Risk awareness in secondary stroke prevention

Stroke is the single largest cause of disability and second highest cause of death globally. It is estimated that 10 million people a year are affected by stroke in the United Kingdom (UK). Of the 130,000 annual new stroke occurrences in the UK, one third will go on to have a further stroke. Recurrent stroke is more likely to be fatal than first stroke and survivors are more likely to be left with major disability. Many stroke patients do not adhere to secondary prevention strategies due to complex reasons, including lack of appreciation of their high risk of a secondary cardiovascular event. Long-term secondary prevention remains a desired goal in the management of stroke survivors, however, studies have shown that current strategies are not routinely and universally working. Hypothesis: Raising awareness of secondary stroke risk may improve stroke survivor’s adherence to secondary prevention strategies after stroke. Results: A survey of the general public (n=1019) and a population-based study of over 600 stroke survivors found that knowledge about Blood Pressure (BP) and stroke risk factors was poor in high risk populations. Only 55% of stroke survivors were able to cite any well-known vascular risk factors. However, those who were appropriately risk-aware significantly improved their health behaviour post-stroke by consuming less alcohol (P<0.001), less salt (P=0.05) and eating a healthy diet (P=0.02). Further, In a Randomised Controlled Trial setting an intervention to increase risk awareness was successful in increasing awareness (P=0.04) and resulted in a significant increase in knowledge of stroke sub-type (95% CI 0.72-0.677, P<0.001), risk factor control of systolic BP (95% CI 12.1-10.4, P=0.01) and increased the number of healthy lifestyle behaviour changes made at follow-up (P<0.001). Conclusions: Increasing risk awareness is potentially an important mechanism to improve health behaviour following stroke and may improve risk factor control as part of secondary stroke prevention

TB STIGMA – MEASUREMENT GUIDANCE

TB is the most deadly infectious disease in the world, and stigma continues to play a significant role in worsening the epidemic. Stigma and discrimination not only stop people from seeking care but also make it more difficult for those on treatment to continue, both of which make the disease more difficult to treat in the long-term and mean those infected are more likely to transmit the disease to those around them. TB Stigma – Measurement Guidance is a manual to help generate enough information about stigma issues to design and monitor and evaluate efforts to reduce TB stigma. It can help in planning TB stigma baseline measurements and monitoring trends to capture the outcomes of TB stigma reduction efforts. This manual is designed for health workers, professional or management staff, people who advocate for those with TB, and all who need to understand and respond to TB stigma

Renal Association Clinical Practice Guideline on Haemodialysis

© The Author(s) 2019. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.This guideline is written primarily for doctors and nurses working in dialysis units and related areas of medicine in the UK, and is an update of a previous version written in 2009. It aims to provide guidance on how to look after patients and how to run dialysis units, and provides standards which units should in general aim to achieve. We would not advise patients to interpret the guideline as a rulebook, but perhaps to answer the question: "what does good quality haemodialysis look like?"The guideline is split into sections: each begins with a few statements which are graded by strength (1 is a firm recommendation, 2 is more like a sensible suggestion), and the type of research available to back up the statement, ranging from A (good quality trials so we are pretty sure this is right) to D (more like the opinion of experts than known for sure). After the statements there is a short summary explaining why we think this, often including a discussion of some of the most helpful research. There is then a list of the most important medical articles so that you can read further if you want to - most of this is freely available online, at least in summary form.A few notes on the individual sections: 1. This section is about how much dialysis a patient should have. The effectiveness of dialysis varies between patients because of differences in body size and age etc., so different people need different amounts, and this section gives guidance on what defines "enough" dialysis and how to make sure each person is getting that. Quite a bit of this section is very technical, for example, the term "eKt/V" is often used: this is a calculation based on blood tests before and after dialysis, which measures the effectiveness of a single dialysis session in a particular patient. 2. This section deals with "non-standard" dialysis, which basically means anything other than 3 times per week. For example, a few people need 4 or more sessions per week to keep healthy, and some people are fine with only 2 sessions per week - this is usually people who are older, or those who have only just started dialysis. Special considerations for children and pregnant patients are also covered here. 3. This section deals with membranes (the type of "filter" used in the dialysis machine) and "HDF" (haemodiafiltration) which is a more complex kind of dialysis which some doctors think is better. Studies are still being done, but at the moment we think it's as good as but not better than regular dialysis. 4. This section deals with fluid removal during dialysis sessions: how to remove enough fluid without causing cramps and low blood pressure. Amongst other recommendations we advise close collaboration with patients over this. 5. This section deals with dialysate, which is the fluid used to "pull" toxins out of the blood (it is sometimes called the "bath"). The level of things like potassium in the dialysate is important, otherwise too much or too little may be removed. There is a section on dialysate buffer (bicarbonate) and also a section on phosphate, which occasionally needs to be added into the dialysate. 6. This section is about anticoagulation (blood thinning) which is needed to stop the circuit from clotting, but sometimes causes side effects. 7. This section is about certain safety aspects of dialysis, not seeking to replace well-established local protocols, but focussing on just a few where we thought some national-level guidance would be useful. 8. This section draws together a few aspects of dialysis which don't easily fit elsewhere, and which impact on how dialysis feels to patients, rather than the medical outcome, though of course these are linked. This is where home haemodialysis and exercise are covered. There is an appendix at the end which covers a few aspects in more detail, especially the mathematical ideas. Several aspects of dialysis are not included in this guideline since they are covered elsewhere, often because they are aspects which affect non-dialysis patients too. This includes: anaemia, calcium and bone health, high blood pressure, nutrition, infection control, vascular access, transplant planning, and when dialysis should be started.Peer reviewe

Is there a role for the community pharmacist in the management of long-term conditions?

Abstract The Government agenda is to move pharmacists away from dispensing medicines from a prescription to the provision of clinical services aimed at managing patients with long-term conditions. This thesis uses the approach defined by the MRC framework for developing complex interventions to ascertain whether there is a pharmacist role in this area. An initial study was conducted to determine the feasibility of a community pharmacist eczema management support service (PLEEZ). It demonstrated encouraging results, however failed to recruit the required number of participants. A pharmacist focus group indicated that the study had failed because of an insufficient population, overly complex study design and insufficient intervention preparation and training. Type 2 diabetes was subsequently chosen for the intervention as these patients have an anticipated greater pharmaceutical need and there is a larger available patient population. In line with the MRC framework, appropriate developmental work was then undertaken in the form of a literature review, an audit and a series of focus groups to determine the composition of a novel intervention focused on this condition. These results came together to form the diabetes community pharmacy drop-in clinic comprising the following elements: Targeting poorly controlled patients A system of referral from the medical practice A suitable training programme No appointment system Additional pharmacist to support A focus on adherence and dose optimisation as well as diet and lifestyle advice The clinics, in five pharmacies, recruited 33 participants providing positive results from the outcomes measured, excellent patient feedback and pharmacist comments that can be used to inform future studies. The thesis demonstrates that there is a potential role for the community pharmacist in the care of patients with type 2 diabetes, however further, large scale research is needed to confirm whether this is the case

What\u27s in a Message? The Impact of Patient-Clinician Email Message Content on Patient Health Outcomes and Healthcare Utilization

Introduction In the upcoming chapters, we present our study findings as three papers ready for submission to peer-reviewed journals. The first paper describes the associations between taxa and the characteristics of the patients and clinic staff who exchange those messages. The second paper explores the associations between those taxa and patients’ healthcare utilization. The third paper presents associations between taxa and patient health outcomes for diabetes and hypertension. We conclude with how the three papers are related and highlight the importance of this research. Across the three papers, we reference a theory-based taxonomy we developed specifically for secure messaging. A number of researchers have created taxonomies to classify secure message content. Although these contained common themes, many were used only once or twice in published research and few classified content generated by clinic staff. We built our taxonomy upon commonly used themes from these existing classification systems. In contrast with other researchers, however, we leveraged theoretical constructs to group taxa and identify the concepts within messages that must be present for logical linkages between message content and patient outcomes. To identify why patients might outreach to clinicians during times of uncertainty, we referenced Mishel’s Uncertainty in Illness Theory (Mishel, 1988, 1999). We leveraged the framework developed by Street, Makoul, Arora, and Epstein (2009) to highlight patient task-oriented requests that might manifest in secure messages (e.g., to support self-care, satisfaction), and clinician-generated content that might support improved patient health outcomes. Our three papers present the first reports using this taxonomy and are the first to explore associations between taxa, patient outcomes, and the senders’ and receivers’ characteristics. We sampled patients with diabetes and/or hypertension to demonstrate that our taxonomy could be applied to different health conditions, and to highlight any differences in taxa use based on health condition. We included threads initiated and completed between January 1 and December 31, 2017. Our study included 2111 patients, of whom 49 percent initiated 7346 threads that included 10163 patient-generated messages and 8146 messages generated by 674 unique clinic staff (hereafter referred to as clinician-generated messages). Patient and Clinic Staff Characteristics Associated with Message Content In the first paper, we described the coding process and interrater and intrarater reliability derived from that process, and then presented our findings on the characteristics of the senders and receivers associated with selected taxa. We estimated both unadjusted and adjusted differences in characteristics associated with the use of each taxon. We assessed taxon use as a dichotomous variable that was positive if the patient or clinician sent or received at least one message coded with the selected taxon. For patient-generated taxa, we explored associations with the characteristics of the sender (which types of patients sent these taxa) and receiver (which types of clinic staff received these types of content). Similarly, we explored the associations between clinician-generated taxa and the characteristics of the sender (what types of clinic staff sent these taxa) and receiver (what types of patients were the recipients of this content). We created separate regression models for patient characteristics (demographic, geographic, health condition and status, and thread volume) and staff characteristics (staff type, specialty, and message volume). Our patient-level analyses included only the 1031 patients who initiated message threads using the patient portal. Our analyses found differences in taxa use by patients’ age, sex, race, health condition and status, and distance from clinic. Younger patients and females were less likely to share certain types of information with clinic staff (clinic updates among younger patients OR=0.77; 95% CI: 0.65-0.91; self-reporting biometrics by women OR=0.78; 95% CI: 0.62-0.98). Use of certain types of task-oriented requests varied by age (younger patients’ prescription refills OR=0.77; 95% CI: 0.65-0.90 and scheduling requests OR=1.41; 95% CI: 1.19-1.68) and race (black vs white requests for preventive care appointments OR=2.68; 95% CI: 1.30-5.51, requests for a new or changed prescription OR=0.72; 95% CI: 0.53-0.98, and laboratory or other diagnostic procedures OR=0.66; 95% CI: 0.46-0.95). Younger and uninsured patients were less likely to receive medical guidance from clinic staff (OR=0.84; 95% CI: 0.71-0.99 and OR=0.21; 95% CI: 0.06-0.72, respectively), but patients with public payers were two times more likely to receive medical guidance compared to patients with private payers (95% CI: 1.27-3.24). Females were less likely to receive confirmation that requests were fulfilled (OR=0.81; 95% CI: 0.68-0.97). These findings highlight differences in how patients used secure messaging to communicate with their clinic staff, which could result in differential access to care. Further, the differences in taxa use by clinic staff by patients’ characteristics might further exacerbate existing disparities in care and highlight opportunities for training and education to reduce these discrepancies. Healthcare Services Utilization Associated with Message Content The Street, Makoul, et al. (2009) framework highlights access to care as an intermediate outcome in the pathway between health outcomes and communication functions such as information exchange, enabling self-care, and making decisions. Patients reported that effective communication delivered through secure messaging prevented unnecessary appointments (Alpert, Markham, Bjarnadottir, & Bylund, 2019); however, prior studies that explored links between secure messaging and healthcare utilization only considered message volume, not what was said in those messages. Our second paper is the first to explore whether content is associated with healthcare utilization. We measured utilization in four ways: number of outpatient visits, number of emergency department visits, number of inpatient visits, and medication adherence. We created separate medication adherence dichotomous variables for diabetes and hypertension, based on having an average condition-specific medication possession ratio greater than 0.8 (Clifford, Perez-Nieves, Skalicky, Reaney, & Coyne, 2014; Khunti, Seidu, Kunutsor, & Davies, 2017; Krass, Schieback, & Dhippayom, 2015; Schulz et al., 2016). We measured our independent variables as the taxon prevalence among patient- or clinician-generated taxa, as appropriate. Our covariates included the patient characteristics described in the first paper. To estimate incidence rate ratios for the three visit dependent variables, we conducted Poisson regressions with robust variance estimation (Hilbe, 2014). We estimated the odds of medication adherence associated with each taxon using logistic regression. In unadjusted analyses, we found that patients who initiated message threads had higher numbers of outpatient visits (p\u3c0.0001) and better hypertension medication adherence (p\u3c0.01), compared to patients who did not initiate threads. Among patients who initiated message threads, we identified a positive association between emergency department visits and prevalence of request denials from clinic staff (IRR=1.18; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.35) and patients’ requests for follow-up appointments (IRR=1.15; 95% CI: 1.07-1.23), as well as between clinic non-response and the number of outpatient visits (IRR=1.02; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.03). We identified an inverse association between hypertension medication adherence and patients’ appointment reschedule requests (OR=0.87; 95% CI: 0.79-0.96). These findings highlight opportunities for future research about the use of secure messaging to influence care delivery and access to care. Patient Health Outcomes Associated with Message Content Patients whose uncertainty in their illness is addressed experience less stress, leading to better health outcomes (Mishel, 1988). Through appropriate communication functions with clinicians, patients develop better understanding of their condition and how to manage it and may have improved access to care and self-care skills, which leads to better outcomes (Street, Makoul, et al., 2009). Our third paper describes the first study to assess the types of message content associated with improved health outcomes. We examined changes in patients’ glycemic index (A1C) for patients with diabetes and changes in diastolic (DBP) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) among patients with hypertension, comparing patients who sent or received messages with selected taxa to (1) those who sent other types of messages and (2) those who did not initiate threads in 2017. We measured outcome changes as the difference between baseline (the last measured value in 2016) and endpoint (the first measured value reported in 2018) measures. Similar to the analyses conducted for Paper 2, our independent variables were the prevalence of each taxon by patient, where the denominator was the number of patient- or clinician-generated taxa, as appropriate for the selected taxon. Analyses included only patients with the selected condition: 811 patients with diabetes only, 787 patients with hypertension only, and 513 patients with both conditions. We used linear regression to identify associations between the outcomes and each taxon. In unadjusted analyses, we found that patients who initiated threads had lower endpoint A1Cs (p=0.01) compared to patients who did not initiate threads. We observed improvements in A1C among patients who sent information seeking messages (b=-0.07; 95% CI: -0.13, -0.00). We also observed improved SBP associated with clinic non-response to patients’ threads (b=-0.30; 95% CI: -0.56, -0.04), staff acknowledgement and fulfillment of patients’ requests (b=-0.30; 95% CI: -0.58, -0.02), and patients’ complaints (b=-4.03; 95% CI: -7.94, -0.12). Poorer outcomes were associated with information sharing messages among patients with diabetes (b=0.08; 95% CI: 0.01, 0.15), and deferred information sharing by clinic staff among patients with hypertension (SBP b=1.29; 95% CI: 0.4-2.19). In addition, among patients with either condition, we observed positive associations between outcome and patient- and clinician-generated appreciation and praise messages with effect sizes ranging from 0.4 (A1C) to 5.69 (SBP). These findings demonstrate associations between outcomes and message content and further emphasize the need for training and education of clinic staff on appropriate use of secure messaging to prevent exacerbation of health disparities due to differential communication delivered through this modality. Conclusion We identified patient characteristics associated with patients’ use of taxa; not surprisingly, patients’ use of taxa varied by age, sex, and race. Taxa use varied by clinic staff characteristics consistent with the triage systems employed by most healthcare organizations (Heyworth et al., 2013; Ozkaynak et al., 2014; Wooldridge, Carayon, Hoonakker, Musa, & Bain, 2016). We also identified differences in staff’s taxa use based on the characteristics of the patient to whom they were sending the message. We further identified associations between taxa and healthcare utilization and health outcomes. If certain types of patients use taxa less frequently, and these taxa are associated with better outcomes or more appropriate utilization, then that presents opportunities to target those populations for education to shift their use of secure messaging. Further, if clinician-generated message content is associated with improved outcomes and clinic staff are not equitably sharing that content with all patients, there is an opportunity for education and training. Our research is a set of first-of-its-kind analyses that highlight differences in taxa use by both patients and clinicians and demonstrates the associations between those taxa and patient outcomes. Healthcare administrators and clinic staff should be aware of these associations and consider mitigation strategies to improve equitable secure messaging use by their staff and across their patient populations. The studies shared several limitations discussed in more detail in the papers themselves. These limitations included a need for more specificity in the taxa definitions and more rigorous coding processes, the lack of temporal indicators in the analysis, and limited patient and clinical characteristics. The analyses that incorporated A1C measurements suffered from significant missing data. Sample size for some taxa was limited so that the algorithms did not converge. The analyses were based on single taxa, which represented only one component of the overall thread discussion. Finally, our message sample included only those messages saved to patients’ charts, which likely led to an underrepresentation of taxa and clinic non-response. We highlighted a number of opportunities for future research across the three studies. Consideration should be given to refining taxa definitions and applying more rigorous coding practices, incorporating temporal elements into the analyses to provide context and support assessments of causality, adding relevant covariates such as message reading level or patients’ health literacy levels, and exploring other proximal and intermediate outcomes identified in the Street, Makoul, et al. (2009) framework. We also strongly recommend examining the impact of taxa pairings: analyses that consider the call-and-response nature of the full conversation occurring within the thread

Using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to understand adherence to multiple evidence-based indicators in primary care : a qualitative study

BACKGROUND: There are recognised gaps between evidence and practice in general practice, a setting posing particular implementation challenges. We earlier screened clinical guideline recommendations to derive a set of 'high-impact' indicators based upon criteria including potential for significant patient benefit, scope for improved practice and amenability to measurement using routinely collected data. Here, we explore health professionals' perceived determinants of adherence to these indicators, examining the degree to which determinants were indicator-specific or potentially generalisable across indicators. METHODS: We interviewed 60 general practitioners, practice nurses and practice managers in West Yorkshire, the UK, about adherence to four indicators: avoidance of risky prescribing; treatment targets in type 2 diabetes; blood pressure targets in treated hypertension; and anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation. Interview questions drew upon the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Data were analysed using framework analysis. RESULTS: Professional role and identity and environmental context and resources featured prominently across all indicators whilst the importance of other domains, for example, beliefs about consequences, social influences and knowledge varied across indicators. We identified five meta-themes representing more general organisational and contextual factors common to all indicators. CONCLUSIONS: The TDF helped elicit a wide range of reported determinants of adherence to 'high-impact' indicators in primary care. It was more difficult to pinpoint which determinants, if targeted by an implementation strategy, would maximise change. The meta-themes broadly underline the need to align the design of interventions targeting general practices with higher level supports and broader contextual considerations. However, our findings suggest that it is feasible to develop interventions to promote the uptake of different evidence-based indicators which share common features whilst also including content-specific adaptations

Avaliação da adesão do paciente ao tratamento de doenças crônicas: diferenciando as abordagens epidemiológica e clínica

This review discusses the concepts and methods for assessing patient adherence to treatment, as applied to both epidemiological and clinical approaches within real health care practices. For the epidemiological approach, the assessment must be as accurate as possible. Self-reported questionnaires are the most feasible option in most circumstances, but most demonstrate low sensitivity combined with high specificity. We suggest that self-reported outcomes, where feasible, can increase the sensitivity for non-adherence of these questionnaires. In the clinical approach an accurate distinction between adherents and non-adherents is less useful. For the health provider, it is more important to be aware of the particular situation that each patient is currently experiencing with his/her treatment. Self-reported questionnaires applied in clinical settings can help the health provider to form an objective opinion. In any event, the patient-provider dialogue is still the best approach to assess patient adherence as well as to deliver good care.Esta revisão discute conceitos e métodos de avaliação da adesão do paciente ao tratamento de saúde, aplicáveis para a abordagem epidemiológica e para a abordagem clínica. Na abordagem epidemiológica, a avaliação deve ter a melhor acurácia possível. Os questionários de auto-relato são a opção mais viável na maioria dos contextos. Entretanto, a maior parte dos questionários apresenta baixa sensibilidade aliada a alta especificidade. Sugere-se que o desfecho clínico auto-relatado, quando factível, é capaz de aumentar a sensibilidade desses questionários. Para a abordagem clínica, uma acurada discriminação entre aderentes e não aderentes é pouco útil. Para o profissional de saúde, é mais importante conhecer a situação particular pela qual o paciente está, no momento, passando com seu tratamento. Questionários de auto-relato aplicados no contexto clínico podem auxiliar a melhorar a objetividade da opinião do profissional. Em qualquer caso, contudo, o diálogo paciente-profissional é ainda a melhor abordagem para avaliar a adesão, assim como para prover um bom cuidado

A Team-Based Approach to Increase Initiation of Self-Management Goals in Adult Patients Diagnosed with Hypertension With the Use of a Self-Management Goal Toolkit

Due to the high risk of cardiovascular disease and other negative complications, it is imperative that patients in the primary care clinic diagnosed with hypertension control blood pressure levels. The purpose of this scholarly project was to increase the initiation of self-management goals (SMGs) among adult males and females age 30 to 60 diagnosed with hypertension. These patients were active duty military, reservists, and dependent beneficiaries who receive care at the Navy Medicine Readiness Training Unit–Memphis. The practice change took the onus of introduction and education about SMGs off the provider and added key responsibilities to support staff, who provided handouts and education to patients via a SMG toolkit. The goal was to minimize time needed for providers to focus on SMGs and to increase the initiation of SMGs through the utilization of support staff. Through patient education about SMGs and lifestyle goal setting, the hope was to improve clinical outcomes and improve the participating patients’ health. Navy Medicine Readiness Training Unit–Memphis did not have a SMG process, and had not been in compliance with Joint Commission mandates for the initiation and documentation of SMGs for patients with chronic conditions. Through staff education, training, delivery of proper educational materials via a SMG toolkit, and the attainment of information from the electronic medical record Genesis, initiation and documentation of SMGs among adult patients diagnosed with hypertension improved to 62.5% from the current baseline