Conectar
We aimed to use a large dataset to compare self-reported and primary care measures of insomnia symptom prevalence in England and establish whether they identify participants with similar characteristics.
Cross-sectional study with linked electronic health records (EHRs).
Primary care in England.
163 748 UK Biobank participants in England (aged 38–71 at baseline) with linked primary care EHRs.
We compared the percentage of those self-reporting ‘usually’ having insomnia symptoms at UK Biobank baseline assessment (2006–2010) to those with a Read code for insomnia symptoms in their primary care records prior to baseline. We stratified prevalence in both groups by sociodemographic, lifestyle, sleep and health characteristics.
We found that 29% of the sample self-reported having insomnia symptoms, while only 6% had a Read code for insomnia symptoms in their primary care records. Only 10% of self-reported cases had an insomnia symptom Read code, while 49% of primary care cases self-reported having insomnia symptoms. In both primary care and self-reported data, prevalence of insomnia symptom cases was highest in females, older participants and those with the lowest household incomes. However, while snorers and risk takers were more likely to be a primary care case, they were less likely to self-report insomnia symptoms than non-snorers and non-risk takers.
Only a small proportion of individuals experiencing insomnia symptoms have an insomnia symptom Read code in their primary care record. However, primary care data do provide a clinically meaningful measure of insomnia prevalence. In addition, the sociodemographic characteristics of people attending primary care with insomnia were consistent with those with self-reported insomnia, thus primary care records are a valuable data source for studying risk factors for insomnia. Further studies should replicate our findings in other populations and examine ways to increase discussions about sleep health in primary care.
To reach consensus on the definition and attributes of ‘person-centred handover practices’ in emergency departments.
Handover practices between emergency care practitioners and healthcare professionals in emergency departments are important and should be conducted meticulously. Person-centred handover practices may enhance the delivery of person-centred care in emergency departments.
A three-round online Delphi survey.
Nine experts participated in a three round Delphi survey. The expert panel comprised experts from nine countries. Quantitative data were descriptively analysed, and qualitative data were thematically analysed. A consensus of 80% had to be reached before an attribute and definition could be accepted.
Experts reached a consensus of 79% in round one, 95% in round two and 95% in round three. A final set of six attributes were agreed upon and the final concept definition was formulated.
Person-centred handover practices have not been implemented in emergency departments. Yet, person-centred handover practices may enhance the delivery of person-centred care, which has multiple benefits for patients and healthcare practitioners.
Person-centred care is not generally implemented in emergency departments. Person-centred handover practices can lead to person-centred care. Handover practices in emergency departments are a high-risk activity. Despite numerous calls to standardise and improve handover practices, they remain a problem. Developing a standardised definition could be a first step towards implementing person-centred handover practices in emergency departments.
The study adhered to the relevant EQUATOR reporting guidelines: Guidance on Conducting and Reporting Delphi Studies (CREDES) checklist.
Improve handover practices and patient care. Improve person-centred care in emergency departments.
Emergency care practitioners and nurses experienced in handover practices and/or person-centred care, working in clinical and academic fields, participated in the study by sharing their expert knowledge during each of the Delphi rounds.
FreshRSS 