Earlier heart failure (HF) diagnosis in the community could allow timely treatment initiation and prevent unnecessary hospitalisation, but identifying those at risk remains challenging. We aimed to summarise the performance of risk prediction models for a new diagnosis of HF.

Systematic review of multivariable incident HF risk prediction models in the community setting.

MEDLINE and Embase were searched from inception to 9 November 2023.

Observational, community-based studies reporting prediction model performance for incident HF within a 5-year time horizon.

Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data. Where possible, C-statistics (or area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) with 95% CIs were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool and certainty of evidence by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation.

Eighteen studies described 45 prediction models, 27 used traditional statistical methods and 18 applied machine learning. Most (39/45) demonstrated acceptable discrimination (C-statistic >0.70). Overall, C-statistics ranged from 0.675 to 0.954, typically with narrow 95% CIs. External validation was performed for 31 models, but only two—the modified PCP-HF models for white men and women—were validated in three cohorts, the highest among all the models. Exploratory random-effects meta-analysis of these models showed pooled C-statistics of 0.82 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.82) for men and 0.85 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.88) for women, indicating excellent discrimination but more heterogenous performance among women. Model performance was at high risk of bias due to unreported or inappropriate handling of missing data, and the certainty of evidence was very low.

Risk prediction models for a new diagnosis of HF in the community performed well, but were at high risk of bias and lacked external validation. Future model development requires appropriate data sources, robust handling of missing data, external validation and clinical testing to assess their impact on earlier HF diagnosis and outcomes.

CRD42022347120.

To understand factors that influence the intention of workers to remain in or leave employment in National Health Service (NHS) mental health crisis services and to use findings to formulate recommendations for NHS trusts to achieve improved worker stability in mental health crisis services.

A reflexive thematic analysis was conducted to explore the retention-related experiences of crisis workers. Secondary data was obtained from interviews conducted with crisis workers. This was collected by The University of Sheffield as part of the Retention of Mental Health Staff (RoMHS) study.

Six NHS Trusts in England.

All crisis worker interviews from the RoMHS study were included, totalling 10 participants: 70% female, 30% male, exclusively White British, and mostly occupying leadership roles.

Five themes were identified as influencing the retention of crisis workers: resource limitations, organisational culture and leadership, fairness and consistency, personal agency and team working. These themes are comparable to factors known to affect retention of the mental health workforce more widely. However, this study found a greater emphasis on the emotional burden of crisis work, including the challenges of complex risk management, and a perceived vulnerability of crisis service workers to increased workload and fewer development opportunities compared with other specialist mental health services.

This study identifies that crisis workers face similar retention-related issues compared with the mental health workforce more widely, but with additional challenges related to the emotional intensity of the work and susceptibility of crisis services to resource constraints compared with other specialist mental health services. Further research should focus on employees who left crisis services, under-represented groups within the crisis workforce and the impact of retention-related policy.

This study explored how Structured Medication Reviews (SMRs) are being undertaken and the challenges to their successful implementation and sustainability.

A cross-sectional mixed methods online survey.

Primary care in England.

120 clinical pharmacists with experience in conducting SMRs in primary care.

Survey responses were received from clinical pharmacists working in 15 different regions. The majority were independent prescribers (62%, n=74), and most were employed by Primary Care Networks (65%, n=78), delivering SMRs for one or more general practices. 61% (n=73) had completed, or were currently enrolled in, the approved training pathway. Patient selection was largely driven by the primary care contract specification: care home residents, patients with polypharmacy, patients on medicines commonly associated with medication errors, patients with severe frailty and/or patients using potentially addictive pain management medication. Only 26% (n=36) of respondents reported providing patients with information in advance. The majority of SMRs were undertaken remotely by telephone and were 21–30 min in length. Much variation was reported in approaches to conducting SMRs, with SMRs in care homes being deemed the most challenging due to additional complexities involved. Challenges included not having sufficient time to prepare adequately, address complex polypharmacy and complete follow-up work generated by SMRs, issues relating to organisational support, competing national priorities and lack of ‘buy-in’ from some patients and General Practitioners.

These results offer insights into the role being played by the clinical pharmacy workforce in a new country-wide initiative to improve the quality and safety of care for patients taking multiple medicines. Better patient preparation and trust, alongside continuing professional development, more support and oversight for clinical pharmacists conducting SMRs, could lead to more efficient medication reviews. However, a formal evaluation of the potential of SMRs to optimise safe medicines use for patients in England is now warranted.

Stroke is the second leading cause of death worldwide, with the greatest burden in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Haemorrhagic stroke or spontaneous intracranial haemorrhage (sICH), including intraparenchymal haemorrhage (IPH) and subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH), has the highest mortality and morbidity. Local management practices for haemorrhagic stroke vary greatly between geographical regions. The Planetary Outcomes after Intracranial Haemorrhage study aims to provide a global snapshot of the patient characteristics, processes of care and short-term outcomes of patients being treated for sICH across high- and low-income settings. It will also describe variation seen in care processes and available resources and time delays to receiving care. A greater understanding of the current state of sICH care is essential to identify possible interventions and targets for improved standards of care in all settings.

We describe a planned prospective, multicentre, international observational cohort study of patients admitted to hospital for management of sICH. We will include patients of all ages presenting to hospital with imaging evidence of sICH (IPH, intraventricular haemorrhage and/or SAH). The study will collect patient, care process and short-term outcome data, following patients for up to 30 days (or until discharge or death, whichever occurs first). Any centre globally where patients with sICH are admitted and managed can participate, targeting a sample size of 712 patients. The study will recruit centres worldwide through pre-existing research networks and by dissemination through neurosurgical and stroke conferences and courses. Each participating centre will complete a site questionnaire alongside patient data collection.

The study has received ethical approval by the University of Cambridge (PRE.2024.070). Participating centres will also confirm that they have undergone all necessary local governance procedures prior to starting local data collection. The findings will be disseminated via open access peer-reviewed journals, relevant conferences and other professional networks and lay channels, including the study website (https://plotich.org/) and social media channels (@plotichstudy).

NCT06731751.