Denise Kendrick

Prof. Denise Kendrick

School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

34Years (1993-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 April 2012 in The Lancet
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
AAAnthony J Avery
Anthony J Avery
SRSarah Rodgers
Sarah Rodgers
JCJudith A Cantrill
Judith A Cantrill
SASarah Armstrong
Sarah Armstrong
KCKathrin Cresswell
Kathrin Cresswell
ASAziz Sheikh
Aziz Sheikh
Medication errors are common in primary care and are associated with considerable risk of patient harm. We tested whether a pharmacist-led, information technology-based intervention was more effective than simple feedback in reducing the number of patients at risk of measures related to hazardous prescribing and inadequate blood-test monitoring of medicines 6 months after the intervention. In this pragmatic, cluster randomised trial general practices in the UK were stratified by research site and list size, and randomly assigned by a web-based randomisation service in block sizes of two or four to one of two groups. The practices were allocated to either computer-generated simple feedback for at-risk patients (control) or a pharmacist-led information technology intervention (PINCER), composed of feedback, educational outreach, and dedicated support. The allocation was masked to researchers and statisticians involved in processing and analysing the data. The allocation was not masked to general practices, pharmacists, patients, or researchers who visited practices to extract data. [corrected]. Primary outcomes were the proportions of patients at 6 months after the intervention who had had any of three clinically important errors: non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) prescribed to those with a history of peptic ulcer without co-prescription of a proton-pump inhibitor; β blockers prescribed to those with a history of asthma; long-term prescription of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or loop diuretics to those 75 years or older without assessment of urea and electrolytes in the preceding 15 months. The cost per error avoided was estimated by incremental cost-effectiveness analysis. This study is registered with Controlled-Trials.com, number ISRCTN21785299. 72 general practices with a combined list size of 480,942 patients were randomised. At 6 months' follow-up, patients in the PINCER group were significantly less likely to have been prescribed a non-selective NSAID if they had a history of peptic ulcer without gastroprotection (OR 0·58, 95% CI 0·38-0·89); a β blocker if they had asthma (0·73, 0·58-0·91); or an ACE inhibitor or loop diuretic without appropriate monitoring (0·51, 0·34-0·78). PINCER has a 95% probability of being cost effective if the decision-maker's ceiling willingness to pay reaches £75 per error avoided at 6 months. The PINCER intervention is an effective method for reducing a range of medication errors in general practices with computerised clinical records. Patient Safety Research Portfolio, Department of Health, England.

29 September 2001 in BMJ
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
RERuth Elkan
Ruth Elkan
MEMatthias Egger
Matthias Egger
Denise KendrickDenise Kendrick
Denise Kendrick
MDMichael Dewey
Michael Dewey
MHMichael Hewitt
Michael Hewitt
KBKathy Brummell
Kathy Brummell
Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of home visiting programmes that offer health promotion and preventive care to older people. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of 15 studies of home visiting. Participants: Older people living at home, including frail older people at risk of adverse outcomes. Outcome measures: Mortality, admission to hospital, admission to institutional care, functional status, health status. Results: Home visiting was associated with a significant reduction in mortality. The pooled odds ratio for eight studies that assessed mortality in members of the general elderly population was 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.64 to 0.89). Five studies of home visiting to frail older people who were at risk of adverse outcomes also showed a significant reduction in mortality (0.72; 0.54 to 0.97). Home visiting was associated with a significant reduction in admissions to long term care in members of the general elderly population (0.65; 0.46 to 0.91). For three studies of home visiting to frail, “at risk” older people, the pooled odds ratio was 0.55 (0.35 to 0.88). Meta-analysis of six studies of home visiting to members of the general elderly population showed no significant reduction in admissions to hospital (odds ratio 0.95; 0.80 to 1.09). Three studies showed no significant effect on health (standardised effect size 0.06; −0.07 to 0.18). Four studies showed no effect on activities of daily living (0.05; −0.07 to 0.17). Conclusion: Home visits to older people can reduce mortality and admission to long term institutional care. What is already known on this topic: The benefits of regular, preventive home visits to older people are the subject of controversy A recent systematic review found no clear evidence that preventive home visits were effective What this study adds: This meta-analysis of 15 trials shows that home visiting can reduce mortality and admission to institutional care among older people

28 November 2014 in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
Denise KendrickDenise Kendrick
Denise Kendrick
AKArun Kumar
Arun Kumar
HCHannah Carpenter
Hannah Carpenter
GZG A Rixt Zijlstra
G A Rixt Zijlstra
DSDawn Alexandra Skelton
Dawn Alexandra Skelton
KDKim Delbaere
Kim Delbaere

17 February 2001 in BMJ
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
Denise KendrickDenise Kendrick
Denise Kendrick
KFKatherine Fielding
Katherine Fielding
EBElaine Bentley
Elaine Bentley
RKRobert Kerslake
Robert Kerslake
PMPaul Miller
Paul Miller
MPMike Pringle
Mike Pringle
Objective: To test the hypothesis that radiography of the lumbar spine in patients with low back pain is not associated with improved clinical outcomes or satisfaction with care. Design: Randomised unblinded controlled trial. Setting: 73 general practices in Nottingham, north Nottinghamshire, southern Derbyshire, north Lincolnshire, and north Leicestershire. 52 practices recruited participants to the trial. Subjects: 421 patients with low back pain of a median duration of 10 weeks. Intervention: Radiography of the lumbar spine. Main outcome measures: Roland adaptation of the sickness impact profile, visual analogue scale for pain, health status, EuroQol, satisfaction with care, use of primary and secondary care services, and reporting of low back pain at three and nine months after randomisation. Results: The intervention group were more likely to report low back pain at three months (relative risk 1.26, 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.60) and had a lower overall health status score and borderline higher Roland and pain scores. A higher proportion of participants consulted their doctor in the three months after radiography (1.62, 1.33 to 1.97). Satisfaction with care was greater in the group receiving radiography at nine but not three months after randomisation. Overall, 80% of participants in both groups at three and nine months would have radiography if the choice was available. An abnormal finding on radiography made no difference to the outcome, as measured by the Roland score. Conclusions: Radiography of the lumbar spine in primary care patients with low back pain of at least six weeks' duration is not associated with improved patient functioning, severity of pain, or overall health status but is associated with an increase in doctor workload. Guidelines on the management of low back pain in primary care should be consistent about not recommending radiography of the lumbar spine in patients with low back pain in the absence of indicators for serious spinal disease, even if it has persisted for at least six weeks. Patients receiving radiography are more satisfied with the care they received. The challenge for primary care is to increase satisfaction without recourse to radiography.

15 April 2016 in Age and Ageing
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
AKArun Kumar
Arun Kumar
KDKim Delbaere
Kim Delbaere
GZG. A. R. Zijlstra
G. A. R. Zijlstra
HCHannah Carpenter
Hannah Carpenter
SISteve Iliffe
Steve Iliffe
Denise KendrickDenise Kendrick
Denise Kendrick
Objective: to determine the effect of exercise interventions on fear of falling in community-living people aged ≥65. Design: systematic review and meta-analysis. Bibliographic databases, trial registers and other sources were searched for randomised or quasi-randomised trials. Data were independently extracted by pairs of reviewers using a standard form. Results: thirty trials (2,878 participants) reported 36 interventions (Tai Chi and yoga (n = 9); balance training (n = 19); strength and resistance training (n = 8)). The risk of bias was low in few trials. Most studies were from high-income countries (Australia = 8, USA = 7). Intervention periods (26 weeks = 7) and exercise frequency (1–3 times/week = 32; ≥4 times/week = 4) varied between studies. Fear of falling was measured by single-item questions (7) and scales measuring falls efficacy (14), balance confidence (9) and concern or worry about falling (2). Meta-analyses showed a small to moderate effect of exercise interventions on reducing fear of falling immediately post-intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.37, 95% CI 0.18, 0.56; 24 studies; low-quality evidence). There was a small, but not statistically significant effect in the longer term (<6 months (SMD 0.17, 95% CI −0.05, 0.38 (four studies) and ≥6 months post-intervention SMD 0.20, 95% CI −0.01, 0.41 (three studies)). Conclusions: exercise interventions probably reduce fear of falling to a small to moderate degree immediately post-intervention in community-living older people. The high risk of bias in most included trials suggests findings should be interpreted with caution. High-quality trials are needed to strengthen the evidence base in this area.

20 February 2010 in BMC Public Health
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
NONasih Othman
Nasih Othman
Denise KendrickDenise Kendrick
Denise Kendrick
Burn injuries remain one of the leading causes of injury morbidity and mortality in the World Health Organization's East Mediterranean Region. To provide an overview on the epidemiology of burn injuries in this region, a systematic review was undertaken.