It is thought that between a third and a half of all medicines1
There are many causes of non-adherence but they fall into two overlapping categories: intentional and unintentional. Unintentional non-adherence occurs when the patient wants to follow the agreed treatment but is prevented from doing so by barriers that are beyond their control. Examples include poor recall or difficulties in understanding the instructions, problems with using the treatment, inability to pay for the treatment, or simply forgetting to take it. prescribed for long-term conditions are not taken as recommended. If the prescription is appropriate, then this may represent a loss to patients, the healthcare system and society. The costs are both personal and economic. Adherence presumes an agreement between prescriber and patient about the prescriber’s recommendations. Adherence to medicines is defined as the extent to which the patient’s action matches the agreed recommendations. Non-adherence may limit the benefits of medicines, resulting in lack of improvement, or deterioration, in health. The economic costs are not limited to wasted medicines but also include the knock-on costs arising from increased demands for healthcare if health deteriorates. Non-adherence should not be seen as the patient’s problem. It represents a fundamental limitation in the delivery of healthcare, often because of a failure to fully agree the prescription in the first place or to identify and provide the support that patients need later on. Addressing non-adherence is not about getting patients to take more medicines per se. Rather, it starts with an exploration of patients’ perspectives of medicines and the reasons why they may not want or are unable to use them. Healthcare professionals have a duty to help patients make informed decisions about treatment and use appropriately prescribed medicines to best effect

Medicines adherence: Involving patients in decisions about prescribed medicines and supporting adherence

Objective To assess the effect of general practitioner testing for C reactive protein (disease approach) and receiving training in enhanced communication skills (illness approach) on antibiotic prescribing for lower respiratory tract infection.
Design Pragmatic, 2×2 factorial, cluster randomised controlled trial.
Setting 20 general practices in the Netherlands.
Participants 40 general practitioners from 20 practices recruited 431 patients with lower respiratory tract infection.
Main outcome measures The primary outcome was antibiotic prescribing at the index consultation. Secondary outcomes were antibiotic prescribing during 28 days’ follow-up, reconsultation, clinical recovery, and patients’ satisfaction and enablement.
Interventions General practitioners’ use of C reactive protein point of care testing and training in enhanced communication skills separately and combined, and usual care.
Results General practitioners in the C reactive protein test group prescribed antibiotics to 31% of patients compared with 53% in the no test group (P=0.02). General practitioners trained in enhanced communication skills prescribed antibiotics to 27% of patients compared with 54% in the no training group (P<0.01). Both interventions showed a statistically significant effect on antibiotic prescribing at any point during the 28 days’ follow-up. Clinicians in the combined intervention group prescribed antibiotics to 23% of patients (interaction term was non-significant). Patients’ recovery and satisfaction were similar in all study groups.
Conclusion Both general practitioners’ use of point of care testing for C reactive protein and training in enhanced communication skills significantly reduced antibiotic prescribing for lower respiratory tract infection without compromising patients’ recovery and satisfaction with care. A combination of the illness and disease focused approaches may be necessary to achieve the greatest reduction in antibiotic prescribing for this common condition in primary care.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/338/bmj.b1374.full.pdf

Effect of point of care testing for C reactive protein and training in communication skills on antibiotic use in lower respiratory tract infections: cluster randomised trial

Objectives To describe models of integrated care used in the United States, assess how integration of mental health services into primary care settings or primary health care into specialty outpatient settings impacts patient outcomes and describe barriers to sustainable programs, use of health information technology (IT), and reimbursement structures of integrated care programs within the United States. Data sources MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane databases, and PsychINFO databases, the internet, and expert consultants for relevant trials and other literature that does not traditionally appear in peer reviewed journals. Review methods Randomized controlled trials and high quality quasi-experimental design studies were reviewed for integrated care model design components. For trials of mental health services in primary care settings, levels of integration codes were constructed and assigned for provider integration, integrated processes of care, and their interaction. Forest plots of patient symptom severity, treatment response, and remission were constructed to examine associations between level of integration and outcomes. Results Integrated care programs have been tested for depression, anxiety, at-risk alcohol, and ADHD in primary care settings and for alcohol disorders and persons with severe mental illness in specialty care settings. Although most interventions in either setting are effective, there is no discernible effect of integration level, processes of care, or combination, on patient outcomes for mental health services in primary care settings. Organizational and financial barriers persist to successfully implement sustainable integrated care programs. Health IT remains a mostly undocumented but promising tool. No reimbursement system has been subjected to experiment; no evidence exists as to which reimbursement system may most effectively support integrated care. Case studies will add to our understanding of their implementation and sustainability. Conclusions In general, integrated care achieved positive outcomes. However, it is not possible to distinguish the effects of increased attention to mental health problems from the effects of specific strategies, evidenced by the lack of correlation between measures of integration or a systematic approach to care processes and the various outcomes. Efforts to implement integrated care will have to address financial barriers. There is a reasonably strong body of evidence to encourage integrated care, at least for depression. Encouragement can include removing obstacles, creating incentives, or mandating integrated care. Encouragement will likely differ between fee-for-service care and managed care. However, without evidence for a clearly superior model, there is legitimate reason to worry about premature orthodoxy.

Integration of Mental Health/Substance Abuse and Primary Care

BackgroundAlthough self-help interventions are effective in treating depression, less is known about the factors that determine effectiveness (i.e. moderators of effect). This study sought to determine whether the content of self-help interventions, the study populations or aspects of study design were the most important moderators.MethodRandomized trials of the effectiveness of self-help interventions versus controls in the treatment of depressive symptoms were identified using previous reviews and electronic database searches. Data on moderators (i.e. patient populations, study design, intervention content) and outcomes were extracted and analysed using meta-regression.ResultsThirty-four studies were identified with 39 comparisons. Study design factors associated with greater effectiveness were unclear allocation concealment, observer-rated outcome measures and waiting-list control groups. Greater effectiveness was also associated with recruitment in non-clinical settings, patients with existing depression (rather than those ‘at risk’), contact with a therapist (i.e. guided self-help) and the use of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) techniques. However, only guided self-help remained significant in the multivariate analysis [regression coefficient 0·36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0·05–0·68, p=0·03]. In the subset of guided studies, there were no significant associations between outcomes and the session length, content, delivery mode or therapist background.ConclusionsThe results provide some insights into moderators of self-help interventions, which might assist in the design of future interventions. However, the present study did not provide a comprehensive description, and other research methods might be required to identify factors associated with the effectiveness of self-help.

/pdf/what-makes-self-help-interventions-effective-in-the-1tuh3fdfz7.pdf

What makes self-help interventions effective in the management of depressive symptoms? Meta-analysis and meta-regression.

Background Patients can play an important role in improving patient safety by becoming actively involved in their health care. However, there is a paucity of empirical data on the extent to which patients take on such a role. In order to encourage patient participation in patient safety we first need to assess the full range of factors that may be implicated in such involvement.

/pdf/patient-involvement-in-patient-safety-what-factors-influence-2nl1ni6smz.pdf

Patient involvement in patient safety: what factors influence patient participation and engagement?

Objective To assess how pressures from patients on doctors in the consultation contribute to referral and investigation.

Design Observational study nested within a randomised controlled trial.

Setting Five general practices in three settings in the United Kingdom.

Participants 847 consecutive patients, aged 16-80 years.

Main outcomes measures Patient preferences and doctors' perception of patient pressure and medical need.

Results Perceived medical need was the strongest independent predictor of all behaviours and confounded all other predictors. The doctors thought, however, there was no or only a slight indication for medical need among a significant minority of those who were examined (89/580, 15%), received a prescription (74/394, 19%), or were referred (27/125, 22%) and almost half of those investigated (99/216, 46%). After controlling for patient preference, medical need, and clustering by doctor, doctors' perceptions of patient pressure were strongly associated with prescribing (adjusted odds ratio 2.87, 95% confidence interval 1.16 to 7.08) and even more strongly associated with examination (4.38, 1.24 to 15.5), referral (10.72, 2.08 to 55.3), and investigation (3.18, 1.31 to 7.70). In all cases, doctors' perception of patient pressure was a stronger predictor than patients' preferences. Controlling for randomisation group, mean consultation time, or patient variables did not alter estimates or inferences.

Conclusions Doctors' behaviour in the consultation is most strongly associated with perceived medical need of the patient, which strongly confounds other predictors. However, a significant minority of examining, prescribing, and referral, and almost half of investigations, are still thought by the doctor to be slightly needed or not needed at all, and perceived patient pressure is a strong independent predictor of all doctor behaviours. To limit unnecessary resource use and iatrogenesis, when management decisions are not thought to be medically needed, doctors need to directly ask patients about their expectations.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/328/7437/444.full.pdf

Importance of patient pressure and perceived pressure and perceived medical need for investigations, referral, and prescribing in primary care: nested observational study.

Objective To assess the impact of leaflets encouraging patients to raise concerns and to discuss symptoms or other health related issues in the consultation.

Design Randomised controlled trial.

Setting Five general practices in three settings in the United Kingdom.

Participants 636 consecutive patients, aged 16-80 years, randomised to receive a general leaflet, a depression leaflet, both, or neither.

Main outcomes Mean item score on the medical interview satisfaction scale, consultation time, prescribing, referral, and investigation.

Results The general leaflet increased patient satisfaction and was more effective with shorter consultations (leaflet 0.64, 95% confidence interval 0.19 to 1.08; time 0.31, 0.0 to 0.06; interaction between both -0.045, -0.08 to—0.009), with similar results for subscales related to the different aspects of communication. Thus for a 10 minute consultation the leaflet increased satisfaction by 7% (seven centile points) and for a five minute consultation by 14%. The leaflet overall caused a small non-significant increase in consultation time (0.36 minutes, -0.54 to 1.26). Although there was no change in prescribing or referral, a general leaflet increased the numbers of investigations (odds ratio 1.43, 1.00 to 2.05), which persisted when controlling for the major potential confounders of perceived medical need and patient preference (1.87, 1.10 to 3.19). Most of excess investigations were not thought strongly needed by the doctor or the patient. The depression leaflet had no significant effect on any outcome.

Conclusions Encouraging patients to raise issues and to discuss symptoms and other health related issues in the consultation improves their satisfaction and perceptions of communication, particularly in short consultations. Doctors do, however, need to elicit expectations to prevent needless investigations.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/328/7437/441.full.pdf

Katharine Stephens

Papers

Importance of patient pressure and perceived pressure and perceived medical need for investigations, referral, and prescribing in primary care: nested observational study.

Randomised controlled trial of effect of leaflets to empower patients in consultations in primary care.