Prerequisites for implementing cardiovascular absolute risk assessment in general practice: a qualitative study of Australian general practitioners' and patients' views

Workload and workflow implications associated with the use of electronic clinical decision support tools used by health professionals in general practice: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Electronic clinical decision support tools (eCDS) are increasingly available to assist General Practitioners (GP) with the diagnosis and management of a range of health conditions. It is unclear whether the use of eCDS tools has an impact on GP workload. This scoping review aimed to identify the available evidence on the use of eCDS tools by health professionals in general practice in relation to their impact on workload and workflow.

METHODS

A scoping review was carried out using the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework. The search strategy was developed iteratively, with three main aspects: general practice/primary care contexts, risk assessment/decision support tools, and workload-related factors. Three databases were searched in 2019, and updated in 2021, covering articles published since 2009: Medline (Ovid), HMIC (Ovid) and Web of Science (TR). Double screening was completed by two reviewers, and data extracted from included articles were analysed.

RESULTS

The search resulted in 5,594 references, leading to 95 full articles, referring to 87 studies, after screening. Of these, 36 studies were based in the USA, 21 in the UK and 11 in Australia. A further 18 originated from Canada or Europe, with the remaining studies conducted in New Zealand, South Africa and Malaysia. Studies examined the use of eCDS tools and reported some findings related to their impact on workload, including on consultation duration. Most studies were qualitative and exploratory in nature, reporting health professionals' subjective perceptions of consultation duration as opposed to objectively-measured time spent using tools or consultation durations. Other workload-related findings included impacts on cognitive workload, "workflow" and dialogue with patients, and clinicians' experience of "alert fatigue".

CONCLUSIONS

The published literature on the impact of eCDS tools in general practice showed that limited efforts have focused on investigating the impact of such tools on workload and workflow. To gain an understanding of this area, further research, including quantitative measurement of consultation durations, would be useful to inform the future design and implementation of eCDS tools.

Evaluation of clinical quality improvement interventions: feasibility of an integrated approach

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are the largest cause of death and disability in Australia. Australian national guidelines for the primary prevention of CVD recommend that all adults without CVD and aged 45 years or more are screened for their absolute risk of CVD every 2 years. Despite the compelling evidence to address CVD risk, treatment gaps remain and evidence suggests that much of the shortcomings are attributed to the performance of primary care practices. To address this issue, a quality improvement initiative is being implemented in a large urban multidisciplinary primary care practice in the South West region of Victoria, Australia. The key outcome of this intervention will be to increase the use and acceptability of CVD risk assessment guidelines. To ensure the intervention is tracking toward its objectives, a robust monitoring and evaluation framework was established.

METHOD/DESIGN

A novel framework that assimilates key traditional and theory-driven evaluation practices was developed to assess the impact of the intervention. The framework approach is termed the integrated model of evaluation (IMoE). Researchers and stakeholders convened several times to discuss and develop the evaluation protocol and align it with the quality intervention. The main objective here is to explore the feasibility of an integrated approach to evaluating clinical quality improvement interventions. The sub-objectives are to test the alignment of the IMoE to clinical quality improvement projects and its ability to derive findings to the satisfaction of stakeholders. The design and establishment of the evaluation approach is discussed in further detail in this article.

DISCUSSION

The novel feature of the IMoE is its emphasis on tracking 'change' in practices that lead to quality improvement. This emphasis suits the quality improvement theme of this initiative as identification of change elements and explanation behind change is necessary to sustain and promote quality improvement. The other principle behind development of this model, which emphasises practicality in implementation, is to ensure stakeholders gain greatest value from the commissioning of program evaluation. By incorporating practical components and leaving out esoteric concepts, this approach ensures evaluation can be undertaken in realistic timeframes.

ETHICS APPROVAL

The quality improvement intervention and evaluation framework received approval from the Deakin University Human Research Ethics Committee (Approval Number: 2017-313).

General practitioners' perspectives on the prevention of cardiovascular disease: systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies

OBJECTIVE

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally, and prevention of CVD is a public health priority. This paper aims to describe the perspectives of general practitioners (GPs) on the prevention of CVD across different contexts.

DESIGN

Systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies using the Enhancing Transparency of Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative research (ENTREQ) framework.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL from database inception to April 2018.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

We included qualitative studies on the perspectives of GPs on CVD prevention.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

We used HyperRESEARCH to code the primary papers and identified themes.

RESULTS

We selected 34 studies involving 1223 participants across nine countries. We identified six themes: defining own primary role (duty to prescribe medication, refraining from risking patients' lives, mediating between patients and specialists, delegating responsibility to patients, providing holistic care); trusting external expertise (depending on credible evidence and opinion, entrusting care to other health professionals, integrating into patient context); motivating behavioural change for prevention (highlighting tangible improvements, negotiating patient acceptance, enabling autonomy and empowerment, harnessing the power of fear, disappointment with futility of advice); recognising and accepting patient capacities (ascertaining patient's drive for lifestyle change, conceding to ingrained habits, prioritising urgent comorbidities, tailoring to patient environment and literacy); avoiding overmedicalisation (averting long-term dependence on medications, preventing a false sense of security, minimising stress of sickness) and minimising economic burdens (avoiding unjustified costs to patients, delivering practice within budget, alleviating healthcare expenses).

CONCLUSIONS

GPs sought to empower patients to prevent CVD, but consideration of patients' individual factors was challenging. Community-based strategies for assessing CVD risk involving other health professionals, and decision aids that address the individuality of the patient's health and environment, may support GPs in their decisions regarding CVD prevention.

GPs' opinions of health assessment instruments for people with intellectual disabilities: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

GPs provide health care to people with intellectual disabilities (ID). People with ID find it difficult to express themselves concerning health-related matters. Applying health assessments is an effective method to reveal health needs, and can play a role in prevention and health promotion.

AIM

The aim of this qualitative study was to explore GPs' considerations about applying a health assessment for people with ID.

DESIGN AND SETTING

This focus group study was conducted among a selection of Dutch GPs.

METHOD

An interview guide was developed. All discussions were audiorecorded and transcribed. Analysis was performed using the framework analysis approach. Two researchers independently applied open coding and identified a thematic framework. This framework and the summaries of views per theme were discussed in the research team.

RESULTS

After four focus groups, with 23 GPs, saturation was reached. Three main themes evolved: health assessments in relation to GPs' responsibility; the usefulness and necessity of health assessments; and barriers to using health assessments on people with ID. A health assessment instrument for people with ID can help GPs to focus on certain issues that are not so common in the general population. GPs are motivated to use such a tool if it is scientifically tested, and results in significant health gains. However, GPs identify barriers at the level of GP, patient, and organisation.

CONCLUSION

Most GPs in the focus groups consider providing medical care to people with ID their responsibility and indicate that a health assessment instrument could be a valuable tool. In order to deliver good care, they need education and support. Many barriers need to be overcome before a health assessment instrument can be implemented.

The response to receiving phenotypic and genetic coronary heart disease risk scores and lifestyle advice - a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Individuals routinely receive information about their risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) based on traditional risk factors as part of their primary care. We are also able to calculate individual's risk of CHD based on their genetic information and at present genetic testing for common diseases is available to the public. Due to the limitations in previous studies further understanding is needed about the impact of the risk information on individual's well-being and health-behaviour. We aimed to explore the short term response to receiving different forms of CHD risk information and lifestyle advice for risk reduction.

METHODS

We conducted fourty-one face-to-face interviews and two focus groups across England with participants from the INFORM trial who received a combination of individualised phenotypic and genotypic CHD risk scores and web-based lifestyle advice. Risk scores were presented in different formats, e.g. absolute 10 year risk was presented as a thermometer and expressed as a percentage, natural frequency and 'heart age'. Interviews and focus groups explored participants' understanding and reaction to the risk scores and attempts to change lifestyle during the intervention. We tape-recorded and transcribed the interviews and focus groups and analysed them using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Three main themes were identified: limitations of risk scores to generate concern about CHD risk; the advantages of the 'heart age' format of risk score presentation in communicating a message of sub-optimal lifestyle; and intentions and attempts to make moderate lifestyle changes which were prompted by the web-based lifestyle advice.

CONCLUSIONS

There are a number of limitations to the use of risk scores to communicate a message about the need for a lifestyle change. Of the formats used, the 'heart age', if noticed, appears to convey the most powerful message about how far from optimal risk an individual person is. An interactive, user friendly, goal setting based lifestyle website can act as a trigger to initiate moderate lifestyle changes, regardless of concerns about risk scores.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17721237 . Registered 12 January 2015.

The Treatment of cardiovascular Risk in Primary care using Electronic Decision supOrt (TORPEDO) study-intervention development and protocol for a cluster randomised, controlled trial of an electronic decision support and quality improvement intervention in Australian primary healthcare

BACKGROUND

Large gaps exist in the implementation of guideline recommendations for cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk management. Electronic decision support (EDS) systems are promising interventions to close these gaps but few have undergone clinical trial evaluation in Australia. We have developed HealthTracker, a multifaceted EDS and quality improvement intervention to improve the management of CVD risk.

METHODS/DESIGN

It is hypothesised that the use of HealthTracker over a 12-month period will result in: (1) an increased proportion of patients receiving guideline-indicated measurements of CVD risk factors and (2) an increased proportion of patients at high risk will receive guideline-indicated prescriptions for lowering their CVD risk. Sixty health services (40 general practices and 20 Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services (ACCHSs) will be randomised in a 1:1 allocation to receive either the intervention package or continue with usual care, stratified by service type, size and participation in existing quality improvement initiatives. The intervention consists of point-of-care decision support; a risk communication interface; a clinical audit tool to assess performance on CVD-related indicators; a quality improvement component comprising peer-ranked data feedback and support to develop strategies to improve performance. The control arm will continue with usual care without access to these intervention components. Quantitative data will be derived from cross-sectional samples at baseline and end of study via automated data extraction. Detailed process and economic evaluations will also be conducted.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The general practice component of the study is approved by the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) and the ACCHS component is approved by the Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council HREC. Formal agreements with each of the participating sites have been signed. In addition to the usual scientific forums, results will be disseminated via newsletters, study websites, face-to-face feedback forums and workshops.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial is registered with the Australian Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN 12611000478910.