Explore the vast range of titles available.

Geva Greenfield and colleagues ask whether it is time to reconsider the role of the GP as gatekeeper to specialist services, and call for more evidence to guide future policy

ObjectiveClinical guidelines on heart failure (HF) suggest timings for investigation and referral in primary care. We calculated the time for patients to achieve key elements in the recommended pathway to diagnosis of HF.MethodsIn this observational study, we used linked primary and secondary care data (Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a database of anonymised electronic records from UK general practices) between 2010 and 2013. Records were examined for presenting symptoms (breathlessness, fatigue, ankle swelling) and key elements of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-recommended pathway to diagnosis (serum natriuretic peptide (NP) test, echocardiography, specialist referral).Results42 403 patients were diagnosed with HF, of whom 16 597 presented in primary care with suggestive symptoms. 6464 (39%) had recorded NP or echocardiography, and 6043 (36%) specialist referral. Median time from recorded symptom(s) to investigation (NP or echocardiography) was 292 days (IQR 34–844) and to referral 236 days (IQR 42–721). Median time from symptom(s) to diagnosis was 972 days (IQR 337–1468) and to treatment with HF-relevant medication 803 days (IQR 230–1364). Factors significantly affecting timing of referral, treatment and diagnosis included patients’ sex (p=0.001), age (p<0.001), deprivation score (p=0.001), comorbidities (p<0.001) and presenting symptom type (p<0.001).ConclusionsMedian times to investigation or referral of patients presenting in primary care with symptoms suggestive of HF considerably exceeded recommendations. There is a need to support clinicians in the diagnosis of HF in primary care, with improved access to investigation and specialist assessment to support timely management.

The adoption of virtual consultations, catalyzed by the COVID-19 pandemic, has transformed the delivery of primary care services. Owing to their rapid global proliferation, there is a need to comprehensively evaluate the impact of virtual consultations on all aspects of care quality. This study aims to evaluate the impact of virtual consultations on the quality of primary care. A total of 6 databases were searched. Studies that evaluated the impact of virtual consultations, for any disease, were included. Title and abstract screening and full-text screening were performed by 2 pairs of investigators. Risk of bias was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. A narrative synthesis of the results was performed. In total, 30 studies (5,469,333 participants) were included in this review. Our findings suggest that virtual consultations are equally effective to or more effective than face-to-face care for the management of certain conditions, including mental illness, excessive smoking, and alcohol consumption. Overall, 4 studies indicated positive impacts on some aspects of patient-centeredness; however, a negative impact was noted on patients' perceived autonomy support (ie, the degree to which people perceive those in positions of authority to be autonomy supportive). Virtual consultations may reduce waiting times, lower patient costs, and reduce rates of follow-up in secondary and tertiary care settings. Evidence for the impact on clinical safety is extremely limited. Evidence regarding equity was considerably mixed. Overall, it appears that virtual care is more likely to be used by younger, female patients, with disparities among other subgroups depending on contextual factors. Our systematic review demonstrated that virtual consultations may be as effective as face-to-face care and have a potentially positive impact on the efficiency and timeliness of care; however, there is a considerable lack of evidence on the impacts on patient safety, equity, and patient-centeredness, highlighting areas where future research efforts should be devoted. Capitalizing on real-world data, as well as clinical trials, is crucial to ensure that the use of virtual consultations is tailored according to patient needs and is inclusive of the intended end users. Data collection methods that are bespoke to the primary care context and account for patient characteristics are necessary to generate a stronger evidence base to inform future virtual care policies.

Universal health coverage (UHC) can play an important role in achieving Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 10, which addresses reducing inequalities, but little supporting evidence is available from low- and middle-income countries. Brazil's Estratégia de Saúde da Família (ESF) (family health strategy) is a community-based primary healthcare (PHC) programme that has been expanding since the 1990s and is the main platform for delivering UHC in the country. We evaluated whether expansion of the ESF was associated with differential reductions in mortality amenable to PHC between racial groups. Municipality-level longitudinal fixed-effects panel regressions were used to examine associations between ESF coverage and mortality from ambulatory-care-sensitive conditions (ACSCs) in black/pardo (mixed race) and white individuals over the period 2000-2013. Models were adjusted for socio-economic development and wider health system variables. Over the period 2000-2013, there were 281,877 and 318,030 ACSC deaths (after age standardisation) in the black/pardo and white groups, respectively, in the 1,622 municipalities studied. Age-standardised ACSC mortality fell from 93.3 to 57.9 per 100,000 population in the black/pardo group and from 75.7 to 49.2 per 100,000 population in the white group. ESF expansion (from 0% to 100%) was associated with a 15.4% (rate ratio [RR]: 0.846; 95% CI: 0.796-0.899) reduction in ACSC mortality in the black/pardo group compared with a 6.8% (RR: 0.932; 95% CI: 0.892-0.974) reduction in the white group (coefficients significantly different, p = 0.012). These differential benefits were driven by greater reductions in mortality from infectious diseases, nutritional deficiencies and anaemia, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease in the black/pardo group. Although the analysis is ecological, sensitivity analyses suggest that over 30% of black/pardo deaths would have to be incorrectly coded for the results to be invalid. This study is limited by the use of municipal-aggregate data, which precludes individual-level inference. Omitted variable bias, where factors associated with ESF expansion are also associated with changes in mortality rates, may have influenced our findings, although sensitivity analyses show the robustness of the findings to pre-ESF trends and the inclusion of other municipal-level factors that could be associated with coverage. PHC expansion is associated with reductions in racial group inequalities in mortality in Brazil. These findings highlight the importance of investment in PHC to achieve the SDGs aimed at improving health and reducing inequalities.

Understanding why some migrants in Europe are at risk of underimmunisation and show lower vaccination uptake for routine and COVID-19 vaccines is critical if we are to address vaccination inequities and meet the goals of WHO's new Immunisation Agenda 2030. We did a systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42020219214) exploring barriers and facilitators of vaccine uptake (categorised using the 5As taxonomy: access, awareness, affordability, acceptance, activation) and sociodemographic determinants of undervaccination among migrants in the EU and European Economic Area, the UK, and Switzerland. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO from 2000 to 2021 for primary research, with no restrictions on language. 5259 data sources were screened, with 67 studies included from 16 countries, representing 366 529 migrants. We identified multiple access barriers—including language, literacy, and communication barriers, practical and legal barriers to accessing and delivering vaccination services, and service barriers such as lack of specific guidelines and knowledge of health-care professionals—for key vaccines including measles-mumps-rubella, diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus, human papillomavirus, influenza, polio, and COVID-19 vaccines. Acceptance barriers were mostly reported in eastern European and Muslim migrants for human papillomavirus, measles, and influenza vaccines. We identified 23 significant determinants of undervaccination in migrants (p<0·05), including African origin, recent migration, and being a refugee or asylum seeker. We did not identify a strong overall association with gender or age. Tailored vaccination messaging, community outreach, and behavioural nudges facilitated uptake. Migrants' barriers to accessing health care are already well documented, and this Review confirms their role in limiting vaccine uptake. These findings hold immediate relevance to strengthening vaccination programmes in high-income countries, including for COVID-19, and suggest that tailored, culturally sensitive, and evidence-informed strategies, unambiguous public health messaging, and health system strengthening are needed to address access and acceptance barriers to vaccination in migrants and create opportunities and pathways for offering catch-up vaccinations to migrants.

Vaccination during pregnancy protects both the mother and the foetus from vaccine-preventable diseases. However, uptake of the recommended vaccines (influenza, pertussis, COVID-19) by pregnant women remains low in Europe and the USA. Understanding the reasons for this is crucial to inform strategies to increase vaccination rates in pregnant women. This qualitative systematic review aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators to vaccination against influenza, pertussis/whooping cough and COVID-19 during pregnancy and identify possible strategies to increase vaccination rates. We conducted a comprehensive search of electronic databases, including Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, WHO database, Embase and grey literature to identify qualitative studies that explored barriers and facilitators to vaccine uptake among pregnant women (PROSPERO CRD42023399488). The search was limited to studies published between 2012 and 2022 conducted in high-income countries with established vaccination programmes during pregnancy. Studies were thematically analysed and underwent quality assessment using the Joanna Briggs Institute validated critical appraisal tool for qualitative research. Out of 2681 articles screened, 28 studies (n = 1573 participants) were eligible for inclusion. Five overarching themes emerged relating to personal, provider and systemic factors. Barriers to vaccine uptake included concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy, lack of knowledge about vaccines' benefits and necessity, fear of adverse effects on the foetus or mother and low perception of disease severity. Facilitators included recommendations from trusted healthcare providers, easy access to vaccination, clear communication on the benefits and safety of vaccination, and positive social influences from family and friends. Strategies for increasing vaccination uptake included strong and proactive vaccine recommendations by trusted healthcare professionals, provision of vaccines during routine antenatal care, and clear and consistent communication about vaccines addressing pregnant women's concerns. This review highlights the need for interventions that address the identified barriers to vaccine uptake among pregnant women. Recommendation from a healthcare provider can play a significant role in promoting vaccine uptake, as can clear risk/benefit communication and convenient access to vaccination. Addressing concerns about vaccine safety and providing accurate information about vaccines is also important.

Primary care access is often judged by appointment supply, waiting times, and utilisation, yet patients experience access as a series of small obstacles that accumulate into delay, drop-off, and avoidable deterioration. Building on existing literature on administrative burden, treatment burden, digital exclusion, and telemedicine inequity, this commentary proposes the Access Friction Index (AFI) as a practical framework for measuring the real-world effort required to convert a health need into timely assessment, follow-up, and treatment. Drawing on recent evidence from the UK, US and other settings, it links access friction to inequities for vulnerable groups, missed screening, medication non-adherence, unplanned return visits, and avoidable hospital use. It also outlines how routine service data and electronic records could be used to identify friction hotspots—including repeated contact, mode switching, handoffs, results handling failures, and delayed pathway closure—and how primary care-community approaches such as navigation and outreach might reduce friction while improving outcomes.

Polypharmacy, prescription of multiple medications to a patient, is a major challenge for health systems. There have been no peer-reviewed studies of polypharmacy prevalence and medication cost at a population level in England. To determine prevalence and medication cost of polypharmacy, by patient characteristics. Design and setting: Retrospective cohort study of North West London electronic health records. We quantified prevalence and direct cost of polypharmacy (five or more regular medications), stratified by demographics and frailty. We fitted a mixed-effects logistic regression for polypharmacy. Of 1.7 million adults, 167,665 (9.4%) were on polypharmacy. Age and socio-economic deprivation were associated with polypharmacy (OR 9.24 95% CI 8.99 to 9.50, age 65-74 compared with 18-44; OR 0.68 95% CI 0.65 to 0.71, least deprived compared with most). Polypharmacy prevalence increased with frailty (OR 1.53 95% CI 1.53 to 1.54 per frailty component, for White women). Men had higher odds of polypharmacy than women at average frailty (OR 1.26 95% CI 1.24 to 1.28) and with additional frailty components (OR 1.10 95% CI 1.09 to 1.10). Black people had lower odds of polypharmacy at average frailty (OR 0.82 95% CI 0.79 to 0.85, compared with White), but along with other ethnicities, saw greater odds increases with increasing frailty (OR 1.02 95% CI 1.01 to 1.03). Annual medication cost 8.2 times more for those on polypharmacy compared with not (£370.89 and £45.31). Demographic characteristics are associated with polypharmacy, after adjusting for frailty. Further research should explore why, to reduce health inequities and optimise cost associated with polypharmacy.