The prevalence of multimorbidity in primary care: a comparison of two definitions of multimorbidity with two different lists of chronic conditions in Singapore

Background: The prevalence of multimorbidity varies widely due to the lack of consensus in defining multimorbidity. This study aimed to measure the prevalence of multimorbidity in a primary care setting using two definitions of multimorbidity with two different lists of chronic conditions. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of 787,446 patients, aged 0 to 99 years, who consulted a family physician between July 2015 to June 2016. Multimorbidity was defined as ‘two or more’ (MM2+) or ‘three or more’ (MM3+) chronic conditions using the Fortin list and Chronic Disease Management Program (CDMP) list of chronic conditions. Crude and standardised prevalence rates were reported, and the corresponding age, sex or ethnic-stratified standardised prevalence rates were adjusted to the local population census. Results: The number of patients with multimorbidity increased with age. Age-sex-ethnicity standardised prevalence rates of multimorbidity using MM2+ and MM3+ for Fortin list (25.9, 17.2%) were higher than those for CDMP list (22.0%; 12.4%). Sex-stratified, age-ethnicity standardised prevalence rates for MM2+ and MM3+ were consistently higher in males compared to females for both lists. Chinese and Indians have the highest standardised prevalence rates among the four ethnicities using MM2+ and MM3+ respectively. Conclusions: MM3+ was better at identifying a smaller number of patients with multimorbidity requiring higher needs compared to MM2+. Using the Fortin list seemed more appropriate than the CDMP list because the chronic conditions in Fortin’s list were more commonly seen in primary care. A consistent definition of multimorbidity will help researchers and clinicians to understand the epidemiology of multimorbidity better

Test accuracy of faecal calprotectin for inflammatory bowel disease in UK primary care : a retrospective cohort study of the IMRD-UK data

Objective: To estimate the test accuracy of faecal calprotectin (FC) for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in the primary care setting using routine electronic health records. Design: Retrospective cohort test accuracy study. Setting: UK primary care. Participants: 5970 patients (≥18 years) without a previous IBD diagnosis and with a first FC test between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2016. We excluded multiple tests and tests without numeric results in units of µg/g. Intervention: FC testing for the diagnosis of IBD. Disease status was confirmed by a recorded diagnostic code and/or a drug code of an IBD-specific medication at three time points after the FC test date. Main outcome measures: Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for the differential of IBD versus non-IBD and IBD versus irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) at the 50 and 100 µg/g thresholds. Results: 5970 patients met the inclusion criteria and had at least 6 months of follow-up data after FC testing. 1897 had an IBS diagnosis, 208 had an IBD diagnosis, 31 had a colorectal cancer diagnosis, 80 had more than one diagnosis and 3754 had no subsequent diagnosis. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 92.9% (88.6% to 95.6%), 61.5% (60.2% to 62.7%), 8.1% (7.1% to 9.2%) and 99.6% (99.3% to 99.7%), respectively, at the threshold of 50 µg/g. Raising the threshold to 100 µg/g missed less than 7% additional IBD cases. Longer follow-up had no effect on test accuracy. Overall, uncertainty was greater for specificity than sensitivity. General practitioners’ (GPs’) referral decisions did not follow the anticipated clinical pathways in national guidance. Conclusions: GPs can be confident in excluding IBD on the basis of a negative FC test in a population with low pretest risk but should interpret a positive test with caution. The applicability of national guidance to general practice needs to be improved

Accredited qualifications for capacity development in disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation

Increasingly practitioners and policy makers working across the globe are recognising the importance of bringing together disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation. From studies across 15 Pacific island nations, a key barrier to improving national resilience to disaster risks and climate change impacts has been identified as a lack of capacity and expertise resulting from the absence of sustainable accredited and quality assured formal training programmes in the disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation sectors. In the 2016 UNISDR Science and Technology Conference on the Implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030, it was raised that most of the training material available are not reviewed either through a peer-to-peer mechanism or by the scientific community and are, thus, not following quality assurance standards. In response to these identified barriers, this paper focuses on a call for accredited formal qualifications for capacity development identified in the 2015 United Nations landmark agreements in DRR and CCA and uses the Pacific Islands Region of where this is now being implemented with the launch of the Pacific Regional Federation of Resilience Professionals, for DRR and CCA. A key issue is providing an accreditation and quality assurance mechanism that is shared across boundaries. This paper argues that by using the United Nations landmark agreements of 2015, support for a regionally accredited capacity development that ensures all countries can produce, access and effectively use scientific information for disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation. The newly launched Pacific Regional Federation of Resilience Professionals who work in disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation may offer a model that can be used more widely

The incidence and prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease in UK primary care: a retrospective cohort study of the IQVIA Medical Research Database

Background: Our knowledge of the incidence and prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is uncertain. Recent studies reported an increase in prevalence. However, they excluded a high proportion of ambiguous cases from general practice. Estimates are needed to inform health care providers who plan the provision of services for IBD patients. We aimed to estimate the IBD incidence and prevalence in UK general practice. Methods: We undertook a retrospective cohort study of routine electronic health records from the IQVIA Medical Research Database covering 14 million patients. Adult patients from 2006 to 2016 were included. IBD was defined as an IBD related Read code or record of IBD specific medication. Annual incidence and 12-month period prevalence were calculated. Results: The prevalence of IBD increased between 2006 and 2016 from 106.2 (95% CI 105.2–107.3) to 142.1 (95% CI 140.7–143.5) IBD cases per 10,000 patients which is a 33.8% increase. Incidence varied across the years. The incidence across the full study period was 69.5 (95% CI 68.6–70.4) per 100,000 person years. Conclusions: In this large study we found higher estimates of IBD incidence and prevalence than previously reported. Estimates are highly dependent on definitions of disease and previously may have been underestimated

Faecal calprotectin testing in UK general practice : a retrospective cohort study using The Health Improvement Network database

Faecal calprotectin (FC) testing to detect inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) was recommended for use in UK general practice in 2013. The actual use of FC testing following the national recommendations is unknown. To characterise the use of FC testing for IBD in UK general practice. A retrospective cohort study of routine electronic patient records from The Health Improvement Network database from UK general practice. The study included 6 965 853 adult patients (aged ≥18 years), between 2006 and 2016. FC test uptake, the patients tested, and patient management following testing were characterised. A total of 17 027 patients had 19 840 FC tests recorded. The mean age of tested patients was 44.2 years. The first FC tests were documented in 2009. FC test use was still increasing in 2016. By 2016, 66.8% ( = 493/738) of practices had started FC testing. About one-fifth (20.7%, = 1253/6051) of tests were carried out in patients aged ≥60 years. Only 7.8% ( = 473/6051) of the FC test records were preceded by symptoms eligible for FC testing. Only 3.1% ( = 1720/55 477) of patients with eligible symptoms have received FC testing since the national recommendations were published. There was only a small number of patients with symptoms, FC test, and a IBD diagnosis. In total, 71.3% ( = 1416/1987) of patients with a positive and 47.7% ( = 1337/2805) with a negative FC test were referred or further investigated. Uptake of FC testing in clinical practice has been slow and inconsistent. The indication of non-compliance with national recommendations may suggest that these recommendations lack applicability to the general practice context

Controlled in vitro delivery of voriconazole and diclofenac to the cornea using contact lenses for the treatment of Acanthamoeba keratitis

Acanthamoeba keratitis is caused by a protozoal infection of the cornea, with 80% of cases involving the improper use of contact lenses. The infection causes intense pain and is potentially blinding. However, early diagnosis improves treatment efficacy and the chances of healing. Despite the apparent accessibility of the cornea, patients do not always respond well to current eye drop treatments largely due to rapid dose loss due to blinking and nasolacrimal drainage. Here, the topical drug delivery of voriconazole alone and in combination with diclofenac via drug-loaded contact lenses, were investigated in vitro. The contact lenses were applied onto excised porcine eyeballs and maintained at 32°C under constant irrigation, with simulated tear fluid applied to mimic in vivo conditions. The drug delivered to the corneas was quantified by HPLC analysis. The system was further tested in terms of cytotoxicity and a scratch wound repopulation model, using corneal epithelial cells. Sustained drug delivery to the cornea was achieved and for voriconazole, the MIC against Acanthamoeba castellanii was attained alone and in combination with diclofenac. MTT and scratch wound data showed reasonable cell proliferation and wound repopulation at the drug doses used, supporting further development of the system to treat Acanthamoeba keratitis

PrEdiction of Risk and Communication of outcomE followIng major lower limb amputation – a collaboratiVE study (PERCEIVE): Protocol for the PERCEIVE qualitative study

INTRODUCTION: Deciding whether to proceed with a major lower limb amputation is life-changing and complex, and it is crucial that the right decision is made at the right time. However, medical specialists are known to poorly predict risk when assessing patients for major surgery, and there is little guidance and research regarding decisions about amputation. The process of shared decision-making between doctors and patients during surgical consultations is also little understood. Therefore, the aim of this study is to analyse in depth the communication, consent, risk prediction and decision-making process in relation to major lower limb amputation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Consultations between patients and surgeons at which major lower limb amputation is discussed will be audio-recorded for 10–15 patients. Semi-structured follow-up interviews with patients (and relatives/carers) will then be conducted at two time points: as soon as possible/appropriate after a decision has been reached regarding surgery, and approximately 6 months later. Semi-structured interviews will also be conducted with 10–15 healthcare professionals working in the UK National Health Service (NHS) involved in amputation decision-making. This will include surgeons, anaesthetists and specialist physiotherapists at 2–4 NHS Health Boards/Trusts in Wales and England. Discourse analysis will be used to analyse the recorded consultations; interviews will be analysed thematically. Finally, workshops will be held with patients and healthcare professionals to help synthesise and interpret findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by Wales REC 7 (20/WA/0351). Study findings will be published in international peer-reviewed journal(s) and presented at national and international scientific meetings. Findings will also be disseminated to a wide NHS and lay audience via presentations at meetings and written summaries for key stakeholder groups

Safe prescribing training provision for junior doctors: is this optimal?

Background The aim of this study was to determine the training provisions in practical safe prescribing for foundation doctors in NHS hospitals located in the South Thames region. Methods A web-based questionnaire was distributed by e-mail to all 1762 foundation doctors in the South Thames Foundation School (STFS) region. In addition, a separate questionnaire was distributed to prescribing training Leads at 15 NHS Hospital Trusts. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis was performed on qualitative data. Results Trainers: 10 Prescribing Leads (67 %) responded. Of the 9 NHS Trusts that offered safe prescribing training in their induction programme, 5 included a practical prescribing session. By the end of the foundation year, 6 NHS Trusts had provided at least one dedicated practical prescribing session for F1s compared with 2 NHS Trusts for F2s. Trainees: A total of 124 foundation trainees (7.2 %) responded (69 F1s and 55 F2s). 87 % of F1s received dedicated training in safe prescribing at their Trust induction (n = 60) in comparison to 49 % of F2s (n = 27). 80 % of F1s (n = 55) had a practical prescribing session during induction versus 27 % of F2s (n = 15). The difference was significant, X2 (1, N = 124) = 34.23, p <0.0001. Emerging themes from qualitative data included, recognition of medical education as a continuum, importance of working relationships with pharmacists and neglect of F2s. Conclusions There appears to be a lack of emphasis on the training of F2 doctors in practical safe prescribing compared with F1 doctors. There should be standardisation of safe prescribing training provisions, particularly in the induction period and for F2 doctors