Stepwise implementation of a cardiovascular risk management care program in primary care

Background

Primary care plays a pivotal role in sustainable cardiovascular risk management (CVRM) but little is known about the organizational process of implementing the guidelines. The aim of the study was to describe the approach taken by a primary care group to implement the CVRM guideline.

Methods

Stepwise introduction and implementation of a programmatic CVRM care program was organized and facilitated by the care group between April 2010 and January 2013 in 137 affiliated general practices with 188 general practitioners (GPs), in the vicinity of Eindhoven, Netherlands. Care group support comprised sufficient staff, support with data extraction based on ICPC and ATC codes and with identification of eligible patients by scrutinizing patient health records and adequate coding of disease conditions.

Results

Patient selection based on availability of structured information on ICPC codes and risk factor levels from the electronic health records, led to 38,675 eligible patients in 2013. December 2019, the CVRM program was still running in 151 practices with 51,416 patients receiving programmatic CVRM care. Linking problems between 8 different electronic health record systems and the multidisciplinary information system for integrated care delayed adequate data collection until the beginning of 2013.

Conclusion

Commitment of affiliated GPs, a structured approach with adequate coding of diagnoses and risk factors, central data registration and additional funding for sufficient staff support are important conditions for the introduction and implementation of successful and sustainable programmatic CVRM care. This approach constitutes the basis for long-term follow up and annual evaluation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-021-01602-w.

Dutch diabetes prevalence estimates (DUDE-1)

BACKGROUND

Recent decades have seen a constant upward projection in the prevalence of diabetes. Attempts to estimate diabetes prevalence rates based on relatively small population samples quite often result in underestimation. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether the Dutch diabetes prevalence estimate of 930 000 for 2013, based on a relatively small sample, still holds true when a larger population is studied using actual prevalence data.

METHODS

Data were collected from 92 primary care groups, including the total number of people with and without diabetes in 2013. Patients with diabetes were identified using the International Classification of Primary Care codes T90.02 (diabetes mellitus type 2; T2DM), T90.01 (diabetes mellitus type 1) and T90 (diabetes mellitus). Prevalence data were compared with previous estimates made in 2009. Diabetes prevalence was estimated using linear extrapolation.

RESULTS

Complete data were available from 67 (73%) care groups, which together provided care for 7 922 403 subjects; 431 396 patients were coded as having diabetes, of whom 406 183 were coded as having T2DM. Based on these results, the extrapolated Dutch diabetes prevalence was 914 387 (5.45%).

CONCLUSIONS

The results show that the previous estimate (reported in 2009), which was based on data collected in 2007, resulted in a <2% (~16 000) overestimation in diabetes prevalence in 2013 compared with the analysis presented. These results indicate that no upward adjustment in Dutch diabetes prevalence estimates is necessary. Repeated large-scale monitoring can help develop more accurate prevalence estimates and improve future prevalence predictions.

General practitioners' treatment orientations towards low back pain: influence on treatment behaviour and patient outcome

BACKGROUND

In low back pain (LBP) treatment and research attention has shifted from a biomedical towards a biopsychosocial approach. Patients' LBP beliefs and attitudes were found to predict long-term outcome, and recently it has been suggested that the health care providers' ideas about LBP are also important predictors of treatment behaviour and outcome.

AIMS

In the present study we examined whether (1) differences in General Practitioners' (GP) LBP treatment orientation are associated with differences in actual treatment behaviour and (2) whether treatment orientation is related to LBP outcome in patients.

METHODS

Two hundred twenty two patients consulting their GP with a new episode of LBP were recruited and completed questionnaires on (among others) LBP outcome (graded chronic pain scale) at baseline, during 12 months of follow-up and at the end of the study. Data on treatment were collected from the GPs. The GPs also completed a set of questionnaires on LBP treatment orientation. Associations between measures of treatment orientation, treatment recommendations, treatment behaviour and LBP outcome were analysed.

RESULTS

A biomedical treatment orientation was found to be associated with more concern about tissue damage and the effect of physical activity on pain and recovery in vignettes. No associations were found between treatment orientation measures, actual treatment behaviour and LBP outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Associations were not found as expected. Still these findings are relevant and may feed a clinically important debate on widely accepted assumptions about the role and influence of health care providers in changing patients' pain behaviours.