Sabine Ludt

Quality indicators for the prevention and management of cardiovascular disease in primary care in nine European countries

Background With free movement of labour in Europe, European guidelines on cardiovascular care and the enlargement of the European Union to include countries with disparate health care systems, it is important to develop common quality standards for cardiovascular prevention and risk management across Europe. Methods Panels from nine European countries (Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands, Slovenia, United Kingdom and Switzerland) developed quality indicators for the prevention and management of cardiovascular disease in primary care. A two-stage modified Delphi process was used to identify indicators that were judged valid for necessary care. Results Forty-four out of 202 indicators (22%) were rated as valid. These focused predominantly on secondary prevention and management of established cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Less agreement on indicators of preventive care or on indicators for the management of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia in patients without established disease was observed. Although 85% of the 202 potential indicators assessed were rated valid by at least one panel, lack of consensus among panels meant that the set that could be agreed upon among all panels was much smaller. Conclusion Indicators for the management of established cardiovascular disease have been developed, which can be used to measure the quality of cardiovascular care across a wide range of countries. Less agreement on how the quality of preventive care should be assessed was observed, probably caused by differences in health systems, culture and attitudes to prevention.

European Practice Assessment of Cardiovascular risk management (EPA Cardio): protocol of an international observational study in primary care.

BackgroundDespite important improvements in available prevention and treatment, cardiovascular diseases (CVD) remain an important cause of morbidity and mortality. Not all high-risk patients and patients with CVD have healthy lifestyles and receive the best possible healthcare. Internationally comparative data are needed to compare cardiovascular risk management in different countries, and to examine the impact of improvement programs and others factors.ObjectivesThis study aims to provide internationally comparative data on cardiovascular risk management provided in primary care and on health-related lifestyles of patients in Europe. The study will also explore the views of doctors and patients on innovative preventive services for CVDs.Design and methodsAn observational cross-sectional study is planned. In 10 European countries, stratified samples of 36 practices per country will be recruited. In each practice, three samples of 15 patients each will be sampled: patients with coronary heart disease, patients at high risk for CVD, and healthy adult patients. The quality of cardiovascular risk management has been specified in terms of 44 performance indicators that resulted from an international Delphi-procedure with general practitioners. Most indicators are based on medical records, and some on a structured interview with a contact person of the practice. Lifestyle (smoking, physical exercise, diet) will be measured with previously validated questionnaires that are completed by patients. Additional measures include practice characteristics and exposure to programs to improve cardiovascular care.

Recording of risk-factors and lifestyle counselling in patients at high risk for cardiovascular diseases in European primary care.

Background: Detection and registration of high risk for cardiovascular diseases (CVD) by assessing individual’s absolute cardiovascular risk is recommended in clinical guidelines. Effective interventions to reduce cardiovascular risk are available, but not optimally implemented. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of cardiovascular risk-factor recording and lifestyle counselling in high-risk patients in European primary care and to identify factors related to these clinical processes. Methods: An international cross-sectional observational study was conducted in stratified samples of primary care practices in nine European countries. Patient records were audited, using a structured data-abstraction tool based on internationally developed quality indicators. To identify factors associated with the recording, additional data were collected in a patient survey. Descriptive and multilevel data analyses were conducted. Results: In 268 general practices across Europe, 3723 records of individuals at high risk for cardiovascular diseases were audited. We found important variations in the quality of documentation of risk factors and lifestyle interventions. Recording of risk factors was best for blood pressure (92.5% of audited records, 95% CI 0.89–0.96). Lifestyle advice was recorded best for smoking cessation (65.6%, 95% CI 0.58–0.73) and worst for physical activity (38.8%, 95% CI 0.31–0.47). Of the study population, 50.6% (0.42–0.59) had elevated blood pressure levels, 59.8% (0.51–0.69) had total cholesterol >5 mmol/l, and 30.5% (0.22–0.39) were smokers. Multivariate analyses showed that recording of risk factors and counselling were related to specific patient characteristics more than to country effects. Conclusions: Analysis of different country results can be helpful for developing quality-improvement strategies.

ELSID-Diabetes study-evaluation of a large scale implementation of disease management programmes for patients with type 2 diabetes. Rationale, design and conduct – a study protocol [ISRCTN08471887]

BackgroundDiabetes model projects in different regions of Germany including interventions such as quality circles, patient education and documentation of medical findings have shown improvements of HbA1c levels, blood pressure and occurrence of hypoglycaemia in before-after studies (without control group). In 2002 the German Ministry of Health defined legal regulations for the introduction of nationwide disease management programs (DMP) to improve the quality of care in chronically ill patients. In April 2003 the first DMP for patients with type 2 diabetes was accredited. The evaluation of the DMP is essential and has been made obligatory in Germany by the Fifth Book of Social Code. The aim of the study is to assess the effectiveness of DMP by example of type 2 diabetes in the primary care setting of two German federal states (Rheinland-Pfalz and Sachsen-Anhalt).Methods/DesignThe study is three-armed: a prospective cluster-randomized comparison of two interventions (DMP 1 and DMP 2) against routine care without DMP as control group. In the DMP group 1 the patients are treated according to the current situation within the German-Diabetes-DMP. The DMP group 2 represents diabetic care within ideally implemented DMP providing additional interventions (e.g. quality circles, outreach visits). According to a sample size calculation a sample size of 200 GPs (each GP including 20 patients) will be required for the comparison of DMP 1 and DMP 2 considering possible drop-outs. For the comparison with routine care 4000 patients identified by diabetic tracer medication and age (> 50 years) will be analyzed.DiscussionThis study will evaluate the effectiveness of the German Diabetes-DMP compared to a Diabetes-DMP providing additional interventions and routine care in the primary care setting of two different German federal states.

Evaluating the Quality of Colorectal Cancer Care across the Interface of Healthcare Sectors

Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) has a high prevalence in western countries. Diagnosis and treatment of CRC is complex and requires multidisciplinary collaboration across the interface of health care sectors. In Germany, a new nationwide established program aims to provide quality information of healthcare delivery across different sectors. Within this context, this study describes the development of a set of quality indicators charting the whole pathway of CRC-care including data specifications that are necessary to operationalize these indicators before practice testing. Methods Indicators were developed following a systematic 10 step modified ‘RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method’ which involved a multidisciplinary panel of thirteen participants. For each indicator in the final set, data specifications relating to sources of quality information, data collection procedures, analysis and feedback were described. Results The final indicator set included 52 indicators covering diagnostic procedures (11 indicators), therapeutic management (28 indicators) and follow-up (6 indicators). In addition, 7 indicators represented patient perspectives. Primary surgical tumor resection and pre-operative radiation (rectum carcinoma only) were perceived as most useful tracer procedures initiating quality data collection. To assess the quality of CRC care across sectors, various data sources were identified: medical records, administrative inpatient and outpatient data, sickness-funds billing code systems and patient survey. Conclusion In Germany, a set of 52 quality indicators, covering necessary aspects across the interfaces and pathways relevant to CRC-care has been developed. Combining different sectors and sources of health care in quality assessment is an innovative and challenging approach but reflects better the reality of the patient pathway and experience of CRC-care.

Cardiovascular risk management in patients with coronary heart disease in primary care: variation across countries and practices. An observational study based on quality indicators.

BackgroundPrimary care has an important role in cardiovascular risk management (CVRM) and a minimum size of scale of primary care practices may be needed for efficient delivery of CVRM . We examined CVRM in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) in primary care and explored the impact of practice size.MethodsIn an observational study in 8 countries we sampled CHD patients in primary care practices and collected data from electronic patient records. Practice samples were stratified according to practice size and urbanisation; patients were selected using coded diagnoses when available. CVRM was measured on the basis of internationally validated quality indicators. In the analyses practice size was defined in terms of number of patients registered of visiting the practice. We performed multilevel regression analyses controlling for patient age and sex.ResultsWe included 181 practices (63% of the number targeted). Two countries included a convenience sample of practices. Data from 2960 CHD patients were available. Some countries used methods supplemental to coded diagnoses or other inclusion methods introducing potential inclusion bias. We found substantial variation on all CVRM indicators across practices and countries. We computed aggregated practice scores as percentage of patients with a positive outcome. Rates of risk factor recording varied from 55% for physical activity as the mean practice score across all practices (sd 32%) to 94% (sd 10%) for blood pressure. Rates for reaching treatment targets for systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure and LDL cholesterol were 46% (sd 21%), 86% (sd 12%) and 48% (sd 22%) respectively. Rates for providing recommended cholesterol lowering and antiplatelet drugs were around 80%, and 70% received influenza vaccination. Practice size was not associated to indicator scores with one exception: in Slovenia larger practices performed better. Variation was more related to differences between practices than between countries.ConclusionsCVRM measured by quality indicators showed wide variation within and between countries and possibly leaves room for improvement in all countries involved. Few associations of performance scores with practice size were found.

The challenge of cardiovascular prevention in primary care: Implications of a European observational study in 8928 patients at different risk levels

Background Cardiovascular prevention can be provided to patients at different risk levels. The aim of this study was to compare the quality of cardiovascular prevention provided in European primary care between patients with diagnosed coronary heart disease (CHD) and individuals at high risk due to known risk factors but not labelled with a diagnosis of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Additionally, we aimed to identify individual and practice factors to predict risk factor control. Methods An international cross-sectional study was conducted in 10 European countries. Clinical record data were abstracted for quality indicators for 8928 patients in 10 countries and patient questionnaires were completed by 7846 patients in nine countries. Information about 320 general practices was assessed using practice questionnaires and interviews. Hierarchical multilevel modelling was used for analyses. Results Recording of risk factors and advice was higher in the CHD than in the high-risk group. Risk factor control was better in the CHD group: uncontrolled levels of blood pressure (34.2 vs. 49.3%; p < 0.001), cholesterol (32.4 vs. 64.5%; p < 0.001). Predictors of risk factor control were medication adherence (RR 0.97; p = 0.007) and health-related quality of life (RR 0.86; p = 0.005). Being at high risk (RR 1.42; p < 0.001), being single (RR 1.12; p < 0.001), and having lower educational level (RR 1.09; p < 0.001) were associated with poorer risk factor control. Practice factors were not associated with outcomes. Conclusions Strategies to improve guidelines adherence in cardiovascular prevention may be stronger focused on individuals at risk before CVD is diagnosed and require organizational and political support to reinforce general practices.

Let’s talk about medication: concordance in rating medication adherence among multimorbid patients and their general practitioners

Background Medication adherence can be essential for improving health outcomes. Patients with multiple chronic conditions, often receiving multiple medications, are at higher risk for medication nonadherence. Previous research has focused on concordance between patients and providers about which medication should be taken. However, the question of whether patients and providers are concordant in rating actual medication intake has not been answered as yet. This study aimed to explore the extent and predictors of patient – provider concordance in rating medication adherence in patients with multiple chronic conditions. Methods Overall medication adherence was measured by self-report (Medication Adherence Report Scale, MARS-D) in a sample of 92 patients with multiple chronic conditions. Twelve treating primary care physicians were asked to rate medication adherence in these patients using a mirrored version of the MARS-D. Concordance between external rating and self-reported medication adherence was analyzed descriptively. Predictors of concordance in rating medication adherence were explored in a multilevel analysis. Results Patients rate their medication adherence markedly higher than their general practitioner. Accordingly, the percentage of concordance ranges between 40% (forgot to take medication) and 61% (deliberately omitted a dose). In multilevel analysis, concordance in rating medication adherence was positively associated with being the single primary care provider (β 2.24, P < 0.0001) and frequent questioning about medication use (β 0.66, P = 0.0031). At the patient level, “not [being] married” (β −0.81, P = 0.0064) and “number of prescribed medications” (β −0.10, P = 0.0203) were negative predictors of patient – provider concordance in rating medication adherence. Conclusion Concordance for rating medication adherence between general practitioners and their patients was low. Talking about medication on a regular basis and better continuity of care may enhance patient – provider concordance in rating medication adherence as a prerequisite for shared decisions concerning medication in patients with multiple chronic conditions.

Barriers to guideline implementation and educational needs of general practitioners regarding heart failure: a qualitative study

Objectives: A clinical practice guideline (CPG) contains specifically developed recommendations that can serve physicians as a decision aid in evidence-based practice. The implementation of heart failure (HF) CPGs represents a challenge in general practice. As part of the development of a tailored curriculum, aim of this study was to identify barriers of guideline adherence and needs for medical education (CME) in HF care. Methods: We conducted a modified focus group with elements of a workshop of three hours duration. Thirteen GPs collected and discussed together and parallel in smaller groups barriers of guideline implementation. Afterwards they performed a needs assessment for a tailored CME curriculum for chronic HF. The content of the discussions was analysed qualitatively according to Mayring and categorised thematically. Results: Barriers of guideline adherence were found in the following areas: doctor: procedural knowledge (knowledge gaps), communicative and organisational skills (e.g. time management) and attitude (dissatisfaction with time-money-relation). Patients: individual case-related problems (multimorbidity, psychiatric comorbidity, expectations and beliefs). Doctor and patient: Adherence and barriers of communication. Main measures for improvement of care concerned the areas of the identified barriers of guideline adherence with the focus on application-oriented training of the abovementioned procedural knowledge and skills, but also the supply of tools (like patient information leaflets) and patient education. Conclusion: For a CME-curriculum for HF tailored to the needs of GPs, a comprehensive educational approach seems necessary. It should be broad-based and include elements of knowledge and skills to be addressed and trained case-related. Additional elements should include support in the implementation of organisational processes in the practice and patient education.

Psychometric Properties of a German Version of the “Satisfaction with Information about Medicines Scale” (SIMS-D)

OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to translate the Satisfaction with Information about Medicines Scale (SIMS) into German and test its psychometric properties in a German primary care setting. The SIMS was developed to assess the extent to which patients feel they have received enough information about their medicines. METHODS Three hundred seventy chronically ill patients were included in the study. The SIMS was translated to SIMS-D (German version) and evaluated in terms of acceptability, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, discriminant, and criterion-related validity. RESULTS The SIMS-D showed good internal consistency (Cronbachs alpha 0.92) and adequate test-retest reliability (Pearsons r > 0.7). Relationships to external criteria regarding medication management were acceptable (Spearmans rho > 0.4). The SIMS-D was reasonably well accepted (return rate of 71%); however, older people produced more missing values when filling in the questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS Preliminary evidence was given that the SIMS-D is a suitable instrument for measuring patient satisfaction with information about medicines in German primary care settings.