Guideline adherence for cardiometabolic monitoring of patients prescribed antipsychotic medications in primary care: a retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Despite their known effectiveness, antipsychotics possess significant cardiometabolic adverse event profiles. Guidelines emphasise routine monitoring, however, practices are known to be suboptimal. AIM: To investigate the level of cardiometabolic monitoring among people prescribed antipsychotic therapy in primary care, and patient-related factors that may influence monitoring patterns. METHOD: Data were collected for patients with mental disorders and prescribed antipsychotics at two general practices in England (February 2016-February 2021). The main outcome measures were the proportion of patients with evidence of monitoring for cardiometabolic parameters (body composition, anthropometrics, lipids, glucose outcomes). Regression analysis was used to explore factors predicting monitoring practices. RESULTS: Data from 497 patients were included. The proportion of patients receiving cardiometabolic monitoring at least once yearly varied across different parameters. Patients were mostly monitored for BP (92.0%), body weight (BMI > 85.0%) and HDL (72.0%), but to a lesser extent for other lipid parameters (non-HDL < 2.0%) and blood glucose (< 2.0%). Ageing (OR:2.0-7.0, p < 0.001) and chronic conditions (e.g., CVD and Type 2 DM, p < 0.05) were associated with frequent cardiometabolic monitoring. Conversely, antipsychotics with high metabolic risks (olanzapine), patients prescribed antipsychotic polypharmacy (≥ 2 antipsychotics) and cardiometabolic dysregulations (e.g., dyslipidaemias) did not improve monitoring frequencies. CONCLUSION: Cardiometabolic health monitoring was generally infrequent, irregular, and did not change in response to abnormal test results or antipsychotic treatment with high cardiometabolic risks, suggesting more efforts need to be made to ensure the guidelines for cardiometabolic monitoring are followed. Future studies should investigate practices by using a large UK primary care database.

Representation of persons experiencing homelessness and coding of homelessness in general practices: descriptive evaluation using healthcare utilisation data.

BACKGROUND: Epidemiological studies focused on primary healthcare needs of persons experiencing homelessness (PEH) are often based on data from specialist homeless healthcare services. AIM: To explore the presentation of PEH, coding of homelessness, and associated health conditions in mainstream primary care general practices in England. DESIGN & SETTING: EMIS electronic database search of medical records was conducted across 48 general practices in a clinical commissioning group (CCG), representing one of the most socioeconomically deprived regions in England, which also lacks a specialist primary healthcare service for PEH. METHOD: Key terms and codes were used to identify PEH, their respective diagnoses across 22 health conditions, and prescribed medications over the past 4 years. RESULTS: From a population of approximately 321 000, 43 (0.013%) people were coded as PEH, compared with a homelessness prevalence of 0.5% in the English general population. Mental health conditions were the most prevalent diagnoses among the PEH registrants (56.6%); the recorded prevalence of other common long-term conditions in PEH was lower than the levels observed in PEH registered with specialist homelessness health services. CONCLUSION: In a population with approximately four times higher rate of statutory homelessness, PEH representation in mainstream general practices was under-represented by several folds. As homelessness overlaps with mental health, substance misuse, and long-term health conditions, consistent coding of homelessness in medical records is imperative in order to offer tailored support and prevention actions when patients present for services.

Clinical pharmacists in general practice: an initial evaluation of activity in one English primary care organisation.

OBJECTIVES: This aim of this research was to characterise the breadth and volume of activity conducted by clinical pharmacists in general practice in Dudley Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG), and to provide quantitative estimates of both the savings in general practitioner (GP) time and the financial savings attributable to such activity. METHODS: This descriptive observational study retrospectively analysed quantitative data collected by Dudley CCG concerning the activity of clinical pharmacists in GP practices during 2015. KEY FINDINGS: Over the 9-month period for which data were available, the 5.4 whole time equivalent clinical pharmacists operating in GP practices within Dudley CCG identified 23 172 interventions. Ninety-five per cent of the interventions identified were completed within the study period saving the CCG in excess of £1 000 000. During the 4 months for which resource allocation data were available, the clinical pharmacists saved 628 GP appointments plus an additional 647 h that GPs currently devote to medication review and the management of repeat prescribing. CONCLUSIONS: This research suggests that clinical pharmacists in general practice in Dudley CCG are able to deliver clinical interventions efficiently and in high volume. In doing so, clinical pharmacists were able to generate considerable financial returns on investment. Further work is recommended to examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of clinical pharmacists in general practice in improving outcomes for patients.