GPs' familiarity with and use of cardiovascular clinical prediction rules: a UK survey study

Influence of research evidence on the use of cardiovascular clinical prediction rules in primary care: an exploratory qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular clinical prediction rules (CPRs) are widely used in primary care. They accumulate research evidence through derivation, external validation, and impact studies. However, existing knowledge about the influence of research evidence on the use of CPRs is limited. Therefore, we explored how primary care clinicians' perceptions of and experiences with research influence their use of cardiovascular CPRs.

METHODS

We conducted an exploratory qualitative interview study with thematic analysis. Primary care clinicians were recruited from the WWAMI (Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana and Idaho) region Practice and Research Network (WPRN). We used purposeful sampling to ensure maximum variation within the participant group. Data were collected by conducting semi-structured online interviews. We analyzed data using inductive thematic analysis to identify commonalities and differences within themes.

RESULTS

Of 29 primary care clinicians who completed the questionnaire, 15 participated in the interview. We identified two main themes relating to the influence of clinicians' perceptions of and experiences with cardiovascular CPR research on their decisions about using cardiovascular CPRs: "Seek and judge" and "be acquainted and assume." When clinicians are familiar with, trust, and feel confident in using research evidence, they might actively search and assess the evidence, which may then influence their decisions about using cardiovascular CPRs. However, clinicians, who are unfamiliar with, distrust, or find it challenging to use research evidence, might be passively acquainted with evidence but do not make their own judgment on the trustworthiness of such evidence. Therefore, these clinicians might not rely on research evidence when making decisions about using cardiovascular CPRs.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians' perceptions and experiences could influence how they use research evidence in decisions about using cardiovascular CPRs. This implies, when promoting evidence-based decisions, it might be useful to target clinicians' unfamiliarity, distrust, and challenges regarding the use of research evidence rather than focusing only on their knowledge and skills. Further, because clinicians often rely on evidence-unrelated factors, guideline developers and policymakers should recommend cardiovascular CPRs supported by high-quality evidence.

Determining cardiovascular risk in patients with unattributed chest pain in UK primary care: an electronic health record study

AIMS

Most adults presenting in primary care with chest pain symptoms will not receive a diagnosis ('unattributed' chest pain) but are at increased risk of cardiovascular events. To assess within patients with unattributed chest pain, risk factors for cardiovascular events and whether those at greatest risk of cardiovascular disease can be ascertained by an existing general population risk prediction model or by development of a new model.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The study used UK primary care electronic health records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked to admitted hospitalizations. Study population was patients aged 18 plus with recorded unattributed chest pain 2002-2018. Cardiovascular risk prediction models were developed with external validation and comparison of performance to QRISK3, a general population risk prediction model. There were 374 917 patients with unattributed chest pain in the development data set. The strongest risk factors for cardiovascular disease included diabetes, atrial fibrillation, and hypertension. Risk was increased in males, patients of Asian ethnicity, those in more deprived areas, obese patients, and smokers. The final developed model had good predictive performance (external validation c-statistic 0.81, calibration slope 1.02). A model using a subset of key risk factors for cardiovascular disease gave nearly identical performance. QRISK3 underestimated cardiovascular risk.

CONCLUSION

Patients presenting with unattributed chest pain are at increased risk of cardiovascular events. It is feasible to accurately estimate individual risk using routinely recorded information in the primary care record, focusing on a small number of risk factors. Patients at highest risk could be targeted for preventative measures.

Absolute cardiovascular risk assessment by Australian early-career general practitioners: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the prevalence and associations of general practice registrars' performing absolute cardio-vascular risk (ACVR) assessment (ACVRa).

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study employing data (2017-2018) from the Registrar Clinical Encounters in Training project, an ongoing inception cohort study of Australian GP registrars. The outcome measure was whether an ACVRa was performed. Analyses employed univariable and multivariable regression. Analysis was conducted for all patient problems/diagnoses, then for an 'at-risk' population (specific problems/diagnoses for which ACVRa is indicated).

SETTING

Three GP regional training organisations (RTOs) across three Australian states.

PARTICIPANTS

GP registrars training within participating RTOs.

RESULTS

1003 registrars (response rate 96.8%) recorded details of 69 105 problems either with Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait patients aged 35 years and older or with non-Indigenous patients aged 45 years and older. Of these problems/diagnoses, 1721 (2.5% (95% CI 2.4% to 2.6%)) involved an ACVRa. An ACVRa was 'plausibly indicated' in 10 384 problems/diagnoses. Of these, 1228 (11.8% (95% CI 11.2% to 12.4%)) involved ACVRa. For 'all problems/diagnoses', on multivariable analysis female gender was associated with reduced odds of ACVRa (OR 0.61 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.68)). There was some evidence for Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people being more likely to receive ACVRa (OR 1.40 (95% CI 0.94 to 2.08), p=0.10). There were associations with variables related to continuity of care, with reduced odds of ACVRa: if the patient was new to the registrar (OR 0.65 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.75)), new to the practice (OR 0.24 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.38)) or the problem was new (OR 0.68 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.78)); and increased odds if personal follow-up was organised (OR 1.43 (95% CI 1.24 to 1.66)). For 'ACVRa indicated' problems/diagnoses, findings were similar to those for 'all problems/diagnoses'. Association with Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander status, however, was significant at p<0.05 (OR 1.60 (95% CI 1.04 to 2.46)) and association with female gender was attenuated (OR 0.88 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.01)).

CONCLUSION

Continuity of care is associated with registrars assessing ACVR, reinforcing the importance of care continuity in general practice. Registrars' assessment of an individual patient's ACVR is targeted to patients with individual risk factors, but this may entail ACVRa underutilisation in female patients and younger age groups.

Strategies to tackle non-communicable diseases in Afghanistan: A scoping review

Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and their risk factors are the leading cause of death worldwide and contribute to 74.3% of deaths globally in 2019. The burden of NCDs is escalating in Afghanistan. Currently, every seconds, people in Afghanistan are dying of NCDs. Addressing this challenge in Afghanistan needs effective and practical interventions. This study aimed to identify the strategies developed and implemented in countries with low non-communicable premature death. To conduct a scoping review, we followed the six-step Arksey and O'Malley protocol and searched for eligible articles on eight international databases and the gray literature. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. The inclusion criteria were English documents and evidence produced up to 30 November 2021 for the control of NCDs. We excluded incomplete texts, duplicates, and dissertations due to lack of access. We used EndNote X9 and MaxQDA software for data management and analysis. We conducted content analysis for this study. A total of 122 documents developed between 1984 and 2021 met the inclusion criteria. We identified 35 strategies from which the most used strategies were related to unhealthy diets and smoking cessation programs. Canada (26.4%), Korea (19.8%), and the United Kingdom (19%) have the most publications on the control and prevention of NCDs among the countries included in the study. Most strategies were implemented over 2 years (41%). This study recommends specific interventions to control and prevent NCDs for the main risk factors of tobacco use, unhealthy diet, physical inactivity, and the main non-communicable diseases such as heart diseases, cancers, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases. Afghanistan Ministry of Public Health, the WHO country office, and other involved stakeholders can use the findings of this review to design and implement strategies for controlling and preventing NCDs in Afghanistan. International organizations such as the World Health Organization, United Nations Agencies, the World Bank, and other involving communities should invest in strengthening good health governance in Afghanistan. The Afghan Government should focus on promoting and funding health literacy among the public and self-care to control and prevent NCDs.

Predicted cardiovascular disease risk and prescribing of antihypertensive therapy among patients with hypertension in Australia using MedicineInsight

Hypertension guidelines recommend that absolute cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk guide the management of hypertensive patients. This study aimed to assess the proportion of patients with diagnosed hypertension with sufficient data to calculate absolute CVD risk and determine whether CVD risk is associated with prescribing of antihypertensive therapies. This was a cross-sectional study using a large national database of electronic medical records of patients attending general practice in 2018 (MedicineInsight). Of 571,492 patients aged 45-74 years without a history of CVD, 251,733 [40.6% (95% CI: 39.8-41.2)] had a recorded hypertension diagnosis. The proportion of patients with sufficient recorded data available to calculate CVD risk was higher for patients diagnosed with hypertension [51.0% (95% CI: 48.0-53.9)] than for patients without a diagnosis of hypertension [38.7% (95% CI: 36.5-41.0)]. Of those patients with sufficient data to calculate CVD risk, 29.3% (95% CI: 28.1-30.6) were at high risk clinically, 6.0% (95% CI: 5.8-6.3) were at high risk based on their CVD risk score, 12.8% (95% CI: 12.5-13.2) at moderate risk and 51.8% (95% CI: 50.8-52.9) at low risk. The overall prevalence of antihypertensive therapy was 60.9% (95% CI: 59.3-62.5). Prescribing was slightly lower in patients at high risk based on their CVD risk score [57.4% (95% CI: 55.4-59.4)] compared with those at low [63.3% (95% CI: 61.9-64.8)] or moderate risk [61.8% (95% CI: 60.2-63.4)] or at high risk clinically [64.1% (95% CI: 61.9-66.3)]. Guideline adherence is suboptimal, and many patients miss out on treatments that may prevent future CVD events.

Factors shaping the implementation and use of Clinical Cancer Decision Tools by GPs in primary care: a qualitative framework synthesis

OBJECTIVE

Clinical Cancer Decision Tools (CCDTs) aim to alert general practitioners (GPs) to signs and symptoms of cancer, supporting prompt investigation and onward referral. CCDTs are available in primary care in the UK but are not widely utilised. Qualitative research has highlighted the complexities and mechanisms surrounding their implementation and use; this has focused on specific cancer types, formats, systems or settings. This study aims to synthesise qualitative data of GPs' attitudes to and experience with a range of CCDTs to gain better understanding of the factors shaping their implementation and use.

DESIGN

A systematic search of the published (MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science and EMBASE) and grey literature (July 2020). Following screening, selection and assessment of suitability, the data were analysed and synthesised using normalisation process theory.

RESULTS

Six studies (2011 to 2019), exploring the views of GPs were included for analysis. Studies focused on the use of several different types of CCDTs (Risk Assessment Tools (RAT) or electronic version of RAT (eRAT), QCancer and the 7-point checklist). GPs agreed CCDTs were useful to increase awareness of signs and symptoms of undiagnosed cancer. They had concerns about the impact on trust in their own clinical acumen, whether secondary care clinicians would consider referrals generated by CCDT as valid and whether integration of the CCDTs within existing systems was achievable.

CONCLUSIONS

CCDTs might be a helpful adjunct to clinical work in primary care, but without careful development to legitimise their use GPs are likely to give precedence to clinical acumen and gut instinct. Stakeholder consultation with secondary care clinicians and consideration of how the CCDTs fit into a GP consultation are crucial to successful uptake. The role and responsibilities of a GP as a clinician, gatekeeper, health promoter and resource manager affect the interaction with and implementation of innovations such as CCDTs.