The "unknown territory" of goal-setting: Negotiating a novel interactional activity within primary care doctor-patient consultations for patients with multiple chronic conditions.

Goal-setting is widely recommended for supporting patients with multiple long-term conditions. It involves a proactive approach to a clinical consultation, requiring doctors and patients to work together to identify patient’s priorities, values and desired outcomes as a basis for setting goals for the patient to work towards. Importantly it comprises a set of activities that, for many doctors and patients, represents a distinct departure from a conventional consultation, including goal elicitation, goal-setting and action planning. This indicates that goal-setting is an uncertain interactional space subject to inequalities in understanding and expectations about what type of conversation is taking place, the roles of patient and doctor, and how patient priorities may be configured as goals. Analysing such spaces therefore has the potential for revealing how the principles of goal-setting are realised in practice. In this paper, we draw on Goffman’s concept of ‘frames’ to present an examination of how doctors’ and patients’ sense making of goal-setting was consequential for the interactions that followed. Informed by Interactional Sociolinguistics, we used conversation analysis methods to analyse 22 video-recorded goal-setting consultations with patients with multiple long-term conditions. Data were collected between 2016 and 2018 in three UK general practices as part of a feasibility study. We analysed verbal and non-verbal actions for evidence of GP and patient framings of consultation activities and how this was consequential for setting goals. We identified three interactional patterns: GPs checking and reframing patients’ understanding of the goal-setting consultation, GPs actively aligning with patients’ framing of their goal, and patients passively and actively resisting GP framing of the patient goals. These reframing practices provided “telling cases” of goal-setting interactions, where doctors and patients need to negotiate each other’s perspectives but also conflicting discourses of patient-centredness, population-based evidence for treating different chronic illnesses and conventional doctor-patient relations

Correlation between prescribing quality and pharmaceutical costs in English primary care: national cross-sectional analysis

Background Both pharmaceutical costs and quality-indicator performance vary substantially between general practices, but little is known about the relationship between prescribing costs and quality Aim To measure the association between prescribing quality and pharmaceutical costs among English general practices Design and setting Cross-sectional observational study using data from the Quality and Outcomes Framework and the Prescribing Analysis and Cost database from all 8409 general practices in England in 2005-2006 Method Correlation between practice achievement of 26 prescribing quality indicators in eight prescribing areas and related pharmaceutical costs was examined. Results There was no significant association between the overall achievement of quality indicators and related pharmaceutical costs (P= 0.399). Mean achievement of quality indicators across all eight prescribing areas was 79.0% (standard deviation 4.4%). There were small positive correlations in five prescribing areas: influenza vaccination, beta blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, lipid lowering, and antiplatelet treatment (all

Survival prospects after acute myocardial infarction in the UK: a matched cohort study 1987–2011

Objectives: Estimate survival after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in the general population aged 60 and over, and the effect of recommended treatments. Design: Cohort study in the United Kingdom with routinely collected data between January 1987 and March 2011. Setting: 310 general practices that contributed to The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database. Participants: Four cohorts who reached the age of 60, 65, 70, or 75 years between 1987 and 2011 included 16,744, 43,528, 73,728, and 76,392 participants, respectively. Participants with a history of AMI were matched on sex, year of birth, and general practice to three controls each. Outcome measures: The hazard of all-cause mortality associated with AMI was calculated by a multilevel Cox’s proportional hazards regression, adjusted for sex, year of birth, socioeconomic status, angina, heart failure, other cardiovascular conditions, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, hypertension, hypercholesterolaemia, alcohol consumption, body mass index, smoking status, coronary revascularisation, prescription of beta blockers, ACE inhibitors, calcium-channel blockers, aspirin, or statins, and general practice. Results: Compared to no history of AMI by age 60, 65, 70, or 75, having had one AMI was associated with an adjusted hazard of mortality of 1.80 (95% CI 1.60-2.02), 1.71 (1.59-1.84), 1.50 (1.42-1.59), or 1.45 (1.38-1.53), respectively, and having had multiple AMIs with a hazard of 1.92 (1.60-2.29), 1.87 (1.68-2.07), 1.66 (1.53-1.80), or 1.63 (1.51-1.76), respectively. Survival was better after statins (hazard ratio range across the four cohorts 0.74-0.81), beta blockers (0.79-0.85), or coronary revascularisation (in first five years) (0.72-0.80); unchanged after calcium-channel blockers (1.00-1.07); and worse after aspirin (1.05-1.10) or ACE inhibitors (1.10-1.25). Conclusions: The hazard of death after AMI is less than reported by previous studies, and standard treatments of aspirin or ACE inhibitors prescription may be of little benefit or even cause harm

Does practice analysis agree with the ambulatory care sensitive conditions list of avoidable unplanned admissions: cross-sectional study in the East of England.

Objectives: To use Significant Event Audits (SEA) in primary care to determine which of a sample of emergency (unplanned) admissions were potentially avoidable; and compare to the NHS list of ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs). Design: Analysis of unplanned medical admissions randomly identified in secondary care. Setting: Primary Care in the East of England. Participants: 20 general practice teams trained to use SEA on unplanned admissions to identify potentially preventable factors. Interventions: SEA of admissions. Main outcome measures: Level of agreement between those admissions identified as potentially preventable by SEA and the NHS ACSC list. Results: 132 (26%) of randomly selected patients with unplanned admissions gave consent and an SEA was performed by their primary practice team. 130 SEA reports had sufficient data for our analysis. Practices concluded that 17 (13%) of admissions were potentially preventable. The NHS ACSC list identified 36 admissions (28%) as potentially preventable. There was a low level of agreement between the practices and the NHS list as to which admissions were preventable (Kappa = 0.253). The ACSC list consisted mainly of respiratory admissions whereas the practice list identified a wider range of cases and identified context-specific factors as important. Conclusions: There was disagreement between the NHS list and practice conclusions of potentially avoidable admissions. The SEAs suggest that the pathway into unplanned admission may be less dependent on the condition than on context-specific factors, and the assumption that unplanned admissions for ACSC conditions are reasonable indicators of performance for primary care may not be valid

A systematic review of the physical activity assessment tools used in primary care

Background: Primary care is an ideal setting for physical activity interventions to prevent and manage common long-term conditions. To identify those who can benefit from such interventions and to deliver tailored support, primary care professionals (e.g. general practitioners, practice nurses, physiotherapists, healthcare assistants) need reliable and valid tools to assess physical activity. However, there is uncertainty about the best performing tool. Objective: To identify the tools used in the literature to assess the physical activity in primary care and describe their psychometric properties. Method: A systematic review of published and unpublished literature was undertaken up to 1st December 2016). Papers detailing physical activity measures, tools or approaches used in primary care consultations were included. A synthesis of the frequency and context of their use, and their psychometric properties, was undertaken. Studies were appraised using the Downs and Black critical appraisal tool and the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) initiative checklist. Results: Fourteen papers reported 10 physical activity assessment tools. The General Practice Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPPAQ) was most frequently reported. None of the assessment tools identified showed high reliability and validity. Intra-rater reliability ranged from Kappa: 0.53 (Brief Physical Activity Assessment Tool (BPAAT)) to 0.67 (GPPAQ). Criterion validity ranged from Pearson’s Rho: 0.26 (GPPAQ) to 0.52 (Physical Activity Vital Sign). Concurrent validity ranged from Kappa: 0.24 (GPPAQ) to 0.64 (BPAAT). Conclusion: The evidence base about physical activity assessment in primary care is insufficient to inform current practice

Measuring performance on the Healthcare Access and Quality Index for 195 countries and territories and selected subnational locations: a systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016

Background: A key component of achieving universal health coverage is ensuring that all populations have access to quality health care. Examining where gains have occurred or progress has faltered across and within countries is crucial to guiding decisions and strategies for future improvement. We used the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2016 (GBD 2016) to assess personal health-care access and quality with the Healthcare Access and Quality (HAQ) Index for 195 countries and territories, as well as subnational locations in seven countries, from 1990 to 2016. Methods: Drawing from established methods and updated estimates from GBD 2016, we used 32 causes from which death should not occur in the presence of effective care to approximate personal health-care access and quality by location and over time. To better isolate potential effects of personal health-care access and quality from underlying risk factor patterns, we risk-standardised cause-specific deaths due to non-cancers by location-year, replacing the local joint exposure of environmental and behavioural risks with the global level of exposure. Supported by the expansion of cancer registry data in GBD 2016, we used mortality-to-incidence ratios for cancers instead of risk-standardised death rates to provide a stronger signal of the effects of personal health care and access on cancer survival. We transformed each cause to a scale of 0–100, with 0 as the first percentile (worst) observed between 1990 and 2016, and 100 as the 99th percentile (best); we set these thresholds at the country level, and then applied them to subnational locations. We applied a principal components analysis to construct the HAQ Index using all scaled cause values, providing an overall score of 0–100 of personal health-care access and quality by location over time. We then compared HAQ Index levels and trends by quintiles on the Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a summary measure of overall development. As derived from the broader GBD study and other data sources, we examined relationships between national HAQ Index scores and potential correlates of performance, such as total health spending per capita. Findings: In 2016, HAQ Index performance spanned from a high of 97·1 (95% UI 95·8–98·1) in Iceland, followed by 96·6 (94·9–97·9) in Norway and 96·1 (94·5–97·3) in the Netherlands, to values as low as 18·6 (13·1–24·4) in the Central African Republic, 19·0 (14·3–23·7) in Somalia, and 23·4 (20·2–26·8) in Guinea-Bissau. The pace of progress achieved between 1990 and 2016 varied, with markedly faster improvements occurring between 2000 and 2016 for many countries in sub-Saharan Africa and southeast Asia, whereas several countries in Latin America and elsewhere saw progress stagnate after experiencing considerable advances in the HAQ Index between 1990 and 2000. Striking subnational disparities emerged in personal health-care access and quality, with China and India having particularly large gaps between locations with the highest and lowest scores in 2016. In China, performance ranged from 91·5 (89·1–93·6) in Beijing to 48·0 (43·4–53·2) in Tibet (a 43·5-point difference), while India saw a 30·8-point disparity, from 64·8 (59·6–68·8) in Goa to 34·0 (30·3–38·1) in Assam. Japan recorded the smallest range in subnational HAQ performance in 2016 (a 4·8-point difference), whereas differences between subnational locations with the highest and lowest HAQ Index values were more than two times as high for the USA and three times as high for England. State-level gaps in the HAQ Index in Mexico somewhat narrowed from 1990 to 2016 (from a 20·9-point to 17·0-point difference), whereas in Brazil, disparities slightly increased across states during this time (a 17·2-point to 20·4-point difference). Performance on the HAQ Index showed strong linkages to overall development, with high and high-middle SDI countries generally having higher scores and faster gains for non-communicable diseases. Nonetheless, countries across the development spectrum saw substantial gains in some key health service areas from 2000 to 2016, most notably vaccine-preventable diseases. Overall, national performance on the HAQ Index was positively associated with higher levels of total health spending per capita, as well as health systems inputs, but these relationships were quite heterogeneous, particularly among low-to-middle SDI countries. Interpretation: GBD 2016 provides a more detailed understanding of past success and current challenges in improving personal health-care access and quality worldwide. Despite substantial gains since 2000, many low-SDI and middle-SDI countries face considerable challenges unless heightened policy action and investments focus on advancing access to and quality of health care across key health services, especially non-communicable diseases. Stagnating or minimal improvements experienced by several low-middle to high-middle SDI countries could reflect the complexities of re-orienting both primary and secondary health-care services beyond the more limited foci of the Millennium Development Goals. Alongside initiatives to strengthen public health programmes, the pursuit of universal health coverage hinges upon improving both access and quality worldwide, and thus requires adopting a more comprehensive view—and subsequent provision—of quality health care for all populations

A systematic review of strategies to recruit and retain primary care doctors

Background There is a workforce crisis in primary care. Previous research has looked at the reasons underlying recruitment and retention problems, but little research has looked at what works to improve recruitment and retention. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate interventions and strategies used to recruit and retain primary care doctors internationally. Methods A systematic review was undertaken. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and grey literature were searched from inception to January 2015.Articles assessing interventions aimed at recruiting or retaining doctors in high income countries, applicable to primary care doctors were included. No restrictions on language or year of publication. The first author screened all titles and abstracts and a second author screened 20%. Data extraction was carried out by one author and checked by a second. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity. Results 51 studies assessing 42 interventions were retrieved. Interventions were categorised into thirteen groups: financial incentives (n=11), recruiting rural students (n=6), international recruitment (n=4), rural or primary care focused undergraduate placements (n=3), rural or underserved postgraduate training (n=3), well-being or peer support initiatives (n=3), marketing (n=2), mixed interventions (n=5), support for professional development or research (n=5), retainer schemes (n=4), re-entry schemes (n=1), specialised recruiters or case managers (n=2) and delayed partnerships (n=2). Studies were of low methodological quality with no RCTs and only 15 studies with a comparison group. Weak evidence supported the use of postgraduate placements in underserved areas, undergraduate rural placements and recruiting students to medical school from rural areas. There was mixed evidence about financial incentives. A marketing campaign was associated with lower recruitment. Conclusions This is the first systematic review of interventions to improve recruitment and retention of primary care doctors. Although the evidence base for recruiting and care doctors is weak and more high quality research is needed, this review found evidence to support undergraduate and postgraduate placements in underserved areas, and selective recruitment of medical students. Other initiatives covered may have potential to improve recruitment and retention of primary care practitioners, but their effectiveness has not been established