Skip to main content

Patients' views on improving sickle cell disease management in primary care

Sickle cell disease (SCD) is the most common and fastest growing genetic disorder in England. SCD is an illness in which recurrent pain, also referred to as vaso-occlusive crisis, is a chronic concern. Primary care professionals therefore play a key role during the initial presentation of symptoms, as well as the management of long-term complications including such recurrent pain. In England, London residents account for approximately three quarters of all SCD admissions to hospitals, with the London Borough of Brent being one of the highest risk areas for SCD. Many aspects of SCD can be effectively and efficiently managed in primary care. Previous studies have shown successful interventions that move management of SCD, particularly uncomplicated sickle cell pain episodes, from tertiary towards primary care.

Focus groups may be useful for obtaining developmental input in managing SCD in primary care. In a paper published recently in JRSM Short Reports, Ghida AlJuburi and colleagues reported the findings of a focus group study held at the Sickle Cell Society in the London Borough of Brent. They aimed to identify patient and carer perspectives of general practitioner (GP) knowledge and treatment of SCD, and to identify areas in which improvements could be made. This information helped to design an educational intervention which could help further engage primary health-care professionals in the care and management of their sickle cell patients. The study was part of a wider service improvement programme to improve the management of SCD in the London Borough of Brent.

The study identified a number of barriers to patients with SCD and their carers engaging fully with primary care services. These ranged from practical difficulties accessing services when required, poor communication between primary and secondary care professionals and a perceived lack of confidence in the ability of primary care professionals to provide chronic disease management specific to SCD. This study highlighted that SCD patients and carers have many criticisms about the current quality of services for managing patients with SCD in primary care. The study also helped provide key themes and useful suggestions that have been used to develop an educational intervention for general practices that will be used to improve SCD management in primary care.

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...

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...

Relevance Over Recall: Rethinking How AI Uses Clinical Data

Our article in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine argues that safe and effective AI in healthcare must incorporate mechanisms that emulate human judgement - down-weighting old, inaccurate or superseded information and prioritising what is recent, clinically relevant and reaffirmed - so that AI supports, rather than disrupts, high-quality patient care.  Clinicians constantly revise, reinterpret and filter past information so that only what is relevant, accurate and timely shapes present-day management decisions; medical records function as dynamic “working tools” rather than fixed archives. By contrast, many AI systems lack this capacity for selective forgetting and often treat all historical data as equally meaningful.  This can lead to outdated or low-confidence diagnoses being repeatedly resurfaced, persistent labels influencing clinical expectations, and irrelevant, long-resolved events cluttering summaries and decision-support outputs. Such indiscriminate recall...