Implementation of NHS Health Checks in general practice: variation in delivery between practices and practitioners

What happens after an NHS Health Check? A survey and realist review

Background

The National Health Service Health Check in England aims to provide adults aged 40 to 74 with an assessment of their risk of developing cardiovascular disease and to offer advice to help manage and reduce this risk. The programme is commissioned by local authorities and delivered by a range of providers in different settings, although primarily in general practices. This project focused on variation in the advice, onward referrals and prescriptions offered to attendees following their health check.

Objectives

(1) Map recent programme delivery across England via a survey of local authorities; (2) conduct a realist review to enable understanding of how the National Health Service Health Check programme works in different settings, for different groups; (3) provide recommendations to improve delivery.

Design

Survey of local authorities and realist review of the literature.

Review methods

Realist review is a theory-driven, interpretive approach to evidence synthesis that seeks to explain why, when and for whom outcomes occur. We gathered published research and grey literature (including local evaluation documents and conference materials) via searching and supplementary methods. Extracted data were synthesised using a realist logic of analysis to develop an understanding of important contexts that affect the delivery of National Health Service Health Checks, and underlying mechanisms that produce outcomes related to our project focus.

Results

Our findings highlight the variation in National Health Service Health Check delivery models across England. Commissioners, providers and attendees understand the programme's purpose in different ways. When understood primarily as an opportunity to screen for disease, responsibility for delivery and outcomes rests with primary care, and there is an emphasis on volume of checks delivered, gathering essential data and communicating risk. When understood as an opportunity to prompt and support behaviour change, more emphasis is placed on delivery of advice and referrals to 'lifestyle services'. Practical constraints limit what can be delivered within the programme's remit. Public health funding restricts delivery options and links with onward services, while providers may struggle to deliver effective checks when faced with competing priorities. Attendees' responses to the programme are affected by features of delivery models and the constraints they face within their own lives.

Limitations

Survey response rate lower than anticipated; review findings limited by the availability and quality of the literature.

Conclusions and implications

The purpose and remit of the National Health Service Health Check programme should be clarified, considering prevailing attitudes about its value (especially among providers) and what can be delivered within existing resources. Some variation in delivery is likely to be appropriate to meet local population needs, but lack of clarity for the programme contributes to a 'postcode lottery' effect in the support offered to attendees after a check. Our findings raise important questions about whether the programme itself and services that it may feed into are adequately resourced to achieve positive outcomes for attendees, and whether current delivery models may produce inequitable outcomes.

Future work

Policy-makers and commissioners should consider the implications of the findings of this project; future research should address the relative scarcity of studies focused on the end of the National Health Service Health Check pathway.

Study registration

PROSPERO registration CRD42020163822.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme (NIHR129209).

Fidelity of the delivery of NHS Health Checks in general practice: an observational study

BACKGROUND

The NHS Health Check programme aims to reduce the risk of common preventable diseases by providing risk information and behaviour change advice. Failure to deliver the consultation appropriately could undermine its efficacy. To date, to the authors' knowledge, there are no published data on the fidelity of delivery of NHS Health Checks.

AIM

To assess the fidelity of delivery of NHS Health Checks in general practice.

DESIGN & SETTING

Fidelity assessment of video and audio recordings of NHS Health Check consultations conducted in four GP practices across the East of England.

METHOD

A secondary analysis of 38 NHS Health Check consultations, which were video or audio recorded as part of a pilot study of introducing discussions of cancer risk into NHS Health Checks. Using a checklist based on the NHS Health Check Best Practice Guidance, fidelity of delivery was assessed as the proportion of key elements completed during the consultations.

RESULTS

The mean number of elements of the NHS Health Check completed across all consultations was 14.5/18 (80.6%), with a range of 10 to 17 (55.6% to 94.4%). The mean fidelity for risk assessment, risk communication, and risk management sections was 8.7/10 (87.0%), 4.1/5 (82.0%), and 1.7/3 (56.7%), respectively. Clinically appropriate lifestyle advice was given in 34/38 consultations. Elements with the lowest fidelity were ethnicity assessment (n = 12/38; 31.6%), family history of cardiovascular disease (CVD) assessment (n = 25/38; 65.8%), AUDIT-C communication (n = 13/38; 34.2%), and dementia risk management (n = 6/38; 15.8%).

CONCLUSION

Although fidelity of delivery was high overall, important elements of the NHS Health Check were being regularly omitted. Opportunities for behaviour change, particularly relating to alcohol consumption and dementia risk management, may be being missed.

Influences on NHS Health Check behaviours: a systematic review

Background

National Health Service Health Checks were introduced in 2009 to reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) risks and events. Since then, national evaluations have highlighted the need to maximise the programme’s impact by improving coverage and outputs. To address these challenges it is important to understand the extent to which positive behaviours are influenced across the NHS Health Check pathway and encourage the promotion or minimisation of behavioural facilitators and barriers respectively. This study applied behavioural science frameworks to: i) identify behaviours and actors relevant to uptake, delivery and follow up of NHS Health Checks and influences on these behaviours and; ii) signpost to example intervention content.

Methods

A systematic review of studies reporting behaviours related to NHS Health Check-related behaviours of patients, health care professionals (HCPs) and commissioners. Influences on behaviours were coded using theory-based models: COM-B and Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Potential intervention types and behaviour change techniques (BCTs) were suggested to target key influences.

Results

We identified 37 studies reporting nine behaviours and influences for eight of these. The most frequently identified influences were physical opportunity including HCPs having space and time to deliver NHS Health Checks and patients having money to adhere to recommendations to change diet and physical activity. Other key influences were motivational, such as beliefs about consequences about the value of NHS Health Checks and behaviour change, and social, such as influences of others on behaviour change. The following techniques are suggested for websites or smartphone apps: Adding objects to the environment, e.g. provide HCPs with electronic schedules to guide timely delivery of Health Checks to target physical opportunity, Social support (unspecified), e.g. include text suggesting patients to ask a colleague to agree in advance to join them in taking the ‘healthy option’ lunch at work; Information about health consequences, e.g. quotes and/or videos from patients talking about the health benefits of changes they have made.

Conclusions

Through the application of behavioural science we identified key behaviours and their influences which informed recommendations for intervention content. To ascertain the extent to which this reflects existing interventions we recommend a review of relevant evidence.

NHS Health Check and healthy lifestyle in Leicester, England: analysis of a survey dataset

AIMS

A major component of the National Health Service (NHS) Health Check in England is to provide lifestyle advice to eligible participants. The aims of the study were to explore the variations (in terms of uptake) in the NHS Health Check in Leicester and to determine its association with a healthy lifestyle.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study used data from the Leicester Health and Wellbeing Survey (2015).

RESULTS

The odds of having an NHS Health Check were found to be higher in Black and minority ethnic groups and in people of other religions. The odds were lower in people without a religion, residing in the fourth index of multiple deprivation quintile and in ex-smokers. No associations were found between having an NHS Health Check and describing a healthy lifestyle, following a healthy lifestyle, thinking of making lifestyle changes in the next 6 months, cutting down on/stopping smoking among current smokers, or amount of alcohol current drinkers would like to drink.

CONCLUSIONS

In Leicester, a few variations in having an NHS Health Check were found among different socio-economic, demographic and behavioural groups. No association was found between the NHS Health Check and a healthy lifestyle. Thus, the improvement work should focus on reducing these variations in having the NHS Health Check and bringing its benefits on promoting a healthy lifestyle.

Delivery and impact of the NHS Health Check in the first 8 years: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Since 2009, all eligible persons in England have been entitled to an NHS Health Check. Uncertainty remains about who attends, and the health-related impacts.

AIM

To review quantitative evidence on coverage (the proportion of eligible individuals who attend), uptake (proportion of invitees who attend), and impact of NHS Health Checks.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A systematic review and quantitative data synthesis. Included were studies or data reporting coverage or uptake and studies reporting any health-related impact that used an appropriate comparison group or before- and-after study design.

METHOD

Eleven databases and additional internet sources were searched to November 2016.

RESULTS

Twenty-six observational studies and one additional dataset were included. Since 2013, 45.6% of eligible individuals have received a health check. Coverage is higher among older people, those with a family history of coronary heart disease, those living in the most deprived areas, and some ethnic minority groups. Just under half (48.2%) of those invited have taken up the invitation. Data on uptake and impact (especially regarding health-related behaviours) are limited. Uptake is higher in older people and females, but lower in those living in the most deprived areas. Attendance is associated with small increases in disease detection, decreases in modelled cardiovascular disease risk, and increased statin and antihypertensive prescribing.

CONCLUSION

Published attendance, uptake, and prescribing rates are all lower than originally anticipated, and data on impact are limited, with very few studies reporting the effect of attendance on health-related behaviours. High-quality studies comparing matched attendees and non-attendees and health economic analyses are required.

Enhanced Invitations Using the Question-Behavior Effect and Financial Incentives to Promote Health Check Uptake in Primary Care

Background

Uptake of health checks for cardiovascular risk assessment in primary care in England is lower than anticipated. The question-behavior effect (QBE) may offer a simple, scalable intervention to increase health check uptake.

Purpose

The present study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of enhanced invitation methods employing the QBE, with or without a financial incentive to return the questionnaire, at increasing uptake of health checks.

Methods

We conducted a three-arm randomized trial including all patients at 18 general practices in two London boroughs, who were invited for health checks from July 2013 to December 2014. Participants were randomized to three trial arms: (i) Standard health check invitation letter only; (ii) QBE questionnaire followed by standard invitation letter; or (iii) QBE questionnaire with offer of a financial incentive to return the questionnaire, followed by standard invitation letter. In intention to treat analysis, the primary outcome of completion of health check within 6 months of invitation, was evaluated using a p value of .0167 for significance.

Results

12,459 participants were randomized. Health check uptake was evaluated for 12,052 (97%) with outcome data collected. Health check uptake within 6 months of invitation was: standard invitation, 590 / 4,095 (14.41%); QBE questionnaire, 630 / 3,988 (15.80%); QBE questionnaire and financial incentive, 629 / 3,969 (15.85%). Difference following QBE questionnaire, 1.43% (95% confidence interval -0.12 to 2.97%, p = .070); following QBE questionnaire and financial incentive, 1.52% (-0.03 to 3.07%, p = .054).

Conclusions

Uptake of health checks following a standard invitation was low and not significantly increased through enhanced invitation methods using the QBE.

Regional variations in ambulatory care and incidence of cardiovascular events

BACKGROUND

Variations in the prevalence of traditional cardiac risk factors only partially account for geographic variations in the incidence of cardiovascular disease. We examined the extent to which preventive ambulatory health care services contribute to geographic variations in cardiovascular event rates.

METHODS

We conducted a cohort study involving 5.5 million patients aged 40 to 79 years in Ontario, Canada, with no hospital stays for cardiovascular disease as of January 2008, through linkage of multiple population-based health databases. The primary outcome was the occurrence of a major cardiovascular event (myocardial infarction, stroke or cardiovascular-related death) over the following 5 years. We compared patient demographics, cardiac risk factors and ambulatory health care services across the province's 14 health service regions, known as Local Health Integration Networks (LHINs), and evaluated the contribution of these variables to regional variations in cardiovascular event rates.

RESULTS

Cardiovascular event rates across LHINs varied from 3.2 to 5.7 events per 1000 person-years. Compared with residents of high-rate LHINs, those of low-rate health regions received physician services more often (e.g., 4.2 v. 3.5 mean annual family physician visits, p value for LHIN-level trend = 0.01) and were screened for risk factors more often. Low-rate LHINs were also more likely to achieve treatment targets for hypercholes-terolemia (51.8% v. 49.6% of patients, p = 0.03) and controlled hypertension (67.4% v. 53.3%, p = 0.04). Differences in patient and health system factors accounted for 74.5% of the variation in events between LHINs, of which 15.5% was attributable to health system factors alone.

INTERPRETATION

Preventive ambulatory health care services were provided more frequently in health regions with lower cardiovascular event rates. Health system interventions to improve equitable access to preventive care might improve cardiovascular outcomes.

NHS Health Check comorbidity and management: an observational matched study in primary care

BACKGROUND

The NHS Health Check programme completed its first 5 years in 2014, identifying those at highest risk of cardiovascular disease and new comorbidities, and offering behavioural change support and treatment.

AIM

To describe the coverage and impact of this programme on cardiovascular risk management and identification of new comorbidities.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Observational 5-year study from April 2009 to March 2014, in 139 of 143 general practices in three clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) in east London.

METHOD

A matched analysis compared comorbidity in NHS Health Check attendees and non-attendees.

RESULTS

A total of 252 259 adults aged 40-74 years were eligible for an NHS Health Check and, of these, 85 122 attended in 5 years. Attendance increased from 7.3% (10 900/149 867) in 2009 to 17.0% (18 459/108 525) in 2013 to 2014, representing increasing coverage from 36.4% to 85.0%. Attendance was higher in the more deprived quintiles and among South Asians. Statins were prescribed to 11.5% of attendees and 8.2% of non-attendees. In a matched analysis, newly-diagnosed comorbidity was more likely in attendees than non-attendees, with odds ratios for new diabetes 1.30 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.21 to 1.39), hypertension 1.50 (95% CI = 1.43 to 1.57), and chronic kidney disease 1.83 (95% CI = 1.52 to 2.21).

CONCLUSION

The NHS Health Check programme provision in these CCGs was equitable, with recent coverage of 85%. Statins were 40% more likely to be prescribed to attendees than non-attendees, providing estimated absolute benefits of public health importance. More new cases of diabetes, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease were identified among attendees than a matched group of non-attendees.

GPs' perspectives on managing the NHS Health Check in primary care: a qualitative evaluation of implementation in one area of England

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the implementation of the National Health Service (NHS) Health Check programme in one area of England from the perspective of general practitioners (GPs).

DESIGN

A qualitative exploratory study was conducted with GPs and other healthcare professionals involved in delivering the NHS Health Check and with patients. This paper reports the experience of GPs and focuses on the management of the Heath Check programme in primary care.

SETTING

Primary care surgeries in the Heart of Birmingham region (now under the auspices of the Birmingham Cross City Clinical Commissioning Group) were invited to take part in the larger scale evaluation. This study focuses on a subset of those surgeries whose GPs were willing to participate.

PARTICIPANTS

9 GPs from different practices volunteered. GPs served an ethnically diverse region with areas of socioeconomic deprivation. Ethnicities of participant GPs included South Asian, South Asian British, white, black British and Chinese.

METHODS

Individual semistructured interviews were conducted with GPs face to face or via telephone. Thematic analysis was used to analyse verbatim transcripts.

RESULTS

Themes were generated which represent GPs' experiences of managing the NHS Health Check: primary care as a commercial enterprise; 'buy in' to concordance in preventive healthcare; following protocol and support provision. These themes represent the key issues raised by GPs. They reveal variability in the implementation of NHS Health Checks. GPs also need support in allocating resources to the Health Check including training on how to conduct checks in a concordant (or collaborative) way.

CONCLUSIONS

The variability observed in this small-scale evaluation corroborates existing findings suggesting a need for more standardisation. Further large-scale research is needed to determine how that could be achieved. Work needs to be done to further develop a concordant approach to lifestyle advice which involves tailored individual goal setting rather than a paternalistic advice-giving model.