BackgroundMultimorbidity places a substantial burden on patients and the healthcare system, but few contemporary epidemiological data are available.AimTo describe the epidemiology of multimorbidity in adults in England, and quantify associations between multimorbidity and health service utilisation.Design and settingRetrospective cohort study, undertaken in England.MethodThe study used a random sample of 403 985 adult patients (aged ≥18 years), who were registered with a general practice on 1 January 2012 and included in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Multimorbidity was defined as having two or more of 36 long-term conditions recorded in patients’ medical records, and associations between multimorbidity and health service utilisation (GP consultations, prescriptions, and hospitalisations) over 4 years were quantified.ResultsIn total, 27.2% of the patients involved in the study had multimorbidity. The most prevalent conditions were hypertension (18.2%), depression or anxiety (10.3%), and chronic pain (10.1%). The prevalence of multimorbidity was higher in females than males (30.0% versus 24.4% respectively) and among those with lower socioeconomic status (30.0% in the quintile with the greatest levels of deprivation versus 25.8% in that with the lowest). Physical–mental comorbidity constituted a much greater proportion of overall morbidity in both younger patients (18–44 years) and those patients with a lower socioeconomic status. Multimorbidity was strongly associated with health service utilisation. Patients with multimorbidity accounted for 52.9% of GP consultations, 78.7% of prescriptions, and 56.1% of hospital admissions.ConclusionMultimorbidity is common, socially patterned, and associated with increased health service utilisation. These findings support the need to improve the quality and efficiency of health services providing care to patients with multimorbidity at both practice and national level.

AimsTo estimate the short-term effectiveness, feasibility and acceptability of a smoking cessation intervention (the iQuit system) that consists of tailored printed and Short Message Service (SMS) text message self-help delivered as an adjunct to cessation support in primary care to inform the design of a definitive trial.DesignA stratified two parallel-group randomized controlled trial comparing usual care (control) with usual care plus the iQuit system (intervention), delivered by primary care nurses/healthcare assistants who were blinded to the allocation sequence.SettingThirty-two general practice (GP) surgeries in England, UK.ParticipantsA total of 602 smokers initiating smoking cessation support from their local GP surgery were randomized (control n = 303, intervention n = 299).MeasurementsPrimary outcome was self-reported 2-week point prevalence abstinence at 8 weeks follow-up. Secondary smoking outcomes and feasibility and acceptability measures were collected at 4 weeks after quit date, 8 weeks and 6 months follow-up.FindingsThere were no significant between-group differences in the primary outcome [control 40.3%, iQuit 45.2%; odds ratio (OR) = 1.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.88–1.69] or in secondary short-term smoking outcomes. Six-month prolonged abstinence was significantly higher in the iQuit arm (control 8.9%, iQuit 15.1%; OR = 1.81, 95% CI = 1.09–3.01). iQuit support took on average 7.7 minutes (standard deviation = 4.0) to deliver and 18.9% (95% CI = 14.8–23.7%) of intervention participants discontinued the text message support during the programme.ConclusionsTailored printed and text message self-help delivered alongside routine smoking cessation support in primary care does not significantly increase short-term abstinence, but may increase long-term abstinence and demonstrated feasibility and acceptability compared with routine cessation support alone.

BackgroundAlthough a core element in patient care the trajectory of empathy during undergraduate medical education remains unclear. Empathy is generally regarded as comprising an affective capacity: the ability to be sensitive to and concerned for, another and a cognitive capacity: the ability to understand and appreciate the other person’s perspective. The authors investigated whether final year undergraduate students recorded lower levels of empathy than their first year counterparts, and whether male and female students differed in this respect.MethodsBetween September 2013 and June 2014 an online questionnaire survey was administered to 15 UK, and 2 international medical schools. Participating schools provided both 5–6 year standard courses and 4 year accelerated graduate entry courses. The survey incorporated the Jefferson Scale of Empathy-Student Version (JSE-S) and Davis’s Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI), both widely used to measure medical student empathy. Participation was voluntary. Chi squared tests were used to test for differences in biographical characteristics of student groups. Multiple linear regression analyses, in which predictor variables were year of course (first/final); sex; type of course and broad socio-economic group were used to compare empathy scores.ResultsFive medical schools (4 in the UK, 1 in New Zealand) achieved average response rates of 55 % (n = 652) among students starting their course and 48 % (n = 487) among final year students. These schools formed the High Response Rate Group. The remaining 12 medical schools recorded lower response rates of 24.0 % and 15.2 % among first and final year students respectively. These schools formed the Lower Response Rate Group. For both male and female students in both groups of schools no significant differences in any empathy scores were found between students starting and approaching the end of their course. Gender was found to significantly predict empathy scores, with females scoring higher than males.ConclusionsParticipant male and female medical students approaching the end of their undergraduate education, did not record lower levels of empathy, compared to those at the beginning of their course. Questions remain concerning the trajectory of empathy after qualification and how best to support it through the pressures of starting out in medical practice.

Objectives The Covid-19 pandemic necessitated a rapid global transition towards telemedicine; yet much remains unknown about telemedicine’s acceptability and safety in rheumatology. To help address this gap and inform practice, this study investigated rheumatology patient and clinician experiences and views of telemedicine. Methods Sequential mixed methodology combined analysis of surveys and in-depth interviews. Between and within-group differences in views of telemedicine were examined for patients and clinicians using t-tests. Results Surveys (Patients n = 1,340, Clinicians n = 111) and interviews (Patients n = 31, Clinicians n = 29) were completed between April 2021 and July 2021. The majority of patients were from the UK (96%) and had inflammatory arthritis (32%) or lupus (32%). Patients and clinicians rated telemedicine as worse than face-to-face consultations in almost all categories, although >60% found it more convenient. Building trusting medical relationships and assessment accuracy were great concerns (93% of clinicians and 86% of patients rated telemedicine as worse than face-to-face for assessment accuracy). Telemedicine was perceived to have increased misdiagnoses, inequalities and barriers to accessing care. Participants reported highly disparate telemedicine delivery and responsiveness from primary and secondary care. Although rheumatology clinicians highlighted the importance of a quick response to flaring patients, only 55% of patients were confident that their rheumatology department would respond within 48 hours. Conclusion Findings indicate a preference for face-to-face consultations. Some negative experiences may be due to the pandemic rather than telemedicine specifically, although the risk of greater diagnostic inaccuracies using telemedicine is unlikely to be fully resolved. Training, choice, careful patient selection, and further consultation with clinicians and patients is required to increase telemedicine’s acceptability and safety.