Progress in using the electronic health record to improve primary care

Improving the experience of obtaining repeat complex paediatric prescriptions in the UK

In the UK, medicines for chronic conditions in children and young people (CYP) are typically initiated within secondary or tertiary care, with responsibility for ongoing supply often then passed to the child's general practitioner (GP) and community pharmacist. The patient should then be reviewed in regular specialist clinics, with two-way communication for any changes in medications or clinical status undertaken between primary and secondary/tertiary care. This arrangement allows long-term medications to be obtained close to home.Although this is what parents expect, the reality is often messy, with families regularly needing to source some medicines from the GPs and others via hospitals or homecare services. In addition, these arrangements are not uniform, they vary across different areas of the UK and depend on individual GP or hospital prescriber acceptance. When neither primary, secondary or tertiary care accepts it is their responsibility to prescribe, or patients are under multiple specialists, families often feel left to navigate this complex and variable supply system themselves. Obtaining a prescription is only the start of the process for families as dispensing from a community pharmacy can also be challenging.In this article, we set out the barriers and potential solutions to this complex issue. We use the term specialist prescribers to include not only paediatricians but all other specialists looking after CYP including child and adolescent psychiatrists, ophthalmologists, dermatologists, surgeons, etc, as well as non-medical prescribers.

Gaps in antihypertensive and statin treatments and benefits of optimisation: a modelling study in a 1 million ethnically diverse urban population in UK

OBJECTIVES

To characterise gaps in antihypertensive treatment in people with hypertension and statin treatment in people with cardiovascular diseases (CVD) in a large urban population and quantify the health and economic impacts of their optimisation.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional population study and a long-term CVD decision model.

SETTING

Primary care, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

All adults with diagnosed hypertension or CVD in a population of about 1 million people, served by 123 primary care practices in London, UK in 2019.

INTERVENTIONS

Following UK clinical guidelines, all adults with diagnosed hypertension were categorised into optimal, suboptimal and untreated groups with respect to their antihypertensive treatment, and all adults with diagnosed CVD were categorised in the same manner with respect to their statin treatment.

OUTCOMES

Proportion of patients suboptimally treated or untreated. Projected cardiovascular events avoided, years and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and healthcare costs saved with optimised treatments.

RESULTS

21 954 of the 91 828 adults with hypertension (24%; mean age 59 years; 49% women) and 9062 of the 23 723 adults with CVD (38%; mean age 69 years; 43% women) were not optimally treated with antihypertensive or statin treatment, respectively. Per 1000 additional patients optimised over 5 years, hypertension treatment is projected to prevent 25 (95% CI 16 to 32) major vascular events (MVEs) and 7 (3 to 10) vascular deaths, statin treatment, 28 (22 to 33) MVEs and 6 (4 to 7) vascular deaths. Over their lifespan, a patient with uncontrolled hypertension aged 60-69 years is projected to gain 0.64 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.87) QALYs with optimised hypertension treatment, and a similarly aged patient with previous CVD not optimally treated with statin is projected to gain 0.3 (0.24 to 0.37) QALYs with optimised statin treatment. In both cases, the hospital cost savings minus extra medication costs were about £1100 per person over remaining lifespan.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimising cardiovascular treatments can cost-effectively reduce cardiovascular risk and improve life expectancy.

Prevention of infection in asplenic adult patients by general practitioners in France between 2013 and 2016 : Care for the asplenic patient in general practice

Background

Guidelines that detail preventive measures against Streptococcus pneumoniae, Neisseria meningitidis, Haemophilus influenzae type b, and influenza are published annually in France to decrease the risk of severe infections in immunocompromised patients. We aimed at describing adherence to these guidelines by GPs in the management of their asplenic patients in France between 2013 and 2016.

Method

We conducted a multicenter retrospective study between January 2013 and December 2016 in three French hospitals: asplenic adults were identified and their GPs were questioned. A descriptive analysis was performed to identify the immunization coverage, type and length of antibiotic prophylaxis, number of infectious episodes, and education of patients.

Results

103 patients were finally included in this study: only 57% were adequately vaccinated against Streptococcus pneumoniae or Neisseria meningitidis, 74% against Haemophilus influenzae type b, and 59% against influenza. Only 24% of patients received a combination of all four vaccinations. Two-thirds of patients received prophylactic antibiotics for at least 2 years. Overall, this study found that 50% of splenectomized patients experienced at least one pulmonary or otorhinolaryngological infection, or contracted influenza.

Conclusions

These data match those reported in other countries, including Australia and the United Kingdom, meaning a still insufficient coverage of preventive measures in asplenic patients. Improved medical data sharing strategies between healthcare professionals, along with educational measures to keep patients and physicians up to date in the prevention of infections after splenectomy would improve health outcomes of asplenic patients.