Safety incidents in prison healthcare: Lessons from critical illness

Today, we’re going to back at the recent BJGP Research Conference, which was held just last week on the 20st of March 2025 in Bristol. TranscriptThis transcript was generated using AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Please be aware it may contain errors or omissions.Speaker A00:00:00.960 - 00:00:39.550Hello and welcome to this BJGP podcast. I'm Nada Khan and I'm one of the Associate Editors of the Journal. Thanks for listening today.In today's episode we're going to look back at the recent BJGP Research Conference which we held just last week on 20th March in Bristol. It was absolutely brilliant to welcome the BJGP team and people who attended to the Southwest.And in today's episode I'm just going to talk about some the highlights and really focus on what the conference is about and maybe have a chat about how to get involved in the future. But first, here's a welcome to the conference from our Editor in Chief, Ewan Lawson.Speaker B00:00:40.270 - 00:01:16.520My name's Ewan Lawson, I'm editor of the bjgp. So that means basically I'm the one person that the Journal would probably run without and everyone else does all the work.But I do have to stand up here and say hello to you and I want to offer you the warmest of welcomes to the conference. Been running this for a few years and it's always really nice to get together and just try to help each other, you know, get involved.It's not in a very scholarly way, you know, whether you're involved in research or whether you're interested in putting research into practice. We think we can offer you quite a lot more than just the fact that we publish research at BJGP and BJGP Open. So I hope you have a fantastic day.Speaker A00:01:17.320 - 00:03:26.850So this was the seventh run of the BJGP Research Conference and this year we had a particular focus on a few different areas.We took a bit of a deep dive into patient involvement, new and emerging research in general practice, general practice policy and how to get research into impact. And this year, as always, quite a bit around writing and also public speaking in academia.The conference kicked off this year with an absolutely brilliant talk by Professor Martin Marshall, who some of you may know as the Chair of the Nuffield Trust. But he's also Emeritus professor of Healthcare Improvement at UCS and non Exec Director at the Royal Devon University Healthcare trust.And until 2022, Martin was also the Chair of the Royal College of GPs and a GP in New East London. So definitely someone worth listening to about his experiences as well.And Martin really focused in his talk on the relationship between general practice and policy and asked a really important question, which is how good are we as a profession at influencing decision decision makers?And in his talk, Martin reflected on the fact that while the value of general practice is really well established for patients, communities and the wider nhs. It's often still misunderstood or undervalued at a policy level.And in his talk he challenged whether that's purely down to policymakers or whether, as Julian Tudor Hart once put it, there's also an element of political literacy within the profession itself.And what really followed was a thoughtful discussion about how both national leaders and individual clinicians can do more to shape policy, and whether that's through better communication, stronger advocacy, or even engaging more actively with the systems around us. It was a really thought provoking structure of the conference and linked closely to that broader theme of impact that ran throughout the day.Here's just a short snippet of Martin speaking at the conference.Speaker C00:03:27.570 - 00:04:45.260I wish I could have my career again and I'd be more influential than I was. I've learned a lot along the way, but this is what I've learned. First of all, as I've described, influencing is about far more than informy.It's not about telling, it's about getting inside people's heads and understanding what's important to them. A lot of influencing is about timing. How do we decide when to influence? I think it's really important. Policy windows is an interesting concept.So sometimes just a window opens that allows you to do something.And a good example of this would be the evidence around Continuity of care, which is actually pretty strong in General practice was largely ignored by policymakers and politicians until the pandemic came along and they were looking for a way of delivering the vaccination program. And we made the case based on evidence that trust is really important to the success of uptake of vaccination programs.And that's why government decided that general practice would deliver their program largely, rather than setting up a separate body to deliver it. So there's an example, another example of ways of change.The NUFRE is doing some really important work around the distribution, the resource distribution formula for general practice, something which the Conservative governments of the past were not interested in, the Labour government is very interested in. So now is our time to push it while we can.Speaker A00:04:46.460 - 00:11:57.780So it was a great start to the conference from Martin, which really focused down on how GPs and primary care researchers can get the most impact from their work to effect change. So in addition to the keynote sessions, we had a series of parallel sessions where people presented posters and talks about their work.And what really struck me, listening to different talks and looking at the different posters that were on display, was just how strong the work was across the board, especially from medical students. And early career researchers.There's clearly a lot of exciting work coming through and I wouldn't be surprised to see some of it published in the BJJP in the near future.At the conference, we then had a series of workshops and these looked at patient and public involvement, writing for the BJGP and public speaking in academia. I attended Lucy Potter and the Bridging Gap team's excellent workshop on meaningful patient and public involvement in research.Their team did an absolutely brilliant job at highlighting a familiar but important issue that those with the greatest health needs often face the biggest barriers to care and are probably the least likely to be involved meaningfully in research.And what made this session stand out for me was that it was delivered alongside women with lived experience, which brought, I felt, a real deal, a real depth and authenticity to the discussion.And the workshop was a absolutely powerful reminder of the importance of meaningful involvement and offered some really practical ideas for how we can better include marginalized patients in our work.And going on to one of the regular features of the conference, which is the Right for Life workshop, led by our deputy editor at BJGP Life, Andrew Papaniktis and Tom Round. It's a really engaging session that encourages people to write and reflect on their experiences in general practice.And I often describe JGP Life, the website, as sort of the coffee room of the journal. It's a space for more sort of reflective conversation and debate.And here we're also always keen to receive some submissions from across the GP community, and it's probably worth pointing out that some of these pieces then go on to be published in the print journal too. And finally, the third workshop was led by Professor Graham Easton, who looked at public speaking for academics.And I just want to touch on Graham's really interesting background that he was able to draw upon here. So, Graham was a senior producer for BBC Science Unit for many years and presented Case Notes, which is Radio 4's flagship medical program.He's also a regular contributor to BBC Health Check and has quite a strong interest in the use of narratives and storytelling in medical education, which is a topic he looked at in depth in his doctoral work.So, looking back to his workshop, it focused on something we've all experienced, which is sitting through a talk or presentation where the key message gets lost in really dense slides and you just lose the audience.And Graham's session was all about how to communicate our work more clearly and make it engaging, using things like storytelling, simplifying your core message and using visuals that actually support you're saying, rather than Overwhelming it. It was a really practical session with lots of tips to take away and use straight away.And I think that everyone who attended, who attended learned something new about how to present their research in an engaging and meaningful way. So that's a roundup of the workshops. And finally we had the last keynote speaker of the conference, Dr. Rebecca Payne.And Rebecca really brought together one of the central themes of the conference, which was impact going back to Martin Marshall's talk as well. And Rebecca's talk focused on what happens after publication and challenged the idea that getting a paper accepted as the endpoint.Instead, she kind of framed it as the beginning. So that's the point at which the real work of influencing practice...

Today, we’re speaking to Dr Charlotte Paddison, who is currently non-executive director at Royal Papworth Hospital, and formerly a Senior Fellow and co-lead for Primary Care at the Nuffield Trust.Title of paper: Implications of skill-mix change in general practice: secondary analysis of data from the GP Patient SurveyAvailable at: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2025.0360To the authors’ knowledge, no previous studies have investigated the impact on patient trust or perception of needs met when patients are unsure what type of health professional they have seen. Using data from a large national survey, this study found that patients expressed lower confidence and trust, and were less likely to report their needs were met in general practice consultations when they were not sure who their appointment was with. The results are novel in demonstrating that the combination of not knowing who you saw and a remote appointment is particularly problematic for patient trust.TranscriptThis transcript was generated using AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Please be aware it may contain errors or omissions.Speaker A00:00:01.600 - 00:00:58.530Hello and welcome to BJGP Interviews. I'm Nada Khan and I'm one of the Associate editors of the Journal. Thanks for taking the time today to listen to this podcast.In today's episode, we're speaking to Dr. Charlotte Patterson, who is currently non Executive Director at Royal Papworth Hospital and formerly a Senior fellow and co lead for Primary Care at the Nuffield Trust.We're here to discuss the paper she's recently published here in the BJGP titled Implications of Skill Mix Change in General Practice Secondary Analysis of Data from the GP Patient Survey.So, hi, Charlotte, it's really lovely to meet you and to talk about your work and I just really wanted to start by exploring how we know that the composition of the general practice team is evolving with the increasing scope of multidisciplinary work. Really? And I wondered if you could just give us some of the context for this work and what you wanted to do here.Speaker B00:00:58.850 - 00:02:04.870Absolutely. Nada.So what we really wanted to understand was how two big shifts in policy are shaping the experience of patients care when they come to the GP practice. Why do we think that was interesting or potentially important?Basically, we've seen two big changes happening at the same time in the last five years. So.So we've seen the shift to multi professional team working with many more different types of health professionals working in general practice and at the same time, separately, we've seen a massive increase in the number of appointments delivered remotely. So what we wanted to know is what those changes really mean for patients.We also know that some patients feel confused about who they're seeing and when they turn up to a GP appointment at the surgery, whether that's an appointment with a GP or a physician's associate or a social prescriber.And this led on to another really important question for us in this study, which is what happens when patients are confused or uncertain about who they've seen and what does that mean for patient trust? Those are the kinds of questions we wanted to answer.Speaker A00:02:05.350 - 00:02:39.730So this was an analysis of the 2023 GP Patient Survey, which is sent to patients registered in English general practices.And I think the key thing for this work and what you've outlined just in terms of what you're saying right here, was that the survey asks people who their last general practice appointment was with and whether they had confidence and trust in that person and if their needs were met. And just given what you were describing, I wanted to move straight on to what you found.What did the patient say about trust and how did it Vary by different patient characteristics.Speaker B00:02:40.050 - 00:03:27.890Sure. So what we found in relation to trust. Nada.Is that while every 2, 2 in every 3 patients reported they definitely had trust and confidence in the health professional they saw at their GP practice. And that's very positive.We also found at the same time, there's a minority of patients, around 7%, who reported they did not at all have confidence and trust in their last GP practice appointment. And we found that trust is lower among patients who are younger, from minoritised ethnic backgrounds and living in more deprived areas.So that's what we found in relation to trust. We also found that patients are confused about different roles of health professionals working in general practice.And we've found this is likely to affect around one in every 20 patients.Speaker A00:03:28.370 - 00:03:30.290That seems quite a lot, actually, doesn't it?Speaker B00:03:30.530 - 00:04:26.740Yes.And it's also we found, looking at the GP general practice patient survey, we found that the proportion of patients who feel confused about who they're seeing has gone up over time.What I can tell you is that if we look backwards over time, the national survey data shows the percentage of patients who are unsure who their last appointment was with has more than doubled in six years. In 2018, it was around 1.9% of patients. In the 2024 survey, this had gone up to 5% of patients.And at the same time, we've also seen a decline in confidence and trust. So what we can say there is that confidence has declined by around 5% over that same time period.So 5 percentage points from 69% of patients saying, yes, definitely they had confidence and trust in the health professional they saw in 2018. But by 2025 that's dropped to 64%.Speaker A00:04:27.220 - 00:04:46.100And I think that almost reflects what's happening in practice with the increasing number of other roles working in general practice as well. And I think one of the really striking findings here is that patients reported much lower trust when they weren't sure which professional they saw.Do you want to talk us through that and why you think that is?Speaker B00:04:46.630 - 00:06:26.190Absolutely. So what we've seen in terms of context here is that a lot of change happening in general practice, much of it taking place at the same time.So we've seen in terms of multi professional team working, there are 40,000 additional non GP non nurse staff working in general practice, which is a whopping 387% per patient increase over a nine year period.At the same time, we've also seen this huge policy focus on rapid access, delivering more remote appointments, working at scale and a shift to digital and online as well. So there's a lot going on in general practice all at the same time.And we can also see alongside this changes in patients confidence and satisfaction with how general practice is working. So that's sort of a zoomed out, bigger picture lens.We can see that in terms of the British Social attitude survey in 2024, almost half of all people said they were quite dissatisfied with how general practice was working. But looking back in time, if we look back to 1983, we see that only 13% of people were dissatisfied with how general practice was running.And even looking back just 10 years ago, in 2016, that figure is 16% of the of people in the British Social Attitude Survey who were dissatisfied with general practice. So we're seeing massive shifts across multiple aspects of general practice.At the same time, we're seeing a significant shift in the proportion of people who feel that they are satisfied with what's happening in terms of the care they're receiving from general practices.Speaker A00:06:27.070 - 00:06:35.070And I guess that relates to some of the issues with trust and potentially not knowing who people are seeing in practice as well.Speaker B00:06:36.170 - 00:07:12.390Absolutely.So in our findings, what we found was that the combination of not knowing who you saw and a remote appointment is really problematic for patients in terms of trust and confidence.So to give a flavour of this, when patients were not sure what health professional, what type of health professional they saw or spoke to, and this was a remote appointment, so an appointment by phone or video or message, the likelihood of reporting confidence and trust decreased by up to 80% when compared to patients who saw a GP in person at their practice.Speaker A00:07:12.470 - 00:07:48.910And we did a podcast with Richard Baker talking about trust in healthcare professionals as well.And one of the things he highlighted was that actually trust is really important in that patient clinician interaction, because, you know, that trust actually builds some foundation towards whether people might want to come back to the practice, they might want to take up that advice or management that's been suggested by the clinician they see.So I think not only are you seeing these associations, but it's actually really drilling down to why trust is so important as well in these...

Today, we’re speaking to Marta Berglund, a Research Assistant and PhD candidate at University College London. Title of paper: Pre-diagnostic primary care consultations and imaging in emergency-diagnosed vs referred lung cancer patientsAvailable at: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2025.0369It has been postulated that emergency diagnoses of cancer (which occurs frequently and confers a poorer prognosis) may relate to suboptimal diagnostic management in primary care, but evidence to support or refute this hypothesis is sparse. We found that emergency-diagnosed patients with lung cancer were less likely to present with relevant respiratory symptoms and had fewer chest imaging investigations before diagnosis compared to patients diagnosed via referred routes, indicating an important role of disease factors in emergency diagnosis.TranscriptThis transcript was generated using AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Please be aware it may contain errors or omissions.Speaker A00:00:01.200 - 00:01:06.690Hello and welcome to BJGP Interviews. I'm Nada Khan and I'm one of the Associate editors of the Journal. Thanks for listening to this podcast today.In today's episode, we're speaking to Marta Bergland. Marta is a research assistant and PhD candidate at university College London.She's recently published a paper here in the BJGP titled Pre Diagnostic Primary Care Consultations and Imaging in Emergency Diagnosed versus Referred Lung Cancer Patients.So, hi, Marta, it's really lovely to meet you and it's great to talk to you about cancer diagnosis, which is a really important area for general practice and also a topic we publish on quite a lot here in the bjgp. It's been fascinating reading this paper and it tackles a cancer that we really don't do well with here in the UK in terms of early diagnosis.But I wonder if you could just start off by telling us a little bit more about lung cancer and how it's actually often diagnosed, which can sometimes lead to some of those poor outcomes.Speaker B00:01:07.010 - 00:02:26.970So, as you said, lung cancer is one of the cancer sites in the UK where the majority or a large proportion of patients are diagnosed through the emergency route, also known as emergency presentations, which is when a patient is diagnosed after they present through an urgent hospital admission or an A and E attendance in the 30 days before diagnosis.And that could look like someone who has had a persistent cough for, say, two weeks, but didn't actually go to their gp, and then suddenly they have a more severe onset of symptoms like shortness of breath, and then they go to A and E and are referred to a chest X ray and then get diagnosed, which is a pathway that is associated with worse prognosis and worse outcomes after diagnosis. And the more preferred route, if you will, in England to diagnose patients is through primary care.So through the GP routine referral or the urgent suspected referral route.And that could look like someone who presents to primary care with cough or dyspneasia again, but then their GP refers them to a chest X ray and then they're diagnosed with lung cancer.Speaker A00:02:27.130 - 00:02:45.290And I guess I wanted to just before we talk about what you found, I wanted to just cover here again, what you mean by this term, that's diagnostic window, because you mentioned that a few times in the paper. But what does this actually mean?And it relates a bit back to some of what you're talking about, about people presenting with symptoms, isn't that right?Speaker B00:02:45.530 - 00:03:09.880So, for us, it's a measure of healthcare use before diagnosis, and it could be any healthcare use Measure like consultations, symptoms, blood test use, anything like that.And it's measuring when that changes compared to baseline before diagnosis, which can signal increased healthcare use associated with the subsequent diagnosis.Speaker A00:03:10.040 - 00:03:16.840Okay, so it just, I guess it's what it says on the tin. It's just that window, isn't it, of potentially being able to pick up a change.Speaker B00:03:17.490 - 00:03:25.970Exactly. So the idea is that if there is an increase long before diagnosis, then possibly there is an opportunity to diagnose these patients earlier.Speaker A00:03:26.450 - 00:04:09.190So this was a really big study using the CPRD and this is a database that a lot of the listeners will be familiar with.And you had a sample of a million patients registered with UK General Practice and then you looked at people diagnosed with cancer and their pre diagnosis rates of consultation like you were talking about, and also chest imaging by the different possible diagnosis routes. So either as an emergency, a routine or an urgent referral. But I really want to move straight to what you found here.Can you give us just an overview of how the different people in this analysis were eventually diagnosed with lung cancer? So were there a lot of emergency diagnoses here?Speaker B00:04:09.350 - 00:05:46.240Yes, I believe we had around 30% of patients who were diagnosed through the emergency route, compared to 20 something percent in the urgent referral route and the GP routine referral route. That aligns with the national data in NCRAS and also the Rapid Cancer Registry data. I guess that's what we expected to see.We found that the majority of patients do present to primary care, which then disproves this hypothesis that has been presented in the literature that patients who are diagnosed through the emergency pathway don't present to primary care at all and therefore there wouldn't really be a chance to intervene and improve these patients diagnostic pathway. I think that is one of the key findings, although it is a simple finding.Then we also found that there are short term similar diagnostic windows across these routes.Patients who are diagnosed as emergencies had similar opportunity to intervene earlier as patients from the other routes, just because of the timing at which things changed.However, we also looked at the rates and those were consistently lower for emergency diagnosed patients, even though the timing at which things change at the lower rates mean that these patients present less frequently. And so because they present less frequently, there are simpler, fewer chances in primary care to also like see warning signs earlier.Speaker A00:05:46.480 - 00:05:56.480Yeah, so you looked at those consultations rates. So is that what you're describing here? So is that what those findings show in terms of potential opportunities for earlier diagnosis?Speaker B00:05:57.280 - 00:06:17.190Yeah, so what I had in mind was mostly the consultations and the consultations with symptoms, but then acknowledging that we measured two different things.So the timing at which things change, the diagnostic windows as well as the rates of these consultations, how frequently they were occurring for patients by route.Speaker A00:06:17.430 - 00:06:27.510And what you're suggesting is that people who were diagnosed via emergency had lower rates. So that sort of is a bit counterintuitive. So can you talk us through that again a bit?Speaker B00:06:27.590 - 00:07:06.880It's a bit contradicting.Well, it would seem that it is because these patients do present to primary care and then when things start going wrong, let's say they happen around a similar time as for patients who are diagnosed through the other routes. But what sets the emergency diagnosed patients apart is that they present less frequently.So they may still have cough and may still go to their gp, but they may not do so as often as someone who's referred on a two week wait, for example, or now urgent suspected referral, which then means that there are fewer chances for gps to pick up on persistent symptoms and then refer those patients.Speaker A00:07:07.200 - 00:07:19.780And I guess just.Were there any other main findings that you found in terms of sort of the diagnostic window or sort of consultations before diagnosis via the different routes?Speaker B00:07:19.940 - 00:09:14.860Yeah, so I think one of the most interesting ones as well to the overall finding of patients presenting to primary care is that patients presented with non specific symptoms around 10 to five months before diagnosis across the routes, which is still quite a while before they're diagnosed.So potentially this could mean that something could have been done differently to, for example, refer these patients earlier in like say month nine before diagnosis rather than nine months later. But again, as you said, this is also in lung cancer patients, which is a very difficult cancer site to diagnose early.And part of that reason is because the symptoms that patients present with are non specific symptoms.So it's also understandable that it is difficult to make that call based on someone presenting with cough in primary care, which is why there's more like work to be done and we need to better...

Today, we’re speaking to Dr Mike Holmes, a GP in Yorkshire and Chair of Nimbuscare, a local GP-led multi-neighbourhood provider.Title of paper: Neighbourhood delivery of urgent care in North Yorkshire, UKAvailable at: https://bjgp.org/content/76/764/133Neighbourhood-based urgent care, led by GP Multineighbourhood providers, can reduce reliance on hospitals and NHS 111. Delivering urgent care in community settings is more cost effective than Urgent Treatment Centre and Emergency Departments attendances. Digital integration and shared clinical systems improve safety, responsiveness, and patient experience. Co-locating operational and clinical teams streamlines service delivery and enables operational and quality oversight. Sustained impact requires recurrent funding and performance measures that reflect system-wide improvement rather than single-provider metrics.

Today, we’re speaking to Dr Karol Basta, a Public Health Registrar based in London.Title of paper: Predictors of Childhood Vaccination Uptake and Timeliness in a Diverse Urban PopulationAvailable at: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2025.0319Childhood vaccination rates have declined in the UK, with inequalities in urban, deprived, and ethnically diverse populations. Previous studies have lacked individual-level clinical data or did not explore both uptake and timeliness. We analysed 13 years of routinely collected primary care data for over 37,000 children in a diverse London borough to identify predictors of uptake and timeliness. Distinct sociodemographic and clinical factors were associated with incomplete and delayed vaccination, offering timely insights as responsibility for vaccination services shifts closer to local systems and place-based commissioning.TranscriptThis transcript was generated using AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Please be aware it may contain errors or omissions.Speaker A00:00:00.880 - 00:00:52.000Hi and welcome to BJJP Interviews. I'm Nada Khan and I'm one of the associate editors of the Journal. Thanks for taking the time to listen to this podcast today.In today's episode, we're speaking to Dr. Carol Basta.Carol is a public health registrar based in London and we're here to talk about the paper she's recently published here in the bjgp, which is titled Predictors of Childhood Vaccination Uptake and Timeliness in a Diverse Urban Population. So, hi, Carol, it's really lovely to meet you and to talk about this work. And I guess just to start, I wanted to put this work into context.We know that in the uk, overall childhood vaccination rates have unfortunately been declining. Could you talk us through some of the current challenges around vaccination, especially in urban and diverse areas?Speaker B00:00:52.720 - 00:02:06.750Yep. So we know vaccinations are really powerful and cost effective tools we have in giving children the best start in life life.But unfortunately, in the UK, since 2012, the uptake has been declining and actually since 2021, none of the vaccines in England have reached the 95% target recommended by the WHO to stop communicable disease outbreaks. And the kind of negative consequences of this aren't just sort of future hypothetical risks.We've already been seeing vaccine preventable diseases such as measles and whooping cough resurgences, and this is especially in certain parts of the uk, such as London or the northwest of England. So no uptake of vaccines is decreasing and vaccine preventable diseases are increasing. But that's not the full picture.We also know, for example, following work done by, at the time, Public health England in 2017, there are avoidable inequalities across the childhood vaccination program nationally, for example, linked to deprivation, geography and ethnicity.However, what was missing was really kind of contemporary granular evidence on the social and clinical factors associated with unequal vaccine outcomes, especially in diverse urban environments.Speaker A00:02:06.990 - 00:02:16.670And I know this was highlighted as well during COVID but there is a mistrust of health services amongst some communities as well, which might be playing into this.Speaker B00:02:17.470 - 00:03:11.120Yeah, exactly.So at the time when I was working in Lamb of Council, we knew qualitatively from talking to our community and talking to our local GP partners, that there was kind of sense of rising mistrust in healthcare services, but also rising difficulties with actually access to services.And that doesn't just affect whether or not people can get the vaccine, for example, it also affects whether they can have conversations about vaccines and the kind of continuity of care and building up those relationships.And so this is what we had kind of on a local level, but we knew that there was also national feelings and sentiments around mistrust, not just national, but actually globally vaccination mistrust from the COVID 19 pandemic. And there were worries that this had run off into the childhood vaccination program as well, that it hadn't just confined itself to Covid vaccines.Speaker A00:03:11.440 - 00:03:41.490So this was a study looking at predictors of routine childhood vaccination from 40 general practices in Lambeth and London, which is a pretty ethnically and socioeconomic demographically diverse borough. And you looked here at the vaccination uptake and timeliness and some of the predictors for these. This was a really big sample.But just to underline the population here, tell us more about the demographics in Lambeth as a borough in terms of ethnicity, because that's where you were based when this work was done.Speaker B00:03:41.890 - 00:04:32.250Yeah, exactly.So Lambeth is an inner London borough and it is very ethnically diverse, it's very densely populated, but it also has some of the highest levels of deprivation in the country. And part of the strengths of this study is that we were able to use detailed ethnic subgroup breakdowns.So, for example, rather than using the broad category of South Asian, we were able to split this down into Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Indian, et cetera. And this was really important because this aligns with national health equity guidance.We know that health outcomes actually vary between the details, subgroups.There's some evidence to suggest that, but it was also important following local community engagement work, where people repeatedly told us these kind of big, broad groups don't reflect how we self identify.Speaker A00:04:32.490 - 00:04:39.530And I wanted to just move on to the results here, so can you start talking us through some of the associations based on deprivation to start with?Speaker B00:04:39.690 - 00:06:22.410Yeah, sure. So we looked at two main outcomes.We looked at vaccination uptake, so that's whether children had received their vaccines at any time point during the study. And we also looked at vaccination timeliness.And vaccination timeliness is important because although a child might eventually go on to receive their vaccine, it leaves them. They're late, it leaves them unprotected for at times when they're most potentially likely to get unwell.And what we found with deprivation in uptake, there was really clear patterns associated by deprivation.There was actually children living in more deprived areas were progressively less likely to be vaccinated compared with those living in the least deprived areas.So, for example, children living in the most deprived 20% of our population were about a third less likely to be fully vaccinated compared to those living in the least deprived areas. This kind of wasn't just a straight out deprivation.There was also lower uptake linked to other markers of social vulnerability, such as being born outside of eco, or such as children having safeguarding involvement. And so that was what we found for uptake. But what was interesting is the findings for timeliness didn't mirror this.So whilst those living deprivation were less likely to be vaccinated, if we zoom in on just the population that were vaccinated and think about were they vaccinated on time, we didn't find that children living in deprivation were less likely to be vaccinated on time. We found no difference. And there was a similar pattern for other markers of social vulnerability, such as safeguarding involvement.They have a lower uptake, but it wasn't associated with kind of untimely vaccination.Speaker A00:06:22.650 - 00:06:31.210And you've touched upon this, but there was a really striking result here in terms of children who were born outside of the uk. So can you talk us through this?Speaker B00:06:31.530 - 00:06:59.060Yeah. So we also found that children born outside of the UK were much less likely to be vaccinated compared to children born inside the uk.However, if again, we zoom in on just those vaccinated and look at timeliness, we actually find the opposite. So if you were born outside of the uk, you were more likely to have your vaccine delivered on time compared to those who were born in the uk?Speaker A00:06:59.380 - 00:07:03.380Sure, yeah. So talk us through some of the reasons that you think that this might be happening.Speaker B00:07:03.380 - 00:08:30.800Yeah, I think these findings, the difference between uptake and timeliness, not having the same predictors and in some case having the opposite patterns being shown are really quite interesting. And they're kind of a few possible explanations as to why this might be. One is perhaps potentially there's a form of selection going on.So when we look at only children who get vaccinated in groups with lower overall uptake, for example, children of non white British ethnicity, or as we've said, children not born in the uk, the children who do get vaccinated may represent more engaged, health literate or well supported families. And that same engagement may...

Today, we’re speaking to Prof Emma Crosbie, Professor of Gynaecological Oncology based at the University of Manchester.Title of paper: Urine human papillomavirus testing for cervical screening in a UK general screening population: a diagnostic test accuracy studyAvailable at: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2025.0105The switch from primary cytology to primary human papillomavirus testing has enabled innovations in self-sampling for cervical screening. This study shows that urine self-collected with a first-void urine collection device has similar diagnostic test accuracy and acceptability to cervical sampling in a general screening population. Urine self-sampling has real-world potential as an alternative cervical screening option.TranscriptThis transcript was generated using AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Please be aware it may contain errors or omissions.Speaker A00:00:01.440 - 00:01:07.140Hello and welcome to BJGP Interviews. I'm Nada Khan and I'm one of the Associate Editors of the bjgp. Thanks for listening to this podcast today.In today's episode, we're speaking to Professor Emma Crosby, who is professor of Gynecological Oncology based at the University of Manchester. We're here to talk about her really exciting paper that's recently been published in the December 2025 issue of the BJGP.The paper is titled Urine Human Papillovirus Testing for Cervical Screening in UK General Screening Population A Diagnostic Test Accuracy Study. So, hi Emma, it's lovely to meet you and to talk about this paper.I really just wanted to start off talking a bit around cervical screening in the uk, and you mentioned this in the introduction to the paper as well, that cervical screening really does have variable uptake rates and we know that there are some, some barriers to access. But can you talk us through these and tell us a bit about why you decided to do this research?Speaker B00:01:07.940 - 00:03:41.440So, as you've just really nicely summarised, cervical screening is really important weapon against cervical cancer.So we know that it prevents cervical cancer and since the introduction of the NHS Cervical Screening program in the UK, we've seen deaths from cervical cancer drop by around 70%. So we know that it's very effective.But in the uk, the number of people attending is declining year on year and currently, currently only around 68% of those people who are eligible for cervical screening actually attend. There are a whole range of different reasons for non attendance.These include things to do with the speculum examination, so having to have an intimate examination to be examined. The anticipated embarrassment or fear of pain related to that procedure, I think are important barriers.But there are also barriers associated with access to reaching screening appointments, taking time off work, having childcare and so on and so forth. So we thought that there was some really important barriers there that could potentially be addressed by self sampling.Now, vaginal self sampling is actually been incorporated in many cervical screening programs around the world.Some cervical screening programs are using it just for people who are non attenders or underscreened by traditional screening routes and other countries are using it as a choice for everybody.Now, in the uk, we haven't yet taken up vaginal self sampling sampling, but it will be introduced this year in 2026, principally for under screened groups. And there is some work looking at whether or not it will be introduced as a choice for everyone in the future.But we know from research that's been done in the UK that only around 12 to 13% of people who are offered vaginal self sampling who are under screened actually return a sample. And therefore it clearly doesn't address all the barriers to cervical screening. And we wondered whether a urine test would have more app.It would have the same benefits of vaginal self sampling in that it can be collected at home and posted to the laboratory. So it removes that need for an intimate examination.It removes the need for, you know, making an appointment at a healthcare facility to have your screen taken, but it perhaps, you know, removes some of the barriers towards putting a swab inside the vagina that might be culturally or religiously unacceptable to some groups. And so we thought that a urine self sample could be another option for people who currently aren't screened.And so we wanted to see how accurate it was in this study.Speaker A00:03:42.320 - 00:04:03.760And those issues around access are really important, especially in this population of women who are juggling lots of caring responsibilities with young children or caring for older relatives as well.So sometimes it is just difficult to get to an appointment and, you know, juggling work hours and things which often then coincide with GP opening hours as well.Speaker B00:04:03.920 - 00:04:41.960Yeah, absolutely.And we, we have seen a drop in people, you know, in the youngest age group of people who are invited for screening, attending SCRE, their rates of attendance are even lower than the 68% that I quoted.And probably a lot of that is to do with having very busy lives, not seeing this as a priority, imagining that you're not at risk and seeing cervical cancer as something that affects older people, perhaps. So there are additional barriers related to certain age groups.But I definitely think that making time for a screening appointment, juggling all the different millions of things that we have to do every day, is a really important barrier that something like a urine based test could help to overcome.Speaker A00:04:42.120 - 00:05:10.680Yeah, fair enough. So this was quite a big prospective study of over 1500 women carried out across the northwest of England.So women provided both regular speculum based cervical samples alongside urine sample too. And the main thing you were looking at here was the accuracy of the urine based HPV testing for cervical cancer.But just in case people aren't completely aware of all this, can you talk us through first why we're now only looking at HPV in these samples?Speaker B00:05:11.060 - 00:06:30.230Yeah. So, I mean, in 2019 in the UK, we changed from primary cytology based cervical screening to primary HPV based cervical screening.So that means that the sample taken from your cervix is tested first for hpv and only if that is HPV positive is it then looked at under the microscope. To see if there are changes in the cells.And this was based on a very large study done in the UK that showed that HPV testing is a much more sensitive test than cytology as the primary scre.And by that what we mean is it's much more likely not to miss abnormal cells than cytology, which is very effective when there is a large lesion, if you will, that can be sampled with a cervical swab, but not so good at picking up smaller lesions. And so there is the chance that cytology might miss an abnormality. But HPV is really good at showing that somebody is at risk.So we now do all primary screening by HPV testing. And of course this is what has opened up the opportunity for us to do different sample types.So a vaginal swab tested for HPV or a urine sample tested for hpv, you know, could also be an effective way of screening people to see if they are at high risk of cervical pre cancers.Speaker A00:06:30.390 - 00:06:37.830So talk us through the results. So how well did the urine based testing perform? So both in terms of how sensitive and specific the results were?Speaker B00:06:38.130 - 00:09:24.670Well, first of all, it's really important to say that this piece of work followed on from another piece of work that looked at a high risk population. And in that other piece of work we were able to show that it's really important how the urine sample is collected.So absolutely must be collected with a colipy device or a similar device that collects the first fraction of urine sampled. And that's important because the HPV isn't in the urine itself.The urine is flushing cervical mucus that is accumulated around the urethra into the sample. And so if you don't collect that very first flush of urine, then you're likely to miss the hpv.So on that background, using the COLIP device in this study and collecting that urine sample prior to the routine clinician obtained cervical sample, we were able to obtain two samples from each person that we were then able to test with the same HPV test. And we were able to compare absolutely how accurate the urine was compared to the matched cervical sample.And because we were using a general population, so this is anybody that's due cervical screening rather than a high risk population, we knew that we weren't going to see very many people who had CIN2 plus, which is the cervical pre cancer that we want to identify and treat.And actually what we were looking for here was to see, you know, what prevalence of HPV infections do we pick up using the two tests, you know, the urine test and the Cervical test and how well matched are they at terms of, you know, telling somebody that they're HPV...

Today, we’re speaking to Professor Richard Baker, emeritus Professor at the University of Leicester. Title of paper: Factors influencing confidence and trust in health professionals: a cross-sectional study of English general practices.Available at: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2025.0154A transactional model of general practice is being introduced to improve access that involves triage and increasing percentages of appointments with professionals other than GPs or that are not face-to-face. Using summary data about almost all English general practices in 2023-24 with 750 or more patients, the patient-reported levels of confidence and trust from the General Practice Patient Survey were associated with increased percentages of appointments that were with GPs or were face-to-face, and with higher continuity, after adjusting for other practice and patient factors. Confidence and trust was lower in practices with fewer appointments per year per patient, fewer patients having their needs met, greater deprivation, fewer patients of White ethnicity, and in practices located in London, as compared to other regions of England. Access to general practice needs improving, but the findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that preserving features of relationship-based care is also needed to maintain patients’ trust and confidence in health professionals.TranscriptThis transcript was generated using AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Please be aware it may contain errors or omissions.Speaker A00:00:01.200 - 00:00:46.980Hello and welcome to BJGP Interviews. I'm Nada Khan and I'm one of the Associate editors of the Journal. Thanks for joining us here to listen to this podcast today.In today's episode, we're speaking to Professor Richard Baker, Emeritus professor at the University of Leicester. We're here to talk about the paper that he and his colleagues have recently published here in the bjjp.The paper is titled Factors Influencing Confidence and Trust in Healthcare A Cross Sectional Study of English General Practices. So, hi, Richard, thanks for joining me here today and it's nice to see you again.Just before we talk about this paper, I wonder if you could just talk to me about trust and why you think it's important in general practice interactions.Speaker B00:00:47.780 - 00:01:32.060Well, it's difficult to have a consultation with a patient if they don't trust you. I mean, it's just very basic, a very basic level, very simple level. But there's lots of evidence as well that trust is important.People who trust you are more likely to follow your advice. They're more likely to take the medication.They're more likely therefore, to come back and see you again, more likely to use services appropriately in the future. And there's some evidence that the outcomes are better if there's trust there. Trust obviously should be earned.You can't take it for granted, you've got to be trustable. But it's obviously very important for clinical practice and essentially always has been, hasn't it, really? Going back to the.The Greek doctors, trust was important then, just as it is now.Speaker A00:01:32.460 - 00:01:38.540And you mentioned about different outcomes. So what sort of outcomes do we know could be associated with trust?Speaker B00:01:39.180 - 00:02:07.990Just use of services is one example.So you can get people who, if they don't trust who they see, they go and see someone else and again, and so they overuse services and that waste resources.On the other hand, you may get people who just won't come, so they'll delay presenting with the problems because they don't trust the provider to get it right. Then they risk of poor outcomes as a consequence of that. So it's a whole mixture of things.Speaker A00:02:09.030 - 00:02:21.190So what were you trying to do in the study?So you wanted to look at trust and how it impacted on patient outcomes, or was it more about sort of the predictors and associations with trust, isn't it?Speaker B00:02:21.800 - 00:04:33.330Yes, I think we were conscious that general practice has gone through a lot of change.The big changes came about during the pandemic as to how general practice is delivered, how people have their appointments and things have sort of Reverted a bit to how they were, but only partially in terms of who you get to see face to face, appointment and so on. And we were asking the question, well, what has been the consequence of this?Should we be thinking about confidence and trust in association with these changes?I mean, the changes may have been absolutely essential because we just don't have the capacity in general practice to do everything that we would like to do for an increasingly multi morbid population. But what are the consequences? How do we need to respond? How do we need to respond?Questions I guess for follow on from Is there a link between confidence and trust and these changes in general practice changes?I think when we looked at this, we've sort of grouped them, we sort of imagined that there are two models of general practice which the relationships based care and the transactional model. Of course there aren't two models, it's all mixed up. But to simplify it, you call it two different things.And we've tried to categorize or explain what relationship based care might be, which has typified by high context continuity, face to face appointments with someone, you know, usually a gp, to get generalist medical care.And then the transactional model where you, you have a problem, you, you phone up or email or whatever it might be online and you get allocated or triaged to a particular professional who deals with that particular problem and then off you go on to something else. And, and it could be face to face, it could be over the phone, it could be all sorts of different health professionals.So there's two different ways, it's all mixed up. And every practice offices offers these two approaches in different degrees. It's just.So this arbitrary division that we've described and we're sort of interested in how we look at that, how is competent trust linked to that?Speaker A00:04:34.769 - 00:04:56.790This was a study looking at the general practice patient survey, which includes a question about whether patients felt that they had confidence and trust in their healthcare professionals. And. And then as we were discussing, you looked at some of the factors that might influence this trust.But I wonder if you could talk us through the findings. So in this survey, how many respondents felt that they trusted their healthcare professionals?Speaker B00:04:57.590 - 00:06:12.790This was, we were interested and the question was, did you have complete confidence in trust in the professional scene at your last appointment? And around about the figure was 64, 65% on average across all the practices.So this was all general practices, but the vast majority of 99% or something of all general practices in England, 6200 practices were roughly in the study. And this was 20, 23, 24 year. It was a simple cross sectional study for reasons the data weren't available for a longitudinal study, unfortunately.But so there are inevitably limitations on that.But I suppose, yes, you would say two thirds had full confidence in trust and others had partial confidence trust and others had absolutely no competence and trust in the professional they had last seen.Now, this relates to all types of health professionals seen, so it would include gps, but it would include the nurse you saw, the physiotherapist or the pharmacist or whatever. It would be the general practice based pharmacist, the people in the primary care team who, who consult with them see patients.Speaker A00:06:12.870 - 00:06:38.150And you talked earlier about these two different models of care, the relationship based model and the transactional model.And you know, you described that some of this might be a bit more mixed in practice, but did you find any associations between those different ways of working and how trust was or how much patients trusted their interactions with their last healthcare professional?Speaker B00:06:39.610 - 00:07:53.140There's a tendency among the findings for relationship based care to be associated with higher levels of competence and trust, relationship based care being typified by higher levels of continuity, more face to face appointments, more appointments with gps. And of those three things, continuity is perhaps the most powerful association and then points with GPS the next most powerful.And face to face being the third or least powerful element of that three.When you put all three together, I think it becomes quite a powerful message really saying patients do by and large tend to be more trusting, have more confidence in relationship based care.But that doesn't mean to say there are patients who don't want transactional care and have trust and confidence in it, they get it and when they want it. So it's not a simple either...

Today, we’re speaking to Dr Laura Jefferson, Senior Research Fellow based at the University of Manchester. We’re here to discuss her paper recently published here in the BJGP titled, ‘Understanding persistent GP turnover using work and personal characteristics: a retrospective observational study’.Title of paper: Understanding persistent GP turnover using work and personal characteristics: a retrospective observational studyDOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2025.0260GP turnover rates from national administrative datasets have previously been used to explore practice-level factors associated with turnover and its relationship to patient. outcomes. The individual and work characteristics associated with turnover is less well understood, with much research focusing on intentions to leave or smaller samples of GPs leaving practice. This study sought to fill this research gap, through analysis of a large dataset of GPs working experiences linked to turnover, understanding potential predictors that may offer solutions to the workforce crisis being faced in general practice. We find that GPs’ sense of autonomy, belonging and competence are significantly lower in practices with problems with persistent turnover and demonstrate how satisfaction with work characteristics such as working hours and experiences of strained relationships differs in practices with persistent turnover. TranscriptThis transcript was generated using AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Please be aware it may contain errors or omissions.Speaker A00:00:00.880 - 00:00:53.050Hello and welcome to BJGP Interviews. My name is Nada Khan and I'm one of the Associate editors of the bjgp. Thanks for joining us here to listen to this podcast today.In today's episode, we're speaking to Dr. Laura Jefferson, who is a senior research fellow based at the University of Manchester.We're here to discuss her paper, recently published here in the journal, titled Understanding Persistent GP Turnover Using Work and Personal A Retrospective Observational Study.So, hi, Laura, it's really nice to see you again and to talk about this research and I suppose I really just wanted to frame our discussion here today by saying that there's been a lot of talk recently about the retention crisis in UK general practice, but I wonder, could you just talk us through how big is the scale of the problem that we're dealing with here?Speaker B00:00:53.370 - 00:02:12.110Yeah, thank you. Yeah, well, thank you for inviting me to talk to you today as well.I think it's interesting, we hear a lot of discussion in the media and in our research evidence as well, recently about an increase in GP turnover. In the past sort of decade, there's been a gradual increase, so that's in terms of GPs leaving medicine, but also moving across practices.And it's good to see a kind of change in policy focus from historically, a lot of policies focused on recruitment of GPS. So, you know, we've had like, pledges to have 6,000 GPS that have not been met and it's often kind of criticized as filling a leaky bucket.So if we try and obviously pay a lot. So I think it's approximately half a million pounds to train a gp, but actually to replace the GP is really expensive as well.So it's about £300,000 to replace the GP.And so, yeah, so there's a positive focus to thinking about retention, but actually it's about how can we do that effectively and understanding that the sort of one size fits all approach doesn't necessarily work and that there's different gps with different needs.Speaker A00:02:12.590 - 00:02:36.830And this was a study where you were looking at the association between high practice turnover of GPs and GP job satisfaction. And what you did was you linked data from different general practice practices and GP workforce surveys.But the first thing I wanted to really look into was that you identified these high turnover practices. What exactly did this mean?Speaker B00:02:37.070 - 00:04:33.190Yeah, so there's been previous research that's done this before, so it's using. We're really fortunate in the UK that we've got really good workforce data compared to a lot of other countries.So we have longitudinal data going back a long way that we can use for research purposes to try and understand more about these trends.So colleagues of mine at Manchester have previously used this data from NHS Digital, which is now NHS England, linking with data on gps by General Practice, which is has got data on their kind of start and leave dates in a practice. And that allows us to track where gps are moving out of a practice and how long they've stayed there for.So they've previously looked at sort of persistent turnover as being categorized as a practice where they have consistently, for three years running, had a 10% turnover of GPS. So this is where it seems to be a more worrying turnover figure.I think it's expected that there's going to be some level of turnover and some level of turnover that might be a useful thing. But those kind of practices where you think, oh, what's going on there?And particularly then within our research, looking at what are the striking differences in those practices, both in terms of the sort of workplace characteristics that GPs are experiencing? So can we use that data to explore strategies that could be used to actually support gps in those practices?So trying to understand, really, what does it feel like for a GP in these practices with persistent turnover, so that then, hopefully, through this sort of research, is kind of like the first step in a puzzle to try and determine strategies to support them.Speaker A00:04:33.750 - 00:04:50.310Yeah, fair enough. And then thinking a bit more about what you found here.So you looked, as you said, at some of the characteristics of the GPs who worked in these high turnover practices, and you found some really interesting differences that related to gender, age and experience. So can you talk us through that?Speaker B00:04:50.390 - 00:06:45.570Yeah.So this was the first time that these large data sets have been used to look at GP characteristics that might not necessarily predict turnover, but might be associated with turnover.So difficult to make predictions using the approaches that we've used, but we were able to, within our analysis, adjust for things like age, experience, gender, looking at GP partners and salaried GPs to try and draw out, are there any differences? And we did find a gender difference. So women were more likely to be in practices with persistent high turnover.But because of the analytical approach that we've used, it's really difficult for us to unpick. What does that actually mean? Does that mean that are they driving turnover or do they actually become stuck in these practices?So there's a lot of research literature that suggests that women may be less mobile in the workplace for a number of societal reasons. So it could be that that's a factor explaining the gender difference that we found.But this is a really important first step for us to then develop the strateg thinking about what different groups need. Only included a smaller proportion of salaried GPs, so we weren't able to look so well at partners versus salaried.And also looking at ethnic diversity and variations, particularly important given that there's a large proportion of international medical graduates now as GP registrars.So this is a kind of first step and there's going to be future research, which we've been commissioned now to do this research in a larger sample of gps, looking at a longer time frame as well, which will be really nice to be able to look after. Covid.Speaker A00:06:45.890 - 00:07:02.130Brilliant. That sounds really exciting. And I think what's really interesting here is how satisfied GPs were with different aspects of their work.What did the gps rate as low satisfaction in their job role and how did this impact on turnover?Speaker B00:07:02.550 - 00:09:38.570Yeah, so what we did is we used a theoretical framework to guide our analysis.So within the Work Life Survey, there's a number of different kind of components that gps can rate in terms of their satisfaction with their working lives. But that would be quite a messy analysis.So to try and break this down, we used the ABC of Doctors Needs, which is a framework which talks about the importance of autonomy, belonging and competence for doctors to feel that they're happy and well within their work and that impacts on retention. So, yeah, so we looked at those components and within each of those we used questions from the survey that spoke to those theoretical domains.So, for example, autonomy looked at sort of, there was an item around freedom to choose the methods that they're working with.Also items around paperwork, variety of work and hours of work, belonging looked at particularly around sort of relationships and feeling connected to and valued in the workplace.There's questions in the survey about strained relationships at work and also about recognition, so feeling like they're valued for delivering a good job. And then the third domain that we created around...

This episode, we have a round table discussion with the editorial team of Sam Merriel, Tom Round and Nada Khan. This collection of the BJGP’s top 10 research most read and published in 2025 brings together high-profile primary care research and clinical innovation.And here are the top 10 most read papers of 2025:10Adoption of clinical pharmacist roles in primary care: longitudinal evidence from English general practicehttps://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2024.03209Factors affecting prostate cancer detection through asymptomatic prostate-specific antigen testing in primary care in England: evidence from the 2018 National Cancer Diagnosis Audithttps://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2024.03768Paramedic or GP consultations in primary care: prospective study comparing costs and outcomeshttps://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2024.04697What patients want from access to UK general practice: systematic reviewhttps://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2024.05826Technostress, technosuffering, and relational strain: a multi-method qualitative study of how remote and digital work affects staff in UK general practicehttps://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2024.03225Antidepressants and risk of postural hypotension: a self-controlled case series study in UK primary carehttps://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2024.04294Challenges to quality in contemporary, hybrid general practice a multi-site longitudinal case studyhttps://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2024.01843Low-dose amitriptyline for irritable bowel syndrome: a qualitative study of patients’ and GPs’ views and experienceshttps://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2024.03032Artificial intelligence for early detection of lung cancer in GPs’ clinical notes: a retrospective observational cohort studyhttps://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2023.04891Effectiveness of low-dose amitriptyline and mirtazapine in patients with insomnia disorder and sleep maintenance problems: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in general practice (DREAMING)https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2024.0173TranscriptThis transcript was generated using AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Please be aware it may contain errors or omissions.Speaker A00:00:00.480 - 00:01:27.500Hello and welcome to the BJGP Top 10 podcast.So this is where we take a closer look at the most read research papers in the BJGP in 2025 and just have a discussion about what they mean for day to day general practice. I'm Nada Khan, one of the associate editors of the Journal.And in today's episode we'll be exploring some of the themes that really captured attention with the readership, I suppose. And we'll be talking about things like consultation compl complexity and workload pressures.Some work around diagnostic uncertainty and how to look, look after people with multimorbidity.And I think we're going to have a discussion a bit more, not just about what these papers found, but maybe a bit about why they resonated and maybe give a bit of editorial feedback around that. And because it's a conversation here between three clinicians as well.And I'll go around and introduce everyone in a minute, maybe a bit about what they add to the conversations we're already already having in practice and where the gaps still are. And I guess with that we'll be keeping it grounded in the messy reality of today's general practice as well.So I've introduced myself and I'm joined here by Tom Round and Sam Merrill, who are both also associate editors of the bjgp. But I'll go to Tom first. So, yeah, tell us a bit about who you are and how is your day going?Speaker B00:01:27.720 - 00:01:59.550Great, Nada. Thanks for having me.So, Dr. Tom Rand, I'm a GP in northeast London and an academic clinical lecturer at King's College, interested in early disease and cancer detection and also health inequality. So, yeah, pretty good. Like everyone, I've got a mild cold at the moment.I think exactly the same last year when we did this podcast, winter cold season. So I think we're all sort of feeling that a little bit in primary care with flus and other things and staff, you know, so otherwise good.Looking forward to having really interesting discussion about these papers which are really fascinating and give a real broad breadth of what we do in general practice.Speaker A00:02:00.420 - 00:02:07.940Great. And Sam, we'll go to you and you have some really exciting news in the background as well.So, yeah, tell us about who you are and what you're up to today.Speaker C00:02:08.180 - 00:02:31.770Thanks, Nad.I think, yeah, you're alluding to the fact I'm on Puppy alert because our new addition to the family in the winter is keeping us busy and making remote working a challenge. But we're getting through. But yeah, lovely to be with you guys. And I catch up and BJGP and wider podcast audience.So, yes, I'm a GP working in the Northwest of England and a clinical senior lecture at the University of Manchester.Speaker A00:02:32.650 - 00:04:28.830Brilliant.Okay, so let's get into the top 10 most read research and published papers of 2025 and I'm going to kick off with number 10 and number 8, just because they're on a sort of related topic. So number 10 is by Michael Anderson and colleagues. Michael's based in Manchester and at lse.And this paper looks at prescribing, quality in practices and the role of clinical pharmacists as. And I'll just point out that I'll put links to all the papers in the show notes as well.So this paper looks at the adoption of clinical pharmacist roles in English general practice and asks that question of does bringing pharmacists into the primary care workforce actually lead to improvements? Michael looked at this through a longitudinal approach.They used national practice level data from 2015 to 2019 and just looked at practices that didn't, didn't have a clinical pharmacist role. And it's really interesting, the results actually.So, not surprisingly, the proportion of practices with a clinical pharmacist increased from about 3% to over 20% over the course of the study. And the, the team found some really significant improvements across several prescribing indicators.So things like reductions in total medication costs, better opioid prescribing and prescribing for anxiety meds after pharmacists were implemented in pract, I guess, really it would be interesting to hear your thoughts, Sam and Tom, about what do you think really are the outcomes we want most from clinical pharmacists? And how do you think we should interpret these modest changes at scale?Because there's a lot else going on in terms of workforce that we need to think about in general practice, like access and continuity and not just meds optimization.Speaker C00:04:29.310 - 00:05:41.170I can talk from practice experience because our clinical pharmacist just left for Canada just in the last month or so. But yeah, it was really interesting, like having him part of the team.I think in a lot of ways he took a lot of burden off the gps in terms of meds monitoring, meds management, medication reviews. He builds a lot of continuity with a lot of patients because he was doing a lot of checking in.So in a lot of ways he was quite invaluable member of the team and we have sought a replacement since.At the same time, you know, there was some, some extra challenges in terms of workload and stuff, because obviously pharmacists have different training and the role of a clinical pharmacist in general practice is relatively new.So, you know, their approaches to prescribing and, you know, how close you stick to guidelines and how much you adapt for individual patient situations is slightly different. So. Yeah, but I think that was part of sort of feeling a way out with the role.But it's really noticeable when he's not around because it does affect how the workload flows and how the practice runs and how the patients, you know, interact with the practice. So, yeah, it's been really interesting at the local level.But, yeah, Michael's study also...

Today, we’re speaking to Dr Joy McFadzean,a GP in Swansea and Clinical Lecturer of Patient Safety based at Cardiff University. We’re here to talk about the paper she’s recently published here in the BJGP alongside her colleagues titled, ‘Critical illness in prisons: a multi-method analysis of reported healthcare safety incidents in England’.Title of paper: Critical illness in prisons: a multi-method analysis of reported healthcare safety incidents in EnglandAvailable at: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2025.0239Using a mixed-methods descriptive and framework analysis, this paper provides new insights into the complexity of care delivery in prisons. Results resonate with and strengthen the recommendations from recent investigations into prison healthcare by further developing an understanding of the complex intersecting factors contributing to safety incidents and quality issues in care delivery. The fundamental importance of good quality and adequately resourced primary care delivery in prisons has been highlighted. It also identifies system-wide interventions that are needed to improve care delivery, and which are likely to interest policy-makers and scrutiny bodies, commissioners and teams working in prisons to inform developments in strategic health needs assessments, workforce profiling, and training requirements for healthcare and prison teams.FundingThis study/project is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Policy Research Programme (PR-R20-0318-21001). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. The funders of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, writing of the manuscript or the decision to submit.TranscriptThis transcript was generated using AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Please be aware it may contain errors or omissions.Speaker A00:00:00.560 - 00:01:10.200Hello and welcome to BJGP Interviews. I'm Nada Khan and I'm one of the associate editors of the bjgp. Welcome back to the first season of the BJGP podcast here in 2026.And we're starting off this season of the podcast with a chat with Dr. Joy McFadyn. Joy is a GP based in Swansea and clinical lecturer of Patient safety based at Cardiff University.We're here to talk about the paper she's recently published here in the BJGP alongside her colleagues. The paper is titled Critical Illness in Prisons A Multi Method Analysis of Reported Healthcare Safety Incidents in England.So, hi, Joy, it's really lovely to meet you and to talk about this research, but yeah, just taking a step back, I think it's fair to say that the prison population is an underserved and probably fairly under researched population as well.But you point out here in the paper that it's not only this, but that the prison population is actually at a much higher risk of early mortality as well. So can you talk us through this at all?Speaker B00:01:10.680 - 00:02:31.010Yeah, that's a really good point. So we know that people who reside in prison, known as prisoners, will have very high rates of physical and mental health needs.And as you say, there are concerns that they have rates of premature mortality, so they may die up to 20 years earlier than the rest of the population. But they are a population which isn't necessarily the area of focus.So even though we know the importance of supporting their healthcare as a public health concern, they are often underserved, they're quite vulnerable, and yet there hasn't been enough research to support them to have what we call equivalent health outcomes. So there are lots of definitions of what is considered to be equivalence of care for people in prisons.So the Royal College of General Practitioners Secure Environments Group, they have defined what equivalence of care is for people in prisons, thinking that they should have the same quality of care, the same level of staffing, the same resources as anyone who is residing in the community in order to get the same health outcome. And currently that is not being realised.Speaker A00:02:31.330 - 00:02:38.210And just as a background to all this work, how many of these early deaths do you think are preventable?Speaker B00:02:38.930 - 00:03:39.270So we carried out a study which was called the Avoidable Harm in Prison Study. So it was focusing very much on healthcare events where people were harmed or could have been harmed whilst they reside in prisons.So our focus is very much on these patient safety incidents, reports and incidents themselves, and ultimately the findings of the other space of the study. We haven't released yet they're still embargoed.But we were seeing within our sample of patient safety incident reports, events where prisoners were undertaking significant harm. So within our paper, we haven't seen any evidence of the deaths which could be considered to be avoidable.But our focus was very much on events where without urgent treatment, there was a high risk of death. And we considered many of those events to be avoidable.Speaker A00:03:39.590 - 00:04:10.690And I guess all this is tied into what you're aiming to do here in this research, which was to look at and characterize patient safety incidents in the prison population and find opportunities to improve care.So you used a really detailed approach here and looked at patient safety incidents reported in England and carefully examined and coded all of the incidents here. But I really want us to talk through what you found, what were the main sorts of incident type.And what I'm trying to get at is what really happened in these reports.Speaker B00:04:11.410 - 00:07:08.750Yeah, thank you. So we reviewed Originally up to 4,000 of those patient safety incident reports.And then when we focused specifically on those events where someone was at very high risk of death if they hadn't received treatment, we were looking at conditions suggestive of heart attacks, strokes, status epilepticus, diabetic ketoacidosis, for example.And what we saw is that most of the reports that were included for analysis, so about 100 of those reports, people in prison were not being able to access healthcare professionals when they needed to. So in prisons, people will have an assessment when they arrive to the prison, which is an assessment of their healthcare needs.They should also have access to nursing staff, GPS and allied healthcare professionals, as well as referrals to secondary care as needed. And what we were seeing is that when there are events where someone was critically unwell, they couldn't access the staffing when they required.So it's very much a nurse led service in the prisons. And even when there were prisoners who had collapsed, nursing staff could not access the prisoners. And that was for lots of different reasons.Some of it was related to poor communication, that there's quite a reliance on the use of radios in our reports.And so if people were trying to radio from one area of the prison to the healthcare teams, then there was too much radio traffic that their messages weren't getting through or they were using the wrong emergency codes. So actually the nursing staff weren't aware of the urgency of when they needed to get there.So there were lots of delays in actually having the healthcare teams arrive and assess the patients themselves.But also when a decision was made that someone needed to be conveyed to an emergency department, for example, due to difficulties with staffing levels, there weren't sufficient prison officer numbers to escort them from the prison to hospital. So there was significant delays. So what we could see in some of the events is that someone had collapsed.There was concern that this was suggestive of a stroke, they were dysphasic, they had facial palsy, they had tinnitus, headaches, et cetera. And nursing staff had assessed, said, no, they're unwell.Gps had said they need to be conveyed to the hospital and they weren't transferred until the following day. So those types of delays were very evident as well.So difficulty accessing the healthcare professionals in the first place and then a delay getting the correct treatment or management, even with conditions which are time critical.Speaker A00:07:09.630 - 00:07:29.500That all sounds really shocking, actually. But I wonder if we could just take a step back and, and could you describe to us what healthcare provision is like generally in prisons?You mentioned about a nurse led care system, but how easy is it to access other healthcare professionals like GPs in prisons generally?Speaker B00:07:30.700 - 00:11:02.620So I think there are two very different opinions in this.So we have the access to the patient safety incident reports, which is telling us that it's very difficult for them to access healthcare professionals as needed within the prisons that we looked at for the avoidable harm in prison study, for example, we were only focusing on prisons where health care was delivered on site and the...