Enhanced psychological care in cardiac rehabilitation services for patients with new-onset depression: the CADENCE feasibility study and pilot RCT.

BACKGROUND: Around 19% of people screened by UK cardiac rehabilitation programmes report having moderate or severe symptoms of depression. These individuals are at an increased risk of cardiac mortality and morbidity, reduced quality of life and increased use of health resources compared with their non-depressed counterparts. Maximising psychological health is a goal of cardiac rehabilitation, but psychological care is patchy. OBJECTIVE(S): To examine the feasibility and acceptability of embedding enhanced psychological care (EPC) within cardiac rehabilitation, we tested the feasibility of developing/implementing EPC and documented the key uncertainties associated with undertaking a definitive evaluation. DESIGN: A two-stage multimethods study; a feasibility study and a qualitative evaluation, followed by an external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) with a nested qualitative study. SETTING: UK comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation teams. PARTICIPANTS: Adults eligible for cardiac rehabilitation following an acute coronary syndrome with new-onset depressive symptoms on initial nurse assessment. Patients who had received treatment for depression in the preceding 6 months were excluded. INTERVENTIONS: The EPC intervention comprised nurse-led mental health-care co-ordination and behavioural activation within cardiac rehabilitation. The comparator was usual cardiac rehabilitation care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Measures at baseline, and at the 5- (feasibility and pilot) and 8-month follow-ups (pilot only). Process measures related to cardiac team and patient recruitment, and participant retention. Outcomes included depressive symptoms, cardiac mortality and morbidity, anxiety, health-related quality of life and service resource use. Interviews explored participant and nurses' views and experiences. RESULTS: Between September 2014 and May 2015, five nurses from four teams recruited participants into the feasibility study. Of the 203 patients screened, 30 were eligible and nine took part (the target was 20 participants). At interview, participants and nurses gave valuable insights into the EPC intervention design and delivery. Although acceptable, the EPC delivery was challenging for nurses (e.g. the ability to allocate sufficient time within existing workloads) and the intervention was modified accordingly. Between December 2014 and February 2015, 8 out of 20 teams approached agreed to participate in the pilot RCT [five were randomised to the EPC arm and three were randomised to the usual-care (UC) arm]. Of the 614 patients screened, 55 were eligible and 29 took part (the target was 43 participants). At baseline, the trial arms were well matched for sex and ethnicity, although the EPC arm participants were younger, from more deprived areas and had higher depression scores than the UC participants. A total of 27 out of 29 participants were followed up at 5 months. Interviews with 18 participants (12 in the EPC arm and six in the UC arm) and seven nurses who delivered EPC identified that both groups acknowledged the importance of receiving psychological support embedded within routine cardiac rehabilitation. For those experiencing/delivering EPC, the intervention was broadly acceptable, albeit challenging to deliver within existing care. LIMITATIONS: Both the feasibility and the pilot studies encountered significant challenges in recruiting patients, which limited the power of the pilot study analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac rehabilitation nurses can be trained to deliver EPC. Although valued by both patients and nurses, organisational and workload constraints were significant barriers to implementation in participating teams, suggesting that future research may require a modified approach to intervention delivery within current service arrangements. We obtained important data informing definitive research regarding participant recruitment and retention, and optimal methods of data collection. FUTURE RESEARCH: Consideration should be given to the delivery of EPC by dedicated mental health practitioners, working closely with cardiac rehabilitation services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN34701576. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 30. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Any versus long-term prescribing of high risk medications in older people using 2012 Beers Criteria: results from three cross-sectional samples of primary care records for 2003/4, 2007/8 and 2011/12.

BACKGROUND: High risk medications are commonly prescribed to older US patients. Currently, less is known about high risk medication prescribing in other Western Countries, including the UK. We measured trends and correlates of high risk medication prescribing in a subset of the older UK population (community/institutionalized) to inform harm minimization efforts. METHODS: Three cross-sectional samples from primary care electronic clinical records (UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, CPRD) in fiscal years 2003/04, 2007/08 and 2011/12 were taken. This yielded a sample of 13,900 people aged 65 years or over from 504 UK general practices. High risk medications were defined by 2012 Beers Criteria adapted for the UK. Using descriptive statistical methods and regression modelling, prevalence of 'any' (drugs prescribed at least once per year) and 'long-term' (drugs prescribed all quarters of year) high risk medication prescribing and correlates were determined. RESULTS: While polypharmacy rates have risen sharply, high risk medication prevalence has remained stable across a decade. A third of older (65+) people are exposed to high risk medications, but only half of the total prevalence was long-term (any = 38.4 % [95 % CI: 36.3, 40.5]; long-term = 17.4 % [15.9, 19.9] in 2011/12). Long-term but not any high risk medication exposure was associated with older ages (85 years or over). Women and people with higher polypharmacy burden were at greater risk of exposure; lower socio-economic status was not associated. Ten drugs/drug classes accounted for most of high risk medication prescribing in 2011/12. CONCLUSIONS: High risk medication prescribing has not increased over time against a background of increasing polypharmacy in the UK. Half of patients receiving high risk medications do so for less than a year. Reducing or optimising the use of a limited number of drugs could dramatically reduce high risk medications in older people. Further research is needed to investigate why the oldest old and women are at greater risk. Interventions to reduce high risk medications may need to target shorter and long-term use separately.

Much more medicine for the oldest old: trends in UK electronic clinical records.

BACKGROUND: the oldest old (85+) pose complex medical challenges. Both underdiagnosis and overdiagnosis are claimed in this group. OBJECTIVE: to estimate diagnosis, prescribing and hospital admission prevalence from 2003/4 to 2011/12, to monitor trends in medicalisation. DESIGN AND SETTING: observational study of Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) electronic medical records from general practice populations (eligible; n = 27,109) with oversampling of the oldest old. METHODS: we identified 18 common diseases and five geriatric syndromes (dizziness, incontinence, skin ulcers, falls and fractures) from Read codes. We counted medications prescribed ≥1 time in all quarters of studied years. RESULTS: there were major increases in recorded prevalence of most conditions in the 85+ group, especially chronic kidney disease (stages 3-5: prevalence <1% rising to 36.4%). The proportions of the 85+ group with ≥3 conditions rose from 32.2 to 55.1% (27.1 to 35.1% in the 65-84 year group). Geriatric syndrome trends were less marked. In the 85+ age group the proportion receiving no chronically prescribed medications fell from 29.6 to 13.6%, while the proportion on ≥3 rose from 44.6 to 66.2%. The proportion of 85+ year olds with ≥1 hospital admissions per year rose from 27.6 to 35.4%. CONCLUSIONS: there has been a dramatic increase in the medicalisation of the oldest old, evident in increased diagnosis (likely partly due to better record keeping) but also increased prescribing and hospitalisation. Diagnostic trends especially for chronic kidney disease may raise concerns about overdiagnosis. These findings provide new urgency to questions about the appropriateness of multiple diagnostic labelling.

Why do GPs exclude patients from participating in research? An exploration of adherence to and divergence from trial criteria.

BACKGROUND: The role of GPs in recruiting or excluding participants critically underpins the feasibility, external validity and generalizability of primary care research. A better understanding of this role is needed. AIM: To investigate why GPs excluded potentially eligible participants from a large scale randomized controlled trial (RCT), to determine the proportion of patients excluded on account of trial eligibility compared with other reasons, and to explore the impact of such exclusions on the management and generalizability of RCTs. DESIGN AND SETTING: Secondary analysis of data from the CoBalT study, a multi-centre general-practice-based RCT investigating cognitive behavioural therapy as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy for treatment-resistant depression. METHOD: GPs were asked to screen patient lists generated from computerized record searches for trial eligibility and to provide narrative reasons for excluding patients. These reasons were coded independently by two researchers, with a third researcher resolving discrepancies. RESULTS: Thirty-one percent (4750/15,379) of patients were excluded at the GP screening stage, including 663 on patient lists that remained unscreened. Of the 4087 actively excluded patients, 67% were excluded on account of trial exclusion criteria, 20% for other criteria (half of which were comorbid conditions) and 13% without reason. CONCLUSION: Clear, comprehensive criteria, particularly with regards to comorbidities, are required for GPs to confidently screen patients for potential participation in research. Future studies should promote inclusivity and encourage GPs to adopt a liberal approach when screening patient lists. This would enhance the validity and generalizability of primary care research and encourage greater patient autonomy.