Interventions to maintain cardiac risk control after discharge from a cardiovascular risk reduction clinic: a randomized controlled trial

Quality improvement strategies for diabetes care: Effects on outcomes for adults living with diabetes

BACKGROUND

There is a large body of evidence evaluating quality improvement (QI) programmes to improve care for adults living with diabetes. These programmes are often comprised of multiple QI strategies, which may be implemented in various combinations. Decision-makers planning to implement or evaluate a new QI programme, or both, need reliable evidence on the relative effectiveness of different QI strategies (individually and in combination) for different patient populations.

OBJECTIVES

To update existing systematic reviews of diabetes QI programmes and apply novel meta-analytical techniques to estimate the effectiveness of QI strategies (individually and in combination) on diabetes quality of care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL) and trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP) to 4 June 2019. We conducted a top-up search to 23 September 2021; we screened these search results and 42 studies meeting our eligibility criteria are available in the awaiting classification section.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials that assessed a QI programme to improve care in outpatient settings for people living with diabetes. QI programmes needed to evaluate at least one system- or provider-targeted QI strategy alone or in combination with a patient-targeted strategy. - System-targeted: case management (CM); team changes (TC); electronic patient registry (EPR); facilitated relay of clinical information (FR); continuous quality improvement (CQI). - Provider-targeted: audit and feedback (AF); clinician education (CE); clinician reminders (CR); financial incentives (FI). - Patient-targeted: patient education (PE); promotion of self-management (PSM); patient reminders (PR). Patient-targeted QI strategies needed to occur with a minimum of one provider or system-targeted strategy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We dual-screened search results and abstracted data on study design, study population and QI strategies. We assessed the impact of the programmes on 13 measures of diabetes care, including: glycaemic control (e.g. mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c)); cardiovascular risk factor management (e.g. mean systolic blood pressure (SBP), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), proportion of people living with diabetes that quit smoking or receiving cardiovascular medications); and screening/prevention of microvascular complications (e.g. proportion of patients receiving retinopathy or foot screening); and harms (e.g. proportion of patients experiencing adverse hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia). We modelled the association of each QI strategy with outcomes using a series of hierarchical multivariable meta-regression models in a Bayesian framework. The previous version of this review identified that different strategies were more or less effective depending on baseline levels of outcomes. To explore this further, we extended the main additive model for continuous outcomes (HbA1c, SBP and LDL-C) to include an interaction term between each strategy and average baseline risk for each study (baseline thresholds were based on a data-driven approach; we used the median of all baseline values reported in the trials). Based on model diagnostics, the baseline interaction models for HbA1c, SBP and LDL-C performed better than the main model and are therefore presented as the primary analyses for these outcomes. Based on the model results, we qualitatively ordered each QI strategy within three tiers (Top, Middle, Bottom) based on its magnitude of effect relative to the other QI strategies, where 'Top' indicates that the QI strategy was likely one of the most effective strategies for that specific outcome. Secondary analyses explored the sensitivity of results to choices in model specification and priors.  Additional information about the methods and results of the review are available as Appendices in an online repository. This review will be maintained as a living systematic review; we will update our syntheses as more data become available.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 553 trials (428 patient-randomised and 125 cluster-randomised trials), including a total of 412,161 participants. Of the included studies, 66% involved people living with type 2 diabetes only. Participants were 50% female and the median age of participants was 58.4 years. The mean duration of follow-up was 12.5 months. HbA1c was the commonest reported outcome; screening outcomes and outcomes related to cardiovascular medications, smoking and harms were reported infrequently. The most frequently evaluated QI strategies across all study arms were PE, PSM and CM, while the least frequently evaluated QI strategies included AF, FI and CQI. Our confidence in the evidence is limited due to a lack of information on how studies were conducted.  Four QI strategies (CM, TC, PE, PSM) were consistently identified as 'Top' across the majority of outcomes. All QI strategies were ranked as 'Top' for at least one key outcome. The majority of effects of individual QI strategies were modest, but when used in combination could result in meaningful population-level improvements across the majority of outcomes. The median number of QI strategies in multicomponent QI programmes was three.  Combinations of the three most effective QI strategies were estimated to lead to the below effects:  - PR + PSM + CE: decrease in HbA1c by 0.41% (credibility interval (CrI) -0.61 to -0.22) when baseline HbA1c < 8.3%; - CM + PE + EPR: decrease in HbA1c by 0.62% (CrI -0.84 to -0.39) when baseline HbA1c > 8.3%;  - PE + TC + PSM: reduction in SBP by 2.14 mmHg (CrI -3.80 to -0.52) when baseline SBP < 136 mmHg; - CM + TC + PSM: reduction in SBP by 4.39 mmHg (CrI -6.20 to -2.56) when baseline SBP > 136 mmHg;  - TC + PE + CM: LDL-C lowering of 5.73 mg/dL (CrI -7.93 to -3.61) when baseline LDL < 107 mg/dL; - TC + CM + CR: LDL-C lowering by 5.52 mg/dL (CrI -9.24 to -1.89) when baseline LDL > 107 mg/dL. Assuming a baseline screening rate of 50%, the three most effective QI strategies were estimated to lead to an absolute improvement of 33% in retinopathy screening (PE + PR + TC) and 38% absolute increase in foot screening (PE + TC + Other).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a significant body of evidence about QI programmes to improve the management of diabetes. Multicomponent QI programmes for diabetes care (comprised of effective QI strategies) may achieve meaningful population-level improvements across the majority of outcomes. For health system decision-makers, the evidence summarised in this review can be used to identify strategies to include in QI programmes. For researchers, this synthesis identifies higher-priority QI strategies to examine in further research regarding how to optimise their evaluation and effects. We will maintain this as a living systematic review.

A scale development study for evaluating the dietary behaviors of patients with heart failure

BACKGROUND

Monitoring the dietary status of patients with heart failure (HF) and preventing malnutrition are of great importance in the prognosis of the disease.

OBJECTIVES

The study was conducted to develop a measurement tool that determines the dietary behaviors of patients with HF.

METHODS

The draft scale consisting of 124 items designed by the researcher following with the literature was reduced to a draft scale consisting 49 items after the evaluation of clinical experts' and academicians' opinions. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Cronbach's Alpha were employed in the analysis of the data.

RESULTS

According to the results, SDBHF was found to consist of 4 sub-scales and 19 items. The lowest score that could be obtained from the 19-item final form of the scale was 19, and the highest score was 76. Increased scores mean that patients with HFeat according to the recommendations of the guidelines, clinical experts and academicians. The Cronbach's alpha of the scale was found to be 0.72.

CONCLUSION

Our newly developed SDBHF was shown to be a valid and reliable tool for determining the dietary behaviors of patients with HF. The SDBHF can be used to detect and manage dietary behaviors that shapes the quality of life and prognosis of patients with HF. The SDBHF can used as a single dimension scale rather than its sub-scales.

Development of a primary care pharmacy outcomes framework: An umbrella literature review

BACKGROUND

An aging population and rising multi-morbidity has shifted healthcare provision from secondary to primary care. Pharmacy-led services have been introduced to support this. The development of an outcomes framework for these services would facilitate conclusions to be drawn on their effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES

To identify outcomes used to evaluate pharmacy-led medication therapy and disease management services within primary care settings to develop an outcomes framework for future studies.

METHODS

An umbrella literature review was conducted. MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and PsycINFO were searched in June 2020 to identify relevant articles. Eligible reviews were those including studies published from 2010 onwards which reported on the outcomes of pharmacy-led medication therapy and disease management services within primary care, excluding community pharmacy settings. Data were extracted and a content analysis, guided by the ECHO model, stratified the outcomes into four areas: economic, clinical, humanistic and service.

RESULTS

Twenty-four reviews covering 52 unique studies were identified. Pharmacy-led services included: medication reviews (n=24, 46.2%), disease and therapy management (n=17, 32.7%), educational services (n=6, 11.5%), medicines reconciliation (n=3, 5.8%), and medication compliance support (n=1, 1.9%). Services were commonly targeted towards endocrine (n=23, 44.2%) or cardiovascular diseases (n=20, 38.5%). Outcomes most commonly explored were clinical (n=38, 73.1%) and service outcomes (n=37, 71.2%), followed by humanistic (n=23, 44.2%) and economic outcomes (n=13, 25.0%). Overall, 17 sub-categories of outcomes were identified; common sub-categories were: disease indicators [clinical]; medication use and healthcare utilisation [service]; adherence to medicines [humanistic]; and healthcare costs [economic].

CONCLUSIONS

The findings informed the development of an outcomes framework to guide the evaluation of medication therapy and disease management services, and facilitate international standardised outcome measures within primary care pharmacy to be developed. This could help offer vital evidence on the effectiveness of these services to ensure the pharmacy workforce is working optimally to support primary care.

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Diabetes Shared Medical Appointments (SMAs) as Implemented in Five Veterans Affairs Health Systems: a Multi-site Cluster Randomized Pragmatic Trial

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether diabetes shared medical appointments (SMAs) implemented as part of usual clinical practice in diverse health systems are more effective than usual care in improving and sustaining A1c improvements.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A multi-site cluster randomized pragmatic trial examining implementation in clinical practice of diabetes SMAs in five Veterans Affairs (VA) health systems was conducted from 2016 to 2020 among 1537 adults with type 2 diabetes and elevated A1cs. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to either: (1) invitation to participate in a series of SMAs totaling 8-9 h; or (2) continuation of usual care. Relative change in A1c (primary outcome) and in systolic blood pressure, insulin starts, statin starts, and anti-hypertensive medication classes (secondary outcomes) were measured as part of usual clinical care at baseline, at 6 months and at 12 months (~7 months after conclusion of the final SMA in four of five sites). We examined outcomes in three samples of SMA participants: all those scheduled for a SMA, those attending at least one SMA, and those attending at least half of SMAs.

RESULTS

Baseline mean A1c was 9.0%. Participants scheduled for an SMA achieved A1c reductions 0.35% points greater than the control group between baseline and 6-months follow up (p = .001). Those who attended at least one SMA achieved reductions 0.42 % points greater (p < .001), and those who attended at least half of scheduled SMAs achieved reductions 0.53 % points greater (p < .001) than the control group. At 12-month follow-up, the three SMA analysis samples achieved reductions from baseline ranging from 0.16 % points (p = 0.12) to 0.29 % points (p = .06) greater than the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Diabetes SMAs as implemented in real-life diverse clinical practices improve glycemic control more than usual care immediately after the SMAs, but relative gains are not maintained. Our findings suggest the need for further study of whether a longer term SMA model or other follow-up strategies would sustain relative clinical improvements associated with this intervention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT02132676.

Cost Effectiveness of Advanced Pharmacy Services Provided in the Community and Primary Care Settings: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Pharmacists working in community and primary care are increasingly developing advanced skills to provide enhanced services, particularly in dealing with minor acute illness. These services can potentially free-up primary care physicians' time; however, it is not clear whether they are sufficiently cost effective to be recommended for wider provision in the UK.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to review published economic evaluations of enhanced pharmacy services in the community and primary care settings.

METHODS

We undertook a systematic review of economic evaluations of enhanced pharmacy services to inform NICE guidelines for emergency and acute care. The review protocol was developed and agreed with the guideline committee. The National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment Database, Health Economic Evaluations Database, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched in December 2016 and the search was updated in March 2018. Studies were assessed for applicability and methodological quality using the NICE Economic Evaluation Checklist.

RESULTS

Of 3124 records, 13 studies published in 14 papers were included. The studies were conducted in the UK, Spain, The Netherlands, Australia, Italy and Canada. Settings included community pharmacies, primary care/general practice surgeries and patients' homes. Most of the studies were assessed as partially applicable with potentially serious limitations. Services provided in community and primary care settings were found to be either dominant or cost effective, at a £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year threshold, compared with usual care. Those delivered in the patient's home were not found to be cost effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Advanced pharmacy services appear to be cost effective when delivered in community and primary care settings, but not in domiciliary settings. Expansion in the provision of these services in community and primary care can be recommended for wider implementation.

Pharmacist services for non-hospitalised patients

BACKGROUND

This review focuses on non-dispensing services from pharmacists, i.e. pharmacists in community, primary or ambulatory-care settings, to non-hospitalised patients, and is an update of a previously-published Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effect of pharmacists' non-dispensing services on non-hospitalised patient outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases and two trial registers in March 2015, together with reference checking and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We included non-English language publications. We ran top-up searches in January 2018 and have added potentially eligible studies to 'Studies awaiting classification'.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials of pharmacist services compared with the delivery of usual care or equivalent/similar services with the same objective delivered by other health professionals.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures of Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group. Two review authors independently checked studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risks of bias. We evaluated the overall certainty of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 116 trials comprising 111 trials (39,729 participants) comparing pharmacist interventions with usual care and five trials (2122 participants) comparing pharmacist services with services from other healthcare professionals. Of the 116 trials, 76 were included in meta-analyses. The 40 remaining trials were not included in the meta-analyses because they each reported unique outcome measures which could not be combined. Most trials targeted chronic conditions and were conducted in a range of settings, mostly community pharmacies and hospital outpatient clinics, and were mainly but not exclusively conducted in high-income countries. Most trials had a low risk of reporting bias and about 25%-30% were at high risk of bias for performance, detection, and attrition. Selection bias was unclear for about half of the included studies.Compared with usual care, we are uncertain whether pharmacist services reduce the percentage of patients outside the glycated haemoglobin target range (5 trials, N = 558, odds ratio (OR) 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 2.22; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmacist services may reduce the percentage of patients whose blood pressure is outside the target range (18 trials, N = 4107, OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.55; low-certainty evidence) and probably lead to little or no difference in hospital attendance or admissions (14 trials, N = 3631, OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.11; moderate-certainty evidence). Pharmacist services may make little or no difference to adverse drug effects (3 trials, N = 590, OR 1.65, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.24) and may slightly improve physical functioning (7 trials, N = 1329, mean difference (MD) 5.84, 95% CI 1.21 to 10.48; low-certainty evidence). Pharmacist services may make little or no difference to mortality (9 trials, N = 1980, OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.12, low-certaintly evidence).Of the five studies that compared services delivered by pharmacists with other health professionals, no studies evaluated the impact of the intervention on the percentage of patients outside blood pressure or glycated haemoglobin target range, hospital attendance and admission, adverse drug effects, or physical functioning.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results demonstrate that pharmacist services have varying effects on patient outcomes compared with usual care. We found no studies comparing services delivered by pharmacists with other healthcare professionals that evaluated the impact of the intervention on the six main outcome measures. The results need to be interpreted cautiously because there was major heterogeneity in study populations, types of interventions delivered and reported outcomes.There was considerable heterogeneity within many of the meta-analyses, as well as considerable variation in the risks of bias.

Prognosis and lipid profile improvement by a specialized outpatient clinic for acute coronary syndrome patients

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Prognosis variations in patients discharged after an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) according to the professionals involved has not been clearly outlined. The aim of our study was to assess the impact on a specific outpatient clinic (SOC).

METHODS

We included all consecutive patients admitted for an ACS in a single center. We performed a propensity score matching with all patients discharged from hospital according to whether they were referred to the SOC or not.

RESULTS

From the 1822 patients discharged, 260 couples of well-balanced ACS patients were obtained after propensity score matching. Median follow-up was 43.3 months and cardiovascular mortality rate was 10.4%, all-cause mortality was 13.9% and any MACE 38.2%. Patients attended the SOC had significantly lower rates at all three endpoints. Multivariate analysis results showed how the follow-up in the SOC was associated with significantly lower risk at all endpoints. SOC patients also had significantly lower rate at hospital readmissions and the multivariate analysis identified a negative association between the first cardiovascular readmission and SOC (sHR: 0.26 95%CI 0.18-0.367; p < 0.01). Mean LDLc levels at the time of ACS admission was 99.0 (36.7) mg/dl and no difference was observed in patients referred to SOC vs. non-referred. Patients followed at the SOC achieved significantly lower LDLc and higher percentage of LDLc <70 mg/dl (56.7% vs. 36.7%; p < 0.01). SOC follow-up was associated with 44% higher probability of final LDLc <70 mg/dl.

CONCLUSIONS

An SOC for ACS patients was independently associated with higher LDLc control and long-term survival.