Introduction: It is now widely acknowledged that there are serious shortcomings in allergy care provision for patients seen in primary care. We sought to assess the feasibility of delivering and evaluating a new nurse-led allergy service in primary care, measured by recruitment, retention and estimates of the potential impact of the intervention on disease-specific quality of life. Methods: Mixed-methods evaluation of a nurse-led primary care-based allergy clinic in Edinburgh, UK undertaken during the period 2017\u20132021 with a focus on suspected food allergy and atopic eczema in young children, allergic rhinitis in children and young people, and suspected anaphylaxis in adults. Prior to March 2020, patients were seen face-to-face (Phase 1). Due to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, recruitment was halted between March\u2013August 2020, and a remote clinic was restarted in September 2020 (Phase 2). Disease-specific quality of life was measured at baseline and 6\u201312 weeks post intervention using validated instruments. Quantitative data were descriptively analysed. We undertook interviews with 16 carers/patients and nine healthcare professionals, which were thematically analysed. Results: During Phase 1, 426/506 (84%) referred patients met the eligibility criteria; 40/46 (87%) of Phase 2 referrals were eligible. Males and females were recruited in approximately equal numbers. The majority (83%) of referrals were for possible food allergy or anaphylaxis. Complete data were available for 338/426 (79%) patients seen in Phase 1 and 30/40 (75%) in Phase 2. Compared with baseline assessments, there were improvements in disease-specific quality of life for most categories of patients. Patients/carers and healthcare professionals reported high levels of satisfaction, this being reinforced by the qualitative interviews in which convenience and speed of access to expert opinion, the quality of the consultation, and patient/care empowerment were particularly emphasised. Conclusion: This large feasibility trial has demonstrated that it is possible to recruit, deliver and retain individuals into a nurse-led allergy clinic with both face-to-face and remote consultations. Our data indicate that the intervention was considered acceptable to patients/carers and healthcare professionals. The before-after data of disease-specific quality of life suggest that the intervention may prove effective, but this now needs to be confirmed through a formal randomised controlled trial. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov reference NCT03826953.
\n \n\n \n \nCreating a learning health system could help reduce variations in quality of care. Success is dependent on timely access to health data. To explore the barriers and facilitators to timely access to patients\u2019 data, we conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with 37 purposively sampled participants from government, the NHS and academia across Scotland. Interviews were analysed using the framework approach. Participants were of the view that Scotland could play a leading role in the exploitation of routine data to drive forward service improvements, but highlighted major impediments: (i) persistence of paper-based records and a variety of information systems; (ii) the need for a proportionate approach to managing information governance; and (iii) the need for support structures to facilitate accrual, processing, linking, analysis and timely use and reuse of data for patient benefit. There is a pressing need to digitise and integrate existing health information infrastructures, guided by a nationwide proportionate information governance approach and the need to enhance technological and human capabilities to support these efforts.
\n \n\n \n \nIntroduction Most asthma attacks and subsequent deaths are potentially preventable. We aim to develop a prognostic tool for identifying patients at high risk of asthma attacks in primary care by leveraging advances in machine learning. Methods and analysis Current prognostic tools use logistic regression to develop a risk scoring model for asthma attacks. We propose to build on this by systematically applying various well-known machine learning techniques to a large longitudinal deidentified primary care database, the Optimum Patient Care Research Database, and comparatively evaluate their performance with the existing logistic regression model and against each other. Machine learning algorithms vary in their predictive abilities based on the dataset and the approach to analysis employed. We will undertake feature selection, classification (both one-class and two-class classifiers) and performance evaluation. Patients who have had actively treated clinician-diagnosed asthma, aged 8-80 years and with 3 years of continuous data, from 2016 to 2018, will be selected. Risk factors will be obtained from the first year, while the next 2 years will form the outcome period, in which the primary endpoint will be the occurrence of an asthma attack. Ethics and dissemination We have obtained approval from OPCRD's Anonymous Data Ethics Protocols and Transparency (ADEPT) Committee. We will seek ethics approval from The University of Edinburgh's Research Ethics Group (UREG). We aim to present our findings at scientific conferences and in peer-reviewed journals.
\n \n\n \n \nIn the United Kingdom, there are acknowledged short comings in allergy care provision for patients seen in primary care. There is a lack of allergy training for healthcare professionals and this leads to inappropriate referrals to the limited number of allergy specialists. The primary aims of this study are to assess the feasibility of delivering and evaluating a new nurse-led allergy service in primary care, measured by recruitment, retention and quality of life. This is a single arm feasibility trial in which up to 250 participants referred to the nurse-led allergy clinic will receive the intervention and complete 6\u201312 weeks follow-up before being referred back to their usual care. Primary outcomes for this study will be establishment of clinics, recruitment and retention rates, and estimates of change in disease-specific quality of life measures. Secondary outcomes will be acceptability of the new service to participants/carers and healthcare professionals. A sample of participants and professional stakeholders will take part in more in-depth semi-structured qualitative interviews. Data from this feasibility trial will be used to inform plans for a pilot randomised controlled trial of nurse-led allergy clinics.
\n \n\n \n \nStudies have shown that a small proportion of patients have particularly high needs and are responsible for disproportionally high disease burden. Estimates suggest that 2\u20135% of patients are high users of healthcare for their health gain. Such patients in Scotland are referred to as high health gain (HHG) patients. We wanted to investigate if there were HHG individuals with asthma in Scotland. We analysed data from the Scottish Health Survey (2010\u201311), and primary and National Health Survey (NHS) secondary healthcare and administrative data sets (2011\u201312). In all, 1,379,690 (26.0%) and 836,135 (15.8%) people reported to have ever had and currently have symptoms suggestive of asthma, respectively; 369,868 (7.0%) people reported current symptomatic clinician-diagnosed asthma. 310,050 (5.6%) people had clinician-reported-diagnosed asthma; there were 289,120 nurse consultations, 215,610 GP consultations, 9235 accident and emergency visits (0.2% people), 8263 ambulance conveyances (0.2% people), 7744 inpatient episodes (0.1% people), 3600 disability allowance claims (0.1% people), 187 intensive care unit (ICU) episodes and 94 deaths from asthma. From our study a maximum of about 9.4% of asthma patients (n = 29,145), which is 0.5% of the Scottish population, and from the National Review of Asthma Deaths\u2019 estimate (10% hospitalised), a minimum of nine people had severe asthma attacks that needed acute hospital attendance/admission. We found that although a high proportion of the Scottish population had symptoms suggestive of asthma and clinician diagnosed asthma, only a small proportion of asthma patients experienced exacerbations that were severe enough to warrant hospital attendance/admission in any given year. Developing risk prediction models to identify these HHG patients has the potential to both improve health outcomes while substantially reducing healthcare expenditure.
\n \n\n \n \nBackground The UK-wide National Review of Asthma Deaths sought to identify avoidable factors from the high numbers of deaths, but did not examine variation by socioeconomic status (SES) or region. Methods We used asthma deaths in England over the period 2002-2015 obtained from national deaths registers, summarised by quintiles of Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) and Government Office Region. Emergency asthma admissions were obtained from Hospital Episode Statistics for England 2001-2011. The prevalence of asthma was derived from the Health Survey for England 2010. Associations of mortality, admissions and prevalence with IMD quintile and region were estimated cross-sectionally using incidence rate ratios (IRRs) adjusted for age and sex and, where possible, smoking. Results Asthma mortality decreased among more deprived groups at younger ages. Among 5-44 year olds, those in the most deprived quintile, mortality was 19% lower than those in the least deprived quintile (IRR 0.81 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.96). In older adults, this pattern was reversed (45-74 years: IRR 1.37 (1.24-1.52), \u226575 years: IRR 1.30 (1.22-1.39)). In 5-44 year olds the inverse trend with asthma mortality contrasted with large positive associations for admissions (IRR 3.34 (3.30-3.38)) and prevalence of severe symptoms (IRR 2.38 (1.70-3.33)). Prevalence trends remained after adjustment for smoking. IRRs for asthma mortality, admissions and prevalence showed significant heterogeneity between English regions. Conclusions Despite asthma mortality, emergency admissions and prevalence decreasing over recent decades, England still experiences significant SES and regional variations. The previously undocumented inverse relation between deprivation and mortality in the young requires further investigation.
\n \n\n \n \nBackground: The UK's NHS intends to move from the current Read code system to the international, detailed Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine Clinical Terms (SNOMED-CT) to facilitate more clinically appropriate coding of conditions and associated risk factors and outcomes. Given concerns about coding behaviour of general practitioners, we sought to study the current coding patterns in allergies and identify lessons for the future migration to SNOMED-CT. Methods: Data from 2 014 551 primary care consultations in over 100 000 patients with one or more of 11 potentially allergic diseases (anaphylaxis, angioedema, asthma, conjunctivitis, drug allergies, eczema, food allergy, rhinitis, urticaria, venom allergy and other probable allergic disorders) from the Scottish Primary Care Clinical Informatics Unit Research (PCCIU-R) database were descriptively analysed and visualized to understand Read code usage patterns. Results: We identified 352 Read codes for these allergic diseases, but only 36 codes (10%) were used in 95% of consultations; 73 codes (21%) were never used. Half of all usage was for Quality and Outcomes Framework codes for asthma. Despite 149 detailed codes (42%) being available for allergic triggers, these were infrequently used. Conclusions: This analysis of Read codes use suggests that introduction of the more detailed SNOMED-CT, in isolation, will not improve the quality of allergy coding in Scottish primary care. The introduction of SNOMED-CT should be accompanied by initiatives aimed at improving coding quality, such as the definition of terms/codes, the availability of terminology browsers, a recommended list of codes and mechanisms to incentivize detailed coding of the condition and the underlying allergic trigger.
\n \n\n \n \nBackground: There are a lack of reliable data on the epidemiology and associated burden and costs of asthma. We sought to provide the first UK-wide estimates of the epidemiology, healthcare utilisation and costs of asthma. Methods: We obtained and analysed asthma-relevant data from 27 datasets: these comprised national health surveys for 2010-11, and routine administrative, health and social care datasets for 2011-12; 2011-12 costs were estimated in pounds sterling using economic modelling. Results: The prevalence of asthma depended on the definition and data source used. The UK lifetime prevalence of patient-reported symptoms suggestive of asthma was 29.5 % (95 % CI, 27.7-31.3; n = 18.5 million (m) people) and 15.6 % (14.3-16.9, n = 9.8 m) for patient-reported clinician-diagnosed asthma. The annual prevalence of patient-reported clinician-diagnosed-and-treated asthma was 9.6 % (8.9-10.3, n = 6.0 m) and of clinician-reported, diagnosed-and-treated asthma 5.7 % (5.7-5.7; n = 3.6 m). Asthma resulted in at least 6.3 m primary care consultations, 93,000 hospital in-patient episodes, 1800 intensive-care unit episodes and 36,800 disability living allowance claims. The costs of asthma were estimated at least \u00a31.1 billion: 74 % of these costs were for provision of primary care services (60 % prescribing, 14 % consultations), 13 % for disability claims, and 12 % for hospital care. There were 1160 asthma deaths. Conclusions: Asthma is very common and is responsible for considerable morbidity, healthcare utilisation and financial costs to the UK public sector. Greater policy focus on primary care provision is needed to reduce the risk of asthma exacerbations, hospitalisations and deaths, and reduce costs.
\n \n\n \n \nIntroduction: Asthma is now one of the most common long-term conditions in the UK. It is therefore important to develop a comprehensive appreciation of the healthcare and societal costs in order to inform decisions on care provision and planning. We plan to build on our earlier estimates of national prevalence and costs from asthma by filling the data gaps previously identified in relation to healthcare and broadening the field of enquiry to include societal costs. This work will provide the first UK-wide estimates of the costs of asthma. In the context of asthma for the UK and its member countries (ie, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales), we seek to: (1) produce a detailed overview of estimates of incidence, prevalence and healthcare utilisation; (2) estimate health and societal costs; (3) identify any remaining information gaps and explore the feasibility of filling these and (4) provide insights into future research that has the potential to inform changes in policy leading to the provision of more cost-effective care. Methods and analysis: Secondary analyses of data from national health surveys, primary care, prescribing, emergency care, hospital, mortality and administrative data sources will be undertaken to estimate prevalence, healthcare utilisation and outcomes from asthma. Data linkages and economic modelling will be undertaken in an attempt to populate data gaps and estimate costs. Separate prevalence and cost estimates will be calculated for each of the UKmember countries and these will then be aggregated to generate UK-wide estimates. Ethics and dissemination: Approvals have been obtained from the NHS Scotland Information Services Division's Privacy Advisory Committee, the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Collaboration Review System, the NHS South-East Scotland Research Ethics Service and The University of Edinburgh's Centre for Population Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee. We will produce a report for Asthma-UK, submit papers to peer-reviewed journals and construct an interactive map.
\n \n\n \n \nEvery year, there are ~100,000 hospital admissions for asthma in the UK, many of which are potentially preventable. Evidence suggests that carefully conceptualised and implemented audit and feedback (A&F) cycles have the potential to improve clinical outcomes for those with chronic conditions. We wanted to investigate the technical feasibility of developing a near-real time asthma dashboard to support A&F interventions for asthma management in primary care. We extracted cross-sectional data on asthma from 756 participating GP practices in the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre (RCGP RSC) database in England comprising 7.6 million registered people. Summary indicators for a GP practice were compared to all participating RCGP RSC practices using practice-level data, for the week 6\u201312th-Mar-2023. A weekly, automated asthma dashboard with features that can support electronic-A&F cycles that compared key asthma indicators for a GP practice to RCGP RSC could be created (https://tinyurl.com/3ydtrt85): 12-weeks-incidence 0.4% vs 0.4%, annual prevalence 6.1% vs 6.7%, inhaled relievers to preventer 1.2 vs 1.1, self-management plan given 83.4% vs 60.8%, annual reviews 36.8% vs 57.3%, prednisolone prescriptions 2.0% vs 3.2%, influenza vaccination 56.6% vs 55.5%, pneumococcal vaccination ever (aged \u226565 years) 90.2% vs 84.1% and current smokers 14.9% vs 14.8%. Across the RCGP RSC, the rate of hospitalisations was 0.024%; comparative data had to be suppressed for the study practice because of small numbers. We have successfully created an automated near real-time asthma dashboard that can be used to support A&F initiatives to improve asthma care and outcomes in primary care.
\n \n\n \n \nBackground: There were substantial reductions in asthma exacerbations during the COVID-19 pandemic for reasons that remain poorly understood. We investigated changes in modifiable risk factors which might help explain the reductions in asthma exacerbations. Methods: Multilevel generalised linear mixed models were fitted to examine changes in modifiable risk factors for asthma exacerbations during 2020\u20132022, compared to pre-pandemic year (2019), using observational, routine data from general practices in the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre. Asthma exacerbations were defined as any of GP recorded: asthma exacerbations, prescriptions of prednisolone, accident and emergency department attendance or hospitalisation for asthma. Modifiable risk factors of interest were ownership of asthma self-management plan, asthma annual review, inhaled-corticosteroid (ICS) prescriptions, influenza vaccinations and respiratory-tract-infections (RTI). Findings: Compared with 2019 (n = 550,995), in 2020 (n = 565,956) and 2022 (n = 562,167) (p < 0.05): asthma exacerbations declined from 67.1% to 51.9% and 61.1%, the proportion of people who had: asthma exacerbations reduced from 20.4% to 15.1% and 18.5%, asthma self-management plans increased from 28.6% to 37.7% and 55.9%; ICS prescriptions increased from 69.9% to 72.0% and 71.1%; influenza vaccinations increased from 14.2% to 25.4% and 55.3%; current smoking declined from 15.0% to 14.5% and 14.7%; lower-RTI declined from 10.5% to 5.3% and 8.1%; upper-RTI reduced from 10.7% to 5.8% and 7.6%. There was cluster effect of GP practices on asthma exacerbations (p = 0.001). People with asthma were more likely (p < 0.05) to have exacerbations if they had LRTI (seven times(x)), had URTI and ILI (both twice), were current smokers (1.4x), PPV vaccinated (1.3x), seasonal flu vaccinated (1.01x), took ICS (1.3x), had asthma reviews (1.09x). People with asthma were less likely to have exacerbations if they had self-management plan (7%), and were partially (4%) than fully COVID-19 vaccinated. Interpretation: We have identified changes in modifiable risk factors for asthma exacerbation that need to be maintained in the post-pandemic era. Funding: Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research and Health Data Research UK.
\n \n\n \n \nBACKGROUND: Electronic health record (EHR) databases provide rich, longitudinal data on interactions with healthcare providers and can be used to advance research into respiratory conditions. However, since these data are primarily collected to support health care delivery, clinical coding can be inconsistent, resulting in inherent challenges in using these data for research purposes. METHODS: We systematically searched existing international literature and UK code repositories to find respiratory disease codelists for asthma from January 2018, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and respiratory tract infections from January 2020, based on prior searches. Medline searches using key terms provided in article lists. Full-text articles, supplementary files, and reference lists were examined for codelists, and codelists repositories were searched. A reproducible methodology for codelists creation was developed with recommended lists for each disease created based on multidisciplinary expert opinion and previously published literature. RESULTS: Medline searches returned 1126 asthma articles, 70 COPD articles, and 90 respiratory infection articles, with 3%, 22% and 5% including codelists, respectively. Repository searching returned 12 asthma, 23 COPD, and 64 respiratory infection codelists. We have systematically compiled respiratory disease codelists and from these derived recommended lists for use by researchers to find the most up-to-date and relevant respiratory disease codelists that can be tailored to individual research questions. CONCLUSION: Few published papers include codelists, and where published diverse codelists were used, even when answering similar research questions. Whilst some advances have been made, greater consistency and transparency across studies using routine data to study respiratory diseases are needed.
\n \n\n \n \nDespite high prevalence of asthma in children in the UK, there were no prior report on asthma admissions in paediatric intensive care units (PICU). We investigated the epidemiology and healthcare resource utilisation in children with asthma presenting to PICUs in England. PICANet, a UK national PICU database, was queried for asthma as the primary reason for admission, of children resident in England from April 2006 until March 2013. There were 2195 admissions to PICU for a median stay of 1.4 days. 59% were males and 51% aged 0\u20134 years. The fourth and fifth most deprived quintiles represented 61% (1329) admissions and 73% (11) of the 15 deaths. Deaths were most frequent in 10\u201314 years age (n = 11, 73%), with no deaths in less than 5 years age. 38% of admissions (828/2193) received invasive ventilation, which was more frequent with increasing deprivation (13% (108/828) in least deprived to 31% (260/828) in most deprived) and with decreasing age (0\u20134-year-olds: 49%, 409/828). This first multi-centre PICU study in England found that children from more deprived neighbourhoods represented the majority of asthma admissions, invasive ventilation and deaths in PICU. Children experiencing socioeconomic deprivation could benefit from enhanced asthma support in the community.
\n \n\n \n \nAim We aimed to identify enablers and barriers of using primary care routine data for healthcare research, to formulate recommendations for improving efficiency in knowledge discovery. Background Data recorded routinely in primary care can be used for estimating the impact of interventions provided within routine care for all people who are clinically eligible. Despite official promotion of 'efficient trial designs', anecdotally researchers in the Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research (AUKCAR) have encountered multiple barriers to accessing and using routine data. Methods Using studies within the AUKCAR portfolio as exemplars, we captured limitations, barriers, successes, and strengths through correspondence and discussions with the principal investigators and project managers of the case studies. Results We identified 14 studies (8 trials, 2 developmental studies and 4 observational studies). Investigators agreed that using routine primary care data potentially offered a convenient collection of data for effectiveness outcomes, health economic assessment and process evaluation in one data extraction. However, this advantage was overshadowed by time-consuming processes that were major barriers to conducting efficient research. Common themes were multiple layers of information governance approvals in addition to the ethics and local governance approvals required by all health service research; lack of standardisation so that local approvals required diverse paperwork and reached conflicting conclusions as to whether a study should be approved. Practical consequences included a trial that over-recruited by 20% in order to randomise 144 practices with all required permissions, and a 5-year delay in reporting a trial while retrospectively applied regulations were satisfied to allow data linkage. Conclusions Overcoming the substantial barriers of using routine primary care data will require a streamlined governance process, standardised understanding/application of regulations and adequate National Health Service IT (Information Technology) capability. Without policy-driven prioritisation of these changes, the potential of this valuable resource will not be leveraged.
\n \n\n \n \nObjectiveTo assess the effectiveness of mHealth interventions for maternal, newborn and child health (MNCH) in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC).Methods16 online international databases were searched to identify studies evaluating the impact of mHealth interventions on MNCH outcomes in LMIC, between January 1990 and May 2014. Comparable studies were included in a random-effects meta-analysis.FindingsOf 8593 unique references screened after de-duplication, 15 research articles and two conference abstracts met inclusion criteria, including 12 intervention and three observational studies. Only two studies were graded at low risk of bias. Only one study demonstrated an improvement in morbidity or mortality, specifically decreased risk of perinatal death in children of mothers who received SMS support during pregnancy, compared with routine prenatal care. Meta-analysis of three studies on infant feeding showed that prenatal interventions using SMS/cell phone (vs routine care) improved rates of breastfeeding (BF) within one hour after birth (odds ratio (OR) 2.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27-2.75, I(2) = 80.9%) and exclusive BF for three/four months (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.26-2.50, I(2)\u2009= 52.8%) and for six months (OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.46-3.68, I(2) = 0.0%). Included studies encompassed interventions designed for health information delivery (n = 6); reminders (n = 3); communication (n = 2); data collection (n = 2); test result turnaround (n = 2); peer group support (n = 2) and psychological intervention (n = 1).ConclusionsMost studies of mHealth for MNCH in LMIC are of poor methodological quality and few have evaluated impacts on patient outcomes. Improvements in intermediate outcomes have nevertheless been reported in many studies and there is modest evidence that interventions delivered via SMS messaging can improve infant feeding. Ambiguous descriptions of interventions and their mechanisms of impact present difficulties for interpretation and replication. Rigorous studies with potential to offer clearer evidence are underway.
\n \n\n \n \nIntroductionRates of maternal, newborn and child (MNCH) mortality and morbidity are vastly greater in low- than in high-income countries and represent a major source of global health inequity. A host of systemic, economic, geopolitical and sociocultural factors have been implicated. Mobile information and communication technologies hold potential to ameliorate several of these challenges by supporting coordinated and evidence-based care, facilitating community based health services and enabling citizens to access health information and support. mHealth has attracted considerable attention as a means of supporting maternal, newborn and child health in developing countries and research to assess the impacts of mHealth interventions is increasing. While a number of expert reviews have attempted to summarise this literature, there remains a need for a fully systematic review employing gold standard methods of evidence capture, critical appraisal and meta-analysis, in order to comprehensively map, quality assess and synthesise this body of knowledge.ObjectivesTo undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating the impacts of mobile technology-enabled interventions designed to support maternal, newborn and child health in low- and middle-income countries.Methods16 online international electronic databases of published scientific abstracts and citations will be interrogated for the period 1990 to 2014 (no language restrictions) in order to identify relevant studies. Ongoing/unpublished studies will be identified through searching international trial repositories and consulting experts in the field. Study quality will be assessed using appropriate critical appraisal tools; including the Cochrane Handbook's 7 evaluation domains for randomised and clinical trials, the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) guidelines for other comparative study types, and the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) quality assessment tools for observational studies. Blinded assessment by at least two reviewers, with arbitration by a third if necessary, will ensure rigour. Meta-analysis will be undertaken, where possible, using a random-effects model. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses will be reported. Publication bias will be assessed.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required.ResultsThese will be presented in one manuscript. The review protocol is registered with the International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42014008939.
\n \n\n \n \n