SummaryBackgroundStudies evaluating titration of antihypertensive medication using self-monitoring give contradictory findings and the precise place of telemonitoring over self-monitoring alone is unclear. The TASMINH4 trial aimed to assess the efficacy of self-monitored blood pressure, with or without telemonitoring, for antihypertensive titration in primary care, compared with usual care.MethodsThis study was a parallel randomised controlled trial done in 142 general practices in the UK, and included hypertensive patients older than 35 years, with blood pressure higher than 140/90 mm Hg, who were willing to self-monitor their blood pressure. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to self-monitoring blood pressure (self-montoring group), to self-monitoring blood pressure with telemonitoring (telemonitoring group), or to usual care (clinic blood pressure; usual care group). Randomisation was by a secure web-based system. Neither participants nor investigators were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was clinic measured systolic blood pressure at 12 months from randomisation. Primary analysis was of available cases. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN 83571366.Findings1182 participants were randomly assigned to the self-monitoring group (n=395), the telemonitoring group (n=393), or the usual care group (n=394), of whom 1003 (85%) were included in the primary analysis. After 12 months, systolic blood pressure was lower in both intervention groups compared with usual care (self-monitoring, 137·0 [SD 16·7] mm Hg and telemonitoring, 136·0 [16·1] mm Hg vs usual care, 140·4 [16·5]; adjusted mean differences vs usual care: self-monitoring alone, −3·5 mm Hg [95% CI −5·8 to −1·2]; telemonitoring, −4·7 mm Hg [–7·0 to −2·4]). No difference between the self-monitoring and telemonitoring groups was recorded (adjusted mean difference −1·2 mm Hg [95% CI −3·5 to 1·2]). Results were similar in sensitivity analyses including multiple imputation. Adverse events were similar between all three groups.InterpretationSelf-monitoring, with or without telemonitoring, when used by general practitioners to titrate antihypertensive medication in individuals with poorly controlled blood pressure, leads to significantly lower blood pressure than titration guided by clinic readings. With most general practitioners and many patients using self-monitoring, it could become the cornerstone of hypertension management in primary care.FundingNational Institute for Health Research via Programme Grant for Applied Health Research (RP-PG-1209-10051), Professorship to RJM (NIHR-RP-R2-12-015), Oxford Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care, and Omron Healthcare UK.

ObjectivesTo investigate the effect of providing patients online access to their electronic health record (EHR) and linked transactional services on the provision, quality and safety of healthcare. The objectives are also to identify and understand: barriers and facilitators for providing online access to their records and services for primary care workers; and their association with organisational/IT system issues.SettingPrimary care.ParticipantsA total of 143 studies were included. 17 were experimental in design and subject to risk of bias assessment, which is reported in a separate paper. Detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria have also been published elsewhere in the protocol.Primary and secondary outcome measuresOur primary outcome measure was change in quality or safety as a result of implementation or utilisation of online records/transactional services.ResultsNo studies reported changes in health outcomes; though eight detected medication errors and seven reported improved uptake of preventative care. Professional concerns over privacy were reported in 14 studies. 18 studies reported concern over potential increased workload; with some showing an increase workload in email or online messaging; telephone contact remaining unchanged, and face-to face contact staying the same or falling. Owing to heterogeneity in reporting overall workload change was hard to predict. 10 studies reported how online access offered convenience, primarily for more advantaged patients, who were largely highly satisfied with the process when clinician responses were prompt.ConclusionsPatient online access and services offer increased convenience and satisfaction. However, professionals were concerned about impact on workload and risk to privacy. Studies correcting medication errors may improve patient safety. There may need to be a redesign of the business process to engage health professionals in online access and of the EHR to make it friendlier and provide equity of access to a wider group of patients.A1. Systematic review registration numberPROSPERO CRD42012003091.

BackgroundOnline access to medical records by patients can potentially enhance provision of patient-centred care and improve satisfaction. However, online access and services may also prove to be an additional burden for the healthcare provider. AimTo assess the impact of providing patients with access to their general practice electronic health records (EHR) and other EHR-linked online services on the provision, quality, and safety of health care. Design and settingA systematic review was conducted that focused on all studies about online record access and transactional services in primary care. MethodData sources included MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EPOC, DARE, King's Fund, Nuffield Health, PsycINFO, OpenGrey (1999-2012. The literature was independently screened against detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria; independent dual data extraction was conducted, the risk of bias (RoB) assessed, and a narrative synthesis of the evidence conducted. ResultsA total of 176 studies were identified, 17 of which were randomised controlled trials, cohort, or cluster studies. Patients reported improved satisfaction with online access and services compared with standard provision, improved selfcare, and better communication and engagement with clinicians. Safety improvements were patient-led through identifying medication errors and facilitating more use of preventive services. Provision of online record access and services resulted in a moderate increase of e-mail, no change on telephone contact, but there were variable effects on face-to-face contact. However, other tasks were necessary to sustain these services, which impacted on clinician time. There were no reports of harm or breaches in privacy. ConclusionWhile the RoB scores suggest many of the studies were of low quality, patients using online services reported increased convenience and satisfaction. These services positively impacted on patient safety, although there were variations of record access and use by specific ethnic and socioeconomic groups. Professional concerns about privacy were unrealised and those about workload were only partly so.

BackgroundGlobally, people with intellectual disabilities and/or autism experience health inequalities. Death occurs at a younger age and the prevalence of long-term morbidities is higher than in the general population. Despite this, their primary healthcare access rates are lower than the general population, their health needs are often unmet, and their views and experiences are frequently overlooked in research, policy, and practice.AimTo investigate the barriers and facilitators reported by individuals with intellectual disabilities, autism, or both, and/or their carers, to accessing and utilising primary health care for their physical and mental health needs.Design & settingAn integrative review was undertaken, which used systematic review methodology.MethodElectronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and Cochrane were searched for relevant studies (all languages) using a search strategy. Two researchers independently screened the results and assessed the quality of the studies.ResultsSixty-three international studies were identified. Six main themes relating to barriers and facilitators emerged from an analysis of these studies. The main themes were: training; knowledge and awareness; communication; fear and embarrassment; involvement in healthcare decision-making; and time. All the themes were underpinned by the need for greater care, dignity, respect, collaborative relationships, and reasonable adjustments. Opposing barriers and facilitators were identified within each of the main themes.ConclusionAdolescents and adults with intellectual disabilities and/or autism experience several barriers to accessing and utilising primary health care. The findings highlight the reasonable adjustments and facilitators that can be implemented to ensure that these individuals are not excluded from primary health care.

National Institute for Health Research.

Background: In the United Kingdom ethnic minority groups from the Indian sub-continent (India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) are at increased risk of coronary heart disease related mortality and morbidity. Variation in prevalence and outcome is in part related to access to appropriate health care. Aims: This study explores the experiences of participants following an acute cardiac event; with a specific focus on reasons for the take up of cardiac rehabilitation services. Methods: Twenty participants (12 Pakistani, 6 Indian and 2 Bangladeshi) eligible for CR were interviewed using a semi-structured format. Results: Previous negative experience of the health care service related to communication difficulties was an important factor for not engaging with cardiac rehabilitation services. The importance of interventions by professional friends and family members appeared to increase appropriate access to care. Gender and religious beliefs were also important aspects that had an impact on uptake of services. Reasons for non-attendance were also related to service provision (setting and timing of classes), practical considerations (language barrier and transport problems), and poor understanding of cardiac rehabilitation. Conclusions: The findings highlight significant barriers to uptake at the participant level which require changes at the system and provider level if uptake is to improve. Crown

Accessible summary We gave a questionnaire to self‐advocates who were attending a conference. The questionnaire asked them how they felt about the information they get with their medicine. Fifty‐eight people completed the questionnaire. Many of them said they did not get enough information about their medicine. Most people wanted easy‐read leaflets and pictures. There are many different places to find easy‐read information on the internet. We think they should be collected and checked. We also think that doctors and chemists need to spend more time with people to explain about medicines. Abstract BackgroundPrevious research has found that people with learning disabilities are not given prescription information that is tailored to their needs. We wanted to find out people’s information requirements. Materials and MethodsA questionnaire was co‐produced by the authors and consultants with learning disabilities. It asked what information people received from their GP and pharmacist about medications. The questionnaire was circulated at a self‐advocacy conference in the North of England. Fifty‐eight self‐advocates completed the questionnaire. ResultsInformation from GPs and pharmacists was mainly instructional, referring to when and how to take the medicine and dosage. Most respondents struggled to read the leaflets and remember verbal information. Many wanted the information in easy‐read format, and some wanted pictures or diagrams as well. A key theme was that health professionals often talked only to carers or support workers rather than involving the patient directly, and some respondents disclosed that they were not informed about side effects or alternative medications. ConclusionsHealth professionals should take time to discuss health issues and medication with the individual rather than only with carers. This could be facilitated by providing information in an accessible format.

If incentives are to be used as a method for improving care for people with ID through health checks a more targeted approach focused on ID-specific health issues might be more appropriate than an extensive health check.