility fractures (Vfrac) in older women presenting with back pain in general practice: protocol for a feasibility study in preparation for a future cluster randomised controlled trial.

This feasibility study for a future definitive randomized trial assesses the use and acceptability of a new clinical decision tool to identify risk of a vertebral fracture and those who should be referred for spinal radiography in women aged 65 or over presenting to primary care with back pain. PURPOSE: Approximately 12% of older adults have vertebral fragility fractures, but currently fewer than one-third are diagnosed, potentially limiting access to bone protection treatment. Vfrac is a vertebral fracture screening tool which classifies individuals into high or low risk of having a vertebral fracture, allowing targeting of spinal radiographs to high-risk individuals. The objective of this study was to investigate the feasibility of conducting a cluster randomized controlled trial to evaluate the use of an online version of Vfrac in primary care. METHODS: The study will run in six general practices, with three given the Vfrac tool for use on older women (> 65 years) consulting with back pain and three using standard clinical processes for managing such back pain. Anonymised data covering a 12-month period will be collected from all sites on consultations by older women with back pain. Focus groups will be undertaken with healthcare professionals and patients on whom the tool was used to understand the acceptability of Vfrac and identify factors that impact its use. These patients will be sent a paper version of the Vfrac questionnaire to self-complete at home. Outputs of the self-completion Vfrac (high versus low risk) will be compared with the face-to-face Vfrac (high versus low risk), and agreement assessed using Cohen's kappa. RESULTS: This study will evaluate the use and acceptability of Vfrac within primary care and determine if data on resource use can be collected accurately and comprehensively. CONCLUSIONS: This article describes the protocol of the Vfrac feasibility study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN18000119 (registered 01/03/2022) and ISRCTN12150779 (registered 10/01/2022).

Transforming undergraduate education in geriatric medicine: an innovative curriculum at Bristol Medical School.

The World Health Organization (WHO) advocates investment in high-quality undergraduate education in geriatric medicine as a means of meeting the future needs of the aging population. However, there is a lack of evidence for the optimal delivery of training in this area. Rigorous pedagogical research is required to determine the most effective way to equip tomorrow's doctors with the skills and knowledge to care for older adults with complex health and social care needs. The transition between two undergraduate medical curricula meant that Bristol Medical School (BMS) was uniquely positioned to innovate and evaluate undergraduate education in geriatric medicine. This transition marked BMS' departure from a 'traditional' curriculum to case-based learning. The outgoing curriculum included a 4-week unit in geriatrics, whilst the new programme includes an 18-week clerkship titled 'Complex Medicine in Older People' (CMOP). CMOP is a clinical clerkship with 18 cases at its core, covering the fundamental aspects of geriatric medicine. The core cases and clinical learning are enhanced with five expert lectures, six tutorials and three journal clubs. Reflective practice is modelled and promoted with Balint groups and a book club. Consolidative workplace-based assessments and clinical portfolio mirror those used in postgraduate training, preparing students for professional practice. CMOP is iteratively improved in real-time using staff and student feedback. This marked shift in mode and duration of teaching affords the opportunity to evaluate the impact of differing education in geriatrics, providing an evidence-based model for teaching on aging.

Communication of poor prognosis between secondary and primary care: protocol for a systematic review with narrative synthesis.

INTRODUCTION: People dying in Britain spend, on average, 3 weeks of their last year of life in hospital. Hospital discharge presents an opportunity for secondary care clinicians to communicate to general practitioners (GPs) which patients may have a poor prognosis. This would allow GPs to prioritise these patients for Advance Care Planning.The objective of this study is to produce a critical overview of research on the communication of poor prognosis between secondary and primary care through a systematic review and narrative synthesis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Social Sciences Citation Index for all study types, published since 1 January 2000, and conduct reference-mining of systematic reviews and publications. Study quality will be assessed using the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool; a narrative synthesis will be undertaken to integrate and summarise findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval by research ethics committee is not required since the review only includes published and publicly accessible data. Review findings will inform a qualitative study of the sharing of poor prognosis at hospital discharge. We will publish our findings in a peer-reviewed journal as per Preferred Reporting for Systematic review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) 2020 guidance. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42021236087.

Barriers to GPs identifying patients at the end-of-life and discussions about their care: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Identification of patients at the end-of-life is the first step in care planning and many general practices have Palliative Care Registers. There is evidence that these largely comprise patients with cancer diagnoses, but little is known about the identification process. OBJECTIVE: To explore the barriers that hinder GPs from identifying and registering patients on Palliative Care Registers. METHODS: An exploratory qualitative approach was undertaken using semi-structured interviews with GPs in South West England. GPs were asked about their experiences of identifying, registering and discussing end-of-life care with patients. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Most practices had a Palliative Care Register, which were mainly composed of patients with cancer. They reported identifying non-malignant patients at the end-of-life as challenging and were reluctant to include frail or elderly patients due to resource implications. GPs described rarely using prognostication tools to identify patients and conveyed that poor communication between secondary and primary care made prognostication difficult. GPs also detailed challenges around talking to patients about end-of-life care. CONCLUSIONS: Palliative Care Registers are widely used by GPs for patients with malignant diagnoses, but seldom for other patients. The findings from our study suggest that this arises because GPs find prognosticating for patients with non-malignant disease more challenging. GPs would value better communication from secondary care, tools for prognostication and training in speaking with patients at the end-of-life enabling them to better identify non-malignant patients at the end-of-life.