Background

The top 3% of frequent attendance in primary care is associated with 15% of all appointments in primary care, a fivefold increase in hospital expenditure, and more mental disorder and functional somatic symptoms compared to normal attendance. Although often temporary if these rates of attendance last more than two years, they may become persistent (persistent frequent or regular attendance). However, there is no long-term study of the economic impact or clinical characteristics of regular attendance in primary care. Cognitive behaviour formulation and treatment (CBT) for regular attendance as a motivated behaviour may offer an understanding of the development, maintenance and treatment of regular attendance in the context of their health problems, cognitive processes and social context.

Methods/design

A case control design will compare the clinical characteristics, patterns of health care use and economic costs over the last 10 years of 100 regular attenders (≥30 appointments with general practitioner [GP] over 2 years) with 100 normal attenders (6–22 appointments with GP over 2 years), from purposefully selected primary care practices with differing organisation of care and patient demographics. Qualitative interviews with regular attending patients and practice staff will explore patient barriers, drivers and experiences of consultation, and organisation of care by practices with its challenges. Cognitive behaviour formulation analysed thematically will explore the development, maintenance and therapeutic opportunities for management in regular attenders. The feasibility, acceptability and utility of CBT for regular attendance will be examined.

Discussion

The health care costs, clinical needs, patient motivation for consultation and organisation of care for persistent frequent or regular attendance in primary care will be explored to develop training and policies for service providers. CBT for regular attendance will be piloted with a view to developing this approach as part of a multifaceted intervention.

Summary

Background

Medication errors are common in primary care and are associated with considerable risk of patient harm. We tested whether a pharmacist-led, information technology-based intervention was more effective than simple feedback in reducing the number of patients at risk of measures related to hazardous prescribing and inadequate blood-test monitoring of medicines 6 months after the intervention.

Methods

In this pragmatic, cluster randomised trial general practices in the UK were stratified by research site and list size, and randomly assigned by a web-based randomisation service in block sizes of two or four to one of two groups. The practices were allocated to either computer-generated simple feedback for at-risk patients (control) or a pharmacist-led information technology intervention (PINCER), composed of feedback, educational outreach, and dedicated support. The allocation was masked to general practices, patients, pharmacists, researchers, and statisticians. Primary outcomes were the proportions of patients at 6 months after the intervention who had had any of three clinically important errors: non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) prescribed to those with a history of peptic ulcer without co-prescription of a proton-pump inhibitor; β blockers prescribed to those with a history of asthma; long-term prescription of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or loop diuretics to those 75 years or older without assessment of urea and electrolytes in the preceding 15 months. The cost per error avoided was estimated by incremental cost-effectiveness analysis. This study is registered with Controlled-Trials.com, number ISRCTN21785299.

Findings

72 general practices with a combined list size of 480 942 patients were randomised. At 6 months' follow-up, patients in the PINCER group were significantly less likely to have been prescribed a non-selective NSAID if they had a history of peptic ulcer without gastroprotection (OR 0·58, 95% CI 0·38–0·89); a β blocker if they had asthma (0·73, 0·58–0·91); or an ACE inhibitor or loop diuretic without appropriate monitoring (0·51, 0·34–0·78). PINCER has a 95% probability of being cost effective if the decision-maker's ceiling willingness to pay reaches £75 per error avoided at 6 months.

Interpretation

The PINCER intervention is an effective method for reducing a range of medication errors in general practices with computerised clinical records.

Funding

Patient Safety Research Portfolio, Department of Health, England.

Background

Many older people presenting to Acute Medical Units (AMU) are discharged after only a short stay (< 72 hours), yet many re-present to hospital or die within 1 year. Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment may improve patient outcomes for this group.

Method

Participants

Patients aged > 70 years and scoring positive on a risk screening tool ('Identification of Seniors At Risk') who are discharged within 72 hours of attending an AMU with a medical crisis, recruited prior to discharge. Sample size is 400. Carers of participants will also be recruited.

Intervention

Assessment on the AMU and further out-patient management by a specialist physician in geriatric medicine. Assessment and further management will follow the principles of Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment, providing advice and support to primary care services.

Design

Multi-centre, individual patient randomised controlled trial comparing intervention with usual care.

Outcome measurement

Follow up is by postal questionnaire 90 days after randomisation, and data will be entered into the study database by a researcher blind to allocation. The primary outcome is the number of days spent at home (for those admitted from home), or days spent in the same care home (if admitted from a care home). Secondary outcomes include mortality, institutionalisation, health and social care resource use, and scaled outcome measures, including quality of life, disability, mental well-being. Carer strain and well being will also be measured at 90 days.

Analyses

Comparisons of outcomes and costs, and a cost utility analysis between the intervention and control groups will be carried out.

Trial Registration

ISRCTN: ISRCTN21800480