Assessment of cardiovascular risk factors prior to NHS Health Checks in an urban setting: cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES: To assess the completeness of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor recording and levels of risk factors in patients eligible for the NHS Health Check. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Twenty-eight general practices located in Hammersmith and Fulham, London, UK. PARTICIPANTS: 42,306 patients aged 40 to 74 years without existing cardiovascular disease or diabetes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: MEASUREMENT AND LEVEL OF CVD RISK FACTORS: blood pressure, cholesterol, body mass index (BMI), blood glucose and smoking status. RESULTS: There was a high recording of smoking status (86.1%) and blood pressure (82.5%); whilst BMI, cholesterol and glucose recording was lower. There was large variation in BMI, cholesterol, glucose recording between practices (29.7-91.5% for BMI). Women had significantly better risk factor recording than men (AOR = 1.70 [1.61-1.80] for blood pressure). All risk factors were better recorded in the least deprived patient group (AOR = 0.79 [0.73-0.85] for blood pressure) and patients with diagnosed hypertension (AOR = 7.24 [6.67-7.86] for cholesterol). Risk factor recording varied considerably between practices but was more strongly associated with patient than practice level characteristics. Age-adjusted levels of cholesterol and BMI were not significantly different between men and women. More men had raised blood glucose, blood pressure and BMI than women (29.7% [29.1-30.4] compared to 19.8% [19.3-20.3] for blood pressure). CONCLUSIONS: Before the NHS Health Check, CVD risk factor recording varied considerably by practice and patient characteristics. We identified significant elevated levels of raised CVD risk factors in the population eligible for a Health Check, which will require considerable work to manage

The Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT): protocol for a randomised controlled demonstration lung cancer screening pilot testing a targeted invitation strategy for high risk and ‘hard-to-reach’ patients

Background Participation in low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening offered in the trial context has been poor, especially among smokers from socioeconomically deprived backgrounds; a group for whom the risk-benefit ratio is improved due to their high risk of lung cancer. Attracting high risk participants is essential to the success and equity of any future screening programme. This study will investigate whether the observed low and biased uptake of screening can be improved using a targeted invitation strategy. Methods/design A randomised controlled trial design will be used to test whether targeted invitation materials are effective at improving engagement with an offer of lung cancer screening for high risk candidates. Two thousand patients aged 60–75 and recorded as a smoker within the last five years by their GP, will be identified from primary care records and individually randomised to receive either intervention invitation materials (which take a targeted, stepped and low burden approach to information provision prior to the appointment) or control invitation materials. The primary outcome is uptake of a nurse-led ‘lung health check’ hospital appointment, during which patients will be offered a spirometry test, an exhaled carbon monoxide (CO) reading, and an LDCT if eligible. Initial data on demographics (i.e. age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation score) and smoking status will be collected in primary care and analysed to explore differences between attenders and non-attenders with respect to invitation group. Those who attend the lung health check will have further data on smoking collected during their appointment (including pack-year history, nicotine dependence and confidence to quit). Secondary outcomes will include willingness to be screened, uptake of LDCT and measures of informed decision-making to ensure the latter is not compromised by either invitation strategy. Discussion If effective at improving informed uptake of screening and reducing bias in participation, this invitation strategy could be adopted by local screening pilots or a national programme. Trial registration This study was registered with the ISRCTN (International Standard Registered Clinical/soCial sTudy Number : ISRCTN21774741) on the 23rd September 2015 and the NIH ClinicalTrials.gov database (NCT0255810) on the 22nd September 2015

Incentivised chronic disease management and the inverse equity hypothesis: findings from a longitudinal analysis of Scottish primary care practice-level data

Background: The inverse equity hypothesis asserts that new health policies initially widen inequality, then attenuate inequalities over time. Since 2004, the UK’s pay-for-performance scheme for chronic disease management (CDM) in primary care general practices (the Quality and Outcomes Framework) has permitted practices to except (exclude) patients from attending annual CDM reviews, without financial penalty. Informed dissent (ID) is one component of exception rates, applied to patients who have not attended due to refusal or non-response to invitations. ‘Population achievement’ describes the proportion receiving care, in relation to those eligible to receive it, including excepted patients. Examination of exception reporting (including ID) and population achievement enables the equity impact of the UK pay-for-performance contract to be assessed. We conducted a longitudinal analysis of practice-level rates and of predictors of ID, overall exceptions and population achievement for CDM to examine whether the inverse equity hypothesis holds true. Methods: We carried out a retrospective, longitudinal study using routine primary care data, analysed by multilevel logistic regression. Data were extracted from 793 practices (83% of Scottish general practices) serving 4.4 million patients across Scotland from 2010/2011 to 2012/2013, for 29 CDM indicators covering 11 incentivised diseases. This provided 68,991 observations, representing a total of 15 million opportunities for exception reporting. Results: Across all observations, the median overall exception reporting rate was 7.0% (7.04% in 2010–2011; 7.02% in 2011–2012 and 6.92% in 2012–2013). The median non-attendance rate due to ID was 0.9% (0.76% in 2010–2011; 0.88% in 2011–2012 and 0.96% in 2012–2013). Median population achievement was 83.5% (83.51% in 2010–2011; 83.41% in 2011–2012 and 83.63% in 2012–2013). The odds of ID reporting in 2012/2013 were 16.0% greater than in 2010/2011 (p < 0.001). Practices in Scotland’s most deprived communities were twice as likely to report non-attendance due to ID (odds ratio 2.10, 95% confidence interval 1.83–2.40, p < 0.001) compared with those in the least deprived; rural practices reported lower levels of non-attendance due to ID. These predictors were also independently associated with overall exceptions. Rates of population achievement did not change over time, with higher levels (higher remuneration) associated with increased rates of overall and ID exception and more affluent practices. Conclusions: Non-attendance for CDM due to ID has risen over time, and higher rates are seen in patients from practices located in disadvantaged areas. This suggests that CDM incentivisation does not conform to the inverse equity hypothesis, because inequalities are widening over time with lower uptake of anticipatory care health checks and CDM reviews noted among those most in need. Incentivised CDM needs to include incentives for engaging with the ‘hard to reach’ if inequalities in healthcare delivery are to be tackled

Re: Questionable evidence of effectiveness of a national cardiovascular disease risk assessment program

•Despite a number of limitations to our study findings, we were careful in interpreting the findings and presented them in a balanced manner.•We argue that secular trends in risk factors may not have large impact on the changes in risk in our study.•We suggest that regression to the mean does not account for the observed changes in risk.•We argue that our title was not suggestive that the program was effective, but explores the impact of the program. © 2013

Re: Questionable evidence of effectiveness of a national cardiovascular disease risk assessment program

•Despite a number of limitations to our study findings, we were careful in interpreting the findings and presented them in a balanced manner.•We argue that secular trends in risk factors may not have large impact on the changes in risk in our study.•We suggest that regression to the mean does not account for the observed changes in risk.•We argue that our title was not suggestive that the program was effective, but explores the impact of the program. © 2013