Explore the vast range of titles available.

Health services in many countries are promoting digital-first models of access to general practice based on offering online, video, or telephone consultations before a face-to-face consultation. It is claimed that this will improve access for patients and moderate the workload of doctors. However, improved access could also potentially increase doctors' workload. The aim of this study was to explore whether and under what circumstances digital-first access to general practice is likely to decrease or increase general practice workload. A process map to delineate primary care access pathways was developed and a model to estimate general practice workload constructed in Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corp). The model was populated using estimates of key variables obtained from a systematic review of published studies. A MEDLINE search was conducted for studies published in English between January 1, 2000, and September 30, 2019. Included papers provided quantitative data about online, telephone, or video consultations for unselected patients requesting a general practice in-hours consultation for any problem. We excluded studies of general practitioners consulting specialists, consultations not conducted by doctors, and consultations conducted after hours, in secondary care, in specialist services, or for a specific health care problem. Data about the following variables were extracted from the included papers to form the model inputs: the proportion of consultations managed digitally, the proportion of digital consultations completed without a subsequent consultation, the proportion of subsequent consultations conducted by telephone rather than face-to-face, consultation duration, and the proportion of digital consultations that represent new demand. The outcome was general practice workload. The model was used to test the likely impact of different digital-first scenarios, based on the best available evidence and the plausible range of estimates from the published studies. The model allows others to test the impact on workload of varying assumptions about model inputs. Digital-first approaches are likely to increase general practice workload unless they are shorter, and a higher proportion of patients are managed without a subsequent consultation than observed in most published studies. In our base-case scenarios (based on the best available evidence), digital-first access models using online, telephone, or video consultations are likely to increase general practitioner workload by 25%, 3%, and 31%, respectively. An important determinant of workload is whether the availability of digital-first approaches changes the demand for general practice consultations, but there is little robust evidence to answer this question. Digital-first approaches to primary care could increase general practice workload unless stringent conditions are met. Justification for these approaches should be based on evidence about the benefits in relation to the costs, rather than assumptions about reductions in workload. Given the potential increase in workload, which in due course could worsen problems of access, these initiatives should be implemented in a staged way alongside careful evaluation.

Primary care is the main source of health care in many health systems, including the UK National Health Service (NHS), but few objective data exist for the volume and nature of primary care activity. With rising concerns that NHS primary care workload has increased substantially, we aimed to assess the direct clinical workload of general practitioners (GPs) and practice nurses in primary care in the UK. We did a retrospective analysis of GP and nurse consultations of non-temporary patients registered at 398 English general practices between April, 2007, and March, 2014. We used data from electronic health records routinely entered in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, and linked CPRD data to national datasets. Trends in age-standardised and sex-standardised consultation rates were modelled with joinpoint regression analysis. The dataset comprised 101 818 352 consultations and 20 626 297 person-years of observation. The crude annual consultation rate per person increased by 10·51%, from 4·67 in 2007–08, to 5·16 in 2013–14. Consultation rates were highest in infants (age 0–4 years) and elderly people (≥85 years), and were higher for female patients than for male patients of all ages. The greatest increases in age-standardised and sex-standardised rates were in GPs, with a rise of 12·36% per 10 000 person-years, compared with 0·9% for practice nurses. GP telephone consultation rates doubled, compared with a 5·20% rise in surgery consultations, which accounted for 90% of all consultations. The mean duration of GP surgery consultations increased by 6·7%, from 8·65 min (95% CI 8·64–8·65) to 9·22 min (9·22–9·23), and overall workload increased by 16%. Our findings show a substantial increase in practice consultation rates, average consultation duration, and total patient-facing clinical workload in English general practice. These results suggest that English primary care as currently delivered could be reaching saturation point. Notably, our data only explore direct clinical workload and not indirect activities and professional duties, which have probably also increased. This and additional research questions, including the outcomes of workload changes on other sectors of health care, need urgent answers for primary care provision internationally. Department of Health Policy Research Programme.

Multimorbidity is a major concern in primary care. Nevertheless, evidence of prevalence and patterns of multimorbidity, and their determinants, are scarce. The aim of this study is to systematically review studies of the prevalence, patterns and determinants of multimorbidity in primary care. Systematic review of literature published between 1961 and 2013 and indexed in Ovid (CINAHL, PsychINFO, Medline and Embase) and Web of Knowledge. Studies were selected according to eligibility criteria of addressing prevalence, determinants, and patterns of multimorbidity and using a pretested proforma in primary care. The quality and risk of bias were assessed using STROBE criteria. Two researchers assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion (Kappa= 0.86). We identified 39 eligible publications describing studies that included a total of 70,057,611 patients in 12 countries. The number of health conditions analysed per study ranged from 5 to 335, with multimorbidity prevalence ranging from 12.9% to 95.1%. All studies observed a significant positive association between multimorbidity and age (odds ratio [OR], 1.26 to 227.46), and lower socioeconomic status (OR, 1.20 to 1.91). Positive associations with female gender and mental disorders were also observed. The most frequent patterns of multimorbidity included osteoarthritis together with cardiovascular and/or metabolic conditions. Well-established determinants of multimorbidity include age, lower socioeconomic status and gender. The most prevalent conditions shape the patterns of multimorbidity. However, the limitations of the current evidence base means that further and better designed studies are needed to inform policy, research and clinical practice, with the goal of improving health-related quality of life for patients with multimorbidity. Standardization of the definition and assessment of multimorbidity is essential in order to better understand this phenomenon, and is a necessary immediate step.

AbstractObjectiveTo compare the efficacy, safety, and cost effectiveness of direct acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for patients with atrial fibrillation.DesignSystematic review, network meta-analysis, and cost effectiveness analysis.Data sourcesMedline, PreMedline, Embase, and The Cochrane Library.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesPublished randomised trials evaluating the use of a DOAC, vitamin K antagonist, or antiplatelet drug for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation.Results23 randomised trials involving 94 656 patients were analysed: 13 compared a DOAC with warfarin dosed to achieve a target INR of 2.0-3.0. Apixaban 5 mg twice daily (odds ratio 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.94), dabigatran 150 mg twice daily (0.65, 0.52 to 0.81), edoxaban 60 mg once daily (0.86, 0.74 to 1.01), and rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (0.88, 0.74 to 1.03) reduced the risk of stroke or systemic embolism compared with warfarin. The risk of stroke or systemic embolism was higher with edoxaban 60 mg once daily (1.33, 1.02 to 1.75) and rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (1.35, 1.03 to 1.78) than with dabigatran 150 mg twice daily. The risk of all-cause mortality was lower with all DOACs than with warfarin. Apixaban 5 mg twice daily (0.71, 0.61 to 0.81), dabigatran 110 mg twice daily (0.80, 0.69 to 0.93), edoxaban 30 mg once daily (0.46, 0.40 to 0.54), and edoxaban 60 mg once daily (0.78, 0.69 to 0.90) reduced the risk of major bleeding compared with warfarin. The risk of major bleeding was higher with dabigatran 150 mg twice daily than apixaban 5 mg twice daily (1.33, 1.09 to 1.62), rivaroxaban 20 mg twice daily than apixaban 5 mg twice daily (1.45, 1.19 to 1.78), and rivaroxaban 20 mg twice daily than edoxaban 60 mg once daily (1.31, 1.07 to 1.59). The risk of intracranial bleeding was substantially lower for most DOACs compared with warfarin, whereas the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding was higher with some DOACs than warfarin. Apixaban 5 mg twice daily was ranked the highest for most outcomes, and was cost effective compared with warfarin.ConclusionsThe network meta-analysis informs the choice of DOACs for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. Several DOACs are of net benefit compared with warfarin. A trial directly comparing DOACs would overcome the need for indirect comparisons to be made through network meta-analysis.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD 42013005324.

ObjectiveTo develop and validate a new scale to assess treatment burden (the effort of looking after one’s health) for patients with multimorbidity.DesignMixed-methods.SettingUK primary care.ParticipantsContent of the Multimorbidity Treatment Burden Questionnaire (MTBQ) was based on a literature review and views from a patient and public involvement group. Face validity was assessed through cognitive interviews. The scale was piloted and the final version was tested in 1546 adults with multimorbidity (mean age 71 years) who took part in the 3D Study, a cluster randomised controlled trial. For each question, we examined the proportion of missing data and the distribution of responses. Factor analysis, Cronbach’s alpha, Spearman’s rank correlations and longitudinal regression assessed dimensional structure, internal consistency reliability, construct validity and responsiveness, respectively. We assessed interpretability by grouping the global MTBQ scores into zero and tertiles (>0) and comparing participant characteristics across these categories.ResultsCognitive interviews found good acceptability and content validity. Factor analysis supported a one-factor solution. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.83, indicating internal consistency reliability. The MTBQ score had a positive association with a comparator treatment burden scale (rs 0.58, P<0.0001) and with self-reported disease burden (rs 0.43, P<0.0001), and a negative association with quality of life (rs−0.36, P<0.0001) and self-rated health (rs−0.36, P<0.0001). Female participants, younger participants and participants with mental health conditions were more likely to have high treatment burden scores. Changes in MTBQ score over 9-month follow-up were associated, as expected, with changes in measures of quality of life (EuroQol five dimensions, five level questionnaire) and patient-centred care (Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care).ConclusionThe MTBQ is a 10-item measure of treatment burden for patients with multimorbidity that has demonstrated good content validity, construct validity, reliability and responsiveness. It is a useful research tool for assessing the impact of interventions on treatment burden.Trial registration numberISRCTN06180958.

Psychological therapies have been shown to be effective in the treatment of depression. However, evidence is focused on individually delivered therapies, with less evidence for group-based therapies. To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of group-based psychological therapies for depression in primary care and the community. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group database from inception to July 2010. The Cochrane risk of bias methodology was applied. Twenty-three studies were included. The majority showed considerable risk of bias. Analysis of group cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) v. usual care alone (14 studies) showed a significant effect in favour of group CBT immediately post-treatment (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.55 (95% CI -0.78 to -0.32)). There was some evidence of benefit being maintained at short-term (SMD = -0.47 (95% CI -1.06 to 0.12)) and medium- to long-term follow-up (SMD = -0.47 (95% CI - 0.87 to -0.08)). Studies of group CBT v. individually delivered CBT therapy (7 studies) showed a moderate treatment effect in favour of individually delivered CBT immediately post-treatment (SMD = 0.38 (95% CI 0.09-0.66)) but no evidence of difference at short- or medium- to long-term follow-up. Four studies described comparisons for three other types of group psychological therapies. Group CBT confers benefit for individuals who are clinically depressed over that of usual care alone. Individually delivered CBT is more effective than group CBT immediately following treatment but after 3 months there is no evidence of difference. The quality of evidence is poor. Evidence about group psychological therapies not based on CBT is particularly limited.

Abstract Objective: To determine whether nurse practitioners can provide care at first point of contact equivalent to doctors in a primary care setting. Design: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials and prospective observational studies. Data sources: Cochrane controlled trials register, specialist register of trials maintained by Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, science citation index, database of abstracts of reviews of effectiveness, national research register, hand searches, and published bibliographies. Included studies: Randomised controlled trials and prospective observational studies comparing nurse practitioners and doctors providing care at first point of contact for patients with undifferentiated health problems in a primary care setting and providing data on one or more of the following outcomes: patient satisfaction, health status, costs, and process of care. Results: 11 trials and 23 observational studies met all the inclusion criteria. Patients were more satisfied with care by a nurse practitioner (standardised mean difference 0.27, 95% confidence interval 0.07 to 0.47). No differences in health status were found. Nurse practitioners had longer consultations (weighted mean difference 3.67 minutes, 2.05 to 5.29) and made more investigations (odds ratio 1.22, 1.02 to 1.46) than did doctors. No differences were found in prescriptions, return consultations, or referrals. Quality of care was in some ways better for nurse practitioner consultations. Conclusion: Increasing availability of nurse practitioners in primary care is likely to lead to high levels of patient satisfaction and high quality care. What is already known on this topic Nurse practitioners have existed in North America for many years An increasing number of such nurses are being employed in the United Kingdom in general practice, emergency departments, and other primary care settings Reviews suggest that nurse practitioners are equivalent to doctors on most variables studied, but the relevance of this in the context of the NHS is unclear What this study adds Patients are more satisfied with care from a nurse practitioner than from a doctor, with no difference in health outcomes Nurse practitioners provide longer consultations and carry out more investigations than doctors Most recent research has related to patients requesting same day appointments for minor illness, which is only a limited part of a doctor's role

e-Consultations, defined as asynchronous text-based messaging, have transformed how patients interact with their general practitioner (GP). While e-consultations can improve patient access to GP care, concerns about increased workload for GPs are raised. This study aimed to address three research questions: (1) For what purpose and with what expectations do patients initiate e-consultations? (2) If e-consultations had not been available, what alternative actions would the patient have taken? and (3) How are the alternative actions associated with patient and e-consultation characteristics? A cross-sectional study was conducted through a web-based survey on Helsenorge. Helsenorge is the national citizen portal for digital health services in Norway, including e-consultations with the GP. All users who sent e-consultations through Helsenorge were invited to participate between January and February 2023. The survey addressed questions on users' expectations and experience with e-consultations. The association between patient and e-consultation characteristics and alternative actions to e-consultations were analyzed using multinomial logistic regression. Overall, 13,011 users answered the survey. The most common reason for initiating an e-consultation was requesting a sick certificate (4940/13,011, 38%). Overall, 68.7% (8802/13,011) of respondents expected an answer within 24 hours, and 17.7% (2310/13,011) anticipated that the GP would ask them to attend a physical examination. If e-consultations had not been available, 45.5% (5917/13,011) of respondents would have booked a GP appointment, and 44.9% (5846/13,011) would have called the front desk. Users who expected a quicker response (odds ratio [OR] 1.64, 95% CI 1.46-1.85) and were less concerned about their health issues (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.18-1.40) were more likely to call the front desk. Only 2.5% (323/13,011) of respondents would have contacted out-of-hours services. Users with longer travel time to the GP office (OR 6.08, 95% CI 3.46-10.66) and with a new health problem (OR 2.71, 95% CI 2.09-3.51) were more likely to choose this option. In addition, 4.7% (609/13,011) of the users would not have sought help if e-consultations had not been available. Younger patients (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.38-3.37) and those with a longer travel time to the GP office (OR 2.19, 95% CI 1.27-3.80) or a new health issue (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.43-2.12) had higher odds for not seeking help. e-Consultations were often the patients' first choice of access route, and users expected a fast response. e-Consultations were mostly perceived as an alternative to GP appointments or calling the front desk. Patients with lower availability to the GP office had higher odds of using e-consultations as an alternative to out-of-hours service or waiting and not seeking GP care. Guidance for patient use should be developed to ensure appropriate and safe use. Further research should assess the effect of e-consultations on health outcomes and efficiency.

Objectives To conduct a systematic review to identify studies that describe factors and interventions at primary care practice level that impact on levels of utilisation of unscheduled secondary care. Setting Observational studies at primary care practice level. Participants Studies included people of any age of either sex living in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries with any health condition. Primary and secondary outcome measures The primary outcome measure was unscheduled secondary care as measured by emergency department attendance and emergency hospital admissions. Results 48 papers were identified describing potential influencing features on emergency department visits (n=24 studies) and emergency admissions (n=22 studies). Patient factors associated with both outcomes were increased age, reduced socioeconomic status, lower educational attainment, chronic disease and multimorbidity. Features of primary care affecting unscheduled secondary care were more complex. Being able to see the same healthcare professional reduced unscheduled secondary care. Generally, better access was associated with reduced unscheduled care in the USA. Proximity to healthcare provision influenced patterns of use. Evidence relating to quality of care was limited and mixed. Conclusions The majority of research was from different healthcare systems and limited in the extent to which it can inform policy. However, there is evidence that continuity of care is associated with reduced emergency department attendance and emergency hospital admissions.

Background The Primary Care Outcomes Questionnaire (PCOQ) is a new patient-reported outcome measure designed specifically for primary care. This paper describes the developmental process of improving the item quality and testing the face validity of the PCOQ through cognitive interviews with primary care patients. Methods Two formats of the PCOQ were developed and assessed: the PCOQ-Status (which has an adjectival scale) and the PCOQ-Change (which has the same items as the PCOQ-Status, but a transitional scale). Three rounds of cognitive interviews were held with twenty patients from four health centres in Bristol. Patients seeking healthcare were recruited directly by their GP or practice nurse, and others not currently seeking healthcare were recruited from patient participation groups. An adjusted form of Tourangeau’s model of cognitive processing was used to identify problems. This contained four categories: general comprehension, temporal comprehension, decision process, and response process. The resultant pattern of problems was used to assess whether the items and scales were working as intended, and to make improvements to the questionnaires. Results The problems identified in the PCOQ-Status reduced from 41 in round one to seven in round three. It was noted that the PCOQ-Status seemed to be capturing a subjective view of health which might not vary with age or long-term conditions. However, as it is designed to be evaluative (measuring change over time) as opposed to discriminative (measuring change between different groups of people), this does not present a problem for validity. The PCOQ-Status was both understood by patients and was face valid. The PCOQ-Change had less face validity, and was misunderstood by three out of six patients in round 1. It was not taken forward after this round. Conclusions The cognitive interviews successfully contributed to the development of the PCOQ. Through this study, the PCOQ-Status was found to be well understood by patients, and it was possible to improve comprehension through each round of interviews. The PCOQ-Change was poorly understood and, given that this corroborates existing research, this may call into question the use of transitional questionnaires generally.