Organizing services for cardiovascular prevention

Improving the prevention of cardiovascular disease in primary health care: the model for prevention study protocol

Background

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death globally, and accounted for nearly 31% of all deaths in Australia in 2011. The primary health care sector is at the frontline for addressing CVD, however, an evidence-to-practice gap exists in CVD risk assessment and management. General practice plays a key role in CVD risk assessment and management, but this sector cannot provide ongoing lifestyle change support in isolation. Community-based lifestyle modification services and programs provided outside the general practice setting have a key role in supporting and sustaining health behavior change. Fostering linkages between the health sector and community-based lifestyle services, and creating sustainable systems that support these sectors is important.

Objective

The objective of the study Model for Prevention (MoFoP) is to take a case study approach to examine a CVD risk reduction intervention in primary health care, with the aim of identifying the key elements required for an effective and sustainable approach to coordinate CVD risk reduction across the health and community sectors. These elements will be used to consider a new systems-based model for the prevention of CVD that informs future practice.

Methods

The MoFoP study will use a mixed methods approach, comprising two complementary research elements: (1) a case study, and (2) a pre/post quasi-experimental design. The case study will consider the organizations and systems involved in a CVD risk reduction intervention as a single case. The pre/post experimental design will be used for HeartLink, the intervention being tested, where a single cohort of patients between 45 and 74 years of age (or between 35 and 74 years of age if Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander) considered to be at high risk for a CVD event will be recruited through general practice, provided with enhanced usual care and additional health behavior change support. A range of quantitative and qualitative data will be collected. This will include individual health and well being data collected at baseline and again at 12 months for HeartLink participants, and systems related data collected over the period of the intervention to inform the case study.

Results

The intervention is currently underway, with results expected in late 2015.

Conclusions

Gaining a better understanding of CVD prevention in primary health care requires a research approach that can capture and express its complexity. The MoFoP study aims to identify the key elements for effective CVD prevention across the health and community sectors, and to develop a model to better inform policy and practice in this key health priority area for Australia.

Development of an interprofessional program for cardiovascular prevention in primary care: A participatory research approach

BACKGROUND

The chronic care model provides a framework for improving the management of chronic diseases. Participatory research could be useful in developing a chronic care model-based program of interventions, but no one has as yet offered a description of precisely how to apply the approach.

OBJECTIVES

An innovative, structured, multi-step participatory process was applied to select and develop (1) chronic care model-based interventions program to improve cardiovascular disease prevention that can be adapted to a particular regional context and (2) a set of indicators to monitor its implementation.

METHODS

Primary care clinicians (n = 16), administrative staff (n = 2), patients and family members (n = 4), decision makers (n = 5), researchers, and a research coordinator (n = 7) took part in the process. Additional primary care actors (n = 26) validated the program.

RESULTS

The program targets multimorbid patients at high or moderate risk of cardiovascular disease with uncontrolled hypertension, dyslipidemia or diabetes. It comprises interprofessional follow-up coordinated by case-management nurses, in which motivated patients are referred in a timely fashion to appropriate clinical and community resources. The program is supported by clinical tools and includes training in motivational interviewing. A set of 89 process and clinical indicators were defined.

CONCLUSION

Through a participatory process, a contextualized interventions program to optimize cardiovascular disease prevention and a set of quality indicators to monitor its implementation were developed. Similar approach might be used to develop other health programs in primary care if program developers are open to building on community strengths and priorities.

Adherence to a guideline on cardiovascular prevention: a comparison between general practitioners and practice nurses

BACKGROUND

Patient non-compliance with prescribed treatment is an important factor in the lack of success in cardiovascular prevention. Another important cause is non-adherence of caregivers to the guidelines. It is not known how doctors and nurses differ in the application of guidelines. Patient compliance to treatment may vary according to the type of caregiver.

OBJECTIVE

To compare adherence to cardiovascular prevention delivered by practice nurses and by general practitioners.

SETTING

Six primary health care centres in the Netherlands (25 general practitioners, six practice nurses).

METHODS

701 high risk patients were included in a randomised trial. Half of the patients received nurse-delivered care and half received care by general practitioners. For 91% of the patients treatment concerned secondary prevention. The Dutch guideline on cardiovascular prevention was used as protocol. A structured self-administered questionnaire was sent by post to patients. Data were extracted from the practice database and the questionnaire.

RESULTS

Intervention was received by 77% of respondents who visited the practice nurse compared to 57% from the general practitioner group (OR = 2.56, p < 0.01). More lifestyle intervention was given by the practice nurse; 46% of patients received at least one lifestyle intervention (weight, diet, exercise, and smoking) compared to 13% in general practitioner group (OR = 3.24, p < 0.001). In addition, after one year more patients from the practice nurse group used cardiovascular drugs (OR = 1.9, p = 0.03). Nurses inquired more frequently about patient compliance to medical treatment (OR = 2.1, p < 0.01). Regarding patient compliance, no statistical difference between study groups in this trial was found.

CONCLUSION

Practice nurses adhered better to the Dutch guideline on cardiovascular prevention than general practitioners did. Lifestyle intervention advice was more frequently given by practice nurses. Improvement of cardiovascular prevention is still necessary. Both caregivers should inquire about patient adherence on a regular basis.

The Chronic CARe for diAbeTes study (CARAT): a cluster randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Diabetes is a major challenge for the health care system and especially for the primary care provider. The Chronic Care Model represents an evidence-based framework for the care for chronically ill. An increasing number of studies showed that implementing elements of the Chronic Care Model improves patient relevant outcomes and process parameters. However, most of these findings have been performed in settings different from the Swiss health care system which is dominated by single handed practices.

METHODS/DESIGN

CARAT is a cluster randomized controlled trial with general practitioners as the unit of randomization (trial registration: ISRCTN05947538). The study challenges the hypothesis that implementing several elements of the Chronic Care Model via a specially trained practice nurse improves the HbA1c level of diabetes type II patients significantly after one year (primary outcome). Furthermore, we assume that the intervention increases the proportion of patients who achieve the recommended targets regarding blood pressure (<130/80), HbA1c (=<6.5%) and low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (<2.6 mmol/l), increases patients' quality of life (SF-36) and several evidence-based quality indicators for diabetes care. These improvements in care will be experienced by the patients (PACIC-5A) as well as by the practice team (ACIC). According to the power calculation, 28 general practitioners will be randomized either to the intervention group or to the control group. Each general practitioner will include 12 patients suffering from diabetes type II. In the intervention group the general practitioner as well as the practice nurse will be trained to perform care for diabetes patients according to the Chronic Care Model in teamwork. In the control group no intervention will be applied at all and patients will be treated as usual. Measurements (pre-data-collection) will take place in months II-IV, starting in February 2010. Follow-up data will be collected after 1 year.

DISCUSSION

This study challenges the hypothesis that the Chronic Care Model can be easily implemented by a practice nurse focused approach. If our results will confirm this hypothesis the suggestion arises whether this approach should be implemented in other chronic diseases and multimorbid patients and how to redesign care in Switzerland.