Development and implementation of a treatment pathway to reduce coronary angiograms - lessons from a failure.

BACKGROUND: The rates of coronary angiograms (CA) and related procedures (percutaneous intervention [PCI]) are significantly higher in Germany than in other Organisation for Economic Co-ordination and Development (OECD) countries. The current guidelines recommend non-invasive diagnosis of coronary heart disease (CHD); CA should only have a limited role in choosing the appropriate revascularisation procedure. The aim of the present study was to explore whether improvements in guideline adherence can be achieved through the implementation of regional treatment pathways. We chose four regions of Germany with high utilisation of CAs for the study. Here we report the results of the concomitant qualitative study. METHODS: General practitioners and specialist physicians (cardiologists, hospital-based cardiologists, emergency physicians, radiologists and nuclear medicine specialists) caring for patients with suspected CHD were invited to develop regional treatment pathways. Four academic departments provided support for moderation, provision of materials, etc. The study team observed session discussions and took notes. After the development of the treatment pathways, 45 semi-structured interviews were conducted with the participating physicians. Interviews and field notes were transcribed verbatim and underwent qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Pathway development received little support among the participants. Although consensus documents were produced, the results were unlikely to improve practice. The participants expressed very little commitment to change. Although this attempt clearly failed in all study regions, our experience provides relevant insights into the process of evidence appraisal and implementation. A lack of organisational skills, ignorance of current evidence and guidelines, and a lack of feedback regarding one's own clinical behaviour proved to be insurmountable. CA was still seen as the diagnostic gold standard by most interviewees. CONCLUSIONS: Oversupply and overutilisation can be assumed to be present in study regions but are not immediately perceived by clinicians. The problem is unlikely to be solved by regional collaborative initiatives; optimised resource planning within the health care system combined with appropriate economic incentives might best address these issues.

Motivational interviewing and shared decision making in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess general practitioners' (GP) readiness to involve obese patients in therapy decision making and to determine whether they integrate motivational interviewing techniques. METHODS: Fifty-eight preventive Check-up 35 encounters with overweight and obese patients in primary care were audio recorded in 12 GP practices. The use of motivational interviewing techniques was rated with the Behavior Change Counseling Index (BECCI). The involvement in medical decisions was rated with the Observing Patient Involvement Scale (OPTION). RESULTS: OPTION and BECCI scores were low (means=0.71 and 1.65), indicating minimal implementation of shared decision making and motivational interviewing in preventive encounters with these patients. GPs used more motivational interviewing for patients with a BMI>30 kg/m(2) than for those with a BMI<30 kg/m(2). Female GPs had significantly higher shared decision making scores, indicating that they prefer to involve patients in medical decisions. GPs differed significantly in their use of both approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Shared decision making and motivational interviewing, though known to be successful strategies in lifestyle counseling, are rarely used during obesity encounters in our sample of German GPs. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: GPs should be sensitized and trained in the application of these methods.