Tag: Primary Care

Why Vaccination During Pregnancy Matters

Pregnancy is a time filled with excitement, anticipation, and often, a touch of anxiety. Among the many decisions expectant parents make, one of the most crucial involves protecting the health of both the mother and the baby. Vaccination during pregnancy plays a vital role in this, yet uptake remains worryingly low in many regions.

The Importance of Vaccination During Pregnancy

Vaccines offered during pregnancy, such as those against influenza, pertussis (whooping cough), COVID-19, and the newly added respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine in the UK, are designed to safeguard the health of mothers and their babies. For example:

  • Influenza vaccine: Protects against severe complications from flu, which can be more serious during pregnancy.
  • Pertussis vaccine: Provides critical early protection for babies against whooping cough until they are old enough to be vaccinated themselves.
  • COVID-19 vaccine: Reduces the risk of severe disease and complications from COVID-19 during pregnancy.

Despite the proven benefits, many pregnant women remain unvaccinated, leaving them and their babies vulnerable to preventable diseases.

Barriers to Uptake

Several factors contribute to low vaccination rates during pregnancy:

  1. Concerns About Safety: A common barrier is worry about the vaccine’s safety for the baby. While extensive research confirms the safety and effectiveness of these vaccines, misinformation – often spread online or through social networks – fuels hesitancy.
  2. Access Challenges: Some pregnant women face logistical hurdles, such as needing separate appointments for vaccination instead of being offered vaccines during routine antenatal visits.
  3. Socioeconomic and Demographic Disparities: Vaccination rates are often lower among women from ethnic minority backgrounds and those living in deprived areas. For instance, a study in London showed significantly lower COVID-19 vaccination rates among Black women and those in economically disadvantaged areas.

Overcoming the Barriers

Improving vaccine uptake requires a multi-pronged approach involving healthcare providers, public health campaigns, and structural changes. Here’s how:

  1. Empower Through Education: Healthcare professionals, including midwives, general practitioners, obstetricians and pharmacists, play a critical role in addressing concerns, countering misinformation, and sharing the benefits of vaccination. These conversations should focus on the risks of not vaccinating and provide clear, evidence-based information about vaccine safety.
  2. Enhance Accessibility: Offering vaccinations during routine antenatal visits and using reminder systems (text messages, emails, etc.) can make it easier for pregnant women to get vaccinated.
  3. Tailored Interventions: Targeted campaigns in communities with low vaccination rates can address specific barriers and build trust. Community leaders and trusted figures can help spread positive messages about vaccination.
  4. Efficient Record-Keeping: Ensuring up-to-date vaccination records prevents unnecessary reminders and allows healthcare providers to focus their efforts on those who are unvaccinated.
  5. Supportive Healthcare Settings: Designating a staff member in clinics or practices to lead vaccination efforts ensures a coordinated approach and provides a point of contact for women with questions.

A Shared Responsibility

Vaccination during pregnancy not only protects mothers but also provides early immunity for their babies, saving lives and preventing illness. Addressing vaccine hesitancy and improving access to vaccines requires a collective effort from healthcare providers, public health bodies, and the community.

As an expectant parent, you have the power to make informed decisions that protect your health and that of your baby. If you have questions or concerns about vaccines, talk to your healthcare provider. Together, we can create a safer, healthier future for you and your child.

For more information, visit the NHS vaccinations in pregnancy page.

Read also my recent article in the British Medical Journal.

Bridging the Digital Divide in Healthcare: Understanding the Use of the NHS App

The NHS App, launched in 2019, was designed to revolutionise how patients engage with their healthcare, offering features such as booking appointments, viewing medical records, and ordering prescriptions. While the app has seen substantial uptake—with millions registering and engaging—it appears that the benefits of this digital innovation are not evenly distributed across the population as we report in our article in the Journal of Medical Internet Research.

The Promise of the NHS App

Digital health tools like the NHS App hold the potential to empower patients, improve self-management of health, and increase access to care. From March 2020 to June 2022, millions of users logged into the app, ordered prescriptions, and accessed medical records. However, a closer look at the data reveals disparities in who is using these features.

The Digital Divide in Action

Our recent study highlights how sociodemographic factors influence app engagement. Key findings include:

  • Socioeconomic Disparities: People in more deprived areas are significantly less likely to use the app. For instance, the rate of app registrations was 34% lower in the most deprived practices compared to the least deprived.
  • Ethnic Differences: Practices serving populations with higher proportions of White patients showed far greater engagement. Prescription ordering rates in these areas were over double those in more ethnically diverse regions.
  • Age and Health Needs: Younger patients were more likely to use appointment booking features, while those with long-term conditions engaged more with medical record views and prescription services.
  • Gender Gaps: Practices with higher proportions of male patients reported lower app engagement overall.

Why Does This Matter?

The NHS App aims to make healthcare more accessible for all, but these disparities suggest that its benefits may not be reaching those who need them most. This mirrors the “digital inverse care law,” where digital solutions are disproportionately used by those with better access and resources, potentially exacerbating health inequalities.

How Can We Close the Gap?

To ensure the NHS App works for everyone, targeted efforts are needed:

  1. Digital Literacy Programmes: Equip underserved communities with the skills needed to navigate digital tools.
  2. Tailored Outreach: Highlight the App’s benefits to specific groups, such as ethnic minorities and those in deprived areas.
  3. Enhanced Support Services: Offer helplines or in-person assistance for individuals less familiar with digital health platforms.
  4. Collaborations with Community Groups: Partner with local organizations to raise awareness and build trust in digital healthcare solutions.

A Call for Inclusive Digital Health

The findings of our study underscore the importance of continuously monitoring and adapting digital health strategies to meet the needs of diverse populations. The NHS App is a powerful tool with the potential to enhance healthcare accessibility, but its success depends on equitable adoption and use.

Let’s work towards a future where digital health bridges gaps rather than widens them, ensuring better health outcomes for everyone, regardless of their background.

Improving Migrant Healthcare: An Evaluation of of Health Catch-UP!

In today’s interconnected world, migration is a key feature of modern societies. The UK has become home to a significant number of migrants seeking new opportunities or fleeing difficult circumstances. Yet, this group often faces unique healthcare challenges, including the risk of undiagnosed infectious and non-communicable diseases and incomplete vaccination records. Addressing these issues is crucial not only for individual well-being but also for broader public health. In a recent article published in the journal BMC Medicine, we evaluated Health Catch-UP!, a digital tool designed to bridge these healthcare gaps.

Understanding the Need

Migrants when compared to local populations are more vulnerable to certain health conditions that are common in their countries of origin. These range from infectious diseases like hepatitis and latent tuberculosis (TB) to non-communicable conditions like diabetes and high cholesterol. Unfortunately, current healthcare services in the UK often overlook these needs, leading to underdiagnosed health issues and missed opportunities for early treatment and prevention.

What is Health Catch-UP!?

Developed as a Clinical Decision Support System (CDSS), Health Catch-UP! is integrated into primary care practices to prompt healthcare providers to offer tailored screening and catch-up vaccinations for at-risk migrant patients. The tool works by collecting key demographic information (such as age, sex, and country of origin) and using this data to recommend relevant health checks and vaccinations according to current UK guidelines.

Key Findings from the Study

Our recent evaluation of Health Catch-UP! in two London-based primary care practices revealed several important insights:

Successful Data Collection: The tool enabled almost complete coding of essential patient demographics, which are often missing from standard records.

High Screening Uptake: Over 60% of the participating migrant patients were eligible for screening, with an impressive 87% choosing to undergo the tests.

New Diagnoses: Through the screening, 12 new health conditions were identified, showcasing the tool’s potential to detect previously unrecognized health issues.

Challenges with Vaccinations: Despite identifying gaps in vaccination coverage, the actual uptake of vaccines was low. This highlights the need for more patient engagement and support in this area.

Patient and Healthcare Staff Perspectives

The feedback from both patients and healthcare professionals was largely positive. Patients appreciated being offered comprehensive health checks, especially when these were explained clearly by their providers. Clinicians found the tool to be user-friendly and felt it integrated well with existing practices. However, they noted that certain questions, such as asking about the date of arrival in the UK, could make some patients uncomfortable. Clear communication was key to overcoming this challenge.

The Road Ahead

While Health Catch-UP! has shown promise in improving healthcare access and outcomes for migrants, there are hurdles to overcome. Low vaccination uptake suggests that more robust patient education and logistical support are needed. Additionally, financial and staffing resources will be critical for widespread implementation, particularly in high-migrant areas.

Conclusion

Health Catch-UP! is a step forward toward more inclusive and effective healthcare for migrants in the UK. By tailoring healthcare to the needs of this diverse group, we can ensure better health outcomes and a stronger, more equitable healthcare system for all.

Understanding the Impact of Inhaled Corticosteroids on Adverse Events in People with Asthma

Asthma is a chronic condition that affects many millions of people worldwide, making it difficult for them to breathe due to inflamed airways. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are a cornerstone of asthma treatment, significantly improving patients’ quality of life by reducing symptoms, preventing asthma attacks, and improving lung function. However, while the benefits of ICS are well-established, there are concerns about potential adverse effects, particularly at higher doses.

The Role of Inhaled Corticosteroids

Inhaled corticosteroids are anti-inflammatory medications that are commonly prescribed to manage asthma. They work by reducing inflammation in the airways, making it easier to breathe and reducing the frequency of asthma exacerbations. According to current guidelines, patients should use the lowest effective dose of ICS to manage their asthma effectively.

Key Findings from Our Recent Research Study

Our recent study in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine has shed light on the association between the dose of ICS and the frequency of adverse events. The study, which analysed data from two large UK nationwide databases, aimed to determine the risk of adverse effects from short-term ICS use in people with asthma. We found that:

Low-Dose ICS: Short-term use of low-dose ICS (≤200mcg per day) was not associated with significant adverse effects.

Medium-High Dose ICS: Use of medium (201-599mcg per day) and high doses (≥600mcg per day) of ICS was associated with an increased risk of several adverse outcomes, including major adverse cardiac events (MACE), arrhythmia, pulmonary embolism (PE), and pneumonia. The risk increased with higher doses.

Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACE): We found that medium and high doses of ICS were associated with a significantly increased risk of MACE. For medium doses, the hazard ratio (HR) was 2.63, and for high doses, it was 4.63.

Arrhythmia: Similarly, the risk of arrhythmia was higher with medium doses (HR 2.21) and even more so with high doses (HR 2.91).

Pulmonary Embolism (PE): The risk of PE was also elevated, with hazard ratios of 2.10 for medium doses and 3.32 for high doses.

Pneumonia: We study found an increased risk of pneumonia at both medium (HR 2.25) and high doses (HR 4.09).

These findings highlight the importance of adhering to guideline recommendations to use the lowest effective ICS dose to manage asthma, thereby minimizing the risk of adverse events.

Implications for Asthma Management

Our study emphasises the need for clinicians to balance the benefits of ICS in controlling asthma with the potential risks associated with higher doses. Here are some key takeaways for both healthcare providers and patients:

Personalized Treatment Plans: Healthcare providers should tailor asthma treatment plans to each patient, ensuring that the ICS dose is sufficient to control symptoms while minimizing potential risks.

Regular Reviews: Regular asthma reviews and medication assessments should be conducted to ensure that patients are on the lowest effective dose of ICS. This includes considering step-down approaches when asthma is well-controlled.

Patient Education: Patients should be educated about the importance of adhering to their prescribed treatment and the potential risks of using higher doses of ICS without medical guidance.

Conclusion

Inhaled corticosteroids remain a vital component of asthma management, offering significant benefits in reducing symptoms and preventing exacerbations. However, this recent research underscores the importance of using the lowest effective dose to mitigate the risk of adverse events. By working closely with healthcare providers, patients can ensure that their asthma is managed effectively and safely. Finally, as we continue to learn more about the long-term effects of asthma medications, ongoing research and vigilance are crucial in optimizing treatment strategies for better health outcomes.

How achievable are the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat pledges on the NHS?

The Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats have set out ambitious plans for the NHS in their respective election manifestos. The challenge for the next government will be achieving targets in areas such as workforce and access to health services at a time when public sector finances are under severe pressure and there are calls for increased spending in many other areas.

Labour for example has pledged to recruit 8500 additional mental health staff but don’t provide much detail on how this workforce expansion will be funded. The Liberal Democrats have promised to recruit 8000 more GPs to ensure everyone can see a GP within seven days or within 24 hours for urgent needs. However, the recent decline in NHS GPs in England casts doubt on the feasibility of this pledge. The Conservatives propose cutting 5500 managers to save £550 million for frontline services. Yet, the NHS relies on managers to plan services, manage budgets and ensure compliance with healthcare standards. These cuts could inadvertently disrupt services rather than improve them.

All three parties pledge to take pressure off GP services by extending prescribing rights to other health professionals and expanding programmes such as Pharmacy First. While these initiatives aim to alleviate pressures on GPs, the impact of similar measures has been mixed. Without proper integration and support, such measures may not significantly reduce GP workloads. Pledges on public health and prevention in the manifestos are commendable. However, successful implementation requires appropriate funding, cross-sector collaboration, and long-term commitment to achieving these goals.

Preserving the Essence of NHS Primary Care

In some parts of England, proposals are emerging to divide NHS primary care services into separate pathways for acute, same-day care and long-term, complex care. While this approach aims to manage the growing workload in general practice, it raises significant concerns about potential negative impacts on patient care and NHS efficiency. We discuss the implications of these proposals in an article published in the British Medical Journal.

The Holistic Strength of General Practice

One of the key strengths of general practice lies in its holistic approach, where GPs offer continuous and comprehensive care. This continuity allows GPs to maintain a thorough understanding of a patient’s medical history, lifestyle, and psychological aspects, leading to effective and cost-efficient care. Fragmenting services by separating acute and long-term care threatens this holistic approach and can undermine the management of chronic conditions, which often include acute episodes linked to ongoing health issues.

Risks of Fragmentation

Missed Diagnoses: Acute symptoms can sometimes signal more severe underlying conditions. For instance, a chronic cough could indicate serious diseases like lung cancer or tuberculosis. Fragmented services reduce opportunities for comprehensive health evaluations, increasing the risk of missed diagnoses and neglecting critical health promotion activities.

Increased Costs and Confusion: Splitting primary care services could lead to higher healthcare costs due to duplicated services and administrative overheads. Vulnerable groups, such as older adults and non-native English speakers, may find the fragmented system confusing, further hindering their access to appropriate care.

Impact on GP Training: The separation of services could negatively affect the education of GP registrars and ongoing professional development. Exposure to both acute and complex cases is essential for developing well-rounded, competent GPs. Limited supervision in “acute care hubs” may not provide the diverse learning experiences necessary for effective training.

Advocating for Integrated Care

To maintain the effectiveness and efficiency of primary care, it’s essential to focus on integrated care models rather than fragmented services. Integrated care ensures that both acute and long-term health needs are addressed within a cohesive system, leading to better health outcomes and more efficient resource use.

Multidisciplinary Teams: Incorporating multidisciplinary team members such as district nurses, therapists, social workers, pharmacists, care coordinators, and social prescribers can help address a full spectrum of health issues, fostering stronger patient-provider relationships and improving patient satisfaction.

Reducing Administrative Burden: Training non-clinical staff to handle administrative tasks can free up GPs to focus more on patient care. Additionally, improving the integration of health records across primary and secondary care can reduce data entry duplication and enhance record accuracy.

Conclusion

To preserve the essence of primary care and its patient-centred approach, efforts should be directed towards strengthening integrated care models, enhancing general practice capacity, and improving service efficiency. By avoiding the pitfalls of fragmented services, we can ensure that primary care continues to meet the evolving health needs of the population without compromising quality, cost, or continuity of NHS care.

Assigning disease clusters to people with multiple long-term conditions

Our new study in the Journal of Multimorbidity and Comorbidity sheds light on the challenges of assigning disease clusters to people with multiple long-term conditions

In the world of healthcare, understanding how to manage and treat multiple long-term conditions (MLTC) is a significant challenge. our explores the effectiveness of different strategies for assigning disease clusters to people with MLTCs, aiming to improve our understanding of health outcomes.

The study, a cohort analysis using primary care electronic health records from England, involved a massive sample of over 6.2 million patients. It evaluated the performance of seven different strategies for grouping diseases into clusters, with the aim of predicting mortality, emergency department attendances, and hospital admissions.

What are Disease Clusters?

Disease clusters are groups of conditions that frequently occur together, which may represent underlying shared causes or risk factors. By identifying these clusters, researchers hope to tailor preventive and therapeutic strategies more effectively.

Findings from the Study

We found that while assigning patients to disease clusters could provide a structured way to understand MLTCs, none of the strategies were particularly effective at predicting health-related outcomes when compared to considering each disease individually. Specifically, the method that counted the number of conditions within each cluster performed the best among the cluster-based strategies, but still fell short compared to a disease-specific approach.

This highlights a critical limitation: diseases within the same cluster may not consistently relate to health outcomes, suggesting that the clusters, while useful for some research applications, might not be reliable for predicting patient outcomes.

Implications for Healthcare

The study underscores the complexity of treating individuals with MLTCs. It suggests that while clustering diseases can help in understanding some aspects of multimorbidity, relying solely on these clusters to predict health outcomes might oversimplify the nuances of individual patient conditions.

For healthcare providers and policymakers, these findings emphasize the need for personalized treatment plans that consider the unique combination of diseases each patient has, rather than applying broad cluster-based approaches.

Future Directions

The researchers recommend further exploration into how disease clusters can be used in conjunction with individual disease information to improve health outcome predictions and treatment strategies. This might include integrating machine learning techniques that can handle large datasets and complex variable interactions more effectively.

Conclusion

This study provides valuable insights into the challenges and limitations of using disease clusters as a tool for managing MLTCs. It calls for a more nuanced approach that balances the simplicity of clustering with the complexity of individual patient profiles, ensuring that treatment strategies are both scientifically sound and tailored to meet individual needs.

For healthcare systems, continuing to invest in research that refines our understanding of MLTCs will be crucial for developing more effective and personalized approaches to treatment and care management in the future.

Community health and wellbeing workers: a solution for improving health and care in England

In the quest to refine healthcare delivery in England, this innovative approach, inspired by Brazil’s successful community healthcare model, is a promising solution to the challenges faced by the NHS. The strategy focuses on the deployment of Community Health and Wellbeing Workers (CHWWs) to foster more efficient, localised healthcare services. Our recent article in the British Journal of General Practice discusses the potential of this model and how it could revolutionise healthcare in communities across England.

The Inspiration from Brazil

Brazil’s community healthcare model stands as a testament to the power of grassroots health initiatives. Over the past two decades, this approach has led to significant improvements in health outcomes, including reductions in cardiovascular mortality, hospital admissions, and health inequalities. The core of Brazil’s success lies in the integration of CHWWs into the healthcare system. These workers serve as pivotal links between GPs, community services, local authorities, and the communities they serve, especially in marginalized areas.

Pilot Program in Westminster

A pilot program in Westminster tested the feasibility of this model in England. The results were promising, showing increased vaccination and screening rates, along with a 7% drop in unscheduled GP visits in the first year alone. This indicates that CHWWs not only meet the existing demand for healthcare services but also successfully reach those in need of care who might not seek it out.

Addressing the Workforce Crisis

Beyond improving healthcare delivery, training and employing CHWWs offer a strategic solution to the current NHS workforce crisis. By upskilling volunteers and providing them with pathways to employment within the NHS, this initiative could significantly alleviate workforce shortages. Moreover, the role of a CHWW, demanding cultural competence, a non-judgmental attitude, and strong problem-solving skills, represents an attractive career opportunity for individuals passionate about community service.

Potential Impact in England

The adaptation of Brazil’s community health worker model to the English context could yield even greater benefits due to the wider availability of services. Acting as catalysts between healthcare, social care, and public health, CHWWs could play a crucial role in improving population health status and outcomes. The initial successes observed in Westminster suggest that a nationwide deployment of CHWWs could lead to considerable savings within public health, social care, and NHS budgets, alongside notable improvements in public health.

Funding and Support

For the CHWW initiative to be sustainable, securing long-term and reliable funding is essential. Proposals suggest adding to the fixed part of the Public Health Grant as a viable funding source. This approach aligns with the broader goal of creating an English family health strategy, which is both a feasible and cost-effective solution to current healthcare challenges.

Conclusion

The introduction of Community Health and Wellbeing Workers in England represents a forward-thinking solution to improving healthcare accessibility and efficiency. Inspired by Brazil’s model, this approach offers a holistic and integrated strategy to address the pressing challenges of the NHS, including strained budgets, workforce shortages, and the need for improved public health outcomes. With appropriate funding, support, and expansion across the country, CHWWs have the potential to significantly enhance the healthcare landscape in England, making it more responsive to the needs of its diverse populations.

Exploring the Impact of Diagnostic Timeframes on Multimorbidity Prevalence in England

Our study in published in BMJ Medicine in February 2024 examined the effect of defining timeframes for long-term conditions on the prevalence of multimorbidity in England, and on the role played by sociodemographic factors. Using primary care electronic health records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum, the study included over 9.7 million adults registered in England as of 1 January 2020, focusing on 212 long-term conditions.

Key Findings

Varying Prevalence Rates: The prevalence of multimorbidity, defined as the coexistence of two or more long-term conditions, varied widely based on the timeframe used for definition. It ranged from 41% with stricter criteria (requiring three codes within any 12-month period) to a 74% when a single diagnostic code was deemed sufficient. Using conditions marked as active problems resulted in the lowest prevalence rate at 35%.

Sociodemographic Influences: The study revealed that younger individuals, certain minority ethnic groups, and those living in areas of lower socioeconomic deprivation were more likely to be reclassified as not multimorbid under timeframes that required more than one diagnostic code. This suggests that these groups are disproportionately affected by the criteria used to define long-term conditions.

Implications for Healthcare Policy and Research: The substantial variation in multimorbidity prevalence underscores the challenges in directly comparing estimates of multimorbidity between studies. It highlights the need for clear rationales behind the choice of timeframe and suggests a potential bias introduced by definitions requiring multiple codes. We recommended that researchers provide their reasoning for the timeframe choice and consider sensitivity analyses to explore the impact on different patient groups.

Addressing Multimorbidity in Healthcare

The findings emphasize the complexity of measuring multimorbidity and the influence of methodological decisions on prevalence estimates. This has important implications for healthcare policy, practice, and research; stressing the importance of adopting a nuanced approach to understanding and addressing the needs of people with multiple health conditions. It calls for a balance between the granularity of condition definitions and the practicality of healthcare delivery, ensuring that healthcare systems can adequately respond to the nuanced needs of its diverse patient population.

Conclusions

The study serves as a critical reminder of the dynamic nature of health conditions and the need for healthcare systems to adapt their approaches to effectively manage multimorbidity. It opens avenues for further research into optimising care for individuals with multiple long-term conditions, ultimately aiming to enhance clinical outcomes, patient experience quality of life, and healthcare efficiency.

How can we make a success of Pharmacy First?

Pharmacies in England to begin treating patients for seven common conditions. How can we work successfully across the health and care system to make a success of Pharmacy First?

1. The Pharmacy First scheme aims to provide convenient access to healthcare through community pharmacies. Patients with minor ailments or common conditions can seek advice and treatment directly from their local pharmacy instead of visiting a general practice, urgent care centre or emergency department. The conditions covered by the scheme may vary depending on local funding arrangements and participation of pharmacies.

2, A potential problem with Pharmacy First is pharmacists misdiagnosing a patient’s condition. It may also lead to delays in patients seeing doctors when medical assessment is needed. To mitigate these risks, appropriate safeguards and referral pathways should be established, ensuring timely medical assessment when necessary. The scheme will also increase the workload of pharmacies, thereby reducing the time available for other areas of work.

3. To ensure the successful implementation of Pharmacy First, it is essential to develop strong partnerships between key partners in the scheme such as pharmacies, general practices, and integrated care boards. Good communication to share information, updates about the scheme and best practice among all organisations involved is also needed; as is ensuring clear roles and responsibilities for all partners in the scheme.

4. The use of guidelines and protocols that outline the specific tasks, workflows, and processes involved in the scheme will ensure that all partners are aware of their responsibilities. This will keep partners well-informed about their responsibilities and help maintain consistent standards. Comprehensive training and educational resources for community pharmacists and other pharmacy staff are also needed, including continuous professional development and regular audits of clinical practice.

5. The NHS needs to integrate IT systems between pharmacies and general practices to facilitate efficient and accurate transfer of patient information, and to ensure good continuity of care. Additionally, the use of digital technologies and telehealth solutions should be explored to enhance follow-up and patient monitoring when required.

5. As Pharmacy First is relatively new, robust performance monitoring and evaluation are needed to assess its costs, clinical effectiveness, effects on other parts of the NHS and impact on patient satisfaction. This requires the development of key performance indicators to measure the scheme’s outcomes in these areas, enabling evidence-based decision-making and continuous quality improvement.

6. Improving public awareness and engagement is crucial. Implementing media campaigns to inform the public about the scheme’s availability and benefits will help drive its adoption. Furthermore, proactive engagement with patients, community groups, and other stakeholders, particularly those from underserved groups, will ensure inclusivity and provide valuable feedback for ongoing improvement of the scheme.

References

1. Clinical pharmacists in primary care: a safe solution to the workforce crisis? https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0141076818756618

2. Impact of integrating pharmacists into primary care teams on health systems indicators: a systematic review. https://bjgp.org/content/69/687/e665.full