Tongue-tie and breastfeeding: Identifying problems in the diagnostic and treatment journey

Background Tongue-tie is a common condition that often adversely affects breastfeeding. There is research that suggests that frenulotomy can improve breastfeeding but there is also evidence of lack of professional knowledge on tongue-tie. Methods This was a qualitative interview study with GPs, midwives, health visitors and nine mothers to explore facilitators and barriers to receiving a diagnosis of and treatment for tongue-tie. Findings Mothers told a common story of having to push for support, experiencing diagnostic and treatment delays and suffering ongoing distress, which threatened their ability to establish breastfeeding. Mothers also described feeling vulnerable in the neonatal period, and witnessing a variation in professional knowledge about tongue-tie. Conclusions Variable professional knowledge, conflicting advice, and a delayed diagnosis can lead to a difficult patient pathway. Assessment for tongue-tie should be considered when approaching infants with feeding difficulties. Frenulotomy should also be considered and services made available where findings suggest the cause is structural and breastfeeding support has not helped. </jats:sec

Incentive payments are not related to expected health gain in the pay for performance scheme for UK primary care: cross-sectional analysis

Background: The General Medical Services primary care contract for the United Kingdom financially rewards performance in 19 clinical areas, through the Quality and Outcomes Framework. Little is known about how best to determine the size of financial incentives in pay for performance schemes. Our aim was to test the hypothesis that performance indicators with larger population health benefits receive larger financial incentives. Methods: We performed cross sectional analyses to quantify associations between the size of financial incentives and expected health gain in the 2004 and 2006 versions of the Quality and Outcomes Framework. We used non-parametric two-sided Spearman rank correlation tests. Health gain was measured in expected lives saved in one year and in quality adjusted life years. For each quality indicator in an average sized general practice we tested for associations first, between the marginal increase in payment and the health gain resulting from a one percent point improvement in performance and second, between total payment and the health gain at the performance threshold for maximum payment. Results: Evidence for lives saved or quality adjusted life years gained was found for 28 indicators accounting for 41% of the total incentive payments. No statistically significant associations were found between the expected health gain and incentive gained from a marginal 1% increase in performance in either the 2004 or 2006 version of the Quality and Outcomes Framework. In addition no associations were found between the size of financial payment for achievement of an indicator and the expected health gain at the performance threshold for maximum payment measured in lives saved or quality adjusted life years. Conclusions: In this subgroup of indicators the financial incentives were not aligned to maximise health gain. This disconnection between incentive and expected health gain risks supporting clinical activities that are only marginally effective, at the expense of more effective activities receiving lower incentives. When designing pay for performance programmes decisions about the size of the financial incentive attached to an indicator should be informed by information on the health gain to be expected from that indicator

Smoking and alcohol behaviours in people following hip and knee arthroplasty: data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative

Background: Smoking and alcohol consumption have a negative effect on overall health. Limited evidence has been presented as to how these health behaviours may change between pre- and postoperative intervals in the initial 12 months post-arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to address this uncertainty.  Hypothesis: Smoking and alcohol consumption differs between pre- and post-THA/TKA and is differs between non-arthroplasty cohorts.  Materials and Methods: Data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI), a population-based observational study in the USA, was gathered. In total, data from 287 people who had undergone THA or TKA from baseline to Month 48 OAI follow-up assessments were analysed. Data on this cohort were compared to 287 age- and gender-matched people with osteoarthritis. Mean change from pre- to post-arthroplasty, and differences between arthroplasty and non-arthroplasty participants for smoking and alcohol consumption were assessed descriptively and through Wilcoxin-matched pairs test and Student t-tests (as appropriate),.  Results: The life-time prevalence of smoking was high for people who received THA (99%) and TKA (96%). Prevalence of current smoking significantly decreased from 5% to 3% across the THA and TKA cohort in the initial 12 months post-arthroplasty (p<0.05). Similarly, there was a statistically significant decrease in weekly alcohol consumption post-arthroplasty for people who underwent THA and TKA (p<0.01), although the mean difference was only by 0.9 alcoholic drinks. The only statistically significant difference in smoking and alcohol consumption for arthroplasty to non-arthroplasty participants was in weekly alcohol consumption, which was higher by 0.3 drinks in the non-arthroplasty cohort (p=0.04).  Conclusions: Smoking and alcohol consumption decreased in the initial 12 months post-THA and TKA. This was not significantly different to an age- and gender-matched non-arthroplasty cohort. Whilst this is positive, a small group of patients still present with unhealthy lifestyle choices in relation to these behaviours post-arthroplasty

At-risk registers integrated into primary care to stop asthma crises in the UK (ARRISA-UK): study protocol for a pragmatic, cluster randomised trial with nested health economic and process evaluations

Background: Despite effective treatments and long-standing management guidelines, there are approximately 1400 hospital admissions for asthma weekly in the United Kingdom (UK), many of which could be avoided. In our previous research, a secondary analysis of the intervention (ARRISA) suggested an improvement in the management of at-risk asthma patients in primary care. ARRISA involved identifying individuals at risk of adverse asthma events, flagging their electronic health records, training practice staff to develop and implement practice-wide processes of care when alerted by the flag, plus motivational reminders. We now seek to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ARRISA in reducing asthma-related crisis events. Methods: We are undertaking a pragmatic, two-arm, multicentre, cluster randomised controlled trial, plus health economic and process evaluation. We will randomise 270 primary care practices from throughout the UK covering over 10,000 registered patients with ‘at-risk asthma’ identified according to a validated algorithm. Staff in practices randomised to the intervention will complete two 45-min eLearning modules (an individually completed module giving background to ARRISA and a group-completed module to develop practice-wide pathways of care) plus a 30-min webinar with other practices. On completion of training at-risk patients’ records will be coded so that a flag appears whenever their record is accessed. Practices will receive a phone call at 4 weeks and a reminder video at 6 weeks and 6 months. Control practices will continue to provide usual care. We will extract anonymised routine patient data from primary care records (with linkage to secondary care data) to determine the percentage of at-risk patients with an asthma-related crisis event (accident and emergency attendances, hospitalisations and deaths) after 12 months (primary outcome). We will also capture the time to crisis event, all-cause hospitalisations, asthma control and any changes in practice asthma management for at-risk and all patients with asthma. Cost-effectiveness analysis and mixed-methods process evaluations will also be conducted. Discussion: This study is novel in terms of using a practice-wide intervention to target and engage with patients at risk from their asthma and is innovative in the use of routinely captured data with record linkage to obtain trial outcomes. Trial registration: ISRCTN95472706. Registered on 5 December 2014

Systematic review: Effects, design choices, and context of pay-for-performance in health care

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Pay-for-performance (P4P) is one of the primary tools used to support healthcare delivery reform. Substantial heterogeneity exists in the development and implementation of P4P in health care and its effects. This paper summarizes evidence, obtained from studies published between January 1990 and July 2009, concerning P4P effects, as well as evidence on the impact of design choices and contextual mediators on these effects. Effect domains include clinical effectiveness, access and equity, coordination and continuity, patient-centeredness, and cost-effectiveness.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The systematic review made use of electronic database searching, reference screening, forward citation tracking and expert consultation. The following databases were searched: Cochrane Library, EconLit, Embase, Medline, PsychINFO, and Web of Science. Studies that evaluate P4P effects in primary care or acute hospital care medicine were included. Papers concerning other target groups or settings, having no empirical evaluation design or not complying with the P4P definition were excluded. According to study design nine validated quality appraisal tools and reporting statements were applied. Data were extracted and summarized into evidence tables independently by two reviewers.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>One hundred twenty-eight evaluation studies provide a large body of evidence -to be interpreted with caution- concerning the effects of P4P on clinical effectiveness and equity of care. However, less evidence on the impact on coordination, continuity, patient-centeredness and cost-effectiveness was found. P4P effects can be judged to be encouraging or disappointing, depending on the primary mission of the P4P program: supporting minimal quality standards and/or boosting quality improvement. Moreover, the effects of P4P interventions varied according to design choices and characteristics of the context in which it was introduced.</p> <p>Future P4P programs should (1) select and define P4P targets on the basis of baseline room for improvement, (2) make use of process and (intermediary) outcome indicators as target measures, (3) involve stakeholders and communicate information about the programs thoroughly and directly, (4) implement a uniform P4P design across payers, (5) focus on both quality improvement and achievement, and (6) distribute incentives to the individual and/or team level.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>P4P programs result in the full spectrum of possible effects for specific targets, from absent or negligible to strongly beneficial. Based on the evidence the review has provided further indications on how effect findings are likely to relate to P4P design choices and context. The provided best practice hypotheses should be tested in future research.</p

Do the incentive payments in the new NHS contract for primary care reflect likely population health gains?

Objective: The new contract for primary care in the UK offers fee-for-service payments for a wide range of activities in a quality outcomes framework, with payments designed to reflect likely workload. This study aims to explore the link between these financial incentives and the likely population health gains. Methods: The study examines a subset of eight preventive interventions covering 38 of the 81 clinical indicators in the quality framework. The maximum payment for each service was calculated and compared with the likely population health gain in terms of lives saved per 100,000 population based on evidence from McColl et al. (1998). Results: Maximum payments for the eight interventions examined make up 57% of the sum total maximum payment for all clinical interventions in the quality outcomes framework. There appears to be no relationship between pay and health gain across these eight interventions. Two of the eight interventions (warfarin in atrial fibrillation and statins in primary prevention) receive no incentive. Conclusions: Payments in the new contract do not reflect likely population health gain. There is a danger that clinical activity may be skewed towards high-workload activities that are only marginally effective, to the detriment of more cost effective activities. If improving population health is the primary goal of the NHS, then fee-for-service incentives should be designed to reflect likely health gain rather than likely workload