To develop prediction models for short-term outcomes following a first acute myocardial infarction (AMI) event (index) or for past AMI events (prevalent) in a national primary care cohort.

Retrospective cohort study using logistic regression models to estimate 1-year and 5-year risks of all-cause mortality and composite cardiovascular outcomes.

Primary care practices in England contributing data to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum and CPRD GOLD databases between 2006 and 2019.

Patients with an incident (index) or prevalent AMI event. Models were trained on a random 80% sample of CPRD Aurum (n=1018 practices), internally validated on the remaining 20% (n=255) and externally validated using CPRD GOLD (n=248).

Discrimination assessed using sensitivity, specificity and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Calibration assessed using calibration plots.

In the index (prevalent) cohorts, 94 241 (64 789) patients were included in the training and internal validation sets, and 16 832 (7479) in the external validation set. For the index cohort, AUCs for 1-year [5-year] all-cause mortality were 0.802 (95% CI 0.793 to 0.812) [0.847 (0.841 to 0.853)] internally and 0.800 (0.790 to 0.810) [0.841 (0.835 to 0.847)] externally. For the primary composite outcome (stroke, heart failure and all-cause death), AUCs were 0.763 (0.756 to 0.771) [0.824 (0.818 to 0.830)] internally and 0.748 (0.739 to 0.756) [0.808 (0.801 to 0.815)] externally. Discrimination was higher in the prevalent cohort, particularly for 1-year mortality (AUC: 0.896, 95% CI 0.887 to 0.904). Models excluding treatment variables showed slightly lower but comparable performance. Calibration was acceptable across models.

These models can support clinicians in identifying patients at increased risk of short-term adverse outcomes following AMI, whether newly diagnosed or with a prior history. This can inform monitoring strategies and secondary prevention and guide patient counselling on modifiable risk factors.

Multimorbidity or the presence of two or more long-term conditions is now common in people undergoing surgery. However, current care pathways often miss these healthcare encounters to support long-term health promotion. Therefore, there is a need for practical, scalable approaches that can be integrated into routine surgical care, for which limited solutions exist at present. We have co-designed a structured preoperative checklist to help identify and manage long-term conditions in patients listed for elective surgery. This study aims to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of this preoperative checklist in patients undergoing elective surgery.

This is a mixed-methods feasibility study in one National Health Service trust in the UK. We will recruit up to 50 adults scheduled for elective surgery and use the checklist during initial surgical clinic appointments. Quantitative data will include recruitment and retention rates, completion of the checklist and baseline clinical characteristics, analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data will be collected through semistructured interviews with up to 16 patients and clinicians. These interviews will be analysed thematically, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Triangulation of quantitative and qualitative data will allow us to explore fidelity, acceptability, barriers and facilitators to implementation and refine the intervention ahead of a future pilot cluster randomised trial.

This study has received approval from the Yorkshire & The Humber - Sheffield Research Ethics Committee (approval number: 25/YH/0045). All participants will give written informed consent. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and shared with participants, the public and policy stakeholders.

This study explored how Structured Medication Reviews (SMRs) are being undertaken and the challenges to their successful implementation and sustainability.

A cross-sectional mixed methods online survey.

Primary care in England.

120 clinical pharmacists with experience in conducting SMRs in primary care.

Survey responses were received from clinical pharmacists working in 15 different regions. The majority were independent prescribers (62%, n=74), and most were employed by Primary Care Networks (65%, n=78), delivering SMRs for one or more general practices. 61% (n=73) had completed, or were currently enrolled in, the approved training pathway. Patient selection was largely driven by the primary care contract specification: care home residents, patients with polypharmacy, patients on medicines commonly associated with medication errors, patients with severe frailty and/or patients using potentially addictive pain management medication. Only 26% (n=36) of respondents reported providing patients with information in advance. The majority of SMRs were undertaken remotely by telephone and were 21–30 min in length. Much variation was reported in approaches to conducting SMRs, with SMRs in care homes being deemed the most challenging due to additional complexities involved. Challenges included not having sufficient time to prepare adequately, address complex polypharmacy and complete follow-up work generated by SMRs, issues relating to organisational support, competing national priorities and lack of ‘buy-in’ from some patients and General Practitioners.

These results offer insights into the role being played by the clinical pharmacy workforce in a new country-wide initiative to improve the quality and safety of care for patients taking multiple medicines. Better patient preparation and trust, alongside continuing professional development, more support and oversight for clinical pharmacists conducting SMRs, could lead to more efficient medication reviews. However, a formal evaluation of the potential of SMRs to optimise safe medicines use for patients in England is now warranted.