Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects around 10% of the global population and has been estimated to affect around 50% of individuals with type 2 diabetes and 50% of those with heart failure. The guideline-recommended approach is to manage with disease-modifying therapies, but real-world data suggest that prescribing rates do not reflect this in practice.

To develop a cross-specialty consensus on optimal management of the patient with CKD using a modified Delphi method.

An international steering group of experts specialising in internal medicine, endocrinology/diabetology, nephrology and primary care medicine developed 42 statements on aspects of CKD management including identification and screening, risk factors, holistic management, guidelines, cross-specialty alignment and education. Consensus was determined by agreement using an online survey.

The survey was distributed to cardiologists, nephrologists, endocrinologists and primary care physicians across 11 countries.

The threshold for consensus agreement was established a priori by the steering group at 75%. Stopping criteria were defined as a target of 25 responses from each country (N=275), and a 4-week survey period.

274 responses were received in December 2022, 25 responses from Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Guatemala, Mexico, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey and 24 responses from Egypt. 53 responses were received from cardiologists, 52 from nephrologists, 55 from endocrinologists and 114 from primary care physicians. 37 statements attained very high agreement (≥90%) and 5 attained high agreement (≥75% and

There is a high degree of consensus regarding aspects of CKD management among healthcare professionals from 11 countries. Based on these strong levels of agreement, the steering group derived 12 key recommendations focused on diagnosis and management of CKD.

The study aimed to conduct a follow-up of all broad-based training (BBT) trainees who participated in the original evaluation completed in 2017. The follow-up study explored the impact of BBT on career decisions, sustained benefits and unintended disadvantages of the programme, and views on the future of training.

Scoping interviews informed the design of an online survey. The interview transcripts were analysed thematically. The survey was piloted with six volunteers and sent out to all former BBT trainees. Data from the survey were transferred to Excel and SPSS for analysis. The open-text comments on the survey were subject to a thematic content analysis.

Participants were working in general practice, paediatrics, psychiatry or medicine.

Eight former BBT trainees participated in the scoping interviews. Interview participants were selected to ensure a diversity of current specialties and to represent all three BBT cohorts. All former BBT trainees were invited to complete the survey (n=118) and 70 replied.

The benefits of BBT were sustained over time: participants were confident in their career decisions, took a holistic approach to care and capitalised on their experiences in other specialties in their current roles. A minority of trainees also experienced temporary challenges when they joined a specialty training programme after completing the BBT. Whatever their specialty, experience in core medicine, paediatrics, psychiatry and general practice was valued. Disadvantages were short-lived (catching up on transition specialty training) or affected a minority (impact on sense of belonging).

The BBT programme supported the development of generalist doctors. Greater attention needs to be given to training secondary care doctors who take a holistic view of the patient and navigate their specialist care.

Autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (aHSCT) is increasingly used as treatment for patients with active multiple sclerosis (MS), typically after failure of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). A recent phase III trial, ‘Multiple Sclerosis International Stem Cell Transplant, MIST’, showed that aHSCT resulted in prolonged time to disability progression compared with DMTs in patients with relapsing remitting MS (RRMS). However, the MIST trial did not include many of the current high-efficacy DMTs (alemtuzumab, ocrelizumab, ofatumumab or cladribine) in use in the UK within the control arm, which are now offered to patients with rapidly evolving severe MS (RES-MS) who are treatment naïve. There remain, therefore, unanswered questions about the relative efficacy and safety of aHSCT over these high-efficacy DMTs in these patient groups. The StarMS trial (Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation versus Alemtuzumab, Ocrelizumab, Ofatumumab or Cladribine in Relapsing Remitting Multiple Sclerosis) will assess the efficacy, safety and long-term impact of aHSCT compared with high-efficacy DMTs in patients with highly active RRMS despite the use of standard DMTs or in patients with treatment naïve RES-MS.

StarMS is a multicentre parallel-group rater-blinded randomised controlled trial with two arms. A total of 198 participants will be recruited from 19 regional neurology secondary care centres in the UK. Participants will be randomly allocated to the aHSCT arm or DMT arm in a 1:1 ratio. Participants will remain in the study for 2 years with follow-up visits at 3, 6, 9, 12, 18 and 24 months postrandomisation. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients who achieve ‘no evidence of disease activity’ during the 2-year postrandomisation follow-up period in an intention to treat analysis. Secondary outcomes include efficacy, safety, cost-effectiveness and immune reconstitution of aHSCT and the four high-efficacy DMTs.

The study was approved by the Yorkshire and Humber—Leeds West Research Ethics Committee (20/YH/0061). Participants will provide written informed consent prior to any study specific procedures. The study results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and abstracts will be submitted to relevant national and international conferences.

ISRCTN88667898.

In the USA and UK, pandemic-era outcome data have been excluded from hospital rankings and pay-for-performance programmes. We assessed the relationship between US hospitals’ pre-pandemic Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Overall Hospital Star ratings and early pandemic 30-day mortality among both patients with COVID and non-COVID to understand whether pre-existing structures, processes and outcomes related to quality enabled greater pandemic resiliency.

A retrospective, claim-based data study using the 100% Inpatient Standard Analytic File and Medicare Beneficiary Summary File including all US Medicare Fee-for-Service inpatient encounters from 1 April 2020 to 30 November 2020 linked with the CMS Hospital Star Ratings using six-digit CMS provider IDs.

The outcome was risk-adjusted 30-day mortality. We used multivariate logistic regression adjusting for age, sex, Elixhauser mortality index, US Census Region, month, hospital-specific January 2020 CMS Star rating (1–5 stars), COVID diagnosis (U07.1) and COVID diagnosisxCMS Star Rating interaction.

We included 4 473 390 Medicare encounters from 2533 hospitals, with 92 896 (28.2%) mortalities among COVID-19 encounters and 387 029 (9.3%) mortalities among non-COVID encounters. There was significantly greater odds of mortality as CMS Star Ratings decreased, with 18% (95% CI 15% to 22%; p

Our results support a need to further understand how quality outcomes were maintained during the pandemic. Valuable insights can be gained by including the reporting of risk-adjusted pandemic era hospital quality outcomes for high and low performing hospitals.

There is an urgent need for scalable strategies for treating overweight and obesity in clinical settings. PROPS 2.0 (Partnerships for Reducing Overweight and Obesity with Patient-Centered Strategies 2.0) aims to adapt and implement the combined intervention from the PROPS Study at scale, in a diverse cross-section of patients and providers.

We are implementing PROPS 2.0 across a variety of clinics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, targeting enrolment of 5000 patients. Providers can refer patients or patients can self-refer. Eligible patients must be ≥20 years old and have a body mass index (BMI) of ≥30 kg/m² or a BMI of 25–29.9 kg/m² plus another cardiovascular risk factor or obesity-related condition. After enrolment, patients register for the RestoreHealth online programme/app (HealthFleet Inc.) and participate for 12 months. Patients can engage with the programme and receive personalized feedback from a coach. Patient navigators help to enrol patients, enter updates in the electronic health record, and refer patients to additional resources. The RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) framework is guiding the evaluation.

The Mass General Brigham Human Research Committee approved this protocol. An implementation guide will be created and disseminated, to help other sites adopt the intervention in the future.

NCT0555925.

Over 40% of US adults meet criteria for obesity, a major risk factor for chronic disease. Obesity disproportionately impacts populations that have been historically marginalised (eg, low socioeconomic status, rural, some racial/ethnic minority groups). Evidence-based interventions (EBIs) for weight management exist but reach less than 3% of eligible individuals. The aims of this pilot randomised controlled trial are to evaluate feasibility and acceptability of dissemination strategies designed to increase reach of EBIs for weight management.

This study is a two-phase, Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial, conducted with 200 Medicaid patients. In phase 1, patients will be individually randomised to single text message (TM1) or multiple text messages (TM+). Phase 2 is based on treatment response. Patients who enrol in the EBI within 12 weeks of exposure to phase 1 (ie, responders) receive no further interventions. Patients in TM1 who do not enrol in the EBI within 12 weeks of exposure (ie, TM1 non-responders) will be randomised to either TM1-Continued (ie, no further TM) or TM1 & MAPS (ie, no further TM, up to 2 Motivation And Problem Solving (MAPS) navigation calls) over the next 12 weeks. Patients in TM+ who do not enrol in the EBI (ie, TM+ non-responders) will be randomised to either TM+Continued (ie, monthly text messages) or TM+ & MAPS (ie, monthly text messages, plus up to 2 MAPS calls) over the next 12 weeks. Descriptive statistics will be used to characterise feasibility (eg, proportion of patients eligible, contacted and enrolled in the trial) and acceptability (eg, participant opt-out, participant engagement with dissemination strategies, EBI reach (ie, the proportion of participants who enrol in EBI), adherence, effectiveness).

Study protocol was approved by the University of Utah Institutional Review Board (#00139694). Results will be disseminated through study partners and peer-reviewed publications.

clinicaltrials.gov; NCT05666323.

To explore the factors that may help or hinder deprescribing practice for older people within care homes.

Qualitative semistructured interviews using framework analysis informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

Participants were recruited from two care home provider organisations (a smaller independently owned organisation and a large organisation) in England.

A sample of 23 care home staff, 8 residents, 4 family members and 1 general practitioner were associated with 15 care homes.

Participants discussed their experiences and perceptions of implementing deprescribing within care homes. Major themes of (1) deprescribing as a complex process and (2) internal and external contextual factors influencing deprescribing practice (such as beliefs, abilities and relationships) were interrelated and spanned several CFIR constructs and domains. The quality of local relationships with and support from healthcare professionals were considered more crucial factors than the type of care home management structure.

Several influencing social and contextual factors need to be considered for implementing deprescribing for older adults in care homes. Additional training, tools, support and opportunities need to be made available to care home staff, so they can feel confident and able to question or raise concerns about medicines with prescribers. Further work is warranted to design and adopt a deprescribing approach which addresses these determinants to ensure successful implementation.

Pharmacists are increasingly joining the general practice skill-mix. Research is still in relative infancy, but barriers and facilitators to their integration are emerging, as well as indications that pharmacists’ skillset remain underutilised. This study explores first-hand experiences and perspectives among general practice teams of the processes that underpin the effective integration and sustained contribution of pharmacists in general practice.

This research employed a qualitative case study approach involving general practice teams in Wales. Data were collected from eight general practices where each practice represented one case study. Data were collected via online interviews (one-to-one or group) and written feedback. Data were pattern coded and analysed thematically through a constant comparative approach. Data interpretations were confirmed with participants and wider general practice teams.

Eight general practice teams across Wales (comprising combinations of practice and business managers, general practitioners (GPs) and general practice pharmacists) represented eight case studies. Cases were required to have had experience of working with a general practice pharmacist.

Data were yielded from five practice managers, two GPs, three general practice pharmacists and a business manager. A total of 3 hours and 2 min of interview data was recorded as well as 2038 words of written feedback. Three foundations to pharmacists’ effective contribution to general practice were identified: defining the role (through identifying the right pharmacist, mapping skillset to demand and utilising the increasing need for specialist skills), appropriate infrastructure and workforce review, and an appropriate employment model.

Pharmacists are becoming increasingly critical to the general practice skill-mix and utilisation of their specialist skillset is crucial. This paper identifies how to enable the effective integration and sustained contribution of pharmacists to general practice.