Identifying Dysphagia and Demographic Associations in Older Adults Using Electronic Health Records: A National Longitudinal Observational Study in Wales (United Kingdom) 2008–2018

Dysphagia is increasingly being recognised as a geriatric syndrome (giant). There is limited research on the prevalence of dysphagia using electronic health records. To investigate associations between dysphagia, as recorded in electronic health records and age, frailty using the electronic frailty index, gender and deprivation (Welsh index of multiple deprivation). A Cross-sectional longitudinal cohort study in over 400,000 older adults was undertaken (65 +) in Wales (United Kingdom) per year from 2008 to 2018. We used the secure anonymised information linkage databank to identify dysphagia diagnoses in primary and secondary care. We used chi-squared tests and multivariate logistic regression to investigate associations between dysphagia diagnosis and age, frailty (using the electronic Frailty index), gender and deprivation. Data indicated < 1% of individuals were recorded as having a dysphagia diagnosis per year. We found dysphagia to be statistically significantly associated with older age, more severe frailty and individuals from more deprived areas. Multivariate analyses indicated increased odds ratios [OR (95% confidence intervals)] for a dysphagia diagnosis with increased age [reference 65–74: aged 75–84 OR 1.09 (1.07, 1.12), 85 + OR 1.23 (1.20, 1.27)], frailty (reference fit: mild frailty 2.45 (2.38, 2.53), moderate frailty 4.64 (4.49, 4.79) and severe frailty 7.87 (7.55, 8.21)] and individuals from most deprived areas [reference 5. Least deprived, 1. Most deprived: 1.10 (1.06, 1.14)]. The study has identified that prevalence of diagnosed dysphagia is lower than previously reported. This study has confirmed the association of dysphagia with increasing age and frailty. A previously unreported association with deprivation has been identified. Deprivation is a multifactorial problem that is known to affect health outcomes, and the association with dysphagia should not be a surprise. Research in to this relationship is indicated

Development and external validation of the eFalls tool: a multivariable prediction model for the risk of ED attendance or hospitalisation with a fall or fracture in older adults

BackgroundFalls are common in older adults and can devastate personal independence through injury such as fracture and fear of future falls. Methods to identify people for falls prevention interventions are currently limited, with high risks of bias in published prediction models. We have developed and externally validated the eFalls prediction model using routinely collected primary care electronic health records (EHR) to predict risk of emergency department attendance/hospitalisation with fall or fracture within 1 year.MethodsData comprised two independent, retrospective cohorts of adults aged ≥65 years: the population of Wales, from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank (model development); the population of Bradford and Airedale, England, from Connected Bradford (external validation). Predictors included electronic frailty index components, supplemented with variables informed by literature reviews and clinical expertise. Fall/fracture risk was modelled using multivariable logistic regression with a Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator penalty. Predictive performance was assessed through calibration, discrimination and clinical utility. Apparent, internal–external cross-validation and external validation performance were assessed across general practices and in clinically relevant subgroups.ResultsThe model’s discrimination performance (c-statistic) was 0.72 (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.68 to 0.76) on internal–external cross-validation and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.80 to 0.83) on external validation. Calibration was variable across practices, with some over-prediction in the validation population (calibration-in-the-large, −0.87; 95% CI: −0.96 to −0.78). Clinical utility on external validation was improved after recalibration.ConclusionThe eFalls prediction model shows good performance and could support proactive stratification for falls prevention services if appropriately embedded into primary care EHR systems

Preventing Domestic Abuse for Children and Young People (PEACH): A Mixed Knowledge Scoping Review

Background: A range of interventions that aim to prevent domestic abuse has been developed for children and young people in the general population. While these have been widely implemented, few have been rigorously evaluated. This study aimed to discover what was known about these interventions for children and what worked for whom in which settings. Review methods: This mixed knowledge review was informed by realist principles and comprised four overlapping phases: an online mapping survey to identify current provision; a systematic review of the existing literature; a review of the UK ‘grey’ literature; and consultation with young people and experts. Information from these four sources of evidence informed analysis of costs and benefits. Results: The evidence for interventions achieving changes in knowledge and attitudes was stronger than that for behavioural change. Shifting social norms in the peer group emerged as a key mechanism of change. Media campaigns act to influence the wider social climate within which more targeted interventions are received, and they are also a source for programme materials. While most interventions are delivered in secondary schools, they are increasingly targeted at younger children. The review emphasised the importance of a school’s ‘readiness’ to introduce preventative interventions which need to be supported across all aspects of school life. Involving young people in the design and delivery of programmes increases authenticity and this emerged as a key ingredient in achieving impact. Longer interventions delivered by appropriately trained staff appeared likely to be more effective. Teachers emerged as well placed to embed interventions in schools but they require training and support from those with specialist knowledge in domestic abuse. There was evidence that small groups of students who were at higher risk might have accounted for some results regarding effectiveness and that programme effectiveness may vary for certain subgroups. Increasingly, boys are being identified as a target for change. The study identified a need for interventions for disabled children and children and young people from black, Asian, minority ethnic and refugee groups and a particular lack of materials designed for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender young people. Limitations: Very little evidence was identified on costs and cost-effectiveness. Few studies showed an effect at the level of significance set for the review. Where it did exist, the effect size was small, except in respect of improved knowledge. The inability to calculate a response rate for the mapping survey, which used a snowballing approach, limits the ability to generalise from it. Conclusions: While it is appropriate to continue to deliver interventions to whole populations of children and young people, effectiveness appeared to be influenced by high-risk children and young people, who should be directed to additional support. Programmes also need to make provision to manage any resulting disclosures. Interventions appear to be context specific, and so those already being widely delivered in the UK and which are likely to be acceptable should be robustly tested. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research programme

Preferences for cancer investigation:a vignette-based study of primary-care attendees

SummaryBackgroundThe UK lags behind many European countries in terms of cancer survival. Initiatives to address this disparity have focused on barriers to presentation, symptom recognition, and referral for specialist investigation. Selection of patients for further investigation has come under particular scrutiny, although preferences for referral thresholds in the UK population have not been studied. We investigated preferences for diagnostic testing for colorectal, lung, and pancreatic cancers in primary-care attendees.MethodsIn a vignette-based study, researchers recruited individuals aged at least 40 years attending 26 general practices in three areas of England between Dec 6, 2011, and Aug 1, 2012. Participants completed up to three of 12 vignettes (four for each of lung, pancreatic, and colorectal cancers), which were randomly assigned. The vignettes outlined a set of symptoms, the risk that these symptoms might indicate cancer (1%, 2%, 5%, or 10%), the relevant testing process, probable treatment, possible alternative diagnoses, and prognosis if cancer were identified. Participants were asked whether they would opt for diagnostic testing on the basis of the information in the vignette.Findings3469 participants completed 6930 vignettes. 3052 individuals (88%) opted for investigation in their first vignette. We recorded no strong evidence that participants were more likely to opt for investigation with a 1% increase in risk of cancer (odds ratio [OR] 1·02, 95% CI 0·99–1·06; p=0·189), although the association between risk and opting for investigation was strong when colorectal cancer was analysed alone (1·08, 1·03–1·13; p=0·0001). In multivariable analysis, age had an effect in all three cancer models: participants aged 60–69 years were significantly more likely to opt for investigation than were those aged 40–59 years, and those aged 70 years or older were less likely. Other variables associated with increased likelihood of opting for investigation were shorter travel times to testing centre (colorectal and lung cancers), a family history of cancer (colorectal and lung cancers), and higher household income (colorectal and pancreatic cancers).InterpretationParticipants in our sample expressed a clear preference for diagnostic testing at all risk levels, and individuals want to be tested at risk levels well below those stipulated by UK guidelines. This willingness should be considered during design of cancer pathways, particularly in primary care. The public engagement with our study should encourage general practitioners to involve patients in referral decision making.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme

Keep it Simple? Predicting Primary Health Care Costs with Measures of Morbidity and Multimorbidity

In this paper we investigate the relationship between patients’ primary care costs (consultations, tests, drugs) and their age, gender, deprivation and alternative measures of their morbidity and multimorbidity. Such information is required in order to set capitation fees or budgets for general practices to cover their expenditure on providing primary care services. It is also useful to examine whether practices’ expenditure decisions vary equitably with patient characteristics. Electronic practice record keeping systems mean that there is very rich information on patient diagnoses. But the diagnostic information (with over 9000 possible diagnoses) is too detailed to be practicable for setting capitation fees or practice budgets. Some method of summarizing such information into more manageable measures of morbidity is required. We therefore compared the ability of eight measures of patient morbidity and multimorbidity to predict future primary care costs using data on 86,100 individuals in 174 English practices. The measures were derived from four morbidity descriptive systems (17 chronic diseases in the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF), 17 chronic diseases in the Charlson scheme, 114 Expanded Diagnosis Clusters (EDCs), and 68 Adjusted Clinical Groups (ACGs)). We found that, in general, for a given disease description system, counts of diseases and sets of disease dummy variables had similar explanatory power and that measures with more categories did better than those with fewer. The EDC measures performed best, followed by the QOF and ACG measures. The Charlson measures had the worst performance but still improved markedly on models containing only age, gender, deprivation and practice effects. Allowing for individual patient morbidity greatly reduced the association of age and cost. There was a pro-deprived bias in expenditure: after allowing for morbidity, patients in areas in the highest deprivation decile had costs which were 22% higher than those in the lowest deprivation decile. The predictive ability of the best performing morbidity and multimorbidity measures was very good for this type of individual level cross section data, with R2 ranging from 0.31 to 0.46. The statistical method of estimating the relationship between patient characteristics and costs was less important than the type of morbidity measure. Rankings of the morbidity and multimorbidity measures were broadly similar for generalised linear models with log link and Poisson errors and for OLS estimation. It would be currently feasible to combine the results from our study with the data on the number of patients with each QOF disease, which is available on all practices in England, to calculate budgets for general practices to cover their primary care costs.multimorbidity; primary care; utilisation; costs; deprivation; budgets

Patient and practitioners' views on the most important outcomes arising from primary care consultations:a qualitative study

BACKGROUND: Primary care clinicians often address multiple patient problems, with a range of possible outcomes. There is currently no patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) which covers this range of outcomes. Consequently, many researchers use PROMs that do not capture the full impact of primary care services. In order to identify what outcomes a PROM for primary care would need to include, we conducted interviews with patients and practitioners. This paper reports these patient and practitioners’ views on the outcomes arising from primary care consultations. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were held with 30 patients and eight clinicians across five sites in Bristol. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. We used a broad definition of health outcome as ‘the impacts of healthcare on health, or a patient’s ability to impact health’ to identify outcomes through this process. RESULTS: 10 outcome groups were identified. These occupied 3 domains: Health Empowerment: These are the internal and external resources which enable patients to improve their health. This involves 1) patients’ understanding of their illnesses, 2) ability to self-care and stay healthy, 3) agreeing and adhering to a patient-clinician shared plan, 4) confidence in seeking healthcare and 5) access to support. Health Status: This involves 6) reduction of symptoms and 7) reducing the impact of symptoms on patients’ lives. Health Perceptions: This involves 8) patients’ satisfaction with their health, 9) health concerns, and 10) confidence in their future health. The structure, organisation and nature of primary care means it can affect all 3 domains. CONCLUSIONS: No existing PROM captures all these outcomes. For example, many health empowerment PROMs do not consider patient preference on empowerment. Many health status tools are not responsive to changes resulting from primary care. Health perceptions PROMs have generally been designed for measuring personality traits rather than outcomes. This study provides a platform for designing a new PROM containing outcomes that matter to patients and can be influenced by primary care. Such a PROM would greatly enhance the value of primary care research. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12875-015-0323-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

The impact of co-located NHS walk-in centres on emergency departments

Objectives: To determine the impact of establishing walk-in centres alongside emergency departments on attendance rates, visit duration, process, costs and outcome of care. Methods: Eight hospitals with co-located emergency departments and walk-in centres were compared with eight matched emergency departments without walk-in centres. Site visits were conducted. Routine data about attendance numbers and use of resources were analysed. A random sample of records of patients attending before and after walk-in centres opened were also assessed. Patients who had not been admitted to hospital were sent a postal questionnaire. Results: In most sites, the walk-in centres did not have a distinct identity and there were few differences in the way services were provided compared with control sites. Overall, there was no evidence of an increase in attendance at sites with walk-in centres, but considerable variability across sites. The proportion of patients managed within the four-hour NHS target improved at sites both with and without walk-in centres. There was no evidence of any difference in re-consultation rates, costs of care or patient outcomes at sites with or without walk-in centres. Conclusions: Most hospitals in this study implemented the walk-in centre concept to a very limited extent. Consequently there was no evidence of any impact on attendance rates, process, costs or outcome of care

Annual risk of falls resulting in emergency department and hospital attendances for older people: an observational study of 781,081 individuals living in Wales (United Kingdom) including deprivation, frailty and dementia diagnoses between 2010 and 2020

Backgroundfalls are common in older people, but associations between falls, dementia and frailty are relatively unknown. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on falls admissions has not been studied.Aimto investigate the impact of dementia, frailty, deprivation, previous falls and the differences between years for falls resulting in an emergency department (ED) or hospital admission.Study Designlongitudinal cross-sectional observational study.Settingolder people (aged 65+) resident in Wales between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2020.Methodswe created a binary (yes/no) indicator for a fall resulting in an attendance to an ED, hospital or both, per person, per year. We analysed the outcomes using multilevel logistic and multinomial models.Resultswe analysed a total of 5,141,244 person years of data from 781,081 individuals. Fall admission rates were highest in 2012 (4.27%) and lowest in 2020 (4.27%). We found an increased odds ratio (OR [95% confidence interval]) of a fall admission for age (1.05 [1.05, 1.05] per year of age), people with dementia (2.03 [2.00, 2.06]) and people who had a previous fall (2.55 [2.51, 2.60]). Compared with fit individuals, those with frailty had ORs of 1.60 [1.58, 1.62], 2.24 [2.21, 2.28] and 2.94 [2.89, 3.00] for mild, moderate and severe frailty respectively. Reduced odds were observed for males (0.73 [0.73, 0.74]) and less deprived areas; most deprived compared with least OR 0.75 [0.74, 0.76].Conclusionsfalls prevention should be targeted to those at highest risk, and investigations into the reduction in admissions in 2020 is warranted