PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - ,
AU  - Wood, Christopher
AU  - Speed, Victoria
AU  - Fisher, Louis
AU  - Curtis, Helen J.
AU  - Schaffer, Andrea L.
AU  - Walker, Alex J.
AU  - Croker, Richard
AU  - Brown, Andrew D.
AU  - Cunningham, Christine
AU  - Hulme, William J.
AU  - Andrews, Colm D.
AU  - Butler-Cole, Ben F. C.
AU  - Evans, David
AU  - Inglesby, Peter
AU  - Dillingham, Iain
AU  - Bacon, Sebastian C.J.
AU  - Davy, Simon
AU  - Ward, Tom
AU  - Hickman, George
AU  - Bridges, Lucy
AU  - O’Dwyer, Thomas
AU  - Maude, Steven
AU  - Smith, Rebecca M.
AU  - Mehrkar, Amir
AU  - Bates, Chris
AU  - Cockburn, Jonathan
AU  - Parry, John
AU  - Hester, Frank
AU  - Harper, Sam
AU  - Goldacre, Ben
AU  - MacKenna, Brian
TI  - The impact of COVID-19 on medication reviews in English primary care. An OpenSAFELY-TPP analysis of 20 million adult electronic health records
AID  - 10.1101/2023.07.31.23293419
DP  - 2023 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2023.07.31.23293419
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/10/03/2023.07.31.23293419.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/10/03/2023.07.31.23293419.full
AB  - Background The COVID-19 pandemic caused significant disruption to routine activity in primary care. Medication reviews are an important primary care activity to ensure safety and appropriateness of ongoing prescribing and a disruption could have significant negative implications for patient care.Aim Using routinely collected data, our aim was to i) describe the SNOMED CT codes used to report medication review activity ii) report the impact of COVID-19 on the volume and variation of medication reviews.Design and setting With the approval of NHS England, we conducted a cohort study of 20 million adult patient records in general practice, in-situ using the OpenSAFELY platform.Method For each month between April 2019 - March 2022, we report the percentage of patients with a medication review coded monthly and in the previous 12 months. These measures were broken down by regional, clinical and demographic subgroups and amongst those prescribed high risk medications.Results In April 2019, 32.3% of patients had a medication review coded in the previous 12 months. During the first COVID-19 lockdown, monthly activity substantially decreased (-21.1% April 2020), but the rate of patients with a medication review coded in the previous 12 months was not substantially impacted according to our classification (-10.5% March 2021). There was regional and ethnic variation (March 2022 - London 21.9% vs North West 33.6%; Chinese 16.8% vs British 33.0%). Following the introduction of “structured medication reviews”, the rate of structured medication review in the last 12 months reached 2.9% by March 2022, with higher percentages in high risk groups (March 2022 - care home residents 34.1%, 90+ years 13.1%, high risk medications 10.2%). The most used SNOMED CT medication review code across the study period was Medication review done - 314530002 (59.5%).Conclusion We have reported a substantial reduction in the monthly rate of medication reviews during the pandemic but rates recovered by the end of the study period.What is already known about this subjectThe COVID-19 pandemic brought substantial disruption to the delivery of routine tasks in primary care.For the first time on this scale, our study reports the impact of COVID-19 on medication review activity, including the launch of the structured medication review service in England broken down by key demographic, social, and clinical factors.What this study addsThere was a substantial reduction in the monthly rate of medication reviews during the pandemic but rates recovered quickly.The percentage of patients with a medication review varies according to region and ethnicity.Structured medication reviews were adopted rapidly and prioritised for patients at greatest risk of harm from their medicines.Competing Interest StatementBG has received research funding from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, the NHS National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), the NIHR School of Primary Care Research, NHS England, the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, the Mohn-Westlake Foundation, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley, the Wellcome Trust, the Good Thinking Foundation, Health Data Research UK, the Health Foundation, the World Health Organisation, UKRI MRC, Asthma UK, the British Lung Foundation, and the Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing strand of the National Core Studies programme; he is a Non-Executive Director at NHS Digital; he also receives personal income from speaking and writing for lay audiences on the misuse of science.Funding StatementThe OpenSAFELY Platform is supported by grants from the Wellcome Trust (222097/Z/20/Z) and MRC (MR/V015737/1, MC_PC-20059, MR/W016729/1). In addition, development of OpenSAFELY has been funded by the Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing strand of the National Core Studies programme (MC_PC_20030: MC_PC_20059), the NIHR funded CONVALESCENCE programme (COV-LT-0009), NIHR (NIHR135559, COV-LT2-0073), and the Data and Connectivity National Core Study funded by UK Research and Innovation (MC_PC_20058), and Health Data Research UK (HDRUK2021.000, 2021.0157). BG has also received funding from: the Bennett Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley, the Mohn-Westlake Foundation; all Bennett Institute staff are supported by BG's grants on this work. BMK is also employed by NHS England working on medicines policy and clinical lead for primary care medicines data. BMK is employed by NHS England and seconded to the Bennett Institute. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR, NHS England, UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) or the Department of Health and Social Care. Funders had no role in the study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This study was approved by the Health Research Authority (REC reference 20/LO/0651).I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data were linked, stored and analysed securely within the OpenSAFELY platform: https://opensafely.org. Data include pseudonymised data such as coded diagnoses, medications and physiological parameters. No free text data are included. All code is shared openly for review and re-use under MIT open license https://github.com/opensafely/medication-reviews. Detailed pseudonymised patient data is potentially re-identifiable and therefore not shared. https://github.com/opensafely/medication-reviews