scholarly journals Evidence of disparities in the provision of the maternal postpartum 6-week check in primary care in England, 2015–2018: an observational study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD)

2021 ◽  
pp. jech-2021-216640
Author(s):  
Yangmei Li ◽  
Jennifer J Kurinczuk ◽  
Christopher Gale ◽  
Dimitrios Siassakos ◽  
Claire Carson
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Policy Change ◽  
Post Partum ◽  
Practice Research ◽  
Clinical Practice Research Datalink ◽  
Younger Women ◽  
Preterm Babies ◽  
Deprived Areas

BackgroundA maternal postpartum 6-week check (SWC) with a general practitioner (GP) is now considered an essential service in England, a recent policy change intended to improve women’s health. We aimed to provide an up-to-date snapshot of the prevalence of SWC prior to the policy change as a baseline, and to explore factors associated with having a late or no check.MethodsWe conducted a cohort study using primary care records in England (Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD)). 34 337 women who gave birth between 1 July 2015 and 30 June 2018 and had ≥12 weeks of follow-up post partum were identified in the CPRD Pregnancy Register. The proportion who had evidence of an SWC with a GP was calculated, and regression analysis was used to assess the association between women’s characteristics and risks of a late or no check.ResultsSixty-two per cent (95% CI 58% to 67%) of women had an SWC recorded at their GP practice within 12 weeks post partum, another 27% had other consultations. Forty per cent had an SWC at the recommended 6–8 weeks, 2% earlier and 20% later. A late or no check was more common among younger women, mothers of preterm babies or those registered in more deprived areas.ConclusionsNearly 40% of women did not have a postpartum SWC recorded. Provision or uptake was not equitable; younger women and those in more deprived areas were less likely to have a record of such check, suggesting postpartum care in general practice may be missing some women who need it most.

scholarly journals Epidemiology of eating disorders in primary care in children and young people: a Clinical Practice Research Datalink study in England

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. e026691
Author(s):  
Sophie Wood ◽  
Amanda Marchant ◽  
Mark Allsopp ◽  
Kathleen Wilkinson ◽  
Jackie Bethel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Eating Disorders ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Incidence Rate ◽  
Secondary Care ◽  
Service Use ◽  
Incidence Rates ◽  
Practice Research ◽  
Clinical Practice Research Datalink ◽  
Deprived Areas

ObjectivesExamination of current temporal trends and clinical management patterns of eating disorders (ED) in primary care is lacking. We aimed to calculate annual incidence rates of EDs in primary care by age, sex and deprivation. We also explored the care received through referrals, psychotropic prescriptions and associated secondary care service use.Participants and settingsA retrospective electronic cohort study was conducted using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink in those aged 11–24 years between 2004 and 2014 in England (n=1 135 038).ResultsA total of 4775 individuals with a first ever recorded ED diagnosis were identified. The crude incidence rate was 100.1 per 100 000 person years at risk (95% CI 97.2 to 102.9). Incidence rates were highest in females (189.3 per 100 000 person years, 95% CI 183.7 to 195.0, n=4336), 16–20 years of age (141.0 per 100 000 person years, 95% CI 135.4 to 146.9, n=2348) and individuals from the least deprived areas (115.8 per 100 000 person years (95% CI 109.3 to 122.5, n=1203). Incidence rates decreased across the study period (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.6, 95% CI 0.5 to 0.8), particularly for individuals with bulimia nervosa (IRR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.7) and from the most deprived areas (IRR 0.5, 95% CI 0.4 to 0.7). A total of 17.4% (95% CI 16.3 to 18.5, n=831) of first ever recorded ED cases were referred from primary to secondary care. 27.1% (95% CI 25.9 to 28.4, n=1294) of individuals had an inpatient admission 6 months before or 12 months after an incident ED diagnosis and 53.4% (95% CI 52.0 to 54.9, n=2550) had an outpatient attendance. Antidepressants were the most commonly prescribed psychotropic medication.ConclusionsNew ED presentations in primary care are reducing. Understanding the cause of this decrease (coding behaviours, changes in help-seeking or a genuine reduction in new cases) is important to plan services, allocate resources and deliver effective care.

scholarly journals Epidemiology and current treatment patterns of treatment-resistant depression in Scotland: a CPRD study

BJPsych Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (S1) ◽  
pp. S334-S334
Author(s):  
Timothy Ming ◽  
Tom Denee ◽  
Gemma Scott ◽  
Joachim Morrens ◽  
Christopher Weatherburn
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Incidence Rates ◽  
Practice Research ◽  
Clinical Practice Research Datalink ◽  
Treatment Resistant Depression ◽  
Augmentation Therapy ◽  
Treatment Resistant ◽  
First Line ◽  
Resistant Depression

AimsTo assess the incidence and treatments currently used in clinical practice for the treatment of treatment-resistant depression (TRD) in Scotland.BackgroundPatients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who have not responded to at least two successive antidepressant (AD) treatments in a single episode are described as having Treatment-Resistant Depression (TRD). Epidemiological data on TRD in Scotland is lacking. Furthermore, there is no data to our knowledge on therapies prescribed in Scottish clinical practice to treat TRD.MethodA retrospective, longitudinal cohort study was conducted using Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) medical records. Adult patients were indexed on AD prescription, requiring MDD diagnosis within 90 days, from Jan 2011-May 2018 with 360-day baseline and 180-day minimum follow-up periods. Failure of ≥2 adequate oral AD regimens following indexing constituted TRD classification. Incidence rates of MDD and TRD (within the MDD cohort) and treatment lines following TRD classification were derived.ResultThe analysis included 20,059 patients with MDD (mean age 44 years, 63% female, median follow-up 59 months); 1,374 (6.8%) were classified as TRD. Median time-to-TRD classification was 25 months. The incidence rate of MDD was 15.9 per 1,000 patient-years and for TRD was 14.7 per 1,000 MDD-patient-years. For all first four post-TRD treatment lines, SSRI monotherapy was the most commonly prescribed therapy, followed by combination (dual/triple) therapy and augmentation therapy (at least one oral AD supplemented with lithium, an antipsychotic or an anticonvulsant therapy). At first-line of TRD treatment, 1,050 (76.4%) patients received monotherapy AD, 212 (15.4%) received combination AD therapy and 112 (8.2%) received augmentation therapy. The most common monotherapy treatments at first-line TRD were sertraline (15.6%), mirtazapine (13.8%), fluoxetine (12.2%) and venlafaxine (11.6%). Among combination therapies, mirtazapine, venlafaxine, sertraline and amitriptyline were frequently used. Among the TRD and MDD cohort, no somatic treatments were coded in CPRD, although the use of these treatments was likely underestimated.ConclusionMonotherapy AD treatment was the most common therapy type for all four post-TRD treatment lines. These data support the need for new treatments that can achieve and maintain therapeutic response, and avoid continuous cycling through similar AD therapies.This study was sponsored by Janssen Cilag Ltd.

scholarly journals Sepsis Recording in Primary Care Electronic Health Records, Linked Hospital Episodes and Mortality Records: Population-based Cohort Study in England

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emma Rezel-Potts ◽  
Martin C. Gulliford ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cohort Study ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Incidence Rates ◽  
Practice Research ◽  
Clinical Practice Research Datalink ◽  
Recent Period ◽  
General Practices ◽  
Different Sources

AbstractObjectivesSepsis is a growing concern for health systems, but the epidemiology of sepsis is poorly characterised. We evaluated sepsis recording across primary care electronic records, hospital episodes and mortality registrations.Methods and FindingsCohort study including 378 general practices in England from Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD database from 2002 to 2017 with 36,209,676 patient-years of follow-up with linked Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) and Office for National Statistics (ONS) mortality registrations. Incident sepsis episodes were identified for each source. Concurrent records from different sources were identified and age-standardised and age-specific incidence rates compared. Logistic regression analysis evaluated associations of gender, age-group, fifth of deprivation and period of diagnosis with concurrent sepsis recording.There were 20,206 first episodes of sepsis from primary care, 20,278 from HES and 13,972 from ONS. There were 4,117 (20%) first HES sepsis events and 2,438 (17%) mortality records concurrent with incident primary care sepsis records within 30 days. Concurrent HES and primary care records of sepsis within 30 days before or after first diagnosis were higher at younger or older ages and for patients with the most recent period of diagnosis with those diagnosed during 2007:2011 less likely to have a concurrent HES record given CPRD compared to those diagnosed during 2012 to 2017 (odd ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.60 to 0.70). At age 85 and older, primary care incidence was 5.22 per 1,000 patient years (95% CI 1.75 to 11.97) in men and 3.55 (0.87 to 9.58) in women which increased to 10.09 (4.86 to 18.51) for men and 7.22 (2.96 to 14.72) for women after inclusion of all three sources.ConclusionExplicit recording of sepsis is inconsistent across healthcare sectors with a high proportion of non-concurrent records. Incidence estimates are higher when linked data are analysed.

scholarly journals Sepsis recording in primary care electronic health records, linked hospital episodes and mortality records: Population-based cohort study in England

PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (12) ◽  
pp. e0244764
Author(s):  
Emma Rezel-Potts ◽  
Martin C. Gulliford ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cohort Study ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Incidence Rates ◽  
Practice Research ◽  
Clinical Practice Research Datalink ◽  
Recent Period ◽  
General Practices ◽  
Different Sources

Background Sepsis is a growing concern for health systems, but the epidemiology of sepsis is poorly characterised. We evaluated sepsis recording across primary care electronic records, hospital episodes and mortality registrations. Methods and findings Cohort study including 378 general practices in England from Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD database from 2002–2017 with 36,209,676 patient-years of follow-up with linked Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) and Office for National Statistics (ONS) mortality registrations. Incident sepsis episodes were identified for each source. Concurrent records from different sources were identified and age-standardised and age-specific incidence rates compared. Logistic regression analysis evaluated associations of gender, age-group, fifth of deprivation and period of diagnosis with concurrent sepsis recording. There were 20,206 first episodes of sepsis from primary care, 20,278 from HES and 13,972 from ONS. There were 4,117 (20%) first HES sepsis events and 2,438 (17%) mortality records concurrent with incident primary care sepsis records within 30 days. Concurrent HES and primary care records of sepsis within 30 days before or after first diagnosis were higher at younger or older ages and for patients with the most recent period of diagnosis. Those diagnosed during 2007:2011 were less likely to have a concurrent HES record given CPRD compared to those diagnosed during 2012–2017 (odd ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.60–0.70). At age 85 and older, primary care incidence was 5.22 per 1,000 patient years (95% CI 1.75–11.97) in men and 3.55 (0.87–9.58) in women which increased to 10.09 (4.86–18.51) for men and 7.22 (2.96–14.72) for women after inclusion of all three sources. Conclusion Explicit recording of ‘sepsis’ is inconsistent across healthcare sectors with a high proportion of non-concurrent records. Incidence estimates are higher when linked data are analysed.

scholarly journals Use of multiple inflammatory marker tests in primary care: using Clinical Practice Research Datalink to evaluate accuracy

2019 ◽  
Vol 69 (684) ◽  
pp. e462-e469 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica Watson ◽  
Hayley E Jones ◽  
Jonathan Banks ◽  
Penny Whiting ◽  
Chris Salisbury ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Test Performance ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
Inflammatory Markers ◽  
Inflammatory Marker ◽  
Superior Performance ◽  
Practice Research ◽  
Clinical Practice Research Datalink ◽  
Autoimmune Conditions

BackgroundResearch comparing C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and plasma viscosity (PV) in primary care is lacking. Clinicians often test multiple inflammatory markers, leading to concerns about overuse.AimTo compare the diagnostic accuracies of CRP, ESR, and PV, and to evaluate whether measuring two inflammatory markers increases accuracy.Design and settingProspective cohort study in UK primary care using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.MethodThe authors compared diagnostic test performance of inflammatory markers, singly and paired, for relevant disease, defined as any infections, autoimmune conditions, or cancers. For each of the three tests (CRP, ESR, and PV), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and area under receiver operator curve (AUC) were calculated.ResultsParticipants comprised 136 961 patients with inflammatory marker testing in 2014; 83 761 (61.2%) had a single inflammatory marker at the index date, and 53 200 (38.8%) had multiple inflammatory markers. For ‘any relevant disease’, small differences were seen between the three tests; AUC ranged from 0.659 to 0.682. CRP had the highest overall AUC, largely because of marginally superior performance in infection (AUC CRP 0.617, versus ESR 0.589, P<0.001). Adding a second test gave limited improvement in the AUC for relevant disease (CRP 0.682, versus CRP plus ESR 0.688, P<0.001); this is of debatable clinical significance. The NPV for any single inflammatory marker was 94% compared with 94.1% for multiple negative tests.ConclusionTesting multiple inflammatory markers simultaneously does not increase ability to rule out disease and should generally be avoided. CRP has marginally superior diagnostic accuracy for infections, and is equivalent for autoimmune conditions and cancers, so should generally be the first-line test.

scholarly journals Safety of inadvertent administration of live zoster vaccine to immunosuppressed individuals in a UK-based observational cohort analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. e034886 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel J Grint ◽  
Helen I McDonald ◽  
Jemma L Walker ◽  
Gayatri Amirthalingam ◽  
Nick Andrews ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cohort Analysis ◽  
Care Staff ◽  
Practice Research ◽  
Clinical Practice Research Datalink ◽  
Varicella Zoster ◽  
Related Disease ◽  
Observational Cohort ◽  
Primary Care Staff

ObjectivesTo investigate the safety of live attenuated varicella zoster vaccination when administered to immunosuppressed individuals.DesignProspective observational cohort study.SettingThe study used anonymised data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), comprising a representative sample of routinely collected primary care data in England between 2013 and 2017 and and linked Hospital Episode Statistics data.Participants168 767 individuals age-eligible for varicella zoster vaccination registered at a general practice in England contributing data to CPRD.Main outcome measuresElectronic health records indicating immunosuppression, zoster vaccination, diagnoses of specific varicella-zoster virus (VZV)-related disease and non-specific rash/encephalitis compatible with VZV-related disease.ResultsBetween 1 September 2013 and 31 August 2017, a period of immunosuppression was identified for 9093/168 767 (5.4%; 95% CI: 5.3%–5.5%) individuals age-eligible for zoster vaccination. The overall rate of vaccination while immunosuppressed was 1742/5251 (33.2 per 100 adjusted person years at risk; 95% CI: 31.9%–34.5%). Follow-up of the 1742 individuals who were inadvertently vaccinated while immunosuppressed identified only two cases of VZV-related disease within 8 weeks of vaccination (0.1%; 95% CI: 0.01%–0.4%), both primary care diagnoses of ‘shingles’, neither with a related hospital admission.ConclusionsDespite evidence of inadvertent vaccination of immunosuppressed individuals with live zoster vaccination, there is a lack of evidence of severe consequences including hospitalisation. This should reassure primary care staff and encourage vaccination of mildly immunosuppressed individuals who do not meet current thresholds for contraindication. These findings support a review of the extent to which live zoster vaccination is contraindicated among the immunosuppressed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document