Suchergebnisse

Background: A durable therapeutic relationship is central to mental health practice. The Working Alliance Inventory (WAI) and the Helping Alliance Questionnaire (HAQ) are established instruments for measuring such a relationship. Aims: The project aimed to test the correlation between the two scales for patients with severe psychotic illness treated in an Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) team. Methods: Ninety-one patients of an ACT team and their key-workers were recruited to complete the measures. Results: Seventy-one patients (78%) completed the scales, and key-workers completed scales for every eligible patient. Both groups rated the relationship positively. There was a strong and significant correlation between the patient version of the WAI and the HAQ. There were significant but much weaker correlations between the patient-rated WAI and HAQ and the key-worker WAI. Conclusion: The patient version of the WAI and the HAQ seem to measure the patient's view of the relationship equivalently. The HAQ is simpler and easier to administer than the WAI.

BACKGROUND: The risk of iatrogenic harm from the use and misuse of prescription drugs such as gabapentin, pregabalin, and oxycodone is substantial. In recent years, deaths associated with these drugs in England have increased. AIM: To characterise general practice prescribing trends for gabapentin, pregabalin, and oxycodone — termed dependence forming medicines (DFM) — in England and describe potential drivers of unwarranted variation (that is, very high prescribing). DESIGN & SETTING: This study is a retrospective secondary analysis of open source, publicly available government data from various sources pertaining to primary care demographics and prescriptions. METHOD: This study used 5 consecutive years (April 2013–March 2018) of aggregate data to investigate longitudinal trends of prescribing and variation in prescribing trends at practice and clinical commissioning group (CCG) level. RESULTS: Annual prescriptions of gabapentin, pregabalin, and oxycodone increased each year over the period. Variation in prescribing trends was associated with GP practice deprivation quintile, where the most deprived GP practices prescribed 313% (P<0.001) and 238% (P<0.001) greater volumes of gabapentin and pregabalin per person respectively, than practices in the least deprived quintile. The highest prescribing CCGs of each of these drugs were predominantly in northern and eastern regions of England. CONCLUSION: Substantial increases in gabapentin, pregabalin, and oxycodone prescriptions are concerning and will increase iatrogenic harm from drug-related morbidity and mortality. More research is needed to understand the large variation in prescribing between general practices, and to develop and implement interventions to reduce unwarranted variation and increase the appropriateness of prescribing of these drugs.

In this commentary we consider the validity of tobacco industry-funded research on the effects of standardised packaging in Australia. As the first country to introduce standardised packs, Australia is closely watched, and Philip Morris International has recently funded two studies into the impact of the measure on smoking prevalence. Both of these papers are flawed in conception as well as design but have nonetheless been widely publicised as cautionary tales against standardised pack legislation. Specifically, we focus on the low statistical significance of the analytical methods used and the assumption that standardised packaging should have an immediate large impact on smoking prevalence.

In this commentary we consider the validity of tobacco industry-funded research on the effects of standardised packaging in Australia. As the first country to introduce standardised packs, Australia is closely watched, and Philip Morris International has recently funded two studies into the impact of the measure on smoking prevalence. Both of these papers are flawed in conception as well as design but have nonetheless been widely publicised as cautionary tales against standardised pack legislation. Specifically, we focus on the low statistical significance of the analytical methods used and the assumption that standardised packaging should have an immediate large impact on smoking prevalence.

Objective To examine associations between the contract and ownership type of general practices and patient experience in England. Design Multilevel linear regression analysis of a national cross-sectional patient survey (General Practice Patient Survey). Setting All general practices in England in 2013-2014 ( n = 8017). Participants 903,357 survey respondents aged 18 years or over and registered with a general practice for six months or more (34.3% of 2,631,209 questionnaires sent). Main outcome measures Patient reports of experience across five measures: frequency of consulting a preferred doctor; ability to get a convenient appointment; rating of doctor communication skills; ease of contacting the practice by telephone; and overall experience (measured on four- or five-level interval scales from 0 to 100). Models adjusted for demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of respondents and general practice populations and a random intercept for each general practice. Results Most practices had a centrally negotiated contract with the UK government ('General Medical Services' 54.6%; 4337/7949). Few practices were limited companies with locally negotiated 'Alternative Provider Medical Services' contracts (1.2%; 98/7949); these practices provided worse overall experiences than General Medical Services practices (adjusted mean difference -3.04, 95% CI -4.15 to -1.94). Associations were consistent in direction across outcomes and largest in magnitude for frequency of consulting a preferred doctor (-12.78, 95% CI -15.17 to -10.39). Results were similar for practices owned by large organisations (defined as having ≥20 practices) which were uncommon (2.2%; 176/7949). Conclusions Patients registered to general practices owned by limited companies, including large organisations, reported worse experiences of their care than other patients in 2013-2014.

BackgroundThe UK government is pursuing policies to improve primary care access, as many patients visit accident and emergency (A and E) departments after being unable to get suitable general practice appointments. Direct admission to hospital via a general practitioner (GP) averts A and E use, and may reduce total hospital costs. It could also enhance the continuity of information between GPs and hospital doctors, possibly improving healthcare outcomes.ObjectiveTo determine whether primary care access is associated with the route of emergency admission-via a GP versus via an A and E department.MethodsRetrospective analysis of national administrative data from English hospitals for 2011-2012. Adults admitted in an emergency (unscheduled) for ≥1 night via a GP or an A and E department formed the study population. The measure of primary care access-the percentage of patients able to get a general practice appointment on their last attempt-was derived from a large, nationally representative patient survey. Multilevel logistic regression was used to estimate associations, adjusting for patient and admission characteristics.ResultsThe analysis included 2 322 112 emergency admissions (81.9% via an A and E department). With a 5 unit increase in the percentage of patients able to get a general practice appointment on their last attempt, the adjusted odds of GP admission (vs A and E admission) was estimated to increase by 15% (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.17). The probability of GP admission if ≥95% of appointment attempts were successful in each general practice was estimated to be 19.6%. This probability reduced to 13.6% when <80% of appointment attempts were successful. This equates to 139 673 fewer GP admissions (456 232 vs 316 559) assuming no change in the total number of admissions. Associations were consistent in direction across geographical regions of England.ConclusionsAmong hospital inpatients admitted as an emergency, patients registered to more accessible general practices were more likely to have been admitted via a GP (vs an A and E department). This furthers evidence suggesting that access to general practice is related to use of emergency hospital services in England. The relative merits of the two admission routes remain unclear.

BACKGROUND: The UK government is pursuing policies to improve primary care access, as many patients visit accident and emergency (A and E) departments after being unable to get suitable general practice appointments. Direct admission to hospital via a general practitioner (GP) averts A and E use, and may reduce total hospital costs. It could also enhance the continuity of information between GPs and hospital doctors, possibly improving healthcare outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether primary care access is associated with the route of emergency admission-via a GP versus via an A and E department. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of national administrative data from English hospitals for 2011-2012. Adults admitted in an emergency (unscheduled) for ≥1 night via a GP or an A and E department formed the study population. The measure of primary care access-the percentage of patients able to get a general practice appointment on their last attempt-was derived from a large, nationally representative patient survey. Multilevel logistic regression was used to estimate associations, adjusting for patient and admission characteristics. RESULTS: The analysis included 2 322 112 emergency admissions (81.9% via an A and E department). With a 5 unit increase in the percentage of patients able to get a general practice appointment on their last attempt, the adjusted odds of GP admission (vs A and E admission) was estimated to increase by 15% (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.17). The probability of GP admission if ≥95% of appointment attempts were successful in each general practice was estimated to be 19.6%. This probability reduced to 13.6% when <80% of appointment attempts were successful. This equates to 139 673 fewer GP admissions (456 232 vs 316 559) assuming no change in the total number of admissions. Associations were consistent in direction across geographical regions of England. CONCLUSIONS: Among hospital inpatients admitted as an emergency, patients registered to more accessible general practices were more likely to have been admitted via a GP (vs an A and E department). This furthers evidence suggesting that access to general practice is related to use of emergency hospital services in England. The relative merits of the two admission routes remain unclear.