Skip to main content

Does higher quality primary health care reduce stroke admissions?


Hospital admission rates for stroke are strongly associated with population factors. The supply and quality of primary care services may also affect admission rates, but there is little previous research on this association. In a paper published recently in the British Journal of General Practice, Michael Soljak and colleagues from the Department of Primary Care & Public Health at Imperial College London investigated whether the hospital admission rate for stroke is reduced by effective primary and secondary prevention in primary care.

This was a national cross-sectional study in an English population (52 763 586 patients registered with 7969 general practices in 152 primary care trusts). They found that mean annual stroke admission rates per 100 000 population varied from zero to 476.5 at practice level. In a practice-level multivariable Poisson regression, observed stroke prevalence, deprivation, and smoking prevalence were all risk factors for hospital admission. Protective healthcare factors included the percentage of stroke or transient ischaemic attack patients whose last measured total cholesterol was ≤5 mmol/l, and ability to book an appointment with a GP.

They concluded that the associations of stroke admission rates with deprivation and smoking highlight the need for effective smoking-cessation services. Patient experience of access to primary care may also be clinically important. In countries with well-developed primary healthcare systems, the potential to reduce hospital admissions by further improving the clinical quality of primary healthcare may be limited unless more rigorous quality improvement measures than those currently being used are implemented.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between primordial prevention and primary prevention?

Primordial prevention and primary prevention are both crucial strategies for promoting health, but they operate at different levels. Primordial prevention aims to address the root causes of health problems and improve the wider determinants of health. It focuses on preventing the emergence of risk factors in the first place by tackling the underlying social, economic, and environmental determinants of health. This involves broad, population-wide interventions such as: Policies that promote healthy food choices: Think about initiatives like taxing sugary drinks to discourage unhealthy consumption, or providing subsidies for fruits and vegetables to make them more accessible. Urban planning that prioritises well-being: This could include creating walkable neighborhoods with safe cycling routes, ensuring access to green spaces for recreation and relaxation, and designing communities that foster social connections. Social programs that address inequality: Initiatives aimed at reducing pov...

MPH Student Presentations on the NHS Care.Data Programme

As part of a session on primary care data in the Health Informatics module on the Imperial Master of Public Health Programme, I asked students to work in two groups to present arguments for and against the NHS Care.Data programme. Care.Data is an NHS programme that will extract data from the medical records held by general practitioners (GPs) in England. The Care.Data programme takes advantage of the very high level of use of electronic medical records by GPs in England. After extraction, data will be uploaded to the NHS Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC). The data will then be used for functions such as health care planning, monitoring disease patterns and research. The programme has been controversial with proponents arguing that the programme will bring many benefits for the NHS and the population of England; and opponents arguing it is a major breach of privacy. You can view the two presentations to help inform you further about these arguments: Arguments fo...

What makes a good doctor – and who gets to decide?

What Makes a Good Doctor? This is the question that Waseem Jerjes and I explore in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine . It is a key question that underpins the architecture of medical education, clinical practice, regulation, and professional identity. It cannot be answered by regulators, educators, or employers in isolation. It must be answered together – by doctors and patients – revisited throughout a career, and adapted as society and the profession change. Without that shared reflection, the danger is not simply disillusionment, but the erosion of the moral foundations of clinical work. As we enter an era when diagnosis will increasingly involve artificial intelligence and when performance metrics reward volume over value, reclaiming this question as a professional one is imperative. The integrity of our institutions – and of the practitioners within them – depends on reimagining excellence in inclusive, relational terms. A good doctor is not a flawless technician or a f...