Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of different brief intervention strategies at reducing hazardous or harmful drinking in primary care. The hypothesis was that more intensive intervention would result in a greater reduction in hazardous or harmful drinking. Design Pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.Setting Primary care practices in the north east and south east of England and in London.Participants 3562 patients aged 18 or more routinely presenting in primary care, of whom 2991 (84.0%) were eligible to enter the trial: 900 (30.1%) screened positive for hazardous or harmful drinking and 756 (84.0%) received a brief intervention. The sample was predominantly male (62%) and white (92%), and 34% were current smokers.Interventions Practices were randomised to three interventions, each of which built on the previous one: a patient information leaflet control group, five minutes of structured brief advice, and 20 minutes of brief lifestyle counselling. Delivery of the patient leaflet and brief advice occurred directly after screening and brief lifestyle counselling in a subsequent consultation. Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was patients' self reported hazardous or harmful drinking status as measured by the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT) at six months. A negative AUDIT result (score <8) indicated non-hazardous or non-harmful drinking. Secondary outcomes were a negative AUDIT result at 12 months, experience of alcohol related problems (alcohol problems questionnaire), health utility (EQ-5D), service utilisation, and patients' motivation to change drinking behaviour (readiness to change) as measured by a modified readiness ruler.Results Patient follow-up rates were 83% at six months (n=644) and 79% at 12 months (n=617). At both time points an intention to treat analysis found no significant differences in AUDIT negative status between the three interventions. Compared with the patient information RESEARCHleaflet group, the odds ratio of having a negative AUDIT result for brief advice was 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.52 to 1.39) and for brief lifestyle counselling was 0.78 (0.48 to 1.25). A per protocol analysis confirmed these findings. ConclusionsAll patients received simple feedback on their screening outcome. Beyond this input, however, evidence that brief advice or brief lifestyle counselling provided important additional benefit in reducing hazardous or harmful drinking compared with the patient information leaflet was lacking.Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN06145674. IntroductionInternational studies have shown that 20-30% of patients who routinely present in primary care are hazardous or harmful drinkers. 1 Hazardous drinking is a repeated pattern of drinking that increases the risk of physical or psychological problems, 2 whereas harmful drinking is defined by the presence of these problems.3 Several meta-analyses have shown that screening using short questionnaires followed by brief intervention (comprising simple advice or psychologic...

BackgroundAlcohol misuse is common in people attending emergency departments (EDs) and there is some evidence of efficacy of alcohol screening and brief interventions (SBI). This study investigated the effectiveness of SBI approaches of different intensities delivered by ED staff in nine typical EDs in England: the SIPS ED trial.Methods and FindingsPragmatic multicentre cluster randomized controlled trial of SBI for hazardous and harmful drinkers presenting to ED. Nine EDs were randomized to three conditions: a patient information leaflet (PIL), 5 minutes of brief advice (BA), and referral to an alcohol health worker who provided 20 minutes of brief lifestyle counseling (BLC). The primary outcome measure was the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) status at 6 months. Of 5899 patients aged 18 or more presenting to EDs, 3737 (63·3%) were eligible to participate and 1497 (40·1%) screened positive for hazardous or harmful drinking, of whom 1204 (80·4%) gave consent to participate in the trial. Follow up rates were 72% (n = 863) at six, and 67% (n = 810) at 12 months. There was no evidence of any differences between intervention conditions for AUDIT status or any other outcome measures at months 6 or 12 in an intention to treat analysis. At month 6, compared to the PIL group, the odds ratio of being AUDIT negative for brief advice was 1·103 (95% CI 0·328 to 3·715). The odds ratio comparing BLC to PIL was 1·247 (95% CI 0·315 to 4·939). A per protocol analysis confirmed these findings.ConclusionsSBI is difficult to implement in typical EDs. The results do not support widespread implementation of alcohol SBI in ED beyond screening followed by simple clinical feedback and alcohol information, which is likely to be easier and less expensive to implement than more complex interventions.Trial RegistrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN 93681536

Background: Doctors’ organisations in the UK have reported worrying levels of work-related stress and burnout in the general practitioner (GP) workforce for some time, and the COVID-19 pandemic has presented clear new challenges. Aims: To synthesise international evidence exploring the impact of COVID-19 on primary care doctors’ mental health and wellbeing and identify risk factors associated with their psychological wellbeing during this time. Design and setting: Mixed-methods systematic review. Method: We searched six bibliographic databases, Google Scholar and MedRxiv and conducted reference checking to identify studies of GP psychological wellbeing during the pandemic. Two reviewers selected studies, extracted data and assessed the quality of studies using standardised tools. Heterogeneity in outcomes, setting and design prohibited statistical pooling; we combined the studies using a convergent integrated thematic synthesis. Results: Thirty-one studies were included. Multiple sources of stress were identified, including changed working practices, risk, exposure and inadequate PPE, information overload, pandemic preparedness and cohesion across sectors. Studies demonstrated an impact on psychological wellbeing, with some GPs experiencing stress, burnout, anxiety, depression, fear of COVID, lower job satisfaction and physical symptoms. Studies described gender and age differences: women report poorer psychological outcomes across all domains and older GPs reported greater stress and burnout. Use of outcome measures and reporting practice varied greatly. Conclusion: Our review of international evidence demonstrates that the COVID-19 pandemic has adversely affected GPs’ wellbeing around the world. Further research could explore gender and age differences, identifying interventions targeted to these groups.

Brief advice or brief lifestyle counselling provided no additional benefit in reducing hazardous or harmful drinking compared with feedback on screening outcome and a client information leaflet. The impact of more intensive brief intervention on reoffending warrants further research.

ObjectivesTo ascertain the characteristics associated with delayed cardiac rehabilitation (CR) and determine if an association between CR timing and fitness outcomes exists in patients receiving routine care.MethodsThe study used data from the UK National Audit of Cardiac Rehabilitation, a data set which captures information on routine CR practice and patient outcomes. Data from 1 January 2012 to 8 September 2015 were included. Logistic regression models were used to explore the relationship between timing of CR and fitness-related outcomes as measured by patient-reported exercise level (150 min/week: yes/no), Dartmouth quality of life physical fitness scale and the incremental shuttle-walk test.ResultsBased on UK data current CR practice shows that programmes do not always adhere to recommendations on the start of prompt CR, that is, start CR within 28 days of referral (42 days for coronary artery bypass graft (CABG)). Wait time exceeded recommendations in postmyocardial infarction (post-MI), elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), MI-PCI and post-CABG surgery patients. This was particularly pronounced in the medically managed post-MI group, median wait time 40 days. Furthermore, statistical analysis revealed that delayed CR significantly impacts fitness outcomes. For every 1-day increase in CR wait time, patients were 1% less likely to improve across all fitness-related measures (p<0.05).ConclusionsWith the potential for suboptimal patient outcome if starting CR is delayed, efforts should be made to identify and overcome barriers to timely CR provision.