Author: Azeem Majeed

I am Professor of Primary Care and Public Health, and Head of the Department of Primary Care & Public Health at Imperial College London. I am also involved in postgraduate education and training in both general practice and public health, and I am the Course Director of the Imperial College Master of Public Health (MPH) programme.

How can we improve the quality of data collected in general practice?

The primary purpose of general practice electronic health records (EHRs) is to help staff deliver patient care. In an article published in the British Medical Journal, Lara Shemtob, Thomas Beaney, John Norton and I discuss the need for the general practice staff entering data in electronic health records to be more connected to those using the information in areas such as healthcare planning, research and quality improvement.

Documentation facilitates continuity of care and allows symptoms to be tracked over time. Most information is entered into the electronic record as unstructured free text, particularly during time pressed consultations. Although free text provides a mostly adequate record of what has taken place in clinical encounters, it is less useful than structured data for NHS management, quality improvement, and research. Furthermore, free text cannot be used to populate problem lists, calculate risk scores, or feed into clinical management prompts in electronic records, all of which facilitate delivery of appropriate care to patients.

Creating high quality structured data that can be used for health service planning, quality improvement, or research requires clinical coding systems that are confusing to many clinicians. For example, coding can seem rigid in ascribing concrete labels to symptoms that may be evolving or of diagnostic uncertainty. It is time consuming for staff to process external inputs to the electronic record, such as letters from secondary care, and if this is done by administrators, comprehension of clinical information may be a further barrier to high quality structured data entry.

The content of digital communications such as text messages from patients to clinicians, emails, and e-consultations may also need to be converted to structured data, even if the communication exists in the electronic health record. This all represents additional work for clinicians with seemingly little direct incentive for patients. As frontline clinical staff are usually not involved in the secondary uses of data, such as health service development and planning, they may not consider the extra work a priority.

To maximise the potential of routinely collected data, we need to connect those entering the data with those using them, also incorporating patients as key beneficiaries. This requires adopting a learning health systems approach to improving health outcomes, which involves patients and clinicians working with researchers to deliver evidence based change, and making better use of existing technology to improve standardised data input while delivering care.

Image

Data from primary care played a key role in the UK’s Covid-19 pandemic response as shown in this slide which uses data from a range of sources – including general practice records – to examine the impact of vaccination on hospital admissions for Covid-19 in England.

Twenty-year trajectories of cardio-metabolic factors among people with type 2 diabetes by dementia status in England

In a study published in the European Journal of Epidemiology, we assessed 20-year retrospective trajectories of cardio-metabolic factors preceding dementia diagnosis among people with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

We identified 227,145 people with T2D aged > 42 years between 1999 and 2018. Annual mean levels of eight routinely measured cardio-metabolic factors were extracted from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Multivariable multilevel piecewise and non-piecewise growth curve models assessed retrospective trajectories of cardio-metabolic factors by dementia status from up to 19 years preceding dementia diagnosis (dementia) or last contact with healthcare (no dementia).

23,546 patients developed dementia; mean (SD) follow-up was 10.0 (5.8) years. In the dementia group, mean systolic blood pressure increased 16–19 years before dementia diagnosis compared with patients without dementia, but declined more steeply from 16 years before diagnosis, while diastolic blood pressure generally declined at similar rates. Mean body mass index followed a steeper non-linear decline from 11 years before diagnosis in the dementia group. Mean blood lipid levels (total cholesterol, LDL, HDL) and glycaemic measures (fasting plasma glucose and HbA1c) were generally higher in the dementia group compared with those without dementia and followed similar patterns of change. However, absolute group differences were small. Differences in levels of cardio-metabolic factors were observed up to two decades before dementia diagnosis.

Our findings suggest that a long follow-up is crucial to minimise reverse causation arising from changes in cardio-metabolic factors during preclinical dementia. Future investigations which address associations between cardiometabolic factors and dementia should account for potential non-linear relationships and consider the timeframe when measurements are taken.

Impact of vaccination on Covid-19 hospital admissions in England

Our new article in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine examines the impact of vaccination on hospital admissions for Covid-19 in England during 2021. Covid-19 vaccination substantially reduced the risk of hospital admission, particularly in people who received three doses.  We used data over a whole calendar year covering multiple variants of SARS-CoV-2, variable case rates and changing vaccine uptake.

This provides a population-level overview of the impact of vaccination that is not possible from studies over a shorter period. Using primary diagnosis of Covid-19 as the inclusion criteria increases the specificity of our study by excluding those co-incidentally Covid-19 positive but admitted for another reason. We excluded “ghost patients” that can bias the estimates of vaccine effectiveness.

We report a dose-dependent effect of vaccination, as well as waning of the effectiveness of each vaccination dose, highlighting the value of booster vaccinations. Our analysis supports an ongoing programme of booster vaccinations, especially in the elderly and risk groups.

What needs to be done to address staffing shortages in health and social care?

Our new article in the British Journal of General Practice discusses the importance England’s NHS having an effective workforce strategy. Staffing shortages in health and social care are limiting the delivery of services. Interventions to improve the recruitment and retention of staff, along with also improving staff wellbeing, are essential.

Health and social care organisations must invest in understanding what works to recruit and retain staff, and, in the case of general practice, in patient- facing roles. NHS Employers suggests target areas for focus for employing organisations, such as encouraging flexibility and supporting new starters; however, there is a lack of evidence on what is proven to keep people in post, recently highlighted by the Royal College of Anaesthetists concerned about staffing levels within their own specialty.

Financial incentives including pay, taxation, and pensions must be optimised but do not exonerate the need to optimise working conditions. Outcomes of health, wellbeing, and support initiatives such as patient safety, staff turnover, sickness absence, and financial impact should be analysed and shared across organisations. Local and national retention programmes should involve staff, patients, and occupational health. Looking after the workforce in all health and social care settings will improve productivity and staff retention as well as providing safer care for patients.

Arguments for and against user fees for NHS primary care in England

There has been considerable recent debate about charging for GP appointments after comments from two former UK health secretaries, Kenneth Clarke and Sajid Javid, elicited strong responses both for and against user fees. Let’s try to put aside ideology and emotion and look objectively at the evidence and arguments around user fees in NHS primary care.

Debates over NHS user fees are not new. In 1951, Hugh Gaitskell introduced charges for prescriptions, spectacles, and dentures. Aneurin Bevan, minister for labour and architect of the NHS, resigned in protest at this abandonment of the principle of NHS care being free at the point of need. Many developed countries already charge users to access primary care services, often through a flat-rate co-payment. However, there is a lack of evidence about the impact of such fees on access to healthcare, health inequalities, and clinical outcomes. A key study on the impact of user fees in a high income country (the RAND Health Insurance Experiment) is now nearly 40 years old.

User fees should theoretically encourage patients to act prudently and so reduce “unnecessary” or “inappropriate” use of healthcare. Some European countries with user fees for primary care have indeed seen lower rates of healthcare utilisation. But this theory is based on the assumption that patients can safely and effectively distinguish between necessary and unnecessary care. In reality, preventive care and chronic disease management are both likely to decline when fees are in place, with patients often delaying presentation until costly medical crises occur.

Expectations about what the UK NHS should offer are already high among the public, and user fees may further increase expectation of a “return on investment.” Doctors may feel pressure to provide prescriptions and referrals, or carry out investigations, to satisfy patients who have paid to see them. User fees may also result in patients hoarding health problems, with clinicians expected to tackle more health concerns in the typical 10-15 minute appointment in general practice. Flat-rate user fees might also introduce a financial barrier to healthcare access for people with a low income, potentially widening health inequalities.

The highest users of primary care, such as women seeking maternity care, and those aged under 5 or over 65 years, are also among the group that would probably be exempt from user fees. If people with a low income are also exempted from fees, we may see little reduction in GP workload, and only modest additional revenues for the NHS—particularly when offset against the costs of collecting fees, including chasing patients for any unpaid fees.

Wealthier patients, when asked to pay for NHS GP appointments, may opt for private primary care instead, further increasing health inequalities and leading to the fragmentation of care. Such an environment could cause private primary care services to expand, increasing shortages of NHS GPs if more GPs choose to work in the private sector.

The collection of user fees would require new billing and debt collection systems across all NHS general practices. To safeguard vulnerable people it would be necessary to create exemptions, which would reduce revenue and further add to administrative costs. After exemptions, user fees would probably only be collected from a relatively small section of the population. For example, around 90% of NHS primary care prescriptions in England are dispensed free of charge and revenues from prescription charges cover only a small percentage of the actual cost of NHS drugs.

User fees may also lead to false economies if they deter people from accessing primary care when they should, resulting in costly delayed diagnoses (for example, for cancer), or lead people to seek care only for acute problems, deprioritising important preventive and chronic care.

User fees will also be ineffective if they divert costs to other parts of the NHS such as accident and emergency departments or urgent care centres. In the USA, for example, user fees have led to “offsetting” of costs, with increased hospital admissions and use of acute mental health services. Patients may therefore choose to use services that are “free” to the user but expensive to the system, such as emergency care. A coherent policy would require simultaneous setting of fees in related areas of the NHS—for example, charging a fee for attending A&E.

UK residents benefit from a high level of financial protection from the costs of illness. Accustomed to free primary care for many decades, the public is likely to resist such fees strongly. As a result, any political party that advocated NHS user fees may pay a high price at a general election.

Valid arguments exist for and against introducing primary care user fees. User fees are promoted by some commentators as a remedy to current NHS challenges in areas such as funding and workload. Yet primary care workload and NHS deficits are also symptoms of deeper problems, such as shortages of clinical staff and reactive, fragmented care. Consequently, user fees by themselves won’t be the solution to problems that have proven intractable for the NHS to solve.

We do, however, need to look at what services we expect NHS general practices to provide and how we fund these services. This will include reviewing the current employment models of NHS GPs. If governments in the UK do not want to fund NHS GP services adequately, user fees of some kind (perhaps for “add-on” but not for core primary care services) or two-tier primary healthcare may be inevitable outcomes.

Source: Azeem Majeed. Let’s look dispassionately at the arguments for and against user fees for NHS primary care in England. https://www.bmj.com/content/380/bmj.p303

Human monkeypox: diagnosis and management

On 23 July 2022, the World Health Organisation (WHO) declared monkeypox a public health emergency of international concern. By 15 December, over 82 500 confirmed cases of human monkeypox across 110 countries had been identified, with 98% of cases emerging in 103 non-endemic countries. Notably, most patients present without clear epidemiological links and non-specific clinical characteristics. We offer an overview of human monkeypox and of the assessment, diagnosis, and management of confirmed cases and at-risk patients based primarily on guidance from the WHO and the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA).

What is monkeypox?

The monkeypox virus is a zoonotic orthopoxvirus related to the variola virus that causes smallpox. Its main reservoirs are rodents, apes, and monkeys. It was first described in humans in 1970 in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The following 11 countries have historically reported cases of monkeypox (that is, considered endemic for monkeypox virus): Benin, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, DRC, Gabon, Liberia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, and South Sudan. However, there are insufficient data to delineate the differences between endemic and non-endemic regions. Further, the mode of transmission, presentation, and management during the current outbreak is similar in all regions.

Key management points

  • Consider coinfections with monkeypox and other sexually transmitted infections among patients presenting with an acute rash or skin lesions and systemic symptoms
  • While it is safe to manage monkeypox patients virtually, they may need advice to maintain infection control measures and interventions to manage complications
  • A specialist infectious disease unit with access to novel antivirals such as tecovirimat and cidofovir should manage high risk patients
  • Healthcare workers should be aware of the stigma surrounding monkeypox, which may result in reduced health-seeking behaviours; healthcare staff should screen patients sensitively, using inclusive language to avoid alienating patients

Read more in our article in the British Medical Journal.

Uptake of influenza vaccination in pregnancy

Our study published today in the British Journal of General Practice shows how the uptake of flu vaccination in pregnancy varies with age, ethnicity and socio-economic deprivation.

Pregnant women are at an increased risk from influenza (flu), yet uptake of  Seasonal influenza vaccination (SIV) during pregnancy remains low, despite increases since 2010.

Getting the flu vaccine when pregnant is important, because it reduces the risk of severe disease, complications and adverse outcomes for both mother and child such as pre-term birth. However, uptake was lower among women living in more deprived areas, women who were younger or older than average, Black women and those with undocumented ethnicity.

Although the flu vaccine is safe and recommended for pregnant women, misconceptions about safety play a role in pregnant women not being vaccinated and flu vaccination levels among pregnant women are suboptimal worldwide.

In the UK, since 2010, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) has recommended that pregnant women get the flu vaccine to provide protection during the winter flu season. Despite these recommendations, data from Public Health England (now the YK Health Security Agency) showed that in 2020-21, fewer than half of pregnant women were vaccinated.

Previous studies of influenza vaccine uptake during pregnancy have either used data from a single care provider, or from surveys. Our retrospective cohort study looked at 450,000 pregnancies among 260,000 women in North West London, over a ten year period. By applying statistical models to data on women’s age, ethnicity, health conditions and socio-economic deprivation, we were able to identify groups with lower uptake of the flu vaccine.

Misconceptions about the safety and efficacy of antenatal vaccinations play a role in pregnant women being unvaccinated, while recommendation by health professionals improves uptake. To ensure access to vaccines, for high uptake among pregnant women, strong primary care systems are needed and targeted approaches are recommended to reducing inequalities in access to vaccination and should focus on women of Black ethnicity, younger and older women, and women living in deprived areas.

Update for Primary Care Clinical Team 19 January 2023

1. Covid-19 statistics update

After a peak in December, Covid-19 cases, hospital admissions and deaths have begun to decline in January 2023. We are though likely to see further waves of infection later in the year.

2. Covid-19 vaccine boosters

Uptake of Covid-19 boosters has plateaued at a lower level than we hoped for. In England, around 64.4% of people aged 50 and over have received a booster in the current campaign. In Lambeth, only 40% of people aged 50 and over have received a Covid-19 booster, well below the national average. Pleas encourage patients to attend for a booster if they are eligible.

3. Covid-19 treatments

Some people at highest risk of becoming seriously ill from COVID-19 are eligible for antiviral treatments on the NHS. These include some patients with cancer, blood conditions, kidney disease, liver disease and autoimmune conditions, among others.  GP reception staff must arrange an appointment with the clinical team if a patient calls and says they are eligible for these treatments, have tested positive for COVID-19 and have not been contacted about treatment.

My view is that the NHS England treatment pathway is flawed. Asking patients to contact their general practice delays the start of treatment and adds to GP workload. Patients should have been asked to contact their local CMDU directly if they have not been contacted about treatment after a positive Covid-19 test. Any failure by the local CMDU to contact a patient should be seen as an SEA.

 4. Influenza

The latest UKHSA report shows that influenza admissions in London have started to fall from their peak in February. See recent Evening Standard article. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-past-peak-flu-wave-nhs-azeem-majeed-b1053535.html

We were expecting a larger flu wave in the Winter of 2022-23 because of the greater social missing this winter and the low levels of flu over the previous 2 years.

5.  NHS pressures

The NHS in England has experienced exceptionally high pressures in recent weeks, leading to the Prime Minister holding an emergency NHS summit on Saturday 7 January. We await the outcome of the summit. Strike action is adding to NHS pressures. We need to consider a team how we can support our patients and manage workload.

Transforming health through the metaverse

A real change is on the horizon. In October 2021, Facebook announced that it would rebrand itself as ‘Meta’, and this generated high levels of public interest in the metaverse for the first time. Definitions for the metaverse vary and there is still much uncertainty in its eventual future manifestation. It is perhaps best defined as a fully immersive parallel digital reality where users will be able to interact at a scale previously unimagined.1 The advent of the metaverse could have transformational impact on every aspect of human life, from our social interactions to what we ascribe real value to. Just as the Internet has completely transformed health, the metaverse will redefine virtual and physical possibilities in health.2 This will have major implications for our health and for healthcare delivery. The coming of age of the metaverse is in due largely to the maturation of technological advances in artificial intelligence and devices that enable the delivery of mixed, augmented and virtual reality, along with cryptography, the catalyst behind web3, and increased computing power.

Read the full article in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

Primary care update on Group A Streptococcal infections in the UK

There has been an increase Group A Streptococcal (GAS) infections in recent months, which has led to at least 8 deaths in children. Although GAS rates are higher than expected for this time of year, they have been higher at periods over the last decade. GAS causes a range of infections including Scarlet Fever and also more severe invasive disease.

For more information on management, see: Scarlet fever: a guide for general practitioners. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5649319/
The Centor score can be used to assess the probability of an illness being GAS pharyngitis: Tonsillar exudates, tender anterior cervical adenopathy, absence of cough, history of fever (>38 °C). Penicillin V (or Amoxicillin) is the preferred treatment unless contra-indicated in which case an alternative such as a cephalosporin or clarithromycin can be given.

Scarlet Fever and invasive GAS disease are notifiable and should be reported to the local health protection unit. Contacts (although at higher risk of GAS infection) do not generally need antibiotics unless symptomatic. See contact tracing flowchart for details. Health protection teams are responsible for contact tracing.

This guidance was updated in 2008 and may change again.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/invasive-group-a-streptococcal-disease-managing-community-contacts

Antibiotics should only be administered:
1. To mother and baby if either develops invasive group A streptococcal disease in the neonatal period (first 28 days of life);
2. To close contacts if they have symptoms suggestive of localised Group A streptococcal infection, i.e. sore throat, fever, skin infection;
3. To the entire household if there are two or more cases of invasive group A streptococcal disease within a 30 day time period.

Oral Penicillin V is the drug of first choice where chemoprophylaxis is indicated. Azithromycin is a suitable alternative for those allergic to penicillin. Some areas of England are now reporting shortages of liquid antibiotics.