An Australian general practice based strategy to improve chronic disease prevention, and its impact on patient reported outcomes: Evaluation of the preventive evidence into practice cluster randomised controlled trial

© 2017 The Author(s). Background: Implementing evidence-based chronic disease prevention with a practice-wide population is challenging in primary care. Methods: PEP Intervention practices received education, clinical audit and feedback and practice facilitation. Patients (40 69 years) without chronic disease from trial and control practices were invited to participate in baseline and 12 month follow up questionnaires. Patient-recalled receipt of GP services and referral, and the proportion of patients at risk were compared over time and between intervention and control groups. Mean difference in BMI, diet and physical activity between baseline and follow up were calculated and compared using a paired t-test. Change in the proportion of patients meeting the definition for physical activity diet and weight risk was calculated using McNemar's test and multilevel analysis was used to determine the effect of the intervention on follow-up scores. Results: Five hundred eighty nine patients completed both questionnaires. No significant changes were found in the proportion of patients reporting a BP, cholesterol, glucose or weight check in either group. Less than one in six at-risk patients reported receiving lifestyle advice or referral at baseline with little change at follow up. More intervention patients reported attempts to improve their diet and reduce weight. Mean score improved for diet in the intervention group (p = 0.04) but self-reported BMI and PA risk did not significantly change in either group. There was no significant change in the proportion of patients who reported being at-risk for diet, PA or weight, and no changes in PA, diet and BMI in multilevel linear regression adjusted for patient age, sex, practice size and state. There was good fidelity to the intervention but practices varied in their capacity to address changes. Conclusions: The lack of measurable effect within this trial may be attributable to the complexities around behaviour change and/or system change. This trial highlights some of the challenges in providing suitable chronic disease preventive interventions which are both scalable to whole practice populations and meet the needs of diverse practice structures. Trial registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12612000578808 (29/5/2012). This trial registration is retrospective as our first patient returned their consent on the 21/5/2012. Patient recruitment was ongoing until 31/10/2012

Preventive evidence into practice: what factors matter in a facilitation intervention to prevent vascular disease in family practice?

Background: A perennial challenge of primary care quality improvement is to establish why interventions work in some circumstances, but not others. This study aimed to identify factors explaining variations in the impact on clinical practice of a facilitation led vascular health intervention in Australian family practice. Methods: Our mixed methods study was embedded within a cluster randomised controlled trial of a facilitation intervention designed to increase the uptake of evidence-based prevention of vascular disease in family practices. The study was set in four Australian states using eight of the study\u27s 16 intervention practices. Facilitators worked with intervention practices to develop and implement improvements in preventive care informed by a vascular risk factor audit. We constructed case studies of each practice\u27s "intervention narrative" from semi-structured interviews with clinicians, facilitators and other staff, practice observation, and document analysis of facilitator diaries. The intervention narratives were combined with pre- and post-intervention audit data to generate typologies of practice responses to the intervention. Results: We found substantial variability between practices in the changes made to vascular risk recording. Context (i.e. practice size), adaptive reserve (i.e. interpersonal relationships, manager and nurse involvement), and occasional data idiosyncrasies interacted to influence this variability. Conclusion: The findings emphasise the importance of tailoring facilitation interventions to practice size, clinician engagement and, critically, the organisation of, and relationships between, the members of the practice team. Trial registration: The trial was registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTR N12612000578808 (29/5/2012). This trial registration is retrospective as our first patient returned their consent on the 21/5/2012. Patient recruitment was ongoing until 31/10/2012