By P. Varek. Carleton College.

CCGs have offered a platform which has promoted some notable primary care-led innovation; given greater prominence to primary care; and generic valtrex 500 mg otc stages of hiv infection symptoms, in turn purchase valtrex once a day hiv infection risk rate, promoted the wider perspective of well-being as well as health purchase cheapest valtrex hiv infection via saliva. The holistic aspects of health are recognised in primary care and the risk management character of general practice is enabled. So, too, local knowledge and patient voices are facilitated. Peer pressure has in many areas – as noted in or case studies – raised the quality of general practice. If CCGs were removed from the scene there would also be the risk of inducing disillusion about yet more structural change and an attendant risk of a new perceived remoteness and bureaucracy in health governance and management. A shift from small-scale locally responsive commissioning back to a larger-scale, more centralised approach may not be without its own attendant complications. Arguably, the real source of the problem is not the nature of the commissioning body but the inherited rigid payment systems with their perverse incentives. Underlying all of this is the wider question of the competing logics we have tracked throughout the analysis: quasi-market competition on the one hand and planning and collaboration on the other. Our survey data revealed the multiple indicators which can support both a pessimistic and an optimistic view. Evidence in Chapter 3 revealed that less than half of accountable officers and less than half of GPs on governing boards judged that their CCG was the most influential body in shaping local health services. This may reflect both the inbuilt power of the hospital sector as well as the level of intervention by NHSE and other central bodies that also have responsibilities. Inside the CCGs, respondents were just as likely to judge managers as being the most influential as to judge clinicians as wielding the influence. In terms of who set the compelling vision, 25% attributed this to clinicians compared with 19% to managers; however, the majority (54%) judged both to be equal. Broadly similar patterns were found too in relation to understanding public and patient needs. On a positive note, the majority of respondents in both 2014 and 2016 judged the overall influence of clinical leadership as significant or central. The case studies tell the story of local efforts to respond to the challenges and the prompts. The level above was typified by the STPs of which footprints normally incorporate a dozen or so CCGs and of which governance teams included LAs, acute provider trusts as well as CCGs. Notably, the STP agendas and plans were guided by NHSE. Moreover, these localities tended to chime with the STP delivery plans. In such an emergent landscape, the individual CCGs were the bodies which began to seem out of place. Although clinical leadership was thus as likely to be found above, below and around CCGs, it could be argued that it was the allocation of commissioning power to these statutory GP groups that gave the legitimacy and impetus for experimentation and innovation in service redesign with GPs in a leading role. Hence, although clinical commissioning may not have operated in the precise way it was expected to do so, with CCGs efficiently working through the commissioning cycle and making rational, lucid, allocative decisions using decommissioning and commissioning in a fully coherent manner, the edifice that was built enabled other more varied activity to take place and this is of wider significance. The attempted enactment of clinical leadership practice was complex because it was necessary to look to see what was happening at the next level above, the level below and indeed in a sideways direction in order to calculate the implications for any proposed action. Because of the fragmentation in the NHS, most of the leadership of service redesign initiatives we studied traversed several units of providers, commissioners and partners. The skills required to build collaborative relations across complex networks were of a different order than the skills needed to lead within a contained service unit. Part of the challenge was the degree of turbulence in the system. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journals 93 provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK. CONCLUSIONS encouraged experimentation; but, conversely, the relative lack of stability and the pace of change (in diverse directions) meant that the agents we studied had to cope with the extra uncertainty surrounding priorities, funding flows and patient flows. The research findings reveal the many attempts to reform general practice and primary care. This involved larger practices or groups of practices, extended services and extended teams with mixed skills, and a shift in emphasis from commissioning to new forms of leadership and governance of provider organisations. The examples of more far-reaching local action were normally those prompted by and legitimated by higher-level policy shifts. However, notably, even such national-level sponsorship was not enough to ensure a smooth passage for local reforms. Yet, even this piece of collaboration building was not enough to overcome local opposition. Limitations The research underpinning this report included a vast array of investigative activities across a very large number of CCGs. The six CCG cases are not necessarily reflective of the 2009 CCGs in England. That said, the detailed cases were not intended to be a representative sample of all CCGs. Indeed, as mentioned, they were selected through theoretical sampling and there was a bias towards CGGs where there was some evidence of meaningful activity. The wider survey, which covered all CCGs, allows a broader picture and much of the evidence from that source pointed to numerous instances where there has been much less activity than we record in our cases. So our casework is not statistically representative of CCGs, but it does help reveal the pattern of activities and factors which allow GPs to make a substantive difference – if they are minded to do so. Implications for practising clinicians, managers and other local actors The main practical implications to be drawn from this research project are as follows. Past assumptions about power and influence may not be valid. Major new initiatives emanating from national level, such as STPs, Vanguards and the promotion of ACOs, signal that the role of CCGs has been diminished. The lessons will be useful in new contexts even if CCGs do not survive or become much reduced in their role. Learning from the cases suggests that initiatives work best when there is commensurate supportive activity under way in operational planning and practice delivery arenas. Most crucially, clinical leaders on the commissioning side of programme boards need to make sure they engage creatively with influential GPs and acute provider clinical leads who are involved in creating the operational detail of new or improved services. Service redesign is not an end in itself; rather, it should be a response to identified problems and opportunities for service improvement. Actors in the current system are under time pressure and so it is especially important that they are able to direct their energies in effective ways. Exercises in establishing common purpose and reanalyses of the state of the system can be useful but they can also be excessive. Launching reviews and initiatives was experienced by some as too easy and too frequent. The early stages of projects and programmes are the easy part; follow-through and the realisation of effective impacts are the difficult parts. The problem of the plethora of initiatives is not resolved simply by producing documents claiming alignment with other ongoing programmes and projects.

Azithromycin might prove useful for treating Treatment granuloma inguinale during pregnancy order generic valtrex line hiv infection blood, but published data are lacking purchase valtrex 1000mg overnight delivery hiv infection urine. Doxycycline and ciprofoxacin are contraindicated in Several antimicrobial regimens have been efective purchase discount valtrex on line hiv infection common symptoms, but pregnant women. Treatment has been shown to halt progression of lesions, HIV Infection and healing typically proceeds inward from the ulcer margins; Persons with both granuloma inguinale and HIV infec- prolonged therapy is usually required to permit granulation tion should receive the same regimens as those who are HIV 26 MMWR December 17, 2010 negative; however, the addition of a parenteral aminoglycoside scarring. Buboes might require aspiration through intact skin (e. Lymphogranuloma Venereum Recommended Regimen Lymphogranuloma venereum (LGV) is caused by Doxycycline 100 mg orally twice a day for 21 days C. Te most common clinical manifestation of LGV among heterosexuals is tender inguinal and/or femoral lymphadenopathy that is typically Alternative Regimen unilateral. A self-limited genital ulcer or papule sometimes Erythromycin base 500 mg orally four times a day for 21 days occurs at the site of inoculation. However, by the time patients seek care, the lesions have often disappeared. Rectal exposure in Although clinical data are lacking, azithromycin 1 g orally women or MSM can result in proctocolitis, including mucoid once weekly for 3 weeks is probably efective based on its and/or hemorrhagic rectal discharge, anal pain, constipation, chlamydial antimicrobial activity. LGV is an invasive, systemic treatments might also be efective, but extended treatment infection, and if it is not treated early, LGV proctocolitis can intervals are likely required. Genital and colorectal LGV lesions can also develop secondary bacterial Follow-Up infection or can be coinfected with other sexually and Patients should be followed clinically until signs and symp- nonsexually transmitted pathogens. Diagnosis is based on clinical suspicion, epidemiologic information, and the exclusion of other etiologies for procto- Management of Sex Partners colitis, inguinal lymphadenopathy, or genital or rectal ulcers. Persons who have had sexual contact with a patient who C. NAATs for (azithromycin 1 gm orally single dose or doxycycline 100 mg C. Azithromycin might prove useful for treatment Chlamydia serology (complement fxation titers >1:64) of LGV in pregnancy, but no published data are available can support the diagnosis of LGV in the appropriate clinical regarding its safety and efcacy. Comparative data between types of serologic tests in pregnant women. Serologic test Persons with both LGV and HIV infection should receive interpretation for LGV is not standardized, tests have not been the same regimens as those who are HIV negative. Prolonged validated for clinical proctitis presentations, and C. In the absence of specifc LGV diagnostic testing, patients with a clinical syndrome consistent with LGV, including proc- Syphilis tocolitis or genital ulcer disease with lymphadenopathy, should be treated for LGV as described in this report. Syphilis is a systemic disease caused by Treponema pallidum. On the basis of clinical fndings, the disease has been divided Treatment into a series of overlapping stages, which are used to help guide Treatment cures infection and prevents ongoing tissue treatment and follow-up. Persons who have syphilis might seek damage, although tissue reaction to the infection can result in treatment for signs or symptoms of primary infection (i. Nontreponemal test titers usually decline after manifestations that include, but are not limited to, skin rash, treatment and might become nonreactive with time; however, mucocutaneous lesions, and lymphadenopathy), neurologic in some persons, nontreponemal antibodies can persist for a infection (i. Latent infections treated during the primary stage revert to being serologically (i. Latent syphilis acquired within the preced- titers should not be used to assess treatment response. Treatment for both late latent syphilis chemiluminescence immunoassays (201,202). Tis strategy and tertiary syphilis might require a longer duration of therapy will identify both persons with previous treatment for syphilis because organisms might be dividing more slowly; however, and persons with untreated or incompletely treated syphilis. Te positive predictive value for syphilis associated with a treponemal screening test result might be lower among popu- Diagnostic Considerations lations with a low prevalence of syphilis. If the nontreponemal test is negative, then the locally developed PCR tests for the detection of T. If a second treponemal Venereal Disease Research Laboratory [VDRL] and RPR) and test is positive, persons with a history of previous treatment 2) treponemal tests (e. Tose without a history agglutination [TP-PA] assay, various EIAs, and chemilumines- of treatment for syphilis should be ofered treatment. Te use of only one type of serologic history or results of a physical examination suggest a recent test is insufcient for diagnosis, because each type of test has infection, previously untreated persons should be treated for limitations, including the possibility of false-positive test results late latent syphilis. If the second treponemal test is negative, in persons without syphilis. False-positive nontreponemal further evaluation or treatment is not indicated. However, atypical syphilis a reactive nontreponemal test should receive a treponemal test serologic test results (i. When Nontreponemal test antibody titers may correlate with serologic tests do not correspond with clinical findings disease activity, and results should be reported quantitatively. Sequential serologic tests in abnormalities) warrant further investigation and treatment for individual patients should be performed using the same test- neurosyphilis. Laboratory testing is helpful in supporting the ing method (e. Te VDRL and RPR are equally valid assays, but to diagnose neurosyphilis in all instances. Cerebrospinal fuid quantitative results from the two tests cannot be compared (CSF) laboratory abnormalities are common in persons with directly because RPR titers frequently are slightly higher than early syphilis. Te VDRL in cerebrospinal fuid (CSF-VDRL), 28 MMWR December 17, 2010 which is highly specifc but insensitive, is the standard serologic desensitized and treated with penicillin (see Management of test for CSF. When reactive in the absence of substantial con- Patients Who Have a History of Penicillin Allergy). Most other tests are both insensi- other symptoms that usually occur within the frst 24 hours tive and nonspecifc and must be interpreted in relation to other after the initiation of any therapy for syphilis. Patients should test results and the clinical assessment. Terefore, the labora- be informed about this possible adverse reaction. Te Jarisch- tory diagnosis of neurosyphilis usually depends on various Herxheimer reaction occurs most frequently among patients combinations of reactive serologic test results, CSF cell count who have early syphilis, presumably because bacterial burdens or protein, and a reactive CSF-VDRL with or without clinical are higher during these stages. Among persons with HIV infection, the CSF manage symptoms, but they have not been proven to prevent leukocyte count usually is elevated (>5 white blood cell count this reaction. Te Jarisch-Herxheimer reaction might induce [WBC]/mm3); using a higher cutof (>20 WBC/ mm3) might early labor or cause fetal distress in pregnant women, but improve the specifcity of neurosyphilis diagnosis (204). Te this should not prevent or delay therapy (see Syphilis During CSF-VDRL might be nonreactive even when neurosyphilis is Pregnancy). Te CSF FTA-ABS test is less specifc for neurosyphilis than the CSF-VDRL but is highly Sexual transmission of T. Selection of the appro- syphilis in a sex partner might be infected even if priate penicillin preparation is important, because T.

Our results are surprising and alarming – increases in activity and costs across the board discount valtrex line hiv infection symptoms initial. We do not fully understand how or why this is happening; possible reasons include sensitisation of GPs and identification of unmet need; lack of resources to respond to need apart from hospitalisation; and concentration on those at highest predicted risk may mean that attention slips from those with lower predicted risk scores buy generic valtrex on line stages in hiv infection. Despite low reported use of PRISM quality 500 mg valtrex one step of the hiv infection process is the t-cell, we found clinically and operationally important effects of the introduction of the new risk stratification tool alongside contractual (QOF) incentives to target those at the highest risk of emergency admission to hospital. These effects were unexpected and in the opposite direction to those intended. We are unable to disentangle the effects of the introduction of the PRISM tool from those of the QOF targets, but this reflects practice across the UK, where emergency admission predictive risk stratification tools have been introduced alongside an incentivised enhanced service. Recommendations for research in order of priority 1. Evaluation of targeting of different services to different levels of risk, rather than the strong current focus on the very highest level of risk (QOF and enhanced service). In the PRISMATIC trial our evaluation of PRISM became an evaluation of PRISM alongside incentivisation of targeted care for those at highest risk through QOF targets. The PRISM tool itself can only be part of a wider intervention. PRISM was not designed to be used with such a focus on the highest level of risk, but UK health policy has focused on these patients and PRISM was used to identify patients to meet these targets. We do not know what effects would be found if efforts – and resources – were to be targeted at those at a slightly lower-risk level, and whether or not the generation of a risk score per se can have the effects that we found. This will require a new study based on an experimental design – preferably a randomised trial clustered by practice to exclude biases caused by changing policy and practice within the study time frame. This study must be underpinned by theory and a logic model, and include a strong process evaluation to understand mechanisms of change. We recommend also that this study should be carried out in sites across England and Wales and that longer-term outcomes are included. Investigation of effects on vulnerable populations, health inequalities and by health condition type; in the PRISMATIC trial we have detected effects at aggregate and risk group levels, but have not delved into differential effects within the general practice population. This could partially be achieved by secondary analysis of the PRISMATIC trial data set, but some new investigation would also be required. Acceptability of predictive risk stratification and communication of scores to patients and practitioners is an important topic to explore, but it is more important at this stage to establish effects, costs and mechanisms of change. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journals 111 provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK. Although we specifically acknowledge the following parties, we would like to extend our thanks to all of those who supported this work. We would particularly like to thank the following staff members: Ken Leake, Dave Price, Mick Kelly, Cecilia Jones, David Leach, Tracey Taylor, Claire John and Simon Scourfield. In particular, for their support with practice engagement and research tasks, we thank Kathy Malinovszky, Carol Thomas, Zoe Abbott and Rachel McGrath. In particular, we would like to thank Cynthia McNerney, Caroline Brooks, Dan Thayer and Ronan Lyons and members of the Information Governance Review Panel. Contributions of authors Helen Snooks (Professor of Health Services Research), chief investigator, led the development of the research question, study design, and was responsible for trial delivery and conduct. Kerry Bailey-Jones (GP) and Deborah Burge-Jones (GP) acted as study GP champions, offering general practice insight and experience throughout. Jeremy Dale (Professor of Primary Care), co-applicant, provided expertise in primary and emergency care research. Jan Davies (Service User Representative), RMG member and service user advisor. Bridie Evans (Research Officer), service user involvement lead and qualitative support. Angela Farr (Researcher in Swansea Centre for Health Economics) helped prepare implementation costs section. Deborah Fitzsimmons (Professor of Health Outcomes Research) supported the management of the health economic analysis and contributed to the draft of the cost-effectiveness chapter. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journals 113 provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Jane Harrison (Public Health Wales, previously ABM UHB Assistant Medical Director for Primary Care) led the introduction of PRISM in ABM UHB. Martin Heaven (Senior analyst at FARR Institute @ CIPHER) provided expertise and support for data linkage. Helen Howson (Welsh Government) advised on policy concerning chronic conditions management throughout the study. Hayley Hutchings (Professor of Health Services Research and Deputy Director of STU), research manager, supervised staff, and led the writing of the study protocol and methods chapter. Gareth John (Information Manager at NWIS) supported implementation of PRISM, advised and facilitated data linkage, and was key liaison for NWIS throughout the study. Mark Kingston (Research Officer), project and data manager, co-ordinated the day-to-day delivery of the trial, including site liaison, and wrote first drafts of the introduction and systematic review. Leo Lewis (Senior Fellow, International Foundation for Integrated Care) advised on predictive risk stratification implementation throughout the study. Ceri Phillips (Professor of Health Economics), co-applicant, helped develop the original study and support health economics components. Alison Porter (Associate Professor), qualitative lead. Bernadette Sewell (Health Economist) wrote the analysis plan for the health economic evaluation, analysed health economics data and led draft of cost-effectiveness chapter. Daniel Warm (Service Transformation Programme Manager, Hywel Dda UHB) provided advice on information systems management. Alan Watkins (Associate Professor), senior statistician, developed analysis plan and analysed data. Shirley Whitman (Service User Representative), RMG member and service user advisor. Victoria Williams (Research Officer) supported the qualitative data analysis and chapter draft. Ian T Russell (Emeritus Professor of Clinical Trials), co-applicant, provided methodological support, including statistical expertise. All authors contributed to the writing of the report and approved the final version. Publications Hutchings HA, Evans BA, Fitzsimmons D, Harrison J, Heaven M, Huxley P, et al. Predictive risk stratification model: a progressive cluster-randomised trial in chronic conditions management (PRISMATIC) research protocol. Kingston MR, Evans BA, Nelson K, Hutchings HA, Russell IT, Snooks HA. Costs, effects and implementation of emergency admission risk prediction models in primary care for patients with, or at risk of, chronic conditions: a systematic review protocol.

It is important to methodologic shortcomings similar to those of the earlier tell patients order valtrex cheap online hiv infection means, prescribers buy 500 mg valtrex visa hiv infection rate germany, and payers not just the best esti- cost studies of clozapine described above buy cheap valtrex antiviral zona zoster. Another concern mate of costs and effectiveness, but the likelihood that their is that industry sponsorship of many of these studies means costs and outcomes will fall within their acceptable ranges that they do not meet the criteria for lack of an incentive for what they are willing to pay and/or risk to gain a given for bias set forth by the New England Journal of Medicine outcome. Although their work cannot be quite arbitrary as they are prices (not costs) set by the be summarized here, useful source books include those by manufacturer. Although such studies form good starting points ics and thoughtful analyses of the economic influences on for further investigation, they need follow-up by indepen- the treatment of individuals with schizophrenia. An example of an important follow-up study is that of Conley and col- This research is the product of the collaboration of many leagues (73), who found that, among 84 treatment-refrac- individuals, both within and outside the Connecticut De- tory patients randomly assigned to a double-blind 8-week partment of Mental Health and Addiction Services fixed-dose trial of either olanzapine or chlorpromazine, (DMHAS). In particular, we would like to thank Carlos olanzapine appeared to have limited efficacy, showing only Jackson, Ph. Hence, the reduction in treatment costs assistance with the data extraction and statistical analyses associated with olanzapine noted in the reviews of Palmer of the Medicaid prescription data. The research was funded Chapter 57: The Economics of the Treatment of Schizophrenia 817 in part by U. Economic burden of mental disorders in the United MH-48830 and R01 MH-52872 from the National Insti- States. The economic burden tute of Mental Health (NIMH) to Susan Essock, Ph. Br J Psychiatry 1997;171: tion does not express the views of the Department of Mental 509–518. Health and Addiction Services or the State of Connecticut. Costs of services for schizophrenic patients The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors. Expenditures for treating schizophrenia: a population-based study of Georgia Medicaid recipients. Growth of a field in policy research: the economics tive community treatment teams. Financing psychotherapy: costs, effects, and public offset as an incidental effect of psychotherapy. Inpatient and outpatient psychiatric Health J 1983;19:42–53. Cost sharing and the treatment on psychiatric and medical-surgical hospital days. Public health care for the chronically study of supported employment for people with severe mental mentally ill: financing operating costs. Family costs associated with severe mental illness and 7. Capital costs in economic Administration 1991;18:264–271. New direction Wood Johnson Foundation program on chronic mental illness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985: Millbank Q 1994;72:37–47. Estimating the capital mental health costs: the case of New Hampshire. Administration component of mental health care costs in the public sector. Legal system involvement health services reform on clinical practice in the United Kingdom. How transfer payments are treated in the state hospital in the care and treatment of older adults: state cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses. Balancing the interests of the state and the local commu- for mental health. Administration and Policy in Mental Health 1995;23: 36. Managed behavioral health care: Current realities analysis approach. Int J Psychiatry Clinical Pract 1998;2: and future potential. Quality of care in mental health: the case of schizo- 14. Cost-effectiveness in search Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute, 1981. Cost-effectiveness of clo- Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute, 1984. The economic costs of alcohol Gen Psychiatry 1999;56:565–572. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health, clozapine compared to conventional antipsychotic medication for 1990. J Clin Psychiatry improve treatment of depression in primary care. Cost-effectiveness of related to treatment with clozapine. Hosp Community Psychiatry treatments for major depression in primary care practice. Alternative projections of mortality and effectiveness (letter). Am ethics and validity of disability adjusted life years. Weighing disability when measuring tiveness for patients in state hospitals: results from a randomized health and ruling on 'compassionate' murder. Suicidal behavior in ity among state hospital patients. A comparison of clozapine Psychiatry 1999;156:1590–1595. Clinical trials in psychiatry: should protocol devia- 50. The CE plane: a graphic representation of cost-effec- tion censor patient data? Psychopharmacol Bull 1998;34: of statistical analysis. Strangers in the night: research and managed mental 71. Health status and health and functioning as a cost-effectiveness measure for olanzapine care costs for publicly funded patients with schizophrenia started versus haloperidol treatment of schizophrenia. Olanzapine compared of clozapine therapy for severe psychosis. Psychiatr Serv 1998;49: with chlorpromazine in treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1995; clinical decision analysis model for schizophrenia.