Service organisation for the secondary prevention of ischaemic heart disease in primary care

Association between Primary Care Assessment Tool (PCAT) and Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (ACIC): a Brazilian cross-sectional study

Aim

To analyze the association between Primary Health Care (PHC) performance and institutional ability to provide care for individuals with noncommunicable diseases (NCDs).

Methods

Cross-sectional study conducted with primary care nurses and physicians in Brazil. The performance of PHC was assessed by using the Primary Care Assessment Tool (PCAT), whereas institutional ability for the care of people with NCDs was assessed through the Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (ACIC). Pearson correlation and multiple linear regression models were used to analyze the association between the PHC attributes measured in the PCAT (independent variables) and the ACIC dimensions (dependent variables).

Results

In total, 308 health professionals -190 nurses (61.7%) and 118 physicians (38.3%)-at mean age 37.5 years and mean time of 6.5 years working in PHC participated of the study. On a scale of 0 to 10, the overall PCAT score was 6.74, while the ACIC score was 5.20. The PCAT score was High in only 58.8% of respondents (score ≥6.6). The ACIC scores showed basic institutional ability to care for people with NCDs. All ACIC dimensions have shown positive correlation to PCAT attributes, except for accessibility, continuity of care and care coordination.

Conclusion

A positive association was found between PHC performance and institutional ability to care for people with NCDs. Results have evidenced the need of investing in PCH by providing technical, political, logistical and financial support to PHC units to improve PHC organization points and care for people with NCDs.

The indirect costs of ischemic heart disease through lost productive life years for Australia from 2015 to 2030: results from a microsimulation model

Background

Most studies measure the impact of ischemic heart disease (IHD) on individuals using quality of life metrics such as disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs); however, IHD also has an enormous impact on productive life years (PLYs). The objective of this study was to project the indirect costs of IHD resulting from lost PLYs to older Australian workers (45–64 years), government, and society 2015–2030.

Methods

Nationally representative data from the Surveys of Disability, Ageing and Carers (2003, 2009) were used to develop the base population in the microsimulation model (Health&WealthMOD2030), which integrated data from established microsimulation models (STINMOD, APPSIM), Treasury’s population and workforce projections, and chronic conditions trends.

Results

We projected that 6700 people aged 45–64 were out of the labour force due to IHD in 2015, increasing to 8100 in 2030 (21 increase). National costs consisted of a loss of AU$273 (US$263) million in income for people with IHD in 2015, increasing to AU$443 ($US426) million (62% increase). For the government, extra welfare payments increased from AU$106 (US$102) million in 2015 to AU$143 (US$138) million in 2030 (35% increase); and lost income tax revenue increased from AU$74 (US$71) million in 2015 to AU$117 (US$113) million in 2030 (58% increase). A loss of AU$785 (US$755) million in GDP was projected for 2015, increasing to AU$1125 (US$1082) million in 2030.

Conclusions

Significant costs of IHD through lost productivity are incurred by individuals, the government, and society. The benefits of IHD interventions include not only improved health but also potentially economic benefits as workforce capacity.

Interventions for improving modifiable risk factor control in the secondary prevention of stroke

BACKGROUND

People with stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA) are at increased risk of future stroke and other cardiovascular events. Stroke services need to be configured to maximise the adoption of evidence-based strategies for secondary stroke prevention. Smoking-related interventions were examined in a separate review so were not considered in this review. This is an update of our 2014 review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of stroke service interventions for implementing secondary stroke prevention strategies on modifiable risk factor control, including patient adherence to prescribed medications, and the occurrence of secondary cardiovascular events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (April 2017), the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group Trials Register (April 2017), CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library 2017, issue 3), MEDLINE (1950 to April 2017), Embase (1981 to April 2017) and 10 additional databases including clinical trials registers. We located further studies by searching reference lists of articles and contacting authors of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of organisational or educational and behavioural interventions (compared with usual care) on modifiable risk factor control for secondary stroke prevention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four review authors selected studies for inclusion and independently extracted data. The quality of the evidence as 'high', 'moderate', 'low' or 'very low' according to the GRADE approach (GRADEpro GDT).Three review authors assessed the risk of bias for the included studies. We sought missing data from trialists.The results are presented in 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

The updated review included 16 new studies involving 25,819 participants, resulting in a total of 42 studies including 33,840 participants. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool and assessed three studies at high risk of bias; the remainder were considered to have a low risk of bias. We included 26 studies that predominantly evaluated organisational interventions and 16 that evaluated educational and behavioural interventions for participants. We pooled results where appropriate, although some clinical and methodological heterogeneity was present.Educational and behavioural interventions showed no clear differences on any of the review outcomes, which include mean systolic and diastolic blood pressure, mean body mass index, achievement of HbA1c target, lipid profile, mean HbA1c level, medication adherence, or recurrent cardiovascular events. There was moderate-quality evidence that organisational interventions resulted in improved blood pressure control, in particular an improvement in achieving target blood pressure (odds ratio (OR) 1.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09 to1.90; 13 studies; 23,631 participants). However, there were no significant changes in mean systolic blood pressure (mean difference (MD), -1.58 mmHg 95% CI -4.66 to 1.51; 16 studies; 17,490 participants) and mean diastolic blood pressure (MD -0.91 mmHg 95% CI -2.75 to 0.93; 14 studies; 17,178 participants). There were no significant changes in the remaining review outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found that organisational interventions may be associated with an improvement in achieving blood pressure target but we did not find any clear evidence that these interventions improve other modifiable risk factors (lipid profile, HbA1c, medication adherence) or reduce the incidence of recurrent cardiovascular events. Interventions, including patient education alone, did not lead to improvements in modifiable risk factor control or the prevention of recurrent cardiovascular events.

Long-term cost effectiveness of cardiac secondary prevention in primary care in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland

While cardiac secondary prevention in primary care is established practice, little is known about its long-term cost effectiveness. This study examines the cost effectiveness of a secondary prevention intervention in primary care in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland over 6 years. An economic evaluation, based on a cluster randomised controlled trial of 903 patients with heart disease, was conducted 4.5 years after the intervention ceased to be delivered. Patients originally randomised to the control received usual practice while those randomised to the intervention received a tailored care package over the 1.5-year delivery period. Data on healthcare costs and quality adjusted life expectancy were used to undertake incremental cost utility analysis. Multilevel regression was used to estimate mean cost effectiveness and uncertainty was examined using cost effectiveness acceptability curves. At 6 years, there was a divergence in the results across jurisdictions. While the probability of the intervention being cost effective in the Republic of Ireland was 0.434, 0.232, 0.180, 0.150, 0.115 and 0.098 at selected threshold values of €5000, €15,000, €20,000, €25,000, €35,000 and €45,000, respectively, all equivalent probabilities for Northern Ireland equalled 1.000. Our findings suggest that the intervention in its current format is likely to be more cost effective than usual general practice care in Northern Ireland, but this is not the case in the Republic of Ireland.

Primary care organisational interventions for secondary prevention of ischaemic heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Ischaemic heart disease (IHD) is the most common cause of death worldwide.

AIM

To determine the long-term impact of organisational interventions for secondary prevention of IHD.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies from CENTRAL, MEDLINE(®), Embase, and CINAHL published January 2007 to January 2013.

METHOD

Searches were conducted for randomised controlled trials of patients with established IHD, with long-term follow-up, of cardiac secondary prevention programmes targeting organisational change in primary care or community settings. A random-effects model was used and risk ratios were calculated.

RESULTS

Five studies were included with 4005 participants. Meta-analysis of four studies with mortality data at 4.7-6 years showed that organisational interventions were associated with approximately 20% reduced mortality, with a risk ratio (RR) for all-cause mortality of 0.79 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.66 to 0.93), and a RR for cardiac-related mortality of 0.74 (95% CI = 0.58 to 0.94). Two studies reported mortality data at 10 years. Analysis of these data showed no significant differences between groups. There were insufficient data to conduct a meta-analysis on the effect of interventions on hospital admissions. Additional analyses showed no significant association between organisational interventions and risk factor management or appropriate prescribing at 4.7-6 years.

CONCLUSION

Cardiac secondary prevention programmes targeting organisational change are associated with a reduced risk of death for at least 4-6 years. There is insufficient evidence to conclude whether this beneficial effect is maintained indefinitely.

Implementation of a new guideline in cardiovascular secondary preventive care: subanalysis of a randomized controlled trial

Background

Cardiovascular secondary preventive recommendations are often not reached. We investigated whether a nurse-led telephone-based follow-up could improve the implementation of a new guideline within a year after its release.

Methods

In February 2013, a new secondary preventive guideline for diabetic patients was released in the county of Jämtland, Sweden. It included a changed of the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) target value from <2.5 mmol/L to <1.8 mmol/L. In the Nurse-Based Age-Independent Intervention to Limit Evolution of Disease (NAILED) trial, patients with an acute coronary syndrome, stroke, or transient ischemic attack were randomized to secondary preventive care with nurse-based telephone follow-up (intervention) or usual care (control). Patient data were obtained from the NAILED trial to study the implementation of the new LDL-C guideline by comparing telephone follow-up with usual care. The Mann–Whitney U-test was used for continuous variables, and Person’s χ² test was used for categorical variables to assess between-group differences.

Results

Out of the 1267 patients that entered the study period, 101 intervention and 100 control patients with diabetes fulfilled the inclusion criteria and completed the study period. Before the guideline change, 96 % of the intervention patients and 70 % of the control patients reached the target LDL-C value (p < 0.001). After the guideline change, the corresponding respective proportions were 65 % and 36 % (p < 0.001). The main reason that intervention patients did not achieve the target LDL-C value was that they received full-dose treatment; for control patients, the main reason was that medication was not adjusted, for an unknown reason.

Conclusions

One year after a change in the cardiovascular secondary preventive guideline, nurse-based telephone follow-up performed better than usual care to implement the new recommendation.

Trial registration

ISRCTN registry; ISRCTN96595458 (date of registration 10 July 2011) and ISRCTN23868518 (date of registration 13 May 2012).

Personalized medicine and stroke prevention: where are we?

There are many recommended pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies for the prevention of stroke, and an ongoing challenge is to improve their uptake. Personalized medicine is seen as a possible solution to this challenge. Although the use of genetic information to guide health care could be considered as the apex of personalized medicine, genetics is not yet routinely used to guide prevention of stroke. Currently personalized aspects of prevention of stroke include tailoring interventions based on global risk, the utilization of individualized management plans within a model of organized care, and patient education. In this review we discuss the progress made in these aspects of prevention of stroke and present a case study to illustrate the issues faced by health care providers and patients with stroke that could be overcome with a personalized approach to the prevention of stroke.

Six-year follow-up of the SPHERE RCT: secondary prevention of heart disease in general practice

OBJECTIVE

To determine the long-term effectiveness of a complex intervention in primary care aimed at improving outcomes for patients with coronary heart disease.

DESIGN

A 6-year follow-up of a cluster randomised controlled trial, which found after 18 months that both total and cardiovascular hospital admissions were significantly reduced in intervention practices (8% absolute reduction).

SETTING

48 general practices in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.

PARTICIPANTS

903 patients with established coronary heart disease at baseline in the original trial.

INTERVENTION

The original intervention consisted of tailored practice and patient plans; training sessions for practitioners in medication prescribing and behavioural change; and regular patient recall system. Control practices provided usual care. Following the intervention period, all supports from the research team to intervention practices ceased.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

hospital admissions, all cause and cardiovascular; secondary outcomes: mortality; blood pressure and cholesterol control.

RESULTS

At 6-year follow-up, data were collected from practice records of 696 patients (77%). For those who had died, we censored their data at the point of death and cause of death was established. There were no significant differences between the intervention and control practices in either total (OR 0.83 (95% CI 0.54 to 1.28)) or cardiovascular hospital admissions (OR 0.91 (95% CI 0.49 to 1.65)). We confirmed mortality status of 886 of the original 903 patients (98%). There were no significant differences in mortality (15% in intervention and 16% in control) or in the proportions of patients above target control for systolic blood pressure or total cholesterol.

CONCLUSIONS

Initial significant differences in the numbers of total and cardiovascular hospital admissions were not maintained at 6 years and no differences were found in mortality or blood pressure and cholesterol control. Policymakers need to continue to assess the effectiveness of previously efficacious programmes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN24081411.

Cardiovascular secondary prevention in high-risk patients: a randomized controlled trial sub-study

Background

Enhanced cardiovascular secondary preventive follow-up is needed to improve adherence to recommended low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and blood pressure (BP) levels. Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) or chronic kidney disease (CKD) have a high risk of recurrent events. Secondary prevention is therefore essential in these patients.

Methods

Patients with acute coronary syndrome, stroke, or transient ischemic attack were randomized to nurse-based telephone follow-up (intervention) or usual care (control). LDL-C and BP were measured at 1 month (baseline) and 12 months post-discharge. Intervention patients with above-target values at baseline received medication titration to achieve treatment goals. Values measured for control patients were given to the patient’s general practitioner for assessment.

Results

The final analyses included 225 intervention and 215 control patients with DM or CKD. Among patients with above-target baseline values, the following 12-month values were recorded for intervention and control patients, respectively: LDL-C, 2.2 versus 3.0 mmol/L (p < 0.001); and median systolic BP (SBP), 140 versus 145 mmHg (p = 0.26). Among patients with above-target values at baseline, 52.3 % of intervention patients reached target LDL-C values at 12 months versus 21.3 % of control patients (absolute difference of 30.9 %, 95 % CI 16.1 to 43.8 %), and there was a non-significant trend of more intervention patients reaching target SBP (49.4 % versus 36.8 %; absolute difference of 12.6 %, 95 % CI −1.7 to 26.2 %).

Conclusions

Cardiovascular secondary prevention with nurse-based telephone follow-up was more effective than usual care in improving LDL-C levels 12 months after discharge for patients with DM or CKD.

Trial registration

ISRCTN registry; ISRCTN96595458 (date of registration 10 July 2011) and ISRCTN23868518 (date of registration 13 May 2012).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12872-015-0115-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The organisation and delivery of health improvement in general practice and primary care: a scoping study

Background

This project examines the organisation and delivery of health improvement activities by and within general practice and the primary health-care team. The project was designed to examine who delivers these interventions, where they are located, what approaches are developed in practices, how individual practices and the primary health-care team organise such public health activities, and how these contribute to health improvement. Our focus was on health promotion and ill-health prevention activities.

Aims

The aim of this scoping exercise was to identify the current extent of knowledge about the health improvement activities in general practice and the wider primary health-care team. The key objectives were to provide an overview of the range and type of health improvement activities, identify gaps in knowledge and areas for further empirical research. Our specific research objectives were to map the range and type of health improvement activity undertaken by general practice staff and the primary health-care team based within general practice; to scope the literature on health improvement in general practice or undertaken by health-care staff based in general practice and identify gaps in the evidence base; to synthesise the literature and identify effective approaches to the delivery and organisation of health improvement interventions in a general practice setting; and to identify the priority areas for research as defined by those working in general practice.

Methods

We undertook a comprehensive search of the literature. We followed a staged selection process involving reviews of titles and abstracts. This resulted in the identification of 1140 papers for data extraction, with 658 of these papers selected for inclusion in the review, of which 347 were included in the evidence synthesis. We also undertook 45 individual and two group interviews with primary health-care staff.

Findings

Many of the research studies reviewed had some details about the type, process or location, or who provided the intervention. Generally, however, little attention is paid in the literature to examining the impact of the organisational context on the way services are delivered or how this affects the effectiveness of health improvement interventions in general practice. We found that the focus of attention is mainly on individual prevention approaches, with practices engaging in both primary and secondary prevention. The range of activities suggests that general practitioners do not take a population approach but focus on individual patients. However, it is clear that many general practitioners see health promotion as an integral part of practice, whether as individual approaches to primary or secondary health improvement or as a practice-based approach to improving the health of their patients. Our key conclusion is that there is currently insufficient good evidence to support many of the health improvement interventions undertaken in general practice and primary care more widely.

Future Research

Future research on health improvement in general practice and by the primary health-care team needs to move beyond clinical research to include delivery systems and be conducted in a primary care setting. More research needs to examine areas where there are chronic disease burdens – cancer, dementia and other disabilities of old age. Reviews should be commissioned that examine the whole prevention pathway for health problems that are managed within primary care drawing together research from general practice, pharmacy, community engagement, etc.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

The Nurse-Based Age Independent Intervention to Limit Evolution of Disease After Acute Coronary Syndrome (NAILED ACS) Risk Factor Trial: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Secondary prevention after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is essential to reduce morbidity and mortality, but related studies have been fairly small or performed as clinical trials with non-representative patient selection. Long-term follow-up data are also minimal. A nurse-led follow-up for risk factor improvement may be effective, but the evidence is limited.

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study are to perform an adequately sized, nurse-led, long-term secondary preventive follow-up with inclusion of an unselected population of ACS patients. The focus will be on lipid and blood pressure control as well as tobacco use and physical activity.

METHODS

The study will consist of a randomized, controlled, long-term, population-based trial with two parallel groups. Patients will be included during the initial hospital stay. Important outcome variables are total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, and sitting systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Outcomes will be measured after 12, 24, and 36 months of follow-up. Trained nurses will manage the intervention group with the aim of achieving set treatment goals as soon as possible. The control group will receive usual care. At least 250 patients will be included in each group to reliably detect a difference in mean LDL of 0.5 mmol/L and in mean systolic blood pressure of 5 mmHg.

RESULTS

The study is ongoing and recruitment of participants will continue until December 31, 2014.

CONCLUSIONS

This study will test the hypothesis that a nurse-led, long-term follow-up after an ACS with a focus on achieving treatment goals as soon as possible is an effective secondary preventive method. If proven effective, this method could be implemented in general practice at a low cost.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): 96595458; http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN96595458 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6RlyhYTYK).

Interventions for improving modifiable risk factor control in the secondary prevention of stroke

BACKGROUND

People with stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA) are at increased risk of future stroke and other cardiovascular events. Evidence-based strategies for secondary stroke prevention have been established. However, the implementation of prevention strategies could be improved.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of stroke service interventions for implementing secondary stroke prevention strategies on modifiable risk factor control, including patient adherence to prescribed medications, and the occurrence of secondary cardiovascular events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (April 2013), the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group Trials Register (April 2013), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2013, issue 3), MEDLINE (1950 to April 2013), EMBASE (1981 to April 2013) and 10 additional databases. We located further studies by searching reference lists of articles and contacting authors of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of organisational or educational and behavioural interventions (compared with usual care) on modifiable risk factor control for secondary stroke prevention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors selected studies for inclusion and independently extracted data. One review author assessed the risk of bias for the included studies. We sought missing data from trialists.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included 26 studies involving 8021 participants. Overall the studies were of reasonable quality, but one study was considered at high risk of bias. Fifteen studies evaluated predominantly organisational interventions and 11 studies evaluated educational and behavioural interventions for patients. Results were pooled where appropriate, although some clinical and methodological heterogeneity was present. The estimated effects of organisational interventions were compatible with improvements and no differences in the modifiable risk factors mean systolic blood pressure (mean difference (MD) -2.57 mmHg; 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.46 to 0.31), mean diastolic blood pressure (MD -0.90 mmHg; 95% CI -2.49 to 0.68), blood pressure target achievement (OR 1.24; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.64) and mean body mass index (MD -0.68 kg/m(2); 95% CI -1.46 to 0.11). There were no significant effects of organisational interventions on lipid profile, HbA1c, medication adherence or recurrent cardiovascular events. Educational and behavioural interventions were not generally associated with clear differences in any of the review outcomes, with only two exceptions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Pooled results indicated that educational interventions were not associated with clear differences in any of the review outcomes. The estimated effects of organisational interventions were compatible with improvements and no differences in several modifiable risk factors. We identified a large number of ongoing studies, suggesting that research in this area is increasing. The use of standardised outcome measures would facilitate the synthesis of future research findings.

Interventions to improve safe and effective medicines use by consumers: an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Many systematic reviews exist on interventions to improve safe and effective medicines use by consumers, but research is distributed across diseases, populations and settings. The scope and focus of such reviews also vary widely, creating challenges for decision-makers seeking to inform decisions by using the evidence on consumers' medicines use.This is an update of a 2011 overview of systematic reviews, which synthesises the evidence, irrespective of disease, medicine type, population or setting, on the effectiveness of interventions to improve consumers' medicines use.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions which target healthcare consumers to promote safe and effective medicines use, by synthesising review-level evidence.

METHODS

SEARCH METHODS

We included systematic reviews published on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects. We identified relevant reviews by handsearching databases from their start dates to March 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We screened and ranked reviews based on relevance to consumers' medicines use, using criteria developed for this overview.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standardised forms to extract data, and assessed reviews for methodological quality using the AMSTAR tool. We used standardised language to summarise results within and across reviews; and gave bottom-line statements about intervention effectiveness. Two review authors screened and selected reviews, and extracted and analysed data. We used a taxonomy of interventions to categorise reviews and guide syntheses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 75 systematic reviews of varied methodological quality. Reviews assessed interventions with diverse aims including support for behaviour change, risk minimisation and skills acquisition. No reviews aimed to promote systems-level consumer participation in medicines-related activities. Medicines adherence was the most frequently-reported outcome, but others such as knowledge, clinical and service-use outcomes were also reported. Adverse events were less commonly identified, while those associated with the interventions themselves, or costs, were rarely reported.Looking across reviews, for most outcomes, medicines self-monitoring and self-management programmes appear generally effective to improve medicines use, adherence, adverse events and clinical outcomes; and to reduce mortality in people self-managing antithrombotic therapy. However, some participants were unable to complete these interventions, suggesting they may not be suitable for everyone.Other promising interventions to improve adherence and other key medicines-use outcomes, which require further investigation to be more certain of their effects, include:· simplified dosing regimens: with positive effects on adherence;· interventions involving pharmacists in medicines management, such as medicines reviews (with positive effects on adherence and use, medicines problems and clinical outcomes) and pharmaceutical care services (consultation between pharmacist and patient to resolve medicines problems, develop a care plan and provide follow-up; with positive effects on adherence and knowledge).Several other strategies showed some positive effects, particularly relating to adherence, and other outcomes, but their effects were less consistent overall and so need further study. These included:· delayed antibiotic prescriptions: effective to decrease antibiotic use but with mixed effects on clinical outcomes, adverse effects and satisfaction;· practical strategies like reminders, cues and/or organisers, reminder packaging and material incentives: with positive, although somewhat mixed effects on adherence;· education delivered with self-management skills training, counselling, support, training or enhanced follow-up; information and counselling delivered together; or education/information as part of pharmacist-delivered packages of care: with positive effects on adherence, medicines use, clinical outcomes and knowledge, but with mixed effects in some studies;· financial incentives: with positive, but mixed, effects on adherence.Several strategies also showed promise in promoting immunisation uptake, but require further study to be more certain of their effects. These included organisational interventions; reminders and recall; financial incentives; home visits; free vaccination; lay health worker interventions; and facilitators working with physicians to promote immunisation uptake. Education and/or information strategies also showed some positive but even less consistent effects on immunisation uptake, and need further assessment of effectiveness and investigation of heterogeneity.There are many different potential pathways through which consumers' use of medicines could be targeted to improve outcomes, and simple interventions may be as effective as complex strategies. However, no single intervention assessed was effective to improve all medicines-use outcomes across all diseases, medicines, populations or settings.Even where interventions showed promise, the assembled evidence often only provided part of the picture: for example, simplified dosing regimens seem effective for improving adherence, but there is not yet sufficient information to identify an optimal regimen.In some instances interventions appear ineffective: for example, the evidence suggests that directly observed therapy may be generally ineffective for improving treatment completion, adherence or clinical outcomes.In other cases, interventions may have variable effects across outcomes. As an example, strategies providing information or education as single interventions appear ineffective to improve medicines adherence or clinical outcomes, but may be effective to improve knowledge; an important outcome for promoting consumers' informed medicines choices.Despite a doubling in the number of reviews included in this updated overview, uncertainty still exists about the effectiveness of many interventions, and the evidence on what works remains sparse for several populations, including children and young people, carers, and people with multimorbidity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This overview presents evidence from 75 reviews that have synthesised trials and other studies evaluating the effects of interventions to improve consumers' medicines use.Systematically assembling the evidence across reviews allows identification of effective or promising interventions to improve consumers' medicines use, as well as those for which the evidence indicates ineffectiveness or uncertainty.Decision makers faced with implementing interventions to improve consumers' medicines use can use this overview to inform decisions about which interventions may be most promising to improve particular outcomes. The intervention taxonomy may also assist people to consider the strategies available in relation to specific purposes, for example, gaining skills or being involved in decision making. Researchers and funders can use this overview to identify where more research is needed and assess its priority. The limitations of the available literature due to the lack of evidence for important outcomes and important populations, such as people with multimorbidity, should also be considered in practice and policy decisions.

Effectiveness of a new health care organization model in primary care for chronic cardiovascular disease patients based on a multifactorial intervention: the PROPRESE randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the effectiveness of a new multifactorial intervention to improve health care for chronic ischemic heart disease patients in primary care. The strategy has two components: a) organizational for the patient/professional relationship and b) training for professionals.

METHODS/DESIGN

Experimental study. Randomized clinical trial. Follow-up period: one year.

STUDY SETTING

primary care, multicenter (15 health centers). For the intervention group 15 health centers are selected from those participating in ESCARVAL study. Once the center agreed to participate patients are randomly selected from the total amount of patients with ischemic heart disease registered in the electronic health records. For the control group a random sample of patients with ischemic heart disease is selected from all 72 health centers electronic records.

DISCUSSION

This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of a multifactorial intervention strategy involving patients with ischemic heart disease for the improvement of the degree of control of the cardiovascular risk factors and of the quality of life, number of visits, and number of hospitalizations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01826929.

Comparing the effectiveness of two cardiovascular prevention programmes for highly educated professionals in general practice: a randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease is a major cause of mortality and morbidity and its prevalence is set to increase. While the benefits of medical and lifestyle interventions are established, the effectiveness of interventions which seek to improve the way preventive care is delivered in general practice is less so. The aim was to study and to compare the effectiveness of 2 intervention programmes for reducing cardiovascular risk factors within general practice.

METHODS

A randomised controlled trial was conducted in Belgium between 2007-2010 with 314 highly educated and mainly healthy professionals allocated to a medical (MP) or a medical + lifestyle (MLP) programme. The MP consisted of medical assessments (screening and follow-up) and the MLP added a tailored lifestyle change programme (web-based and individual coaching) to the MP. Primary outcomes were total cholesterol, blood pressure, and body mass index (BMI). The secondary outcomes were smoking status, fitness-score, and total cardiovascular risk.

RESULTS

The mean age was 41 years, 95 (32%) participants were female, 7 had a personal cardiovascular event in their medical history and 3 had diabetes. There were no significant differences found between MP and MLP in primary or secondary outcomes. In both study conditions decreases of cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure were found. Unfavourable increases were found for BMI (p < .05). A significant decrease of the overall cardiovascular risk was reported (p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Both interventions are effective in reducing cardiovascular risk. In our population the combined medical and lifestyle programme was not superior to the medical programme.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN23940498.

A simple approach to improve recording of concerns about child maltreatment in primary care records: developing a quality improvement intervention

BACKGROUND

Information is lacking on how concerns about child maltreatment are recorded in primary care records.

AIM

To determine how the recording of child maltreatment concerns can be improved.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Development of a quality improvement intervention involving: clinical audit, a descriptive survey, telephone interviews, a workshop, database analyses, and consensus development in UK general practice.

METHOD

Descriptive analyses and incidence estimates were carried out based on 11 study practices and 442 practices in The Health Improvement Network (THIN). Telephone interviews, a workshop, and a consensus development meeting were conducted with lead GPs from 11 study practices.

RESULTS

The rate of children with at least one maltreatment-related code was 8.4/1000 child years (11 study practices, 2009-2010), and 8.0/1000 child years (THIN, 2009-2010). Of 25 patients with known maltreatment, six had no maltreatment-related codes recorded, but all had relevant free text, scanned documents, or codes. When stating their reasons for undercoding maltreatment concerns, GPs cited damage to the patient relationship, uncertainty about which codes to use, and having concerns about recording information on other family members in the child's records. Consensus recommendations are to record the code 'child is cause for concern' as a red flag whenever maltreatment is considered, and to use a list of codes arranged around four clinical concepts, with an option for a templated short data entry form.

CONCLUSION

GPs under-record maltreatment-related concerns in children's electronic medical records. As failure to use codes makes it impossible to search or audit these cases, an approach designed to be simple and feasible to implement in UK general practice was recommended.

What components of chronic care organisation relate to better primary care for coronary heart disease patients? An observational study

OBJECTIVES

Cardiovascular risk management (CVRM) received by patients shows large variation across countries. In this study we explored the aspects of primary care organisation associated with key components of CVRM in coronary heart disease (CHD) patients.

DESIGN

Observational study.

SETTING

273 primary care practices in Austria, Belgium, England, Finland, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Slovenia, Switzerland and Spain.

PARTICIPANTS

A random sample of 4563 CHD patients identified by coded diagnoses in eight countries, based on prescription lists and while visiting the practice in one country each.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

We performed an audit in primary care practices in 10 European countries. We used six indicators to measure key components of CVRM: risk factor recording, antiplatelet therapy, influenza vaccination, blood pressure levels (systolic <140 and diastolic <90 mm Hg), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol <2.5 mmol/l. Data from structured questionnaires were used to construct an overall measure and six domain measures of practice organisation based on 39 items. Using multilevel regression analyses we explored the effects of practice organisation on CVRM, controlling for patient characteristics.

RESULTS

Better overall organisation of a primary care practice was associated with higher scores on three indicators: risk factor registration (B=0.0307, p<0.0001), antiplatelet therapy (OR 1.05, p=0.0245) and influenza vaccination (OR 1.12, p<0.0001). Overall practice organisation was not found to be related with recorded blood pressure or cholesterol levels. Only the organisational domains 'self-management support' and 'use of clinical information systems' were linked to three CVRM indicators.

CONCLUSIONS

A better organisation of a primary care practice was associated with better scores on process indicators of CVRM in CHD patients, but not on intermediate patient outcome measures. Direct support for patients and clinicians seemed most influential.

Regular primary care plays a significant role in secondary prevention of ischemic heart disease in a Western Australian cohort

BACKGROUND

Secondary prevention for established ischaemic heart disease (IHD) involves medication therapy and a healthier lifestyle, but adherence is suboptimal. Simply having scheduled regular appointments with a primary care physician could confer a benefit for IHD patients possibly through increased motivation and awareness, but this has not previously been investigated in the literature.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the association between regular general practitioner (GP) visitation and rates of all-cause death, IHD death or repeat hospitalisation for IHD in older patients in Western Australia (WA).

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort design.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged  ≥  65 years (n  = 31,841) with a history of hospitalisation for IHD from 1992-2006 were ascertained through routine health data collected on the entire WA population and included in the analysis.

MAIN MEASURES

Frequency and regularity of GP visits was determined during a three-year exposure period at commencement of follow-up. A regularity score (range 0-1) measured the regularity of intervals between the GP visits and was divided into quartiles. Patients were then followed for a maximum of 11.5 years for outcome determination. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using Cox proportional hazards models.

KEY RESULTS

Compared with the least regular quartile, patients with greater GP visit regularity had significantly decreased risks of all-cause death (2(nd) least, 2(nd) most and most regular: HR = 0.76, 0.71 and 0.71); and IHD death (2(nd) least, 2(nd) most and most regular: HR = 0.70, 0.68 and 0.65). Patients in the 2(nd) least regular quartile also appeared to experience decreased risk of any repeat IHD hospitalisation (HR =  0.83, 95%CI 0.71-0.96) as well as emergency hospitalisation (HR = 0.81, 95%CI 0.67-0.98), compared with the least regular quartile.

CONCLUSIONS

Some degree of regular GP visitation offers a small but significant protection against morbidity and mortality in older people with established IHD. The findings indicate the importance of scheduled, regular GP visits for the secondary prevention of IHD.

Effect of tailored practice and patient care plans on secondary prevention of heart disease in general practice: cluster randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To test the effectiveness of a complex intervention designed, within a theoretical framework, to improve outcomes for patients with coronary heart disease.

DESIGN

Cluster randomised controlled multicentre trial.

SETTING

General practices in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, regions with different healthcare systems.

PARTICIPANTS

903 patients with established coronary heart disease registered with one of 48 practices.

INTERVENTION

Tailored care plans for practices (practice based training in prescribing and behaviour change, administrative support, quarterly newsletter), and tailored care plans for patients (motivational interviewing, goal identification, and target setting for lifestyle change) with reviews every four months at the practices. Control practices provided usual care.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The proportion of patients at 18 month follow-up above target levels for blood pressure and total cholesterol concentration, and those admitted to hospital, and changes in physical and mental health status (SF-12).

RESULTS

At baseline the numbers (proportions) of patients above the recommended limits were: systolic blood pressure greater than 140 mm Hg (305/899; 33.9%, 95% confidence interval 30.8% to 33.9%), diastolic blood pressure greater than 90 mm Hg (111/901; 12.3%, 10.2% to 14.5%), and total cholesterol concentration greater than 5 mmol/l (188/860; 20.8%, 19.1% to 24.6%). At the 18 month follow-up there were no significant differences between intervention and control groups in the numbers (proportions) of patients above the recommended limits: systolic blood pressure, intervention 98/360 (27.2%) v control, 133/405 (32.8%), odds ratio 1.51 (95% confidence interval 0.99 to 2.30; P=0.06); diastolic blood pressure, intervention 32/360 (8.9%) v control, 40/405 (9.9%), 1.40 (0.75 to 2.64; P=0.29); and total cholesterol concentration, intervention 52/342 (15.2%) v control, 64/391 (16.4%), 1.13 (0.63 to 2.03; P=0.65). The number of patients admitted to hospital over the 18 month study period significantly decreased in the intervention group compared with the control group: 107/415 (25.8%) v 148/435 (34.0%), 1.56 (1.53 to 2.60; P=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Admissions to hospital were significantly reduced after an intensive 18 month intervention to improve outcomes for patients with coronary heart disease, but no other clinical benefits were shown, possibly because of a ceiling effect related to improved management of the disease.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN24081411.