ObjectiveThis study investigated prescribing patterns of two cohorts of patients treated with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) in primary care in Wales (UK), to better understand drivers for increased usage.MethodsThis e-cohort study included patients receiving a first READ-coded SSRI prescription in SAIL in either 2005 or 2015. Patients were followed up for 3 years from date of SSRI prescription. Influence of age and other demographic data on prescribing patterns, and details of mental health or medication reviews that took place were identified.ResultsIn total 67,006 patients were included across the two cohorts; 29,534 in 2005, and 37,472 in 2015. Citalopram was the most commonly prescribed SSRI in both cohorts. A READ-coded diagnosis relating to SSRI treatment could not be identified in 24,797 patients. The percentage of patients continuing treatment for 3 years was 6.9% and 11.3% in 2005 and 2015, respectively. In total, 21,150 (72%) patients in the 2005 cohort and 23,947 (64%) in the 2015 cohort received at least one medication review during follow-up.ConclusionsThe proportion of patients continuing longer term treatment was small, whilst the number of recorded mental health and medication reviews offers some reassurance that prescribing remained appropriate.

AimsLimiting use of the antidepressant dosulepin has been encouraged due to associated risks of toxicity. In April 2011, the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group introduced a National Prescribing Indicator (NPI) to monitor dosulepin usage. The aim of this study was to investigate antidepressant prescribing patterns, and selected adverse events in patients prescribed dosulepin following introduction of the NPI. MethodsAn e-cohort study was conducted. Adult patients receiving regular dosulepin prescriptions between October 2010 and March 2011 were included. Characteristics of patients who were continued on dosulepin, were switched to an alternative antidepressant or whose dosulepin was discontinued following introduction of the NPI were compared. ResultsIn total, 4121 patients were included. Of these, 1947 (47%) continued dosulepin, 1487 (36%) were switched and 692 (17%) discontinued. Of the 692 who discontinued, 92% did not receive a prescription for another antidepressant during the follow-up period. Patients whose dosulepin was discontinued were older and were less commonly coprescribed benzodiazepines. During follow-up, recorded incidence of selected adverse events was low across all groups and no significant difference was observed. ConclusionOver half of patients had discontinued dosulepin at the end of the period when the NPI was in place. Further interventions may have been required to have a greater impact on prescribing. This study provides some reassurance that dosulepin discontinuation can be a successful strategy, and that the risk of the adverse events investigated was unlikely to have been greater in those who had dosulepin discontinued than in those in whom dosulepin had been continued.

Objective: The optimal timing and modality of surveillance after endovascular intervention for peripheral arterial disease is controversial, and no randomized trial to assess the value of peripheral endovascular intervention has ever been performed. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the practice of surveillance after peripheral endovascular intervention in randomized trials. Methods: We used the Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and WHO trial registry databases in this systematic review of the literature to capture surveillance strategies used in randomized trials comparing endovascular interventions. Surveillance protocols were assessed for completeness, modalities used, duration, and intensity. Results: Ninety-six different surveillance protocols were reported in 103 trials comparing endovascular interventions. Protocol specification was incomplete in 32% of trials. The majority of trials used multiple surveillance modalities (mean of 3.46 modalities), most commonly clinical examination (96%), ankle-brachial index (80%), duplex ultrasound examination (75%), and digital subtraction angiography (51%). Trials involving infrapopliteal lesions used more angiographic surveillance than trials with femoropopliteal lesions (P = .006). The median number of surveillance visits in the first 12 months after intervention was three and the mean surveillance duration was 21 months. Trials treating infrapopliteal vessels had a higher surveillance intensity compared with those treating femoropopliteal lesions in the first 12 months after endovascular intervention (mean 5 vs 3 surveillance visits; P = .017). Trials with drug-eluting devices had longer surveillance duration compared with those without (mean 26 vs 19 months; P = .020). Conclusions: There is a high level of variation in the modality, duration, and intensity of surveillance protocols used in randomized trials comparing different types of peripheral endovascular arterial intervention. Further research is required to determine the value and impact of postprocedural surveillance on patient outcomes.

Randomised trials of new devices for peripheral arterial endovascular intervention are published regularly. The evidence for which antiplatelet and/or anticoagulant (antithrombotic) therapy to use after an intervention is lacking. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the antithrombotic regimens in randomised trials for peripheral arterial endovascular intervention to understand choices made and trends with time or type of device. Data sources were the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. Randomised trials including participants with peripheral arterial disease undergoing any endovascular arterial intervention were included. Trial methods were assessed to determine whether an antithrombotic protocol had been specified, its completeness, and the agent(s) prescribed. Antithrombotic therapy protocols were classed as peri-procedural (preceding and during intervention), immediate post-procedural (up to 30 days following intervention), and maintenance post-procedural (therapy continuing beyond 30 days). Ninety-four trials were included in narrative synthesis. Study quality was low. None of the trials justified their antithrombotic therapy protocol. Only 29% of trials had complete peri-procedural antithrombotic protocols, and 34% had complete post-procedural protocols. In total, 64 different peri-procedural protocols, and 51 separate post-procedural protocols were specified. Antiplatelet monotherapy and unfractionated heparin were the most common regimen choices in the peri-procedural setting, and dual antiplatelet therapy (55%) was most commonly utilised post procedure. Over time there has been an increasing tendency to use dual therapy (p < .001). This corresponds with the introduction of newer technologies and trials focussed on below knee intervention. Randomised trials comparing different types of peripheral endovascular arterial intervention have a high level of heterogeneity in their antithrombotic regimens. Antiplatelet therapy needs to be standardised in trials comparing endovascular technologies to reduce potential confounding. To do this, an independent randomised trial specifically examining antiplatelet therapy following peripheral arterial endovascular intervention is needed.

ObjectivePatients with multiple chronic health conditions are often managed in a disjointed fashion in primary care, with annual review clinic appointments offered separately for each condition. This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of the 3D intervention, which was developed to improve the system of care.DesignEconomic evaluation conducted alongside a pragmatic cluster-randomised trial.SettingGeneral practices in three centres in England and Scotland.Participants797 adults with three or more chronic conditions were randomised to the 3D intervention, while 749 participants were randomised to receive usual care.InterventionThe 3D approach: comprehensive 6-monthly general practitioner consultations, supported by medication reviews and nurse appointments.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary economic evaluation assessed the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services (PSS). Costs were related to changes in a range of secondary outcomes (QALYs accrued by both participants and carers, and deaths) in a cost–consequences analysis from the perspectives of the NHS/PSS, patients/carers and productivity losses.ResultsVery small increases were found in both QALYs (adjusted mean difference 0.007 (−0.009 to 0.023)) and costs (adjusted mean difference £126 (£−739 to £991)) in the intervention arm compared with usual care after 15 months. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £18 499, with a 50.8% chance of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per QALY (55.8% at £30 000 per QALY).ConclusionsThe small differences in costs and outcomes were consistent with chance, and the uncertainty was substantial; therefore, the evidence for the cost-effectiveness of the 3D approach from the NHS/PSS perspective should be considered equivocal.Trial registration numberISCRTN06180958

Objectives During a cluster randomised trial, (the 3D study) of an intervention enacting recommended care for people with multimorbidity, including continuity of care and comprehensive biennial reviews, we examined implementation fidelity to interpret the trial outcome and inform future implementation decisions. Design Mixed-methods process evaluation using cross-trial data and a sample of practices, clinicians, administrators and patients. Interviews, focus groups and review observations were analysed thematically and integrated with quantitative data about implementation. Analysis was blind to trial outcomes and examined context, intervention adoption, reach and maintenance, and delivery of reviews to patients. Setting Thirty-three UK general practices in three areas. Participants The trial included 1546 people with multimorbidity. 11 general practitioners, 14 nurses, 7 administrators and 38 patients from 9 of 16 intervention practices were sampled for an interview. Results Staff loss, practice size and different administrative strategies influenced implementation fidelity. Practices with whole administrative team involvement and good alignment between the intervention and usual care generally implemented better. Fewer reviews than intended were delivered (49% of patients receiving both intended reviews, 30% partially reviewed). In completed reviews >90% of intended components were delivered, but review observations and interviews with patients and clinicians found variation in style of component delivery, from ‘tick-box’ to patient-centred approaches. Implementation barriers included inadequate skills training to implement patient-centred care planning, but patients reported increased patient-centredness due to comprehensive reviews, extra time and being asked about their health concerns. Conclusions Implementation failure contributed to lack of impact of the 3D intervention on the trial primary outcome (quality of life), but so did intervention failure since modifiable elements of intervention design were partially responsible. When a decisive distinction between implementation failure and intervention failure cannot be made, identifying potentially modifiable reasons for suboptimal implementation is important to enhance potential for impact and effectiveness of a redesigned intervention. Trial registration number ISRCTN06180958

Background: People with multimorbidity experience impaired quality of life, poor health and a burden from treatment. Their care is often disease-focused rather than patient-centred and tailored to their individual needs. Objective: To implement and evaluate a patient-centred intervention to improve the management of patients with multimorbidity in general practice. Design: Pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial with parallel process and economic evaluations. Practices were centrally randomised by a statistician blind to practice identifiers, using a computer-generated algorithm. Setting: Thirty-three general practices in three areas of England and Scotland. Participants: Practices had at least 4500 patients and two general practitioners (GPs) and used the EMIS (Egton Medical Information Systems) computer system. Patients were aged ≥ 18 years with three or more long-term conditions. Interventions: The 3D (Dimensions of health, Depression and Drugs) intervention was designed to offer patients continuity of care with a named GP, replacing separate reviews of each long-term condition with comprehensive reviews every 6 months. These focused on individualising care to address patients’ main problems, attention to quality of life, depression and polypharmacy and on disease control and agreeing treatment plans. Control practices provided usual care. Outcome measures: Primary outcome – health-related quality of life (assessed using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version) after 15 months. Secondary outcomes – measures of illness burden, treatment burden and patient-centred care. We assessed cost-effectiveness from a NHS and a social care perspective. Results: Thirty-three practices (1546 patients) were randomised from May to December 2015 [16 practices (797 patients) to the 3D intervention, 17 practices (749 patients) to usual care]. All participants were included in the primary outcome analysis by imputing missing data. There was no evidence of difference between trial arms in health-related quality of life {adjusted difference in means 0.00 [95% confidence interval (CI) –0.02 to 0.02]; p = 0.93}, illness burden or treatment burden. However, patients reported significant benefits from the 3D intervention in all measures of patient-centred care. Qualitative data suggested that both patients and staff welcomed having more time, continuity of care and the patient-centred approach. The economic analysis found no meaningful differences between the intervention and usual care in either quality-adjusted life-years [(QALYs) adjusted mean QALY difference 0.007, 95% CI –0.009 to 0.023] or costs (adjusted mean difference £126, 95% CI –£739 to £991), with wide uncertainty around point estimates. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve suggested that the intervention was unlikely to be either more or less cost-effective than usual care. Seventy-eight patients died (46 in the intervention arm and 32 in the usual-care arm), with no evidence of difference between trial arms; no deaths appeared to be associated with the intervention. Limitations: In this pragmatic trial, the implementation of the intervention was incomplete: 49% of patients received two 3D reviews over 15 months, whereas 75% received at least one review. Conclusions: The 3D approach reflected international consensus about how to improve care for multimorbidity. Although it achieved the aim of providing more patient-centred care, this was not associated with benefits in quality of life, illness burden or treatment burden. The intervention was no more or less cost-effective than usual care. Modifications to the 3D approach might improve its effectiveness. Evaluation is needed based on whole-system change over a longer period of time. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN06180958. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 7, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Objective To develop and validate a new scale to assess treatment burden (the effort of looking after one’s health) for patients with multimorbidity.Design Mixed-methods.Setting UK primary care.Participants Content 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.Results Cognitive 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).Conclusion The 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 number ISRCTN06180958.

National Institute for Health Research.

Objectives Recent evidence has highlighted the high prevalence and impact of multimorbidity, but the evidence base for improving management is limited. We have tested a new complex intervention for multimorbidity (the 3D model). The paper describes the baseline characteristics of practices and patients in order to establish the external validity of trial participants. It also explores current ‘usual primary care’ for multimorbidity, against which the 3D intervention was tested. Design Analysis of baseline data from patients in a cluster-randomised controlled trial and additional data from practice staff. Setting Primary care in the UK. Participants Patients with multimorbidity (n=5253) and 154 practice staff. Primary and secondary outcome measures Using surveys and routinely available data, we compared the characteristics of participating and non-participating practices and participating and non-participating eligible patients. Baseline questionnaire data from patient participants was used to examine participant illness burden, treatment burden and perceptions of receiving patient-centred care. We obtained data about usual care preintervention from practice staff using questionnaires and a structured pro forma. Results Participating practices were slightly larger, in less deprived areas, and with slightly higher scores for patient satisfaction compared with non-participating practices. Patients with dementia or learning difficulties were likely to be excluded by their general practitioners, but comparison of participants with non-participants identified only minor differences in characteristics, suggesting that the sample was otherwise representative. Patients reported substantial illness burden, and an important minority reported high treatment burden. Although patients reported relatively high levels of satisfaction with care, many reported not having received potentially important components of care. Conclusion This trial achieved good levels of external validity. Although patients were generally satisfied with primary care services, there was significant room for improvement in important aspects of care for multimorbidity that are targeted by the 3D intervention. Trial registration number ISRCTN06180958; Post-results.

Background: Nurse-led telephone triage is increasingly used to manage demand for general practitioner consultations in UK general practice. Previous studies are equivocal about the relationship between clinical experience and the call outcomes of nurse triage. Most research is limited to investigating nurse telephone triage in out-of-hours settings.Objective: To investigate whether the professional characteristics of primary care nurses undertaking computer decision supported software telephone triage are related to call disposition.Design: Questionnaire survey of nurses delivering the nurse intervention arm of the ESTEEM trial, to capture role type (practice nurse or nurse practitioner), prescriber status, number of years' nursing experience, graduate status, previous experience of triage, and perceived preparedness for triage.Our main outcome was the proportion of triaged patients recommended for follow-up within the practice (call disposition), including all contact types (face-to-face, telephone or home visit), by a general practitioner or nurse.Settings: 15 general practices and 7012 patients receiving the nurse triage intervention in four regions of the UK.Participants: 45 nurse practitioners and practice nurse trained in the use of clinical decision support software.Methods: We investigated the associations between nursing characteristics and triage call disposition for patient 'same-day' appointment requests in general practice using multivariable logistic regression modelling.Results: Valid responses from 35 nurses (78%) from 14 practices: 31/35 (89%) had >= 10 years' experience with 24/35 (69%) having >= 20 years. Most patient contacts (3842/4605; 86%) were recommended for follow-up within the practice. Nurse practitioners were less likely to recommend patients for follow-up odds ratio 0.19, 95% confidence interval 0.07; 0.49 than practice nurses. Nurses who reported that their previous experience had prepared them less well for triage were more likely to recommend patients for follow-up (OR 3.17, 95% CI 1.18-5.55).Conclusion: Nurse characteristics were associated with disposition of triage calls to within practice follow-up. Nurse practitioners or those who reported feeling 'more prepared' for the role were more likely to manage the call definitively. Practices considering nurse triage should ensure that nurses transitioning into new roles feel adequately prepared. While standardised training is necessary, it may not be sufficient to ensure successful implementation. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Objectives To evaluate the effects on non-specific and all cause mortality, in children under 5, of Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP), and standard titre measles containing vaccines (MCV); to examine internal validity of the studies; and to examine any modifying effects of sex, age, vaccine sequence, and co-administration of vitamin A. Design Systematic review, including assessment of risk of bias, and meta-analyses of similar studies. Study eligibility criteria Clinical trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies of the effects on mortality of BCG, whole cell DTP, and standard titre MCV in children under 5. Data sources Searches of Medline, Embase, Global Index Medicus, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, supplemented by contact with experts in the field. To avoid overlap in children studied across the included articles, findings from non-overlapping birth cohorts were identified. Results Results from 34 birth cohorts were identified. Most evidence was from observational studies, with some from short term clinical trials. Most studies reported on all cause (rather than non-specific) mortality. Receipt of BCG vaccine was associated with a reduction in all cause mortality: the average relative risks were 0.70 (95% confidence interval 0.49 to 1.01) from five clinical trials and 0.47 (0.32 to 0.69) from nine observational studies at high risk of bias. Receipt of DTP (almost always with oral polio vaccine) was associated with a possible increase in all cause mortality on average (relative risk 1.38, 0.92 to 2.08) from 10 studies at high risk of bias; this effect seemed stronger in girls than in boys. Receipt of standard titre MCV was associated with a reduction in all cause mortality (relative risks 0.74 (0.51 to 1.07) from four clinical trials and 0.51 (0.42 to 0.63) from 18 observational studies at high risk of bias); this effect seemed stronger in girls than in boys. Seven observational studies, assessed as being at high risk of bias, have compared sequences of vaccines; results of a subset of these suggest that administering DTP with or after MCV may be associated with higher mortality than administering it before MCV. Conclusions Evidence suggests that receipt of BCG and MCV reduce overall mortality by more than would be expected through their effects on the diseases they prevent, and receipt of DTP may be associated with an increase in all cause mortality. Although efforts should be made to ensure that all children are immunised on schedule with BCG, DTP, and MCV, randomised trials are needed to compare the effects of different sequences.

Introduction As an increasing number of people are living with more than 1 long-term condition, identifying effective interventions for the management of multimorbidity in primary care has become a matter of urgency. Interventions are challenging to evaluate due to intervention complexity and the need for adaptability to different contexts. A process evaluation can provide extra information necessary for interpreting trial results and making decisions about whether the intervention is likely to be successful in a wider context. The 3D (dimensions of health, drugs and depression) study will recruit 32 UK general practices to a cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate effectiveness of a patient-centred intervention. Practices will be randomised to intervention or usual care.Methods and analysis The aim of the process evaluation is to understand how and why the intervention was effective or ineffective and the effect of context. As part of the intervention, quantitative data will be collected to provide implementation feedback to all intervention practices and will contribute to evaluation of implementation fidelity, alongside case study data. Data will be collected at the beginning and end of the trial to characterise each practice and how it provides care to patients with multimorbidity. Mixed methods will be used to collect qualitative data from 4 case study practices, purposively sampled from among intervention practices. Qualitative data will be analysed using techniques of constant comparison to develop codes integrated within a flexible framework of themes. Quantitative and qualitative data will be integrated to describe case study sites and develop possible explanations for implementation variation. Analysis will take place prior to knowing trial outcomes.Ethics and dissemination Study approved by South West (Frenchay) National Health Service (NHS) Research Ethics Committee (14/SW/0011). Findings will be disseminated via a final report, peer-reviewed publications and practical guidance to healthcare professionals, commissioners and policymakers.Trial registration number ISRCTN06180958.