BACKGROUND: Primary hypothyroidism affects about 3% of the general population in Europe. In most cases people with hypothyroidism are treated with levothyroxine. In the context of the 2023 British Thyroid Association guidance and the 2020 Competitions and Marketing Authority (CMA) ruling, we examined prescribing data for levothyroxine, Natural desiccated thyroid (NDT) and liothyronine by dose, regarding changes over the years 2016-2022.
METHODS: Monthly primary care prescribing data for each British National Formulary code were analysed for levothyroxine, liothyronine and NDT.
METHODS: The rolling 12-month total/average of cost or prescribing volume was used to identify the moment of change. Results included number of prescriptions, the actual costs, and the cost/prescription/mcg of drug.
RESULTS: Liothyronine: In 2016 94% of the total 74,500 prescriptions were of the 20 mcg dose. In 2020 the percentage prescribed in the 5 mcg and 10 mcg doses started to increase so that by 2022 each reached nearly 27% of total liothyronine prescribing. The average cost/prescription in 2016 of 20 mcg was £404/prescription and this fell by 80% to £101 in 2022; while the 10 mcg cost of £348/prescription fell by only 35% to £255 and the 5 mcg cost of £355/prescription fell by 38% to £242/prescription. The total prescriptions of liothyronine in 2016 were 74,605, falling by 30% up to 2019 when they started to grow again - most recently at 60,990-15% lower than the 2016 figure, with the result that total costs fell by 70% to £9 m/year.
CONCLUSIONS: Liothyronine costs fell after the CMA ruling but remain orders of magnitude higher than for levothyroxine. The remaining 0.2% of patients with liothyronine treated hypothyroidism are still absorbing 16% of medication costs. The lower liothyronine 5cmg and 10 mcg doses as recommended by BTA are 240% the costs of the 20 mcg dose. Thus, following latest BTA guidance which recommends the lower liothyronine doses still incurs substantial additional costs vs the prescribing liothyronine in the no longer recommended treatment regime. High drug price continues to impact clinical decisions, potentially limiting liothyronine therapy availability to a considerable number of patients who could benefit from this treatment.

BACKGROUND: The disproportionate effect of COVID-19 on long term care facility (LTCF) residents has highlighted the need for clear, consistent guidance on the management of pandemics in such settings. As research exploring the experiences of LTCFs during the pandemic and the implications of mass hospital discharge, restricting staff movement, and limiting visitation from relatives are emerging, an in-depth review of policies, guidance and recommendations issued during this time could facilitate wider understanding in this area.
OBJECTIVE: To identify policies, guidance, and recommendations related to LTCF staff and residents, in England issued by the government during the COVID-19 pandemic, developing a timeline of key events and synthesizing the policy aims, recommendations, implementation and intended outcomes.
METHODS: A scoping review of publicly available policy documents, guidance, and recommendations related to COVID-19 in LTCFs in England, identified using systematic searches of UK government websites. The main aims, recommendations, implementation and intended outcomes reported in included documents were extracted. Data was analysed using thematic synthesis following a three-stage approach: coding the text, grouping codes into descriptive themes, and development of analytical themes.
RESULTS: Thirty-three key policy documents were included in the review. Six areas of recommendations were identified: infection prevention and control, hospital discharge, testing and vaccination, staffing, visitation and continuing routine care. Seven areas of implementation were identified: funding, collaborative working, monitoring and data collection, reducing workload, decision making and leadership, training and technology, and communication.
CONCLUSIONS: LTCFs remain complex settings, and it is imperative that lessons are learned from the experiences during COVID-19 to ensure that future pandemics are managed appropriately. This review has synthesized the policies issued during this time, however, the extent to which such guidance was communicated to LTCFs, and subsequently implemented, in addition to being effective, requires further research. In particular, understanding the secondary effects of such policies and how they can be introduced within the existing challenges inherent to adult social care, need addressing.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, major society guidelines have recommended the use of newer P2Y12 inhibitors over clopidogrel for those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome. It is unclear what impact these recommendations had on clinical practice.
RESULTS: All percutaneous coronary intervention procedures (n=534 210) for acute coronary syndrome in England and Wales (April 1, 2010, to March 31, 2022) were retrospectively analyzed, stratified by choice of preprocedural P2Y12 inhibitor (clopidogrel, ticagrelor, and prasugrel). Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine odds ratios of receipt of ticagrelor and prasugrel (versus clopidogrel) over time, and predictors of their receipt. Overall, there was a significant increase in receipt of newer P2Y12 inhibitors from 2010 to 2020 (2022 versus 2010: ticagrelor odds ratio, 8.12 [95% CI, 7.67-8.60]; prasugrel odds ratio, 6.14 [95% CI, 5.53-6.81]), more so in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction than non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome indication. The most significant increase in odds of receipt of prasugrel was observed between 2020 and 2022 (P<0.001), following a decline/plateau in its use in earlier years (2011-2019). In contrast, the odds of receipt of ticagrelor significantly increased in earlier years (2012-2017, Ptrend<0.001), after which the trend was stable (Ptrend=0.093).
CONCLUSIONS: Over a 13-year-period, there has been a significant increase in use of newer P2Y12 inhibitors, although uptake of prasugrel use remained significantly lower than ticagrelor. Earlier society guidelines (pre-2017) were associated with the highest rates of ticagrelor use for non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome and ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction cases while the ISAR-REACT 5 (Prospective, Randomized Trial of Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome) trial and later society guidelines were associated with higher prasugrel use, mainly for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction indication.

BACKGROUND: System problems, known as operational failures, can greatly affect the work of GPs, with negative consequences for patient and professional experience, efficiency, and effectiveness. Many operational failures are tractable to improvement, but which ones should be prioritised is less clear.
OBJECTIVE: To build consensus among GPs and patients on the operational failures that should be prioritised to improve NHS general practice.
METHODS: Two modified Delphi exercises were conducted online among NHS GPs and patients in several regions across England.
METHODS: Between February and October 2021, two modified Delphi exercises were conducted online: one with NHS GPs, and a subsequent exercise with patients. Over two rounds, GPs rated the importance of a list of operational failures (n = 45) that had been compiled using existing evidence. The resulting shortlist was presented to patients for rating over two rounds. Data were analysed using median scores and interquartile ranges. Consensus was defined as 80% of responses falling within one value below and above the median.
RESULTS: Sixty-two GPs responded to the first Delphi exercise, and 53.2% (n = 33) were retained through to round two. This exercise yielded consensus on 14 failures as a priority for improvement, which were presented to patients. Thirty-seven patients responded to the first patient Delphi exercise, and 89.2% (n = 33) were retained through to round two. Patients identified 13 failures as priorities. The highest scoring failures included inaccuracies in patients\' medical notes, missing test results, and difficulties referring patients to other providers because of problems with referral forms.
CONCLUSIONS: This study identified the highest-priority operational failures in general practice according to GPs and patients, and indicates where improvement efforts relating to operational failures in general practice should be focused.

OBJECTIVE: The Making Every Contact Count (MECC) initiative is broadly defined as an opportunistic approach to prevention by making use of the thousands of conversations service providers have with service users every day. However, since its conception, the application of MECC has diverged and developed considerably. Thus, the current study aimed to revise the definition according to current research and practice to better describe what is and is not included.
METHODS: A consensus building classic Delphi methodology, completed by an expert panel.
METHODS: Round 1 asked open questions around the definition of MECC. Content analysis of round 1 identified statements that were rated for agreement in round 2. Statements achieving ≥80% agreement were included in a short, long, or operational definition of MECC that were rated for agreement in round 3 (the minimum number required). An agreement of ≥80% indicated consensus.
RESULTS: Forty out of 100 contacted experts completed three rounds. Experts in practice and research were recruited internationally although most were from England. From round 1, 274 statements were generated, of which 96 achieved consensus and were included within round 3. The short and long definition received consensus in round 3, the operational definition required four rounds to reach consensus.
CONCLUSIONS: MECC is a person-centred approach to health behaviour change that, provided an individual possesses the relevant skills, can be delivered by anyone and anywhere. The distinguishing feature of MECC is not in its duration, target behaviour, or conditions for delivery, but rather in the approach taken and the mechanisms applied to conversations. Implications for research and practice are discussed, and the limits for applicability acknowledged.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to gain consensus among young people with a stoma due to inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) on the priorities for the content of an intervention for the self-management of stoma-related distress. The current identification and management of distress in young people with a stoma is often suboptimal in clinical settings and there is a need for improved support resources.
METHODS: Two consensus group meetings were carried out via online video conferencing, using nominal group technique. Participants generated, rated on a Likert scale and discussed, topics for inclusion in a future self-management intervention.
RESULTS: Nineteen young people, aged 19-33, with a stoma due to IBD took part in one of two group meetings. Participants were located across England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Twenty-nine topics were generated by participants, seven of which reached consensus of ≥80%, that is, a mean of ≥5.6 on a 7-point Likert scale. These were: receiving advice from young people with lived experience of stoma surgery; advice on/addressing concerns about romantic relationships, sex and intimacy; information about fertility and pregnancy related to stoma surgery; stoma \'hacks\', for example, useful everyday tips regarding clothing, making bag changes easier and so forth; reflecting on and recognising own emotional response to surgery; tips on managing the stoma during the night; and processing trauma related to the illness and surgery journey.
CONCLUSIONS: Findings extend previous research on young people\'s experiences of stoma surgery, by generating consensus on young people\'s priorities for managing distress related to surgery and living with a stoma. These priorities include topics not previously reported in the literature, including the need for information about fertility and pregnancy. Findings will inform the development of a self-management resource for young people with an IBD stoma and have relevance for the clinical management of stoma-related distress in this population.
UNASSIGNED: Three patient contributors are co-authors on this paper, having contributed to the study design, interpretation of results and writing of the manuscript. The study\'s Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement advisory group also had an integral role in the study. They met with the research team for four 2-h virtual meetings, giving input on the aims and purpose of the study, recruitment methods, and interpretation of findings. The group also advised on the age range for participants. The views of young people with a stoma are the central component of the study reported in this paper, which aims to gain consensus among young people with an IBD stoma on their priorities for the content of a resource to self-manage distress related to stoma surgery.

A foundation for digitally enabling healthier living is the safe development and use of technology. The practice of digital health safety has emerged from patient harm attributed to failing technologies. The study aimed to investigate how to adopt and implement digital health safety guidelines at scale. Data was collected through an online survey, semi-structured interviews, focus groups, document review, and data mining of artefacts. The findings of this study capture the emerging practice from Australia in a way that offers insights into the problem of practice, patient safety practice, safety culture, and socio-technical factors. The research findings contribute to better understanding of the complexities of balancing digital innovation with patient safety. The four recommendations from the study and the provision of a logic model will support the audience to implement actions toward a safer digital health ecology.

To establish a consensus on the structure and process of healthcare services for patients with concussion in England to facilitate better healthcare quality and patient outcome.
This consensus study followed the modified Delphi methodology with five phases: participant identification, item development, two rounds of voting and a meeting to finalise the consensus statements. The predefined threshold for agreement was set at ≥70%.
Specialist outpatient services.
Members of the UK Head Injury Network were invited to participate. The network consists of clinical specialists in head injury practising in emergency medicine, neurology, neuropsychology, neurosurgery, paediatric medicine, rehabilitation medicine and sports and exercise medicine in England.
A consensus statement on the structure and process of specialist outpatient care for patients with concussion in England.
55 items were voted on in the first round. 29 items were removed following the first voting round and 3 items were removed following the second voting round. Items were modified where appropriate. A final 18 statements reached consensus covering 3 main topics in specialist healthcare services for concussion; care pathway to structured follow-up, prognosis and measures of recovery, and provision of outpatient clinics.
This work presents statements on how the healthcare services for patients with concussion in England could be redesigned to meet their health needs. Future work will seek to implement these into the clinical pathway.

BACKGROUND: Standardisation of referral pathways and the transfer of patients with acute aortic syndromes (AAS) to regional centres are recommended by NHS England in the Acute Aortic Dissection Toolkit. The aim of the Transfer of Thoracic Aortic Vascular Emergencies to Regional Specialist INstitutes Group study was to establish an interdisciplinary consensus on the interhospital transfer of patients with AAS to specialist high-volume aortic centres.
METHODS: Consensus on the key aspects of interhospital transfer of patients with AAS was established using the Delphi method, in line with Conducting and Reporting of Delphi Studies guidelines. A national patient charity for aortic dissection was involved in the design of the Delphi study. Vascular and cardiothoracic surgeons, emergency physicians, interventional radiologists, cardiologists, intensivists and anaesthetists in the United Kingdom were invited to participate via their respective professional societies.
RESULTS: Three consecutive rounds of an electronic Delphi survey were completed by 212, 101 and 58 respondents, respectively. Using predefined consensus criteria, 60 out of 117 (51%) statements from the survey were included in the consensus statement. The study concluded that patients can be taken directly to a specialist aortic centre if they have typical symptoms of AAS on the background of known aortic disease or previous aortic intervention. Accepted patients should be transferred in a category 2 ambulance (response time <18 min), ideally accompanied by transfer-trained personnel or Adult Critical Care Transfer Services. A clear plan should be agreed in case of a cardiac arrest occurring during the transfer. Patients should reach the aortic centre within 4 hours of the initial referral from their local hospital.
CONCLUSIONS: This consensus statement is the first set of national interdisciplinary recommendations on the interhospital transfer of patients with AAS. Its implementation is likely to contribute to safer and more standardised emergency referral pathways to regional high-volume specialist aortic units.

To evaluate the impact of British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland/Public Health England (BSG/ACPGBI/PHE) 2019 polypectomy surveillance guidelines within a national faecal immunochemical test-based bowel cancer screening (BS) cohort on surveillance activity and detection of pathology by retrospective virtual application.
A retrospective review of BS colonoscopies performed in 2015-2016 with 5 years prospective follow-up in single institution. Index colonoscopies were selected. Incomplete colonoscopies were excluded. Histology of all resected polyps was reviewed. Surveillance intervals were calculated according to BSG/ACPGBI/PHE 2019 guidelines and compared with pre-existing \'European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Colorectal Cancer Screening and Diagnosis\' (EUQA 2013). Total number of colonoscopies deferred by virtual implementation of BSG/ACPGBI/PHE 2019 guidelines were calculated. Pathology identified on procedures that would have been deferred was reviewed.
Total number of index BS colonoscopies performed in 2015-2016 inclusive was 890. 115 were excluded (22 no caecal intubation, 51 inadequate bowel preparation, 56 incomplete polyp clearance). N=509 colonoscopies were scheduled within a 5-year interval following index colonoscopy surveillance rounds based on EUQA guidelines. Overall, volume of surveillance was significantly reduced with retrospective application of BSG/ACPGBI/PHE 2019 guidelines (n=221, p<0.0001). No cancers were detected within the \'potentially deferred\' procedures who attended for follow-up (n=330) with high-risk findings found in<10% (n=30) of colonoscopies within the BSG/ACPGBI/PHE cohort.
BSG/ACPGBI/PHE 2019 guidelines safely reduce the burden of colonoscopy demand with acceptable pathology findings on deferred colonoscopies.