Search results

Objectives: To explore the reasons that doctors choose to leave UK medicine after their foundation year two posts. Setting: All four regions of Scotland. Participants: Foundation year two doctors (F2s) working throughout Scotland who were considering leaving UK medicine after foundation training were recruited on a volunteer basis. Maximum variation between participants was sought. Primary and secondary outcome measures: Semistructured interviews were coded using template analysis. Six perspectives, described by Feldman and Ng, were used as the initial coding template. The codes were then configured to form a framework that explores the interplay of factors influencing Foundation Year 2 (F2) doctors' decisions to leave UK medicine. Results: Seventeen participants were interviewed. Six perspectives were explored. Structural influences (countrywide and worldwide issues) included visas, economic and political considerations, structure of healthcare systems and availability of junior doctor jobs worldwide. Organisational influences (the National Health Service (NHS) and other healthcare providers) included staffing and compensation policies, the working environment and the learning environment. Occupational influences (specific to being a junior doctor) comprised the junior doctor contract, role and workload, pursuit of career interests and the structure of training. Work group influences (relationships with colleagues) included support at work, task interdependence and use of locums. Personal life influences consisted of work-life balance, and support in resolving work-life conflict. The underlying theme of 'taking a break' recurred through multiple narratives. Conclusions: F2s give reasons similar to those given by any professional considering a change in their job. However, working within the NHS as an F2 doctor brought specific challenges, such as a need to make a choice of specialty within the F2 year, exposure to workplace bullying and difficulties in raising concerns. Despite these challenges, most F2s did not view their decision to leave as a permanent job change, but as a temporary break from their current working lives.

This work was funded by a Scottish Medical Education Research Consortium grant. ; Objectives: To explore the reasons that doctors choose to leave UK medicine after their foundation year two posts. Setting : All four regions of Scotland. Participants: Foundation year two doctors (F2s) working throughout Scotland who were considering leaving UK medicine after foundation training were recruited on a volunteer basis. Maximum variation between participants was sought. Primary and secondary outcome measures: Semistructured interviews were coded using template analysis. Six perspectives, described by Feldman and Ng, were used as the initial coding template. The codes were then configured to form a framework that explores the interplay of factors influencing Foundation Year 2 (F2) doctors' decisions to leave UK medicine. Results: Seventeen participants were interviewed. Six perspectives were explored. Structural influences (countrywide and worldwide issues) included visas, economic and political considerations, structure of healthcare systems and availability of junior doctor jobs worldwide. Organisational influences (the National Health Service (NHS) and other healthcare providers) included staffing and compensation policies, the working environment and the learning environment. Occupational influences (specific to being a junior doctor) comprised the junior doctor contract, role and workload, pursuit of career interests and the structure of training. Work group influences (relationships with colleagues) included support at work, task interdependence and use of locums. Personal life influences consisted of work-life balance, and support in resolving work-life conflict. The underlying theme of 'taking a break' recurred through multiple narratives. Conclusions: F2s give reasons similar to those given by any professional considering a change in their job. However, working within the NHS as an F2 doctor brought specific challenges, such as a need to make a choice of specialty within the F2 year, exposure to workplace bullying and difficulties in raising concerns. Despite these challenges, most F2s did not view their decision to leave as a permanent job change, but as a temporary break from their current working lives. ; Publisher PDF ; Peer reviewed

AbstractBackgroundQuality of primary healthcare impacts on health outcomes. This study aimed to quantify trends in good practice and the healthcare inequalities gap.MethodIndicators of best‐practice management of long‐term conditions and health promotion were extracted from primary healthcare records on 721 adults with intellectual disabilities in 2007–2010, and 3638 in 2014. They were compared over time, and with the general population in 2014, using Fisher's Exact test and ordinal regression.ResultsManagement improved for adults with intellectual disabilities over time (OR = 5.32; CI = 2.69–10.55), but not for the general population (OR = 0.74; CI = 0.34–1.64). However, it remained poorer, but to a lesser extent, compared with the general population (OR = 0.38; CI = 0.20–0.73 in 2014, and OR = 0.05; CI = 0.02–0.12 in 2007–2010). In 2014, health care was comparable to the general population on 49/78 (62.8%) indicators.ConclusionsThe extent of the healthcare inequality gap reduced over this period, but remaining inequalities highlight that further action is still necessary.

BACKGROUND: Early-onset dementia is common in Down syndrome adults, who have trisomy 21. The amyloid precursor protein gene is on chromosome 21, and so is over-expressed in Down syndrome, leading to amyloid β (Aβ) over-production, a major upstream pathway leading to Alzheimer disease (AD). Statins (microsomal 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors), have pleiotropic effects including potentially increasing brain amyloid clearance, making them plausible agents to reduce AD risk. Animal models, human observational studies, and small scale trials support this rationale, however, there are no AD primary prevention trials in Down syndrome adults. In this study we study aim to inform the design of a full-scale primary prevention trial. METHODS/DESIGN: TOP-COG is a feasibility and pilot double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT), with a nested qualitative study, conducted in the general community. About 60 Down syndrome adults, aged ≥50 will be included. The intervention is oral simvastatin 40 mg at night for 12 months, versus placebo. The primary endpoint is recruitment and retention rates. Secondary endpoints are (1) tolerability and safety; (2) detection of the most sensitive neurocognitive instruments; (3) perceptions of Down syndrome adults and caregivers on whether to participate, and assessment experiences; (4) distributions of cognitive decline, adaptive behavior, general health/quality of life, service use, caregiver strain, and sample size implications; (5) whether Aβ42/Aβ40 is a cognitive decline biomarker. We will describe percentages recruited from each source, the number of contacts to achieve this, plus recruitment rate by general population size. We will calculate summary statistics with 90% confidence limits where appropriate, for each study outcome as a whole, by treatment group and in relation to baseline age, cognitive function, cholesterol and other characteristics. Changes over time will be summarized graphically. The sample size for a definitive RCT will be estimated under alternative assumptions. DISCUSSION: This study is important, as AD is a major problem for Down syndrome adults, for whom there are currently no effective preventions or treatments. It will also delineate the most suitable assessment instruments for this population. Recruitment of intellectually disabled adults is notoriously difficult, and we shall provide valuable information on this, informing future studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN Register ID: ISRCTN67338640 (17 November 2011). ; This study is funded by the Chief Scientist Office, Scottish Government Health Department (reference: CZH/4/626). JS is funded by the NHS Lothian R&D Directorate. ; This is the final published version. It first appeared at http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/15/1/202.

AbstractBackgroundIn the UK, general practitioners/family physicians receive pay for performance on management of long‐term conditions, according to best‐practice indicators.MethodManagement of long‐term conditions was compared between 721 adults with intellectual disabilities and the general population (n = 764,672). Prevalence of long‐term conditions was determined, and associated factors were investigated via logistic regression analyses.ResultsAdults with intellectual disabilities received significantly poorer management of all long‐term conditions on 38/57 (66.7%) indicators. Achievement was high (75.1%–100%) for only 19.6% of adults with intellectual disabilities, compared with 76.8% of the general population. Adults with intellectual disabilities had higher rates of epilepsy, psychosis, hypothyroidism, asthma, diabetes and heart failure. There were no clear associations with neighbourhood deprivation.ConclusionsAdults with intellectual disabilities receive poorer care, despite conditions being more prevalent. The imperative now is to find practical, implementable means of supporting the challenges that general practices face in delivering equitable care.

BACKGROUND: Dementia is very common in Down syndrome (trisomy 21) adults. Statins may slow brain amyloid β (Aβ, coded on chromosome 21) deposition and, therefore, delay Alzheimer disease onset. One prospective cohort study with Down syndrome adults found participants on statins had reduced risk of incident dementia, but there are no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on this issue. Evidence is sparse on the best instruments to detect longitudinal cognitive decline in older Down syndrome adults. METHODS: TOP-COG was a feasibility/pilot, double-blind RCT of 12 months simvastatin 40 mg versus placebo for the primary prevention of dementia in Alzheimer disease in Down syndrome adults aged 50 years or older. Group allocation was stratified by age, apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε4 allele status, and cholesterol level. Recruitment was from multiple general community sources over 12 months. Adults with dementia, or simvastatin contraindications, were excluded. Main outcomes were recruitment and retention rates. Cognitive decline was measured with a battery of tests; secondary measures were adaptive behaviour skills, general health, and quality of life. Assessments were conducted pre randomisation and at 12 months post randomisation. Blood Aβ40/Aβ42 levels were investigated as a putative biomarker. Results were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. A qualitative sub-study was conducted and analysed using the Framework Approach to determine recruitment motivators/barriers, and participation experience. RESULTS: We identified 181 (78 %) of the likely eligible Down syndrome population, and recruited 21 (11.6 %), from an area with a general population size of 3,135,974. Recruitment was highly labour-intensive. Thirteen (62 %) participants completed the full year. Results favoured the simvastatin group. The most appropriate cognitive instrument (regarding ease of completion and detecting change over time) was the Memory for Objects test from the Neuropsychological Assessment of Dementia in Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities battery. Cognitive testing appeared more sensitive than proxy-rated adaptive behaviour, quality of life, or general health scores. Aβ40 levels changed less for the simvastatin group (not statistically significant). People mostly declined to participate because of not wanting to take medication, and not knowing if they would receive simvastatin or placebo. Participants reported enjoying taking part. CONCLUSION: A full-scale RCT is feasible. It will need 37 % UK population coverage to recruit the required 160 participants. Information/education about the importance of RCT participation is needed for this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN67338640 . ; This study was funded by the Chief Scientist Office, Scottish Government Health Department (reference: CZH/4/626). JS is funded by the NHS Lothian R&D Directorate. The study was supported by Down Syndrome Scotland, and we thank them, and all members of the Trial Steering Committee and Data Management and Ethics Committee. ; This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from BioMed Central via https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1370-9