Tag: Primary Care

Improving measles (MMR) vaccine uptake in primary care

The UKHSA has warned that the UK is seeing a surge in measles cases; putting at risk the health of children and others who are unvaccinated. What can primary care teams do to boost measles vaccine uptake in their patients and help bring the number of measles cases down?

In this post, I list some of the key steps in implementing measles (MMR) vaccination in your practice and raising vaccine uptake. This guidance can also be used by primary care providers in other countries.

1. Give one member of the practice team responsibility for leading the vaccination programme, supported by the wider practice team.

2. Ensure that all staff are informed about the programme; including who is eligible; and the benefits of vaccination for the individual patient, their family, the NHS and society. There are many free online programmes on vaccination and addressing vaccine hesitancy for health professionals. Ensure that vaccination is discussed regularly at team meetings to review progress and address challenges.

3. Prepare FAQs to common questions from patients. These are usually available on government websites such as those published by NHS England and the UKHSA. Ensure staff know where to look for these FAQs, which are essential in countering misinformation about MMR vaccination. Specific training is available in effective communication strategies to address vaccine hesitancy and misinformation during patient interactions.

4. Ensure medical records are as accurate as possible so that patients are not called for vaccination inappropriately. This is particularly important in large urban areas where population mobility is high and vaccine records may not always be up to date. Regular audits of medical records can help identify gaps in the recording of vaccine status.

5. A key time to record vaccine status and offer MMR vaccination is when patients register with a practice. Ensure that vaccine records are entered on the medical record correctly (including vaccines given overseas) and offer MMR vaccine to patients who are unvaccinated or unsure of their vaccine status.

6. Prime patients with information about MMR vaccination, including who is eligible; and the benefits of vaccination for the individual, their family and society.

7. Use multi-channel communication to inform patients. Consider using a variety of media to inform patients as well as direct contact through text messages, phone calls, emails and letters: posters, leaflets, social media, and the practice’s website. Different people prefer different methods of communication. Partnering with local schools, colleges and universities can also help in contacting patients.

8. Be culturally sensitive, particularly if your practice is located in a diverse area. Use materials that are linguistically and culturally appropriate to cater to diverse populations, especially those who may not be fluent in English or are from different cultural backgrounds. Collaborations with community organisations and voluntary groups can help practices to better reach and communicate with diverse groups of patients; including those least likely to be vaccinated.

9. Provide accessible clinics for MMR vaccination and also offer opportunistic vaccination to patients when they attend appointments at the practice for other reasons. To make it easier for working adults, consider extending clinic hours for vaccinations. Some areas may also offer mobile clinics or clinics in community centres that can further improve access to vaccination.

10. Monitor uptake in each target group. Contact those who have not come forwards for vaccination by text, email or telephone. Discuss the need for vaccination with patients in clinics. Implementing an automated system for sending reminders for upcoming vaccination appointments can be efficient and lead to increased attendance.

11. Some patients will receive MMR vaccines elsewhere in the NHS or overseas. Details of vaccinations at NHS sites should be sent to the practice automatically but this may not always be the case. Contact patients to check their vaccination status by text or email and enter vaccinations on their medical record if given elsewhere. This will improve the data the NHS uses to monitor vaccine uptake and also ensures that patients are not sent unnecessary reminders.

12. Incentivise staff to achieve targets; and work with the patient participation group and other local community groups to increase awareness of the benefits of vaccination and improve vaccine uptake.

13. Develop a way for patients to provide feedback about their vaccination experience. This could be a short survey sent by email or available at the clinic. The feedback can provide valuable insights for improving the programme in the future. Also consider a post-campaign evaluation to understand what worked well and what didn’t. This information can be also help for planning future campaigns.

14.The same principles can be applied to maximise uptake of other vaccination programmes delivered by the practice for both children and adults.

How can the NHS provide personalised care to patients?

The objective for the NHS in England to provide high-quality, personalised care for all patients is a vision that requires a transformative approach to healthcare delivery. This shift signifies a move from the primarily finance and target-driven models of healthcare delivery that we have now to ones that are more patient-centred, emphasising the importance of individual patient needs and outcomes as well as the well-being of NHS staff.

In the international context, healthcare systems around the world are grappling with similar challenges: how to deliver care that is both high-quality and cost-effective, while also addressing the needs of an aging population and the rise of chronic diseases. Many countries are looking towards patient-centred care as a solution.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has also advocated for patient-centred care as part of its strategy to strengthen healthcare systems globally. It emphasizes that patient-centred approaches can lead to better health outcomes, more cost-effective services, and higher patient and staff satisfaction.

However, health systems globally faces unique challenges in implementing such care. For the NHS to adopt a patient-centred model successfully, it can draw on the lessons learned from these international experiences, adapting best practices to fit the unique context of the UK healthcare system. The global shift towards patient-centred care is not a fleeting trend but a response to the clear evidence that such approaches work. By adopting and adapting these international best practices, the NHS can continue to be a leader in healthcare delivery, providing care that is not only effective and efficient but also equitable and respectful of patients’ needs and values.

A more holistic approach to health care delivery would involve:

1. Patient-Centred Care: Tailoring treatment plans to the individual needs and preferences of patients, and ensuring that they are active participants in their own care. This would also involve respecting patient autonomy and decision-making.

2. Staff Well-being: Recognizing that the health and well-being of NHS staff are crucial to patient care. This would involve providing support systems, adequate staffing levels, and addressing burnout and job stress.

3. Quality Over Quantity: Instead of focusing just on meeting quotas and targets, the emphasis should be on the quality of care provided. This could mean more time for patient consultations, and follow-ups, and ensuring that treatments and interventions are evidence-based and help improve health outcomes for patients.

4. Integrated Care: Ensuring continuity of care across different services and providers, which require effective communication and collaboration among primary care, hospitals, mental health, community services, and social care.

5. Preventive Care: Shifting the focus of the NHS towards prevention and early intervention, which can improve long-term health outcomes and reduce the need for more intensive and expensive treatments later.

6. Accessibility and Inclusivity: Making healthcare services accessible to all sections of the population, particularly marginalised groups, thereby addressing health inequalities, and ensuring that healthcare is more equitable.

7. Investment in Staff Training: To deliver personalised care, there is a need for continuous professional development and training for NHS staff, equipping them with the skills to adapt to a more holistic and patient-focused approach.

8. Feedback and Improvement: Regularly collecting and acting on feedback from both patients and staff to improve services and care quality.

9. Technology and Innovation: Leveraging technology to improve patient care, such as through telemedicine, while also ensuring that it does not replace the human touch which is essential in providing compassionate care.

10. Mental Health Focus: Recognizing the mental health component as integral to overall health, ensuring that mental health services are as accessible and well-funded as physical health services.

To achieve this vision requires not only structural and policy changes within the NHS but also a cultural shift that values and prioritises the holistic well-being of patients and healthcare workers alike. This transformation can lead to a more sustainable health service that is better equipped to meet the current and future health needs of the population; such as addressing the health needs of older people and those with complex multimorbidity.

The path to a more patient-centred NHS is both a necessary and achievable evolution in healthcare delivery in England. By embracing a model that places the patient at the heart of care, values the well-being of healthcare staff, and integrates innovation with compassionate services, the NHS can not only enhance the health of individuals but also the health of our society.

This shift, grounded in the principles of accessibility, prevention, and personalised treatment, can forge a stronger, more resilient healthcare system that is equipped to meet the diverse and complex needs of the population in the 21st century. The future of the NHS, therefore, lies not only in numbers and targets, but in the quality of care and the health outcomes of its patients and the national population, marking a return to the core values that have long been the foundation of the NHS.

The UK government must be more proactive about addressing drug shortages

In a letter published in the British Medical Journal, I discuss why the UK government must be more proactive about drug addressing shortages in the NHS.

The lack of drugs such as methylphenidate required for the treatment of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is the latest of many medication shortages we have seen in the UK in recent years.1 These shortages are now too frequent and waste the time of NHS staff such as general practitioners and pharmacists who have to spend time counselling patients and sourcing alternative drugs instead of focusing on more relevant work. They are also very stressful for patients who risk going without key drugs with potentially adverse consequences for their health. For people with ADHD, for example, this could mean going without medication that they require to function effectively at work and school and in their personal relationships.

We need a much more proactive approach from the government, which needs to work with drugs manufacturers and wholesalers to ensure that the NHS has adequate supplies of key drugs to prevent such problems occurring in the future. This could include better data on drug supply and demand to identify problems before they occur; improving local manufacturing capacity in the UK for essential drugs needed by the NHS; price incentives for suppliers; and international collaboration to ensure continuity of drug supply. Moreover, immediate support mechanisms should be put in place for primary care teams grappling with the increased workload caused by these shortages. Patients too could benefit from help such as national helplines or online support to allow them to cope better with the consequences of drug shortages.

Until we see active intervention by government, working in partnership with the NHS and industry, patients in the UK will continue to be affected and the time of NHS staff will continue to be wasted because of drug shortages.

Digital Tools for Enhancing Infectious Disease Screening in Migrants

The European Centre for Disease Control (ECDC) has highlighted a stark reality: migrants in Europe are disproportionately affected by undiagnosed infections, including tuberculosis, blood-borne viruses, and parasitic infections. Many migrants also fall into the category of being under-immunised. The call to action is clear — innovative strategies must be developed to deliver integrated multi-disease screening within primary care settings. Despite this call, the United Kingdom’s response remains fragmented. Our recent in-depth qualitative study published in the Journal of Migration and Health delves into the current practices, barriers, and potential solutions to this pressing public health issue.

Primary healthcare professionals from across the UK participated in two phases of this qualitative study through semi-structured telephone interviews. The first phase focused on clinical staff, including general practitioners, nurses, healthcare assistants, and pharmacists. The second phase targeted administrative staff, such as practice managers and receptionists. Through these interviews, a complex picture emerged, revealing a primary care system capable of effective screening but hamstrung by inconsistency and lack of standardized approaches. Many practices lack a systematic screening process, resulting in migrant patients not consistently receiving care based on established NICE/ECDC/UKHSA guidelines.

The barriers to effective infectious disease screening are multifaceted, stemming from patient, staff, and systemic levels. Clinicians and administrative staff pinpointed the stumbling blocks: overly complex care pathways, a lack of financial and expert support, and the need for significant administrative and clinical time investments. Solutions proposed by respondents include appointing infectious disease champions among patients and staff, providing targeted training and specialist support, simplifying care pathways, and introducing financial incentives.

Enter Health Catch-UP!., a collaboratively developed digital clinical decision-making tool designed to support multi-infection screening for migrant patients. The primary care professionals involved in the study responded enthusiastically to this digital innovation. They recognized its potential to systematize data integration and support clinical decision-making, thereby increasing knowledge, reducing missed screening opportunities, and normalizing infectious disease screening for migrants in primary care.

The conclusion is unequivocal: current implementation of infectious disease screening in migrant populations within UK primary care is suboptimal. Yet, there is hope. Digital tools like Health Catch-UP! could revolutionize disease detection and the effective implementation of screening guidance. However, for such digital innovations to succeed, they must be robustly tested and adequately resourced. It’s not just about having the right tools but also ensuring the entire healthcare system is aligned to support their deployment. With the right commitment, we can ensure that migrants receive the care they need and deserve, safeguarding both their individual health as well as public health in the UK.

New Awareness Campaign to Help Reduce Hospital Admissions for Urinary Tract Infections

A new campaign from NHS England and the UKHSA aims to raise awareness about the prevalence and risks of urinary tract infections (UTIs), particularly among older people and carers, and to reduce hospital admissions related to UTIs.

The campaign offers advice on preventive measures. It emphasizes the importance of staying hydrated, going to the toilet as soon as the need arises, and maintaining hygiene in the genital area. Resources, including posters, are being made available to healthcare services, charities, royal colleges, and care homes to disseminate this information as widely as possible.

The guidance comes ahead of a potentially busy winter season for the NHS, a time when the health service is usually under increased pressure. As part of a larger effort to manage healthcare resources, the campaign encourages the use of alternative services like NHS 111, community pharmacists, and urgent care walk-in centres for less critical cases. This is in line with the broader NHS plan of expanding out-of-hospital care options, including “hospital at home” services and urgent community response teams.

UTIs are particularly dangerous for older adults. Prompt action and early treatment are stressed as critical for managing UTIs and preventing severe outcomes like sepsis or death.

The campaign is part of a larger effort to prepare for increased demand during the winter months and aims to improve public awareness and self-care measures to reduce the need for hospital admissions.

What issues do NHS clinicians need to consider in using this guidance?

1. It is more difficult to diagnose UTIs in older people. Younger people (who will nearly all be women) will usually present with the “classical” symptoms of  UTI – such as frequency, dysuria, urgency and haematuria. Older people can have these symptoms but they can also present with problems such as confusion, agitation, functional decline or lethargy where there is a large overlap with other conditions; making diagnosis more challenging.

2. Another challenge in older people is that some will have asymptomatic bacteriuria (i.e. bacteria in the urine that are not causing problems). When the bacteria are detected, doctors will often treat the patient with antibiotics when the medication may not be needed.

3. Spotting infections early requires knowledge of the symptoms and signs and how these differ in younger and older people. There is also a need to be aware of the complications of UTIs such as sepsis or pyelonephritis and to treat these early.

4. Doctors and patients need to balance the benefits of early diagnosis treatment with the risks of overtreatment with antibiotics. Not all UTIs need antibiotic treatment and some may resolve without it. Overuse of antibiotics contributes to antibiotic resistance as well as putting patients at risk of side effects.

5. Finally, these kind of single issue campaigns will be of limited value unless there is adequate capacity in the NHS for patients to be assessed promptly. Otherwise, patients will end up waiting a long time for appointments with the risk their condition may worsen while waiting for treatment.

Evaluating the Uptake of the NHS App in England

Our new study published in the British Journal of General Practice examines uptake of the NHS App in England. The NHS App was launched in January 2019 as a “front door” to digitally enabled health services, allowing patients to access their personal health information online. With the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, the app saw a significant increase in downloads, especially with the introduction of the COVID Pass feature. However, the uptake of the app has revealed some important trends and inequalities that need to be addressed.

The Study

A comprehensive observational study used monthly NHS App user data at general-practice level in England from January 2019 to May 2021. Different statistical models were applied to assess changes in the level and trend of use of various functionalities of the app, particularly before and after the first COVID-19 lockdown.

Key Findings

Between January 2019 and May 2021, the NHS App was downloaded 8,524,882 times and registered 4,449,869 users. Intriguingly, the app experienced a 4-fold increase in downloads after the introduction of the COVID Pass feature, which allows users to prove their COVID-19 vaccination status. However, the data also revealed disparities in app registration based on sociodemographic factors:

  • There were 25% fewer registrations in the most deprived practices.
  • Largest-sized practices had 44% more registrations.
  • Registration rates were 36% higher in practices with the highest proportion of registered White patients.
  • Practices with a larger proportion of 15–34-year-olds saw 23% more registrations.
  • Surprisingly, practices with the highest proportion of people with long-term care needs saw 2% fewer registrations.

What This Means

The findings indicate that while the NHS App has proven to be an useful tool, especially in the times of the Covid-19 pandemic, its usage is not uniform across various sociodemographic groups. This raises questions about accessibility and the digital divide, which could ultimately impact the quality of patient care and health outcomes.

Further Steps

While the app has clearly benefited a significant number of people, it’s crucial to understand the reasons behind these patterns of inequalities. Further research is essential to delve deeper into these trends and how they may affect the patient experience.

Understanding these dynamics can guide improvements to the app, making it more inclusive and effective for all users. Policymakers, developers, and healthcare providers need to work together to ensure that digital health services like the NHS App are accessible and beneficial to everyone, regardless of their socio-economic status or demographic background.

Conclusion

The NHS App has seen a considerable increase in usage since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, highlighting its essential role in modern healthcare. However, the unequal patterns in its uptake call for a focused approach to ensure it serves as an inclusive platform for all. Further research is crucial to uncover the underlying reasons for these disparities and to work towards a more equitable healthcare system.

Guidance for NHS staff on writing support letters for patients for applications for PIP or ESA.

Doctors and other NHS professionals in England are often asked to write in support of patients applying for benefits such as Personal Independence Payments (PIP) or Employment Support Allowance (ESA); which support people with disabilities and long-term health conditions.

These benefits are vital for people suffering from long-term health conditions and disabilities, offering them financial help that can significantly improve their wellbeing and quality of life. Given the critical nature of these benefits and the stringent criteria often applied during the assessment process, the letters we write can play an essential role in securing this much-needed support for our patients.

Here is some guidance on how to write a more effective and relevant letter of support based on my long experience as an NHS doctor in writing such letters.

1. Introduce yourself and describe your relationship to the patient, including how long you have known them and in what capacity. This will help establish your credibility as a reliable source of information in support of their application for a personal independence payment or another state benefit.

2. Provide a detailed description of the patient’s medical conditions, including any diagnoses they have received, how their medical conditions affect their daily life, and any symptoms they experience. Focus on the most relevant conditions to their application first. For example, if the patient is applying for PIP due to mobility problems, you should focus on their mobility impairments and how they affect their daily life and ability to work. Also include any medication they are taking and any past medical or surgical interventions.

3. If the patient is applying for Employment & Support Allowance (ESA), explain how their medical condition affects their ability to work. Describe any physical or cognitive limitations they have, or how their symptoms interfere with their ability to perform tasks required for their job. Aim to give precise descriptions of their conditions; for example if they have heart failure, what is the severity?

4. When describing how the patient’s condition impacts their daily life, focus on the activities of daily living that they have difficulty with. For example, you could mention if they have difficulty dressing, bathing, cooking, shopping, cleaning, or managing their finances. Also describe any problems the patients has in managing their health and their medical conditions.

5. Use specific examples to illustrate how the patient’s condition affects their daily life and ability to work. For example, you might describe a time when the patient experienced a symptom flare-up that prevented them from completing a task at home or attending work.

6. Emphasize the patient’s need for financial support through benefits such as PIP or ESA. Explain how this support would help them manage their condition and improve their quality of life. With the cost of living crisis, these benefits are now essential for many people.

7. Remember to keep the letter factual, polite, concise and to the point, and to focus on the patient’s medical conditions (both physical and mental health problems) and how they impact their ability to work and carry out essential daily activities.

Some doctors argue they should not be writing such letters as they detract from the time available from providing core medical services. But obtaining support from a PIP or ESA can improve a patient’s well-being, which ultimately is also beneficial for the NHS and society.

In England, the NHS is funding social prescribers to work with general practices and writing such letters of support is often delegated to these social prescribers who can take over this task from health professionals such as general practitioners and therapists.

Financial problems will have a big impact on people’ health and well-being and it is important that NHS staff do their best to support patients who have difficult financial circumstances because of their health problems.

Understanding and Managing Sport-Related Concussion in Primary Care

The importance of the global emphasis on physical activity for health cannot be understated. However, it is crucial to address one of the adverse effects of contact sports—specifically, sport-related concussions. Sport-Related Concussion is a traumatic brain injury caused by a direct blow to the head, neck, or body resulting in an impulsive force being transmitted to the brain.

Sport-Related Concussion can present with a wide range of signs and symptoms, and can affect a person’s thinking, concentration, memory, mood, and behaviour. These incidents are common and account for a significant number of emergency department visits. They also have some long-term risks, including cognitive and neurological problems.

Recent publications, like the consensus statement from the Concussion In Sport Group and the UK Government’s landmark concussion guidance, offer valuable insights in the management of Sport-Related Concussion. This blog – based on our recent article in the British Journal of General Practice – aims to provide guidance on recognising, diagnosing, and managing Sport-Related Concussion within the context of primary care.

 The Changing Landscape of Sport-Related Concussion

In 2016, over 1% of emergency department visits in England and Wales were attributed to concussions. Up to 60% of these involved children and adolescents. A 2021 UK House of Commons report criticised the current awareness level about Sport-Related Concussion in the UK’s NHS, indicating a need for better recording and treatment procedures.

 Recognising Sport-Related Concussion

Symptoms of Sport-Related Concussion can range from cognitive issues to mood changes. Anyone with a suspected concussion should be immediately removed from the field of play and assessed by an appropriate healthcare professional within 24 hours of the injury. Those working in sport will be aware of specialist assessment tools pertaining to individual sports that aid clinicians when diagnosing concussion. The UK Government guidance provides a list of ‘red flags’ that require immediate assessment.

Once Sport-Related Concussion has been recognised or diagnosed, a short period (24–48 hours) of relative rest is advised, where only light-intensity physical activity that does not, or only minimally, exacerbates symptoms is undertaken. Subsequently, a logical graduated return to school/work and then sport can be started, where progression through stages is dependent on minimal and transient (the CSIG advise <1 hour) exacerbation of symptoms.

Sport-specific assessment tools exist for diagnosing concussion, such as the Sport Concussion Assessment Tool (SCAT6). These tools are most effective within 72 hours of the injury and evaluate symptoms, cognitive function, and coordination.

 Managing Sport-Related Concussion in Primary Care

Primary care doctors play an essential role in managing Sport-Related Concussion. Initial management includes:

– Advising a short period of relative rest (24-48 hours)

– Reducing screen time and cognitive load

– No alcohol, solitary time, or driving within the first 24 hours

Patients with persistent symptoms beyond 28 days should be referred for a more comprehensive assessment. Gradual return to normal activities is advised, strictly adhering to symptom-dependent progress.

Challenges and Future Directions

The NHS’s limited specialist services for treating complex or prolonged sport-related concussion symptoms create a care gap. This could be bridged by experts in sports medicine or primary care doctors with extended roles in sports medicine. Emerging technologies like Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs) in mouthguards and salivary micro-RNA samples show promise for better recognition and understanding of sport-related concussion.

Conclusions

Sport-Related Concussion is important. Effective recognition and management by general practitioners can significantly contribute to an individual’s immediate and long-term health. It is also vital for local commissioners to implement appropriate care pathways for managing this condition. By acknowledging the complexities in management and investing in ongoing research, we can create a healthcare system that supports both the benefits of physical activity and the challenges it can sometimes bring.

Identifying Potential Biases in Diagnostic Codes in Primary Care Electronic Health Records: What We Need to Know

Electronic healthcare records (EHRs) are increasingly being used to collect and store data on patient care. This data can be used for a variety of purposes, such as improving clinical care, conducting research, and monitoring population health. However, it is important to be aware of potential biases in EHR data, as these can lead to inaccurate or misleading results..

The reliability of diagnostic codes in primary care EHRs is a subject of ongoing debate and a topic we investigated in paper published in BMJ Open.

These codes not only guide clinical decisions but also shape healthcare policies, research, and even financial incentives in the healthcare system. A recent retrospective cohort study explored whether the frequency of these codes for long-term conditions (LTCs) is influenced by various factors such as financial incentives, general practices, patient sociodemographic data, and the calendar year of diagnosis. The study comes at a crucial time, shedding light on significant biases that need to be addressed.

Key Findings

The study, which involved data from 3,113,724 patients diagnosed with 7,723,365 incident LTCs from 2015 to 2022, revealed some significant findings:

Influence of Financial Incentives: Conditions included in the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF), a financial incentive program, had higher rates of annual coding than those not included (1.03 vs 0.32 per year, p<0.0001).

Variability Across GPs: There was a significant variation in the frequency of coding across different General Practices, which was not explained solely by patient sociodemographic factors.

Impact of Sociodemographic factors: Higher coding rates were observed in people living in areas of greater deprivation, irrespective of whether the conditions were part of QOF or not.

Covid-19: The study noted a decrease in code frequency for conditions that had follow-up time in the year 2020, likely due to the COVID-19 pandemic affecting healthcare services.

Implications for Healthcare Providers and Researchers

The findings of the study raise some pertinent questions:

Addressing Financial Incentives: If the QOF influences coding rates, how can we ensure a level playing field for conditions not included in such programs? This could impact resource allocation and healthcare planning.

Standardizing Practices: The variability in coding across GPs implies that there might be inconsistencies in how conditions are diagnosed and recorded. These inconsistencies need to be addressed to improve the quality of healthcare.

Considering Sociodemographic factors: The influence of patient sociodemographic factors suggests a need for tailored interventions, especially in areas with higher deprivation levels.

Navigating Pandemic-related Challenges: The reduction in coding during the COVID-19 pandemic indicates that external factors can significantly affect healthcare data. This demands adaptive strategies to ensure the ongoing reliability of EHRs.

Conclusions and Future Steps

As we move towards a more data-driven healthcare system, understanding the biases in primary care EHRs becomes crucial. The study suggests that natural language processing or other analytical methods using temporally ordered code sequences should account for these biases to provide a more accurate and comprehensive picture. By doing so, healthcare providers and policymakers can better tailor their strategies, ensuring more effective and equitable healthcare delivery.

The Number Needed to Treat: Why is it Important in Clinical Medicine and Public Health?

You will often see the NNT mentioned in clinical guidelines; and when different health interventions are being prioritised or assessed for their clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness. For example, the NNT was used to inform decisions to recommend statins for people with an elevated risk of cardiovascular disease.

The NNT is a measure used to quantify the effectiveness of an intervention or treatment. It is the average number of patients who need to be treated with a particular therapy for one additional patient to benefit.

How is NNT calculated?

In mathematical terms, the NNT = 1/[Absolute Risk Reduction]

Where Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) = Control Event Rate (CER) – Experimental Event Rate (EER)

Control Event Rate (CER): The rate of an outcome in a control group.

Experimental Event Rate (EER): The rate of an outcome in an experimental group treated with the intervention.

For example, consider a drug that reduces the risk of heart attack from 4% to 2%. The ARR is 2% or 0.02 and the NNT is 50 (1/0.02). Hence, on average, 50 people will need to be treated to prevent one heart attack.

Importance in Clinical Medicine

The NNT is important in clinical medicine because it helps in the evaluation of the efficacy of treatments by offering a direct, patient-centred measure. It is also helpful in clinical decision making as it allows doctors and patients to make makes evidence-based decisions on treatment options. For example, when presented with data on the NNT, patients can consider how useful a medical intervention is for them.

The NNT also helps in the assessment of the balance between potential benefits and harms of treatment; and provides a uniform metric for comparing the effectiveness of different treatments.

Role of NNT in Public Health

The NNT is also important in public health because it provides a metric that can be used at a population level, offering insights into public health strategies; for example, it can help policy makers determine the most efficient use of healthcare resources. When combined with other metrics, the NNT can be a tool in assessing the cost-effectiveness of public health interventions such as preventive measures, screening and vaccination.

For example, the NNT was used by the UK JCVI to decide which population groups should be prioritised for booster Covid-19 vaccinations by considering how many people in different age groups would need to be vaccinated to prevent one hospital admission.

Limitations of NNT

The NNT does have some limitations. For example, it does not account for side effects or adverse reactions to medical interventions. It is also specific to the particular patient populations and settings from which the data to calculate the NNT was derived. For example, many adverse health outcomes are more common in older people. Hence, the NNT is not uniform over the population and will be lower in groups at higher risk such as the elderly.

Conclusions

Understanding NNT is crucial for both individual clinical decisions and broader public health strategies aimed at population health improvement. It provides an intuitive way to understand the practical impacts of treatment and public health interventions; and is a measure that is useful to many groups including policy makers, clinicians, public health specialists and patients.