Patients follow various pathways to the diagnosis of HF. However, few appear to follow a pathway supported by guidelines for investigation and referral. There are likely to be missed opportunities for earlier HF diagnosis in primary care.

al. (4 more authors) (2019) Frailty and comorbidity predict first hospitalisation after heart failure diagnosis in primary care: population-based observational study in England. Age and ageing, 48 (3). afy194. pp. 347-354.

ObjectiveClinical guidelines on heart failure (HF) suggest timings for investigation and referral in primary care. We calculated the time for patients to achieve key elements in the recommended pathway to diagnosis of HF.MethodsIn this observational study, we used linked primary and secondary care data (Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a database of anonymised electronic records from UK general practices) between 2010 and 2013. Records were examined for presenting symptoms (breathlessness, fatigue, ankle swelling) and key elements of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-recommended pathway to diagnosis (serum natriuretic peptide (NP) test, echocardiography, specialist referral).Results42 403 patients were diagnosed with HF, of whom 16 597 presented in primary care with suggestive symptoms. 6464 (39%) had recorded NP or echocardiography, and 6043 (36%) specialist referral. Median time from recorded symptom(s) to investigation (NP or echocardiography) was 292 days (IQR 34–844) and to referral 236 days (IQR 42–721). Median time from symptom(s) to diagnosis was 972 days (IQR 337–1468) and to treatment with HF-relevant medication 803 days (IQR 230–1364). Factors significantly affecting timing of referral, treatment and diagnosis included patients’ sex (p=0.001), age (p<0.001), deprivation score (p=0.001), comorbidities (p<0.001) and presenting symptom type (p<0.001).ConclusionsMedian times to investigation or referral of patients presenting in primary care with symptoms suggestive of HF considerably exceeded recommendations. There is a need to support clinicians in the diagnosis of HF in primary care, with improved access to investigation and specialist assessment to support timely management.

Chronic high-impact users constitute a small proportion of total patients, but they have increasingly high use of healthcare services. Short-term high-impact users represent largely end of life patients. They require prompt involvement of the palliative care team to reduce unnecessary readmissions to hospital.

Background Current guidelines for healthcare of community-dwelling older people advocate screening for frailty to predict adverse health outcomes, but there is no consensus on the optimum instrument to use in such settings. The objective of this systematic review of population studies was to compare the ability of the frailty index (FI) and frailty phenotype (FP) instruments to predict all-cause mortality in older people. Methods Studies published before 27 July 2022 were identified using Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and CINAHL databases. The eligibility criteria were population-based prospective studies of community-dwelling older adults (aged 65 years or older) and evaluation of both the FI and FP for prediction of all-cause mortality. The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network’s Methodology checklist was used to assess study quality. The areas under the receiver operator characteristic curves (AUC) were compared, and the proportions of included studies that achieved acceptable discriminatory power (AUC>0.7) were calculated for each frailty instrument. The results were stratified by the use of continuous or categorical formats of each instrument. The review was reported in accordance with the PRISMA and SWiM guidelines. Results Among 8 studies (range: 909 to 7713 participants), both FI and FP had comparable predictive power for all-cause mortality. The AUC values ranged from 0.66 to 0.84 for FI continuous, 0.60 to 0.80 for FI categorical, 0.63 to 0.80 for FP continuous and 0.57 to 0.79 for FP categorical. The proportion of studies achieving acceptable discriminatory power were 75%, 50%, 63%, and 50%, respectively. The predictive ability of each frailty instrument was unaltered by the number of included items. Conclusions Despite differences in their content, both the FI and FP instruments had modest but comparable ability to predict all-cause mortality. The use of continuous rather than categorical formats in either instrument enhanced their ability to predict all-cause mortality.