Improvement of primary care for patients with chronic heart failure: a pilot study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Many patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) receive treatment in primary care, but data have shown that the quality of care for these patients needs to be improved. We aimed to evaluate the impact and feasibility of a programme for improving primary care for patients with CHF.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>An observational study was performed in 19 general practices in the south-eastern part of the Netherlands, evaluation involving 15 general practitioners and 77 CHF patients. The programme for improvement comprised educational and organizational components and was delivered by a trained practice visitor to the practices. The evaluation was based on case registration forms completed by health professionals and telephone interviews.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Management relating to diet and physical exercise seemed to have improved as eight patients were referred to dieticians and five to physiotherapists. The seasonal influenza vaccination rate increased from 94% to 97% (75/77). No impact on smoking was observed. Pharmaceutical treatment was adjusted according to guideline recommendations in 12% of the patients (9/77); 7 patients started recommended medication and 2 patients received dosage adjustments. General practitioners perceived the programme to be feasible. Clinical task delegation to nurses and assistants increased in some practices, but collaboration with other healthcare providers remained limited.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The improvement programme proved to have moderate impact on patient care. Its effectiveness should be tested in a larger rigorous evaluation study using modifications based on the pilot experiences.</p

Improvement of primary care for patients with chronic heart failure: A study protocol for a cluster randomised trial comparing two strategies

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Many patients with chronic heart failure (CHF), a common condition with high morbidity and mortality rates, receive treatment in primary care. To improve the management of CHF in primary care, we developed an implementation programme comprised of educational and organisational components, with support by a practice visitor and focus both on drug treatment and lifestyle advice, and on organisation of care within the practice and collaboration with other healthcare providers. Tailoring has been shown to improve the success of implementation programmes, but little is known about what would be best methods for tailoring, specifically with respect to CHF in primary care.</p> <p>Methods/design</p> <p>We describe the study protocol of a cluster randomised controlled trial to examine the effectiveness of tailoring a CHF implementation programme to general practices compared to a standardised way of delivering a programme. The study population will consist of 60 general practitioners (GPs) and the CHF patients they include. GPs are randomised in blocks of four, stratified according to practice size. With a tailored implementation programme GPs prioritise the issues that will form the bases of the support for the practice visits. These may comprise several issues, both educational and organizational.</p> <p>The primary outcome measures are patient's experience of receiving structured primary care for CHF (PACIC, a questionnaire related to the Chronic Care Model), patients' health-related utilities (EQ-5D), and drugs prescriptions using the guideline adherence index. Patients being clustered in practices, multilevel regression analyses will be used to explore the effect of practice size and type of intervention programme. In addition we will examine both changes within groups and differences at follow-up between groups with respect to drug dosages and advice on lifestyle issues. Furthermore, in interviews the feasibility of the programme and goal attainment, organisational changes in CHF care, and formalised cooperation with other disciplines will be assessed.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>In the tailoring of the programme we will present the GPs a list with barriers; GPs will assess relevance and possibility to solve these barriers. The list is rigorously developed and tested in various projects. The factors for ordering the barriers are related to the innovation, the healthcare professional, the patient, and the context.</p> <p>CHF patients do not form a homogeneous group. Subgroup analyses will be performed based on the distinction between systolic CHF and CHF with preserved left ventricular function (diastolic CHF).</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ISRCTN: <a href="http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN18812755">ISRCTN18812755</a></p

The quality of communication about older patients between hospital physicians and general practitioners: a panel study assessment

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Optimal care of patients is dependent on good professional interaction between general practitioners and general hospital physicians. In Norway this is mainly based upon referral and discharge letters. The main objectives of this study were to assess the quality of the written communication between physicians and to estimate the number of patients that could have been treated at primary care level instead of at a general hospital.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This study comprised referral and discharge letters for 100 patients above 75 years of age admitted to orthopaedic, pulmonary and cardiological departments at the city general hospital in Trondheim, Norway. The assessments were done using a Delphi technique with two expert panels, each with one general hospital specialist, one general practitioner and one public health nurse using a standardised evaluation protocol with a visual analogue scale (VAS). The panels assessed the quality of the description of the patient's actual medical condition, former medical history, signs, medication, Activity of Daily Living (ADL), social network, need of home care and the benefit of general hospital care.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>While information in the referral letters on actual medical situation, medical history, symptoms, signs and medications was assessed to be of high quality in 84%, 39%, 56%, 56% and 39%, respectively, the corresponding information assessed to be of high quality in discharge letters was for actual medical situation 96%, medical history 92%, symptoms 60%, signs 55% and medications 82%. Only half of the discharge letters had satisfactory information on ADL. Some two-thirds of the patients were assessed to have had large health benefits from the general hospital care in question. One of six patients could have been treated without a general hospital admission. The specialists assessed that 77% of the patients had had a large benefit from the general hospital care; however, the general practitioners assessment was only 59%. One of four of the discharge letters did not describe who was responsible for follow-up care.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In this study from one general hospital both referral and discharge letters were missing vital medical information, and referral letters to such an extent that it might represent a health hazard for older patients. There was also low consensus between health professionals at primary and secondary level of what was high benefit of care for older patients at a general hospital.</p

Collaboration with general practitioners: preferences of medical specialists – a qualitative study

BACKGROUND: Collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and specialists has been the focus of many collaborative care projects during the past decade. Unfortunately, quite a number of these projects failed. This raises the question of what motivates medical specialists to initiate and continue participating with GPs in new collaborative care models. The following question is addressed in this study: What motivates medical specialists to initiate and sustain new models for collaborating with GPs? METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with eighteen medical specialists in the province of Groningen, in the North of The Netherlands. The sampling criteria were age, gender, type of hospital in which they were practicing, and specialty. The interviews were recorded, fully transcribed, and analysed by three researchers working independently. The resulting motivational factors were grouped into categories. RESULTS: 'Teaching GPs' and 'regulating patient flow' (referrals) appeared to dominate when the motivational factors were considered. In addition, specialists want to develop relationships with the GPs on a more personal level. Most specialists believe that there is not much they can learn from GPs. 'Lack of time', 'no financial compensation', and 'no support from colleagues' were considered to be the main concerns to establishing collaborative care practices. Additionally, projects were often experienced as too complex and time consuming whereas guidelines were experienced as too restrictive. CONCLUSION: Specialists are particularly interested in collaborating because the GP is the gatekeeper for access to secondary health care resources. Specialists feel that they are able to teach the GPs something, but they do not feel that they have anything to learn from the GPs. With respect to professional expertise, therefore, specialists do not consider GPs as equals. Once personal relationships with the GPs have been established, an informal network with incidental professional contact seems to be sufficient to satisfy the collaborative needs of the specialist. The concerns seem to outweigh any positive motivational forces to developing new models of collaborative practice

Physician and Patient Predictors of Evidence-Based Prescribing in Heart Failure: A Multilevel Study

BACKGROUND: The management of patients with heart failure (HF) needs to account for changeable and complex individual clinical characteristics. The use of renin angiotensin system inhibitors (RAAS-I) to target doses is recommended by guidelines. But physicians seemingly do not sufficiently follow this recommendation, while little is known about the physician and patient predictors of adherence. METHODS: To examine the coherence of primary care (PC) physicians' knowledge and self-perceived competencies regarding RAAS-I with their respective prescribing behavior being related to patient-associated barriers. Cross-sectional follow-up study after a randomized medical educational intervention trial with a seven month observation period. PC physicians (n = 37) and patients with systolic HF (n = 168) from practices in Baden-Wuerttemberg. Measurements were knowledge (blueprint-based multiple choice test), self-perceived competencies (questionnaire on global confidence in the therapy and on frequency of use of RAAS-I), and patient variables (age, gender, NYHA functional status, blood pressure, potassium level, renal function). Prescribing was collected from the trials' documentation. The target variable consisted of ≥50% of recommended RAAS-I dosage being investigated by two-level logistic regression models. RESULTS: Patients (69% male, mean age 68.8 years) showed symptomatic and objectified left ventricular (NYHA II vs. III/IV: 51% vs. 49% and mean LVEF 33.3%) and renal (GFR<50%: 22%) impairment. Mean percentage of RAAS-I target dose was 47%, 59% of patients receiving ≥50%. Determinants of improved prescribing of RAAS-I were patient age (OR 0.95, CI 0.92-0.99, p = 0.01), physician's global self-confidence at follow-up (OR 1.09, CI 1.02-1.05, p = 0.01) and NYHA class (II vs. III/IV) (OR 0.63, CI 0.38-1.05, p = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: A change in physician's confidence as a predictor of RAAS-I dose increase is a new finding that might reflect an intervention effect of improved physicians' intention and that might foster novel strategies to improve safe evidence-based prescribing. These should include targeting knowledge, attitudes and skills

Reasons of general practitioners for not prescribing lipid-lowering medication to patients with diabetes: a qualitative study

Background: Lipid-lowering medication remains underused, even in high-risk populations. The objective of this study was to determine factors underlying general practitioners' decisions not to prescribe such drugs to patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods: A qualitative study with semi-structured interviews using real cases was conducted to explore reasons for not prescribing lipid-lowering medication after a guideline was distributed that recommended the use of statins in most patients with type 2 diabetes. Seven interviews were conducted with general practitioners (GPs) in The Netherlands, and analysed using an analytic inductive approach. Results: Reasons for not-prescribing could be divided into patient and physician-attributed factors. According to the GPs, some patients do not follow-up on agreed medication and others object to taking lipid-lowering medication, partly for legitimate reasons such as expected or perceived side effects. Furthermore, the GPs themselves perceived reservations for prescribing lipid-lowering medication in patients with short life expectancy, expected compliance problems or near goal lipid levels. GPs sometimes postponed the start of treatment because of other priorities. Finally, barriers were seen in the GPs' practice organisation, and at the primary-secondary care interface. Conclusion: Some of the barriers mentioned by GPs seem to be valid reasons, showing that guideline non-adherence can be quite rational. On the other hand, treatment quality could improve by addressing issues, such as lack of knowledge or motivation of both the patient and the GP. More structured management in general practice may also lead to better treatment

Motives and preferences of general practitioners for new collaboration models with medical specialists: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND: Collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and specialists has been the focus of many collaborative care projects during the past decade. Unfortunately, quite a number of these projects failed. This raises the question of what motivates GPs to initiate and continue participating with medical specialists in new collaborative care models. The following two questions are addressed in this study: What motivates GPs to initiate and sustain new models for collaborating with medical specialists? What kind of new collaboration models do GPs suggest? METHODS: A qualitative study design was used. Starting in 2003 and finishing in 2005, we conducted semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of 21 Dutch GPs. The sampling criteria were age, gender, type of practice, and practice site. The interviews were recorded, fully transcribed, and analysed by two researchers working independently. The resulting motivational factors and preferences were grouped into categories. RESULTS: 'Developing personal relationships' and 'gaining mutual respect' appeared to dominate when the motivational factors were considered. Besides developing personal relationships with specialists, the GPs were also interested in familiarizing specialists with the competencies attached to the profession of family medicine. Additionally, they were eager to increase their medical knowledge to the benefit of their patients. The GPs stated a variety of preferences with respect to the design of new models of collaboration. CONCLUSION: Developing personal relationships with specialists appeared to be one of the dominant motives for increased collaboration. Once the relationships have been formed, an informal network with occasional professional contact seemed sufficient. Although GPs are interested in increasing their knowledge, once they have reached a certain level of expertise, they shift their focus to another specialty. The preferences for new collaboration models are diverse. A possible explanation for the differences in the preferences is that professionals are more knowledge driven than organisation driven as the acquiring of new knowledge is considered more important than the route by which this is achieved. A new collaboration model seems a way to acquire knowledge. Once this is achieved the importance of a model possibly diminishes, whereas the professional relationships last

Self-Reported and Actual Beta-Blocker Prescribing for Heart Failure Patients: Physician Predictors

Beta-blockers reduce mortality among patients with systolic heart failure (HF), yet primary care provider prescription rates remain low.To examine the association between primary care physician characteristics and both self-reported and actual prescription of beta-blockers among patients with systolic HF.Cross-sectional survey with supplementary retrospective chart review.Primary care providers at three New York City Veterans Affairs medical centers.Main outcomes were: 1) self-reported prescribing of beta-blockers, and 2) actual prescribing of beta-blockers among HF patients. Physician HF practice patterns and confidence levels, as well as socio-demographic and clinical characteristics, were also assessed.Sixty-nine of 101 physicians (68%) completed the survey examining self-reported prescribing of beta-blockers. Physicians who served as inpatient ward attendings self-reported significantly higher rates of beta-blocker prescribing among their HF patients when compared with physicians who did not attend (78% vs. 58%; p = 0.002), as did physicians who were very confident in managing HF patients when compared with physicians who were not (82% vs. 68%; p = 0.009). Fifty-one of these 69 surveyed physicians (74%) were successfully matched to 287 HF patients for whom beta-blocker prescribing data was available. Physicians with greater self-reported rates of prescribing beta-blockers were significantly more likely to actually prescribe beta-blockers (p = 0.02); however, no other physician characteristics were significantly associated with actual prescribing of beta-blockers among HF patients.Physician teaching responsibilities and confidence levels were associated with self-reported beta-blocker prescribing among their HF patients. Educational efforts focused on improving confidence levels in HF care and increasing exposure to teaching may improve beta-blocker presciption in HF patients managed in primary care

Understanding the effects of a decentralized budget on physicians' compliance with guidelines for statin prescription – a multilevel methodological approach

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Official guidelines that promote evidence-based and cost-effective prescribing are of main relevance for obvious reasons. However, to what extent these guidelines are followed and their conditioning factors at different levels of the health care system are still insufficiently known.</p> <p>In January 2004, a decentralized drug budget was implemented in the county of Scania, Sweden. Focusing on lipid-lowering drugs (i.e., statins), we evaluated the effect of this intervention across a 25-month period. We expected that increased local economic responsibility would promote prescribing of recommended statins.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We performed two separate multilevel regression analyses; on 110 827 individual prescriptions issued at 136 <it>publicly</it>-administered health care centres (HCCs) nested within 14 administrative areas (HCAs), and on 72 012 individual prescriptions issued by 115 <it>privately</it>-administered HCCs. Temporal trends in the prevalence of prescription of recommended statins were investigated by random slope analysis. Differences (i.e., variance) between HCCs and between HCAs were expressed by median odds ratio (MOR).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>After the implementation of the decentralized drug budget, adherence to guidelines increased continuously. At the end of the observation period, however, practice variation remained high. Prescription of recommended statins presented a high degree of clustering within both publicly (i.e., MOR_HCC= 2.18 and MOR_HCA= 1.31 respectively) and privately administered facilities (MOR_HCC= 3.47).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>A decentralized drug budget seems to promote adherence to guidelines for statin prescription. However, the high practice differences at the end of the observation period may reflect inefficient therapeutic traditions, and indicates that rational statin prescription could be further improved.</p