Dataset Information

Completeness and validity of alcohol recording in general practice within the UK: a cross-sectional study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Since 2010 the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has recommended screening adults for excessive alcohol consumption to try and help prevent alcohol-use disorders. Little is known about the extent to which these recommendations are followed, and the resulting completeness and validity of alcohol-related data recording in primary care. OBJECTIVE:To investigate the completeness and accuracy of recording of alcohol use within primary care records in the UK. DESIGN AND SETTING:Cross-sectional study in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. PARTICIPANTS:We included all adult patients registered on 1st January 2018 with ?1 year of follow-up. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:We calculated prevalence of alcohol consumption recording overall and within patient groups. We then validated alcohol consumption data against recommended screening tools (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT)) as the gold standard. We also calculated how prevalence of alcohol recording changed over the preceding decade. RESULTS:In 2018, among 1.8 million registered adult patients, just over half (51.9%) had a record for a code related to alcohol in the previous 5 years. Recording of alcohol consumption was more common among women, older people, ex-smokers and those from more deprived areas, who were overweight/obese, or with comorbidities. A quarter of patients had units per week recorded in the last 5 years, but <10% had an AUDIT or Fast Alcohol Screening Test (FAST) alcohol screening test score. The recorded alcohol measures corresponded to results from gold standard AUDIT scores. The distribution of consumption among current drinkers was similar to the Health Survey for England. CONCLUSIONS:Half of adults in UK primary care have no recorded alcohol consumption data. When consumption is recorded, we have demonstrated internal and external validity of the data, suggesting greater recording may help identify opportunities for interventions to reduce harms.

SUBMITTER: Mansfield K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6887039 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study questionWhat is the prevalence of different types of potentially hazardous prescribing in general practice in the United Kingdom, and what is the variation between practices?MethodsA cross sectional study included all adult patients potentially at risk of a prescribing or monitoring error defined by a combination of diagnoses and prescriptions in 526 general practices contributing to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) up to 1 April 2013. Primary outcomes were the prevalence of potentially hazardous prescriptions of anticoagulants, anti-platelets, NSAIDs, β blockers, glitazones, metformin, digoxin, antipsychotics, combined hormonal contraceptives, and oestrogens and monitoring by blood test less frequently than recommended for patients with repeated prescriptions of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and loop diuretics, amiodarone, methotrexate, lithium, or warfarin.Study answer and limitations49 927 of 949 552 patients at risk triggered at least one prescribing indicator (5.26%, 95% confidence interval 5.21% to 5.30%) and 21 501 of 182 721 (11.8%, 11.6% to 11.9%) triggered at least one monitoring indicator. The prevalence of different types of potentially hazardous prescribing ranged from almost zero to 10.2%, and for inadequate monitoring ranged from 10.4% to 41.9%. Older patients and those prescribed multiple repeat medications had significantly higher risks of triggering a prescribing indicator whereas younger patients with fewer repeat prescriptions had significantly higher risk of triggering a monitoring indicator. There was high variation between practices for some indicators. Though prescribing safety indicators describe prescribing patterns that can increase the risk of harm to the patient and should generally be avoided, there will always be exceptions where the indicator is clinically justified. Furthermore there is the possibility that some information is not captured by CPRD for some practices-for example, INR results in patients receiving warfarin.What this study addsThe high prevalence for certain indicators emphasises existing prescribing risks and the need for their appropriate consideration within primary care, particularly for older patients and those taking multiple medications. The high variation between practices indicates potential for improvement through targeted practice level intervention.Funding, competing interests, data sharingNational Institute for Health Research through the Greater Manchester Primary Care Patient Safety Translational Research Centre (grant No GMPSTRC-2012-1). Data from CPRD cannot be shared because of licensing restrictions.

Project description:BackgroundExpected growth in the demand for health services has generated interest in the more effective deployment of health care assistants. Programs encouraging German general practitioners (GPs) to share responsibility for care with specially qualified health care assistants in the family practice (VERAHs) have existed for several years. But no studies have been conducted on the tasks German GPs are willing to rely on specially qualified personnel to perform, what they are prepared to delegate to all non-physician practice staff and what they prefer to do themselves.MethodsAs part of an evaluation study on the deployment of VERAHs in GP-centered health care, we used a questionnaire to ask about task delegation within the practice team. From a list of tasks that VERAHs are specifically trained to carry out, GPs were asked to indicate which they actually delegate. We also asked GPs why they had employed a VERAH in their practice and for their opinions on the benefits and limitations of assigning tasks to VERAHs. The aim of the study was to find out which tasks GPs delegate to their specially qualified personnel, which they permit all HCAs to carry out, and which tasks they do not delegate at all.ResultsThe survey was filled in and returned by 245 GPs (83%). Some tasks were exclusively delegated to VERAHs (e.g. home visits), while others were delegated to all HCAs (e.g. vaccinations). About half the GPs rated the assessment of mental health, as part of the comprehensive assessment of a patient's condition, as the sole responsibility of a GP. The possibility to delegate more complex tasks was the main reason given for employing a VERAH. Doctors said the delegation of home visits provided them with the greatest relief.ConclusionsIn Germany, where GPs are solely accountable for the health care provided in their practices, experience with the transfer of responsibility to other non-physician health care personnel is still very limited. When HCAs have undergone special training, GPs seem to be prepared to delegate tasks that demand a substantial degree of know-how, such as home visits and case management. This "new" role allocation within the practice may signal a shift in the provision of health care by family practice teams in Germany.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To estimate the prevalence of multimorbidity using a list of 75 chronic conditions derived from the International Classification for Primary Care, Second edition and developed specifically to assess multimorbidity in primary care. Our aim was also to provide prevalence data for multimorbidity in primary care in a country in which general practitioners (GPs) do not play a gatekeeping role in the health system. SETTING:A representative sample of GPs within the Swiss Sentinel Surveillance Network. PARTICIPANTS:118 GPs completed a paper-based questionnaire about 25 consecutive patients of all ages between September and November 2015. There were no patient exclusion criteria. Recorded data included date of birth, gender and the patients' chronic conditions. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:We estimated the prevalence of multimorbidity, defined as ?2, and ?3?chronic conditions stratified by gender and age group, and adjusted for clustering by GPs. We also computed the prevalence of each chronic condition individually and grouped by system. RESULTS:Data from 2904 patients were included (mean age (SD)=56.5 (20.5) years; male=43.7%). Prevalence was 52.1% (95% CI 48.6% to 55.5%) for ?2?and 35.0% (95% CI 31.6% to 38.5%) for ?3?chronic conditions, with no significant gender differences. Prevalence of two or more chronic conditions was low (6.2%, 95%?CI 2.8% to 13.0%) in those below 20 but affected more than 85% (85.8%, 95%?CI 79.6% to 90.3%) of those above the age of 80. The most prevalent conditions were cardiovascular (42.7%, 95%?CI 39.7% to 45.7%), psychological (28.5%, 95%?CI 26.1% to 31.1%) and metabolic or endocrine disorders (24.1%, 95%?CI 21.6% to 26.7%). Elevated blood pressure was the most prevalent cardiovascular condition and depression the most common psychological disorder. CONCLUSION:In a country in which GPs do not play a gatekeeping role within the health system, the prevalence of multimorbidity, as assessed using a list of chronic conditions specifically relevant to primary care, is high and increases with age.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:This study examined the prevalence of risky drinking by members of parliament (MPs), as well as the relationship between risky drinking and age, years spent as an MP, working outside parliament, awareness of the Parliamentary Health and Wellbeing Service, and probable mental ill health. DESIGN:A survey questionnaire assessed alcohol consumption using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). Risky drinking was identified by combining categories of increasing (hazardous), higher (harmful) and probable dependent drinking for those with a total score of 8 or more. Comparator groups from the 2014 Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey (APMS) were used as controls. SETTING:UK House of Commons. PARTICIPANTS:650 MPs. RESULTS:Compared with all 650 MPs, participants (n=146) were more likely to be female (p<0.05) or have an educational qualification (p<0.05). Weighted proportions on AUDIT items were higher than the APMS comparator group for participants who had a drink four or more times a week, 10 or more drinks on a typical drinking day, six or more drinks in one occasion, or felt guilty because of drinking (p<0.01). Weighted percentages for risky drinking were higher in MPs compared with the whole English population (p<0.05), but similar when compared with socioeconomic comparator groups. The odds of risky drinking were 2.74 times greater for MPs who had an additional work role outside parliament compared with those who did not (95% CI 0.98 to 7.65) and 2.4 times greater for MPs with probable mental ill health compared with those with no evidence of probable mental ill health (95% CI 0.78 to 7.43). CONCLUSIONS:A low level of awareness of the Parliamentary Health and Wellbeing Service has implications for improving the detection of risky drinking and improving access to this service by MPs. Possible increased likelihood of risky drinking in MPs who also had an additional work role outside Parliament and among those with probable mental ill health requires further exploration.

Project description:The objectives of this study were to assess burnout in a sample of general practitioners (GPs), to determine factors associated with depersonalisation and to investigate its impact on doctors' consultations with patients.Cross-sectional, postal survey of GPs using the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI). Patient survey and tape-recording of consultations for a subsample of respondents stratified by their MBI scores, gender and duration of General Medical Council registration.UK general practice.GPs within NHS Essex.Scores on MBI subscales (depersonalisation, emotional exhaustion, personal accomplishment); scores on Doctors' Interpersonal Skills Questionnaire and patient-centredness scores attributed to tape-recorded consultations by independent observers.In the postal survey, 564/789 (71%) GPs completed the MBI. High levels of emotional exhaustion (261/564 doctors, 46%) and depersonalisation (237 doctors, 42%) and low levels of personal accomplishment (190 doctors, 34%) were reported. Depersonalisation scores were related to characteristics of the doctor and the practice. Male doctors reported significantly higher (p<0.001) depersonalisation than female doctors. Doctors registered with the General Medical Council under 20 years had significantly higher (p=0.005) depersonalisation scores than those registered for longer. Doctors in group practices had significantly higher (p=0.001) depersonalisation scores than single-handed practitioners. Thirty-eight doctors agreed to complete the patient survey (n=1876 patients) and audio-record consultations (n=760 consultations). Depersonalised doctors were significantly more likely (p=0.03) to consult with patients who reported seeing their 'usual doctor'. There were no significant associations between doctors' depersonalisation and their patient-rated interpersonal skills or observed patient-centredness.This is the largest number of doctors completing the MBI with the highest levels of depersonalisation reported. Despite experiencing substantial depersonalisation, doctors' feelings of burnout were not detected by patients or independent observers. Such levels of burnout are, however, worrying and imply a need for action by doctors themselves, their medical colleagues, professional bodies, healthcare organisations and the Department of Health.

Dataset Information

Completeness and validity of alcohol recording in general practice within the UK: a cross-sectional study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets