Suchergebnisse

PowerPoint presentation http://integratedcarefoundation.org/resource/icic15-presentations ; In April 2009, the Department of Health in England implemented the NHS Health Check Programme. NHS Health Check is a national risk assessment and management programme for those aged 40 to 74 living in England, who do not have an existing vascular disease, and who are not currently being treated for certain risk factors. It is aimed at preventing heart disease, stroke, diabetes and kidney disease and raising awareness of dementia for those aged 65-74. Patients identified as having preclinical symptoms of disease are referred for formal diagnosis and enter established care pathways. The remainder of the population is managed within the programme, either with a brief lifestyle intervention or signposting to local services for more intensive intervention.(1) The programme aims to reduce health inequalities associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD).(2) The NHS Health Check programme is delivered through contracts with service providers such as general practices and community providers. Whereas general practices offer the vast majority of their Health Checks by appointments, community providers offer opportunistic checks.(3) Between 2008 and 2013, PCT public health commissioners commissioned community providers using Health Options® software and Point of Care Testing (POCT) to deliver the Health Check Programme in pharmacies, community settings and businesses. These providers were commissioned to conduct Health Checks with the aim of reducing health inequalities by targeting more deprived individuals and more ethnic minorities. In 2013, Public Health England reasserted their commitment to strengthening the programme in deprived communities and among ethnic minorities.(4) There has been no national study assessing the impact of delivering the Health Check programme with community providers. The current analysis examined the effectiveness of community providers in targeting ethnic minorities and deprived communities. The analysis is based on a comparison of patient level data collected by outreach providers to the general population data in 8 regions of England across 29 local authorities (LAs). Target population included 41,570 individuals who received a Health Check carried out by community providers from the January 30 2008 to October 31, 2013. Office for National Statistics Census (2011) data was used as a reference for comparative analyses at the local authority level. Department for Communities and Local Government, Indices of Deprivation 2010 was used as a reference for comparative analysis of deprivation. Delivering the NHS Health Check Programme with community providers using Health Options® software and Point of Care Testing (POCT) allowed for community services to be integrated more closely with primary care. Unlike the standard data gathering systems in general practices used to deliver the Health Checks (e.g. EMIS, INPS-Vision, TPP-SystmOne), Health Options® software was developed specifically for the purpose of carrying out the Health Check programme. It was designed to enable a range of healthcare professionals to use it while communicating personalised CVD risk information to the patient. Technological innovation resulted in patient centred care when risk lowering scenarios were presented to the patient. Same day testing using POCT allowed for CVD risk to be communicated to the patient on the same day and minimised the loss to follow up observed in general practices lacking POCT devices. Health Checks results obtained by community providers were communicated to general practices. The mean IMD 2010 score across 29 LAs was 5.98 higher at p<0.05 compared to general population data using two sample t-tests. Twenty two of the 29 LAs were significantly more deprived at p<0.05 compared to the general population. Across the 29 LAs, no statistically significant difference was obtained in the mean proportion of ethnic minorities. The mean proportion of men was 11.3% lower at p<0.001. The mean proportion of 40-49 and 50-59 year olds was 10.79% and 5.15% higher at p<0.0001 and p=0.0021 respectively. Community providers effectively targeted deprived areas and communities. A substantial proportion of younger patients were recruited when the programme was offered outside of the normal business hours. This overcame the difficulty in recruiting working age populations in general practices as these do not offer Health Checks on evenings and weekends. Although more women than men were served by community providers, more young men took part in the programme. Outreach providers recruited a representative proportion of ethnic minorities from the local authorities that they served. The results of this study suggest that using outreach providers is an effective approach to targeting younger people, more deprived areas and communities while recruiting a representative proportion of ethnic minorities across England. If the Health Check programme is effective in preventing the onset of CVD disease, community provision of the programme may reduce health inequalities therein. ; Peer-reviewed ; Publisher Version ; 15th International Conference on Integrated Care, Edinburgh, UK

Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor medications such as ranibizumab, pegaptanib and bevacizumab are in use for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and other retinal conditions, although only ranibizumab and pegaptanib are approved for these conditions. In contrast, bevacizumab was developed for the intravenous systemic treatment of colorectal cancer and is not formulated for intravitreal use, but is commonly used off-label in ophthalmology. European Union legislation permits the use of drugs outside the terms of their licence ('off-label') only under certain circumstances, such as during clinical trials, compassionate/named patient use in the absence of a licensed alternative, emergency scenarios (e.g., pandemics) or at the discretion of a treating physician. In such cases, patients should be fully informed regarding their treatment and any potential risks involved. Off-label drug use can be an important tool to provide patients with treatment in cases of unmet medical need. However, the use of an unlicensed medicinal product, when a suitable licensed alternative is available, puts prescribing physicians at risk of liability if safety issues arise. Emerging clinical evidence suggests safety differences exist between ranibizumab and bevacizumab.

AbstractThe involvement of service users (people who use health and social care services) in research is central to UK policies, is an integral component of many research funding programs and improves the quality and uptake of research. People with intellectual disability are often excluded from research involvement. The purpose of this article is to describe how adult service users with intellectual disability were involved in the early stages of a diabetes screening study conducted in Leicestershire, UK. People who volunteered were involved in five key areas: publicity, study documentation and process development, acceptability of measures, recruitment of research staff, and training of staff. Service users helped with logo selection, publicity materials, designing art work, raising awareness of the study, study documents, rehearsing clinics, and recruiting and training research staff. Our findings demonstrate that with careful planning adults with intellectual disability can meaningfully be involved and benefit from involvement in research. We look forward to continued involvement with service users with intellectual disability in future research studies.

Aims In patients with heart failure (HF), hospitalization rates are increasing, particularly for non-HF causes and over half may be avoidable. Self-monitoring of symptoms plays a key part in the early identification of deterioration. Our objective was to develop expert consensus for a core outcome set (COS) of symptoms to be monitored by patients, using validated single-item patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), focused on the key priority of reducing admissions in HF. Methods and results A rigorous COS development process incorporating systematic review, modified e-Delphi and nominal group technique (NGT) methods. Participants included 24 HF patients, 4 carers, 29 HF nurses, and 9 doctors. In three Delphi and NGT rounds, participants rated potential outcomes on their importance before a HF or a non-HF admission using a 5-point Likert scale. Opinion change between rounds was assessed and a two-thirds threshold was used for outcome selection. Item generation using systematic review identified 100 validated single-item PROMs covering 34 symptoms or signs, relevant to admission for people with HF. De-duplication and formal consensus processes, resulted in a COS comprising eight symptoms and signs; shortness of breath, arm or leg swelling, abdomen bloating, palpitations, weight gain, chest pain, anxiety, and overall health. In the NGT, a numerical rating scale was selected as the optimal approach to symptom monitoring. Conclusion Recognition of a range of HF-specific and general symptoms, alongside comorbidities, is an important consideration for admission prevention. Further work is needed to validate and integrate the COS in routine care with the aim of facilitating faster identification of clinical deterioration. [GRAPHICS] . ; Funding Agencies|National Institute for Health ResearchNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR) [NIHR-300111]

The COVID-19 pandemic has placed a spotlight on existing and enduring health inequalities experienced by different ethnic groups. There has been a longstanding call to generate and improve the use of ethnicity data available across different data sources, in order to improve our understanding of health risks, behaviours and outcomes.
We used multiple anonymised individual-level population-scale data sources available within the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) Databank to develop a harmonised ethnicity spine for the population of Wales. We documented ethnicity information in multiple longitudinal records from January 2000 onwards. Data sources included: health and social care, birth and mortality records, national census records, specialist clinical audits and registers, surveys and other routine electronic data. To enable multi-source harmonisation, we explored the ethnicity categorisation as well as temporal changes in recording and classifications by obtaining distribution of records for population, which informed our harmonisation algorithm for standardisation of ethnicity records.
We used over 20-data sources on ~5-million individuals, spanning varying time-periods starting from January 2000 upto a maximum of 22-years. We harmonised available recorded ethnicity values into standardised ethnic classification groups within a national ethnicity-spine. Furthermore, we investigated the impact of different harmonisation methods, including composite, latest date of recording, modal and weighted modal results. With the main focus of the methodological development being in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, when linked to the ~3.1 million individuals alive and resident in Wales from January 2020, we generated harmonised ethnic groups towards ~95% completeness in data coverage for the whole population of Wales. The predominant ethnic group in Wales observed was White, accounting for 89% of the population when using the latest date of recording method.
This research highlights challenges in using longitudinal ethnicity data across different sources. Further work is needed to understand the basis on which individuals / organisations record ethnicity overtime. We recommend improvements recognising differences between ethnicity and other social constructs (e.g. ancestry, nationality, country of origin) are better documented / understood.

IntroductionCOVID-19 risk prediction algorithms can be used to identify at-risk individuals from short-term serious adverse COVID-19 outcomes such as hospitalisation and death. It is important to validate these algorithms in different and diverse populations to help guide risk management decisions and target vaccination and treatment programs to the most vulnerable individuals in society.
ObjectivesTo validate externally the QCOVID risk prediction algorithm that predicts mortality outcomes from COVID-19 in the adult population of Wales, UK.
MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study using routinely collected individual-level data held in the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) Databank. The cohort included individuals aged between 19 and 100 years, living in Wales on 24th January 2020, registered with a SAIL-providing general practice, and followed-up to death or study end (28th July 2020). Demographic, primary and secondary healthcare, and dispensing data were used to derive all the predictor variables used to develop the published QCOVID algorithm. Mortality data were used to define time to confirmed or suspected COVID-19 death. Performance metrics, including R2 values (explained variation), Brier scores, and measures of discrimination and calibration were calculated for two periods (24th January–30th April 2020 and 1st May–28th July 2020) to assess algorithm performance.
Results1,956,760 individuals were included. 1,192 (0.06%) and 610 (0.03%) COVID-19 deaths occurred in the first and second time periods, respectively. The algorithms fitted the Welsh data and population well, explaining 68.8% (95% CI: 66.9-70.4) of the variation in time to death, Harrell's C statistic: 0.929 (95% CI: 0.921-0.937) and D statistic: 3.036 (95% CI: 2.913-3.159) for males in the first period. Similar results were found for females and in the second time period for both sexes.
ConclusionsThe QCOVID algorithm developed in England can be used for public health risk management for the adult Welsh population.

Nonadherence to antihypertensive medication is common, especially in those with apparent treatment-resistant hypertension (true treatment-resistant hypertension requires exclusion of nonadherence), and its routine detection is supported by clinical guidelines. Chemical adherence testing is a reliable and valid method to detect adherence, yet methods are unstandardized and are not ubiquitous. This article describes the principles of chemical adherence testing for hypertensive patients and provides a set of recommendations for centers wishing to develop the test. We recommend testing should be done in either of two instances: (1) in those who have resistant hypertension or (2) in those on 2 antihypertensives who have a less than 10 mm Hg drop in systolic blood pressure on addition of the second antihypertensive medication. Furthermore, we recommend that verbal consent is secured before undertaking the test, and the results should be discussed with the patient. Based on medications prescribed in United Kingdom, European Union, and United States, we list top 20 to 24 drugs that cover >95% of hypertension prescriptions which may be included in the testing panel. Information required to identify these medications on mass spectrometry platforms is likewise provided. We discuss issues related to ethics, sample collection, transport, stability, urine versus blood samples, qualitative versus quantitative testing, pharmacokinetics, instrumentation, validation, quality assurance, and gaps in knowledge. We consider how to best present, interpret, and discuss chemical adherence test results with the patient. In summary, this guidance should help clinicians and their laboratories in the development of chemical adherence testing of prescribed antihypertensive drugs.

Nonadherence to antihypertensive medication is common, especially in those with apparent treatment-resistant hypertension (true treatment-resistant hypertension requires exclusion of nonadherence), and its routine detection is supported by clinical guidelines. Chemical adherence testing is a reliable and valid method to detect adherence, yet methods are unstandardized and are not ubiquitous. This article describes the principles of chemical adherence testing for hypertensive patients and provides a set of recommendations for centers wishing to develop the test. We recommend testing should be done in either of two instances: (1) in those who have resistant hypertension or (2) in those on 2 antihypertensives who have a less than 10 mm Hg drop in systolic blood pressure on addition of the second antihypertensive medication. Furthermore, we recommend that verbal consent is secured before undertaking the test, and the results should be discussed with the patient. Based on medications prescribed in United Kingdom, European Union, and United States, we list top 20 to 24 drugs that cover >95% of hypertension prescriptions which may be included in the testing panel. Information required to identify these medications on mass spectrometry platforms is likewise provided. We discuss issues related to ethics, sample collection, transport, stability, urine versus blood samples, qualitative versus quantitative testing, pharmacokinetics, instrumentation, validation, quality assurance, and gaps in knowledge. We consider how to best present, interpret, and discuss chemical adherence test results with the patient. In summary, this guidance should help clinicians and their laboratories in the development of chemical adherence testing of prescribed antihypertensive drugs.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality and devastated economies globally. Among groups at increased risk are healthcare workers (HCWs) and ethnic minority groups. Emerging evidence suggests that HCWs from ethnic minority groups are at increased risk of adverse COVID-19-related outcomes. To date, there has been no large-scale analysis of these risks in UK HCWs or ancillary workers in healthcare settings, stratified by ethnicity or occupation, and adjusted for confounders. This paper reports the protocol for a prospective longitudinal questionnaire study of UK HCWs, as part of the UK-REACH programme (The United Kingdom Research study into Ethnicity And COVID-19 outcomes in Healthcare workers). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A baseline questionnaire will be administered to a national cohort of UK HCWs and ancillary workers in healthcare settings, and those registered with UK healthcare regulators, with follow-up questionnaires administered at 4 and 8 months. With consent, questionnaire data will be linked to health records with 25-year follow-up. Univariate associations between ethnicity and clinical COVID-19 outcomes, physical and mental health, and key confounders/explanatory variables will be tested. Multivariable analyses will test for associations between ethnicity and key outcomes adjusted for the confounder/explanatory variables. We will model changes over time by ethnic group, facilitating understanding of absolute and relative risks in different ethnic groups, and generalisability of findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study is approved by Health Research Authority (reference 20/HRA/4718), and carries minimal risk. We aim to manage the small risk of participant distress about questions on sensitive topics by clearly participant information that the questionnaire covers sensitive topics and there is no obligation to answer these or any other questions, and by providing support organisation links. Results will be disseminated with reports to Government and papers ...