Physician education, evidence and the coming of age of CME

Effects and cost-effectiveness of a guideline-oriented primary healthcare hypertension management program in Beijing, China: results from a 1-year controlled trial

Hypertension control rates are unacceptably low in China. The present study demonstrates if a customized, guideline-oriented training program can cost-effectively improve hypertension management in primary healthcare. Four typical community health centers in Beijing were selected and randomized to intervention or control (one urban and one rural each). A sample of 140 patients with hypertension and blood pressure uncontrolled was recruited from each center. Primary healthcare providers in intervention centers provided management to the recruited patients for 1 year after receiving training with customized hypertension management guidelines, and primary healthcare providers in control provided with usual care. Intention-to-treat analysis showed that hypertension control (systolic blood pressure (SBP) <140 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) <90 mm Hg)) rate was significantly higher in interventions than controls at month 3 (42.1% vs. 34.3% in urban and 30.7% vs. 10.0% in rural centers) and the trend increased to month 12 (70.7% vs. 40.0% in urban and 72.9% vs. 27.9% in rural); P-values by logistic mixed model were all <0.001 for both urban and rural after adjustment for baseline multiple variables including blood pressure. Mean reductions of SBP and DBP were significantly larger in interventions. The intervention was cost-saving, with an average incremental cost-saving of US$ 20.3 per patient in urban sites and $ 7.0 per patient in rural sites. Corresponding results from per-protocol analysis were very similar. The customized, guideline-oriented hypertension management program in primary healthcare in China effectively improved blood pressure control and was cost-saving.

From evidence to action

Despite the availability of vast quantities of evidence from basic biomedical and clinical studies, a gap often exists between the optimal practice suggested by the evidence and actual practice. For many clinical situations, however, evidence is unavailable, of poor quality or contradictory. Out of necessity, clinicians have become accustomed to relying on non-evidence-based tools to make decisions. Out of habit, they rely on these tools even when high-quality evidence becomes available. Growing out of an increasing awareness of this problem, the evidence-based medicine (EBM) movement sought to empower clinicians to find the evidence most relevant to a specific clinical question. Various organizations have used EBM techniques to develop systematic reviews and practice guidelines to aid physicians in making evidence-based decisions. A systematic review follows a process of asking a clinical question, finding the relevant evidence, critically appraising the evidence and formulating conclusions and recommendations. Results are mixed on whether educating physicians about evidence-based recommendations is sufficient to change physician behavior. Barriers to adopting evidence-based best practice remain, including physician skepticism, patient expectations, fear of legal action, and distorted reimbursement systems. Additionally, despite enormous research efforts there remains a lack of high-quality evidence to guide care for many clinical situations.

Evidence-Based Medicine in Neurology

This chapter describes the principals and practice of evidence-based medicine (EBM), its limitations, and future directions for EBM. The goal of EBM is to provide high quality information in “real time” for neurologists to use in practice. Evidence-based medicine provides a set of tools to formulate a clinically important question about a particular patient and to efficiently access and critically evaluate relevant information. Neuroepidemiologic studies provide the groundwork for evidence-based medicine by supplying research about patient risk, prognosis, and harm.

Improving adherence to dementia guidelines through education and opinion leaders. A randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Educational methods that encourage physicians to adopt practice guidelines are needed.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate an educational strategy to increase neurologists' adherence to specialty society-endorsed practice recommendations.

DESIGN

Randomized, controlled trial.

SETTING

Six urban regions in New York State.

PARTICIPANTS

417 neurologists.

INTERVENTION

The educational strategy promoted six recommendations for evaluation and management of dementia. It included a mailed American Academy of Neurology continuing medical education course, practice-based tools, an interactive evidence-based American Academy of Neurology-sponsored seminar led by local opinion leaders, and follow-up mailings.

MEASUREMENTS

Neurologists' adherence to guidelines was measured by using detailed clinical scenarios mailed to a baseline group 3 months before the intervention and to intervention and control groups 6 months after the intervention. In one region, patients' medical records were reviewed to determine concordance between neurologists' scenario responses and their actual care.

RESULTS

Compared with neurologists in the baseline and control groups, neurologists in the intervention group were more adherent to three of the six recommendations: neuroimaging for patients with dementia only when certain criteria are present (odds ratio, 4.1 [95% CI, 1.9 to 8.9]), referral of all patients with dementia and their families to the Alzheimer's Association (odds ratio, 2.8 [CI, 1.7 to 4.8]), and encouragement of all patients and their families to enroll in the Alzheimer's Association Safe Return Program (odds ratio, 10.8 [CI, 3.5 to 33.2]). For the other three recommendations, adherence did not differ between the intervention and the nonintervention groups. Agreement between scenario responses and actual care ranged from 27% to 99% for the six recommendations and was 95% or more for three of the recommendations.

CONCLUSION

A multifaceted educational program can improve physician adoption of practice guidelines.

Inclusion of black Americans in oncology clinical trials: the Louisiana State University Medical Center experience

Recruitment of patients from diverse ethnic, racial, and socioeconomic backgrounds for clinical trials is desirable for both scientific and ethical reasons. Participation rates in clinical trials are low for minorities and especially for black Americans. This report summarizes the experience at Louisiana State University Medical Center in Shreveport, Louisiana, in enrolling black Americans in oncology treatment and prevention trials. Barriers to enrollment are identified and discussed. Although major strides must still be made in the area of cancer prevention, the university's experience demonstrates that black Americans can be encouraged to participate in and can be enrolled in cancer clinical trials.