A Cohort Analysis of Statin Treatment Patterns Among Small-Sized Primary Care Practices

ObjectivesMental health disorders contribute significantly to the global burden of disease and lead to extensive strain on health systems. The integration of mental health workers into primary care has been proposed as one possible solution, but evidence of clinical and cost effectiveness of this approach is unclear. We reviewed the clinical and cost effectiveness of mental health workers colocated within primary care practices.DesignSystematic literature review.Data sourcesWe searched the Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Healthcare Management Information Consortium (HMIC) and Global Health databases.Eligibility criteriaAll quantitative studies published before July 2019 were eligible for the review; participants of any age and gender were included. Studies did not need to report a certain outcome measure or comparator in order to be eligible.Data extraction and synthesisData were extracted using a standardised table; however, pooled analysis proved unfeasible. Studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool and the Cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.ResultsFifteen studies from four countries were included. Mental health worker integration was associated with mental health benefits to varied populations, including minority groups and those with comorbid chronic diseases. Furthermore, the interventions were correlated with high patient satisfaction and increases in specialist mental health referrals among minority populations. However, there was insufficient evidence to suggest clinical outcomes were significantly different from usual general practitioner care.ConclusionsWhile there appear to be some benefits associated with mental health worker integration in primary care practices, we found insufficient evidence to conclude that an onsite primary care mental health worker is significantly more clinically or cost effective when compared with usual general practitioner care. There should therefore be an increased emphasis on generating new evidence from clinical trials to better understand the benefits and effectiveness of mental health workers colocated within primary care practices.

Download Full-text

Do statins reduce mortality in older people? Findings from a longitudinal study using primary care records

Family Medicine and Community Health ◽

10.1136/fmch-2020-000780 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 9 (2) ◽

pp. e000780

Author(s):

Lisanne Andra Gitsels ◽

Ilyas Bakbergenuly ◽

Nicholas Steel ◽

Elena Kulinskaya

Keyword(s):

Primary Care ◽

Older People ◽

Clinical Information ◽

Cardiac Risk ◽

Health Improvement ◽

Network Database ◽

Statin Prescription ◽

The Health Improvement Network ◽

Care Practices ◽

Primary Care Practices

ObjectiveAssess whether statins reduce mortality in the general population aged 60 years and above.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingPrimary care practices contributing to The Health Improvement Network database, England and Wales, 1990–2017.ParticipantsCohort who turned age 60 between 1990 and 2000 with no previous cardiovascular disease or statin prescription and followed up until 2017.ResultsCurrent statin prescription was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality from age 65 years onward, with greater reductions seen at older ages. The adjusted HRs of mortality associated with statin prescription at ages 65, 70, 75, 80 and 85 years were 0.76 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.81), 0.71 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.75), 0.68 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.72), 0.63 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.73) and 0.54 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.92), respectively. The adjusted HRs did not vary by sex or cardiac risk.ConclusionsUsing regularly updated clinical information on sequential treatment decisions in older people, mortality predictions were updated every 6 months until age 85 years in a combined primary and secondary prevention population. The consistent mortality reduction of statins from age 65 years onward supports their use where clinically indicated at age 75 and older, where there has been particular uncertainty of the benefits.

Download Full-text

Engaging family caregivers and health system partners in exploring how multi-level contexts in primary care practices affect case management functions and outcomes of patients and family caregivers at end of life: a realist synthesis

BMC Palliative Care ◽

10.1186/s12904-021-00781-8 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 20 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Grace Warner ◽

Lisa Garland Baird ◽

Brendan McCormack ◽

Robin Urquhart ◽

Beverley Lawson ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Primary Care ◽

Case Management ◽

End Of Life ◽

End Of Life Care ◽

Realist Synthesis ◽

Multi Level ◽

Care Practices ◽

Primary Care Practitioners ◽

Management Functions ◽

Primary Care Practices

Abstract Background An upstream approach to palliative care in the last 12 months of life delivered by primary care practices is often referred to as Primary Palliative Care (PPC). Implementing case management functions can support delivery of PPC and help patients and their families navigate health, social and fiscal environments that become more complex at end-of-life. A realist synthesis was conducted to understand how multi-level contexts affect case management functions related to initiating end-of-life conversations, assessing patient and caregiver needs, and patient/family centred planning in primary care practices to improve outcomes. The synthesis also explored how these functions aligned with critical community resources identified by patients/families dealing with end-of-life. Methods A realist synthesis is theory driven and iterative, involving the investigation of proposed program theories of how particular contexts catalyze mechanisms (program resources and individual reactions to resources) to generate improved outcomes. To assess whether program theories were supported and plausible, two librarian-assisted and several researcher-initiated purposive searches of the literature were conducted, then extracted data were analyzed and synthesized. To assess relevancy, health system partners and family advisors informed the review process. Results Twenty-eight articles were identified as being relevant and evidence was consolidated into two final program theories: 1) Making end-of-life discussions comfortable, and 2) Creating plans that reflect needs and values. Theories were explored in depth to assess the effect of multi-level contexts on primary care practices implementing tools or frameworks, strategies for improving end-of-life communications, or facilitators that could improve advance care planning by primary care practitioners. Conclusions Primary care practitioners’ use of tools to assess patients/families’ needs facilitated discussions and planning for end-of-life issues without specifically discussing death. Also, receiving training on how to better communicate increased practitioner confidence for initiating end-of-life discussions. Practitioner attitudes toward death and prior education or training in end-of-life care affected their ability to initiate end-of-life conversations and plan with patients/families. Recognizing and seizing opportunities when patients are aware of the need to plan for their end-of-life care, such as in contexts when patients experience transitions can increase readiness for end-of-life discussions and planning. Ultimately conversations and planning can improve patients/families’ outcomes.

Download Full-text