Drivers for change in primary care of diabetes following a protected learning time educational event: interview study of practitioners

Background: A number of protected learning time schemes have been set up in primary care across the United Kingdom but there has been little published evidence of their impact on processes of care. We undertook a qualitative study to investigate the perceptions of practitioners involved in a specific educational intervention in diabetes as part of a protected learning time scheme for primary health care teams, relating to changing processes of diabetes care in general practice. Methods: We undertook semistructured interviews of key informants from a sample of practices stratified according to the extent they had changed behaviour in prescribing of ramipril and diabetes care more generally, following a specific educational intervention in Lincolnshire, United Kingdom. Interviews sought information on facilitators and barriers to change in organisational behaviour for the care of diabetes. Results: An interprofessional protected learning time scheme event was perceived by some but not all participants as bringing about changes in processes for diabetes care. Participants cited examples of change introduced partly as a result of the educational session. This included using ACE inhibitors as first line for patients with diabetes who developed hypertension, increased use of aspirin, switching patients to glitazones, and conversion to insulin either directly or by referral to secondary care. Other reported factors for change, unrelated to the educational intervention, included financially driven performance targets, research evidence and national guidance. Facilitators for change linked to the educational session were peer support and teamworking supported by audit and comparative feedback. Conclusion: This study has shown how a protected learning time scheme, using interprofessional learning, local opinion leaders and early implementers as change agents may have influenced changes in systems of diabetes care in selected practices but also how other confounding factors played an important part in changes that occurred in practice

How effective are Z-drug hypnotics for treatment of adult insomnia? Meta-analysis of data submitted to the Food and Drug Administration

The Problem: Z-drugs are the most commonly prescribed hypnotics worldwide. They are widely prescribed because general practitioners and patients believe that they are effective and superior to older hypnotics. Previous meta-analyses of Z-drugs suffer from publication or reporting bias and did not adequately examine study heterogeneity. We wanted to investigate the effectiveness of Z-drugs in adults using a data source that was less likely to be affected by publication bias. The approach: We examined clinical trials of currently approved Z-drugs submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) since pharmaceutical companies are required to provide information on all sponsored trials, whether published or not, when applying for new drug approvals. We included randomized double blind placebo controlled trials and excluded studies with a crossover design, those including healthy patients with normal sleep or single night studies with induced insomnia. We analysed drug efficacy as change score from baseline to posttest for drug and placebo groups, and the difference of both change scores for available outcomes. Weighted raw and standardized mean differences with their confidence intervals (CIs) under random-effects assumptions were calculated for polysomnographic (PSG) and subjective outcomes: wake after sleep onset, sleep latency, number of awakenings, total sleep time, sleep efficiency, subjective sleep quality, and morning sleepiness score. We performed weighted regression moderator analysis to explain heterogeneity of drug effects. Findings: We included 16 studies comprising 4973 subjects from different countries, varying drug dosages, treatment lengths and study years. Z-drugs showed significant but small improvements (reductions) only in PSG (d+ = -0.36, 95% CI = -0.57 to -0.16) and subjective sleep latency (d+ = -0.33, 95% CI = -0.62 to -0.041) compared with placebo. Analyses of weighted mean raw differences indicated that drugs decreased sleep latency by only 22 minutes (95% CI = -33 TO -11) with no evidence of change in other measures. Moderator analyses indicated that sleep latency was more likely to be reduced with larger drug doses, studies published earlier, including higher proportions of younger or women patients, and of longer treatment duration. Consequences: This study of FDA data shows that, despite being commonly prescribed, Z-drugs have limited benefit with small reductions in subjective and PSG sleep latency especially with larger dosages, but no improvement in other sleep measures compared to placebo. Placebo effects were moderate for sleep latency. Doctors and patients need to be aware of the relative benefits as well as harms of hypnotic drugs when deciding to use them in preference to psychological treatments

Introducing genetic testing for cardiovascular disease in primary care: a qualitative study

Background: While primary care systematically offers conventional cardiovascular risk assessment, genetic tests for coronary heart disease (CHD) are increasingly commercially available to patients. It is unclear how individuals may respond to these new sources of risk information. Aim: To explore how patients who have had a recent conventional cardiovascular risk assessment, perceive additional information from genetic testing for CHD. Design and setting: Qualitative interview study in 12 practices in Nottinghamshire from both urban and rural settings. Method: Interviews were conducted with 29 adults, who consented to genetic testing after having had a conventional cardiovascular risk assessment. Results: Individuals’ principal motivation for genetic testing was their family history of CHD and a desire to convey the results to their children. After testing, however, there was limited recall of genetic test results and scepticism about the value of informing their children. Participants dealt with conflicting findings from the genetic test, family history, and conventional assessment by either focusing on genetic risk or environmental lifestyle factors. In some participants, genetic test results appeared to reinforce healthy behaviour but others were falsely reassured, despite having an ‘above-average’ conventional cardiovascular risk score. Conclusion: Although genetic testing was acceptable, participants were unclear how to interpret genetic risk results. To facilitate healthy behaviour, health professionals should explore patients’ understanding of genetic test results in light of their family history and conventional risk assessment

Confidentiality in the waiting room: an observational study in general practice

An ethnographic study using overt non-participatory observation was used to investigate confidentiality breaches in 13 GP practice reception and/or waiting areas in Lincolnshire. Staff and patient behaviours were observed for 2 hours. Aspects of management systems and physical environment were also thematically analysed. Forty-four instances occurred where patient-identifiable information was overheard. Of these instances, 22 were initiated by staff, 22 by patients, 33 face-to-face, and 10 from telephone conversations. Breaches included name and address, symptoms, conditions, or test results. Interaction between systems and physical environment in relation to ‘attention focus’, ‘sound’ and ‘layout’, increased the likelihood of breach of confidentiality. Further research on the patient perspective is recommended

Realising the potential of the family history in risk assessment and primary prevention of coronary heart disease in primary care: ADDFAM study protocol

Background: Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the leading cause of death in the developed world, and its prevention a core activity in current UK general practice. Currently, family history is not systematically integrated into cardiovascular risk assessment in the UK, Europe or the US. Further, primary health care professionals' lack the confidence to interpret family history information and there is a low level of recording of family history information in General Practice (GP) records. Primary prevention of CHD through lifestyle advice has sometimes yielded modest results although, for example, behavioural interventions targeted at "at risk" patients have produced encouraging findings. A family history approach, targeted at those requesting CHD assessment, could motivate lifestyle change. The project will assess the clinical value of incorporating systematic family history information into CHD risk assessment in primary care, from the perspective of the users of this service, the health care practitioners providing this service, and the National Health Service. Methods/Design: The study will include three distinct phases: (1) cross-sectional survey to ascertain baseline information on current recording of family information; (2) through an exploratory matched-pair cluster randomised study, with nested qualitative semi-structured interview and focus group study, to assess the impact of systematic family history recording on participants' and primary care professionals' experience; (3) develop an economic model of the costs and benefits of incorporating family history into CHD risk assessment. Discussion: On completion of the project, users and primary care practitioners will be more informed of the value and utility of including family history in CHD risk assessment. Further, this approach will also act as a model of how familial risk information can be integrated within mainstream primary care preventive services for common chronic diseases