Implementation of NHS Health Checks in general practice: variation in delivery between practices and practitioners

J. Krska, R. du Plessis, Hannah Chellaswamy
{"title":"Implementation of NHS Health Checks in general practice: variation in delivery between practices and practitioners","authors":"J. Krska, R. du Plessis, Hannah Chellaswamy","doi":"10.1017/S1463423615000493","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim To evaluate NHS Health Check implementation in terms of frequency of data recording, advice provided, referrals to community-based lifestyle support services, statin prescribing and new diagnoses, and to assess variation in these aspects between practices and health professionals involved in delivery. Background Most NHS Health Checks are delivered by general practices, but little detail is known about the extent of variation in how they are delivered in different practices and by different health professionals. Methods This was an observational study conducted in a purposively selected sample of 13 practices in Sefton, North West England. Practices used previously recorded information from their clinical management systems to identify patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk ⩾20%, a potentially cost-effective approach. The evaluation was conducted during the first year of delivery in Sefton. Data were extracted from medical records of all patients identified, regardless of Health Check attendance. Findings Of the 2892 patients identified by the 13 practices, 1070 had received an NHS Health Check at the time of the study. Of these, only 936 (87.5%) had a recorded CVD risk score, with risk ⩾20% confirmed in 92.0%. Estimated risk category was correct in 456/677 (67.4%) of patients with estimated and actual risk scores. Significant variation was found between practices and health professionals in parameters recorded, tests requested, advice given and referrals for lifestyle support. Only 45.3% of patients had body mass index, smoking, alcohol, exercise, blood pressure and cholesterol all recorded. Lifestyle advice and referral into lifestyle services were documented in 80.6% and 6.4% of attenders, respectively, again with significant variation between practices and professionals. Statin prescribing rose in attenders from 19.6% to 34.6%. A similar proportion of attenders and non-attenders received new diagnoses. Conclusion Effort is required to reduce variation in how practices deliver and follow-up NHS Health Checks, to ensure the consistency of the programme.","PeriodicalId":20471,"journal":{"name":"Primary Health Care Research & Development","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Primary Health Care Research & Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1463423615000493","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

Aim To evaluate NHS Health Check implementation in terms of frequency of data recording, advice provided, referrals to community-based lifestyle support services, statin prescribing and new diagnoses, and to assess variation in these aspects between practices and health professionals involved in delivery. Background Most NHS Health Checks are delivered by general practices, but little detail is known about the extent of variation in how they are delivered in different practices and by different health professionals. Methods This was an observational study conducted in a purposively selected sample of 13 practices in Sefton, North West England. Practices used previously recorded information from their clinical management systems to identify patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk ⩾20%, a potentially cost-effective approach. The evaluation was conducted during the first year of delivery in Sefton. Data were extracted from medical records of all patients identified, regardless of Health Check attendance. Findings Of the 2892 patients identified by the 13 practices, 1070 had received an NHS Health Check at the time of the study. Of these, only 936 (87.5%) had a recorded CVD risk score, with risk ⩾20% confirmed in 92.0%. Estimated risk category was correct in 456/677 (67.4%) of patients with estimated and actual risk scores. Significant variation was found between practices and health professionals in parameters recorded, tests requested, advice given and referrals for lifestyle support. Only 45.3% of patients had body mass index, smoking, alcohol, exercise, blood pressure and cholesterol all recorded. Lifestyle advice and referral into lifestyle services were documented in 80.6% and 6.4% of attenders, respectively, again with significant variation between practices and professionals. Statin prescribing rose in attenders from 19.6% to 34.6%. A similar proportion of attenders and non-attenders received new diagnoses. Conclusion Effort is required to reduce variation in how practices deliver and follow-up NHS Health Checks, to ensure the consistency of the programme.
在一般实践中实施国民保健制度健康检查:实践和从业者之间交付的差异
目的评估NHS健康检查的实施情况,包括数据记录的频率、提供的建议、转介到社区生活方式支持服务、他汀类药物处方和新诊断,并评估实践和参与分娩的卫生专业人员在这些方面的差异。背景:大多数国民保健服务健康检查是由一般做法提供的,但很少有细节了解在不同的做法和不同的卫生专业人员如何提供的差异程度。方法:这是一项观察性研究,在英格兰西北部塞夫顿有目的地选择了13个实践样本。实践使用先前从其临床管理系统中记录的信息来识别心血管疾病(CVD)风险大于或等于20%的患者,这是一种潜在的成本效益方法。评估是在塞夫顿交付的第一年进行的。数据从所有确定的患者的医疗记录中提取,无论是否参加健康检查。在13种做法确定的2892名患者中,1070人在研究期间接受了NHS健康检查。其中,只有936(87.5%)有记录的心血管疾病风险评分,92.0%的人确认风险大于或等于20%。估计风险评分与实际风险评分的患者中,456/677(67.4%)的估计风险类别是正确的。实践和卫生专业人员之间在记录的参数、要求的测试、提供的建议和转介生活方式支持方面存在显著差异。只有45.3%的患者有身体质量指数、吸烟、饮酒、运动、血压和胆固醇的记录。生活方式建议和转介到生活方式服务的记录分别为80.6%和6.4%的参与者,同样在实践和专业人员之间存在显著差异。他汀类药物的处方率从19.6%上升到34.6%。出席者和非出席者的新诊断比例相似。结论:需要努力减少实践提供和跟踪NHS健康检查方式的差异,以确保方案的一致性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信