Understanding factors that influence the use of risk scoring instruments in the management of patients with unstable angina or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction in the Netherlands: a qualitative study of health care practitioners' perceptions.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac risk scores estimate a patient's risk of future cardiac events or death. They are developed to inform treatment decisions of patients diagnosed with unstable angina or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Despite recommending their use in guidelines and evidence of their prognostic value, they seem underused in practice. The purpose of the study was to gain insight in the motivation for implementing cardiac risk scores, and perceptions of health care practitioners towards the use of these instruments in clinical practice. METHODS: This qualitative study involved semi-structured interviews with 31 health care practitioners at 11 hospitals throughout the Netherlands. Participants were approached through purposive sampling to represent a broad range of participant- and hospital characteristics, and included cardiologists, medical residents, medical interns, nurse practitioners and an emergency physician. The Pettigrew and Whipp Framework for strategic change was used as a theoretical basis. Data were initially analysed through open coding to avoid forcing data into categories predetermined by the framework. RESULTS: Cardiac risk score use was dependent on several factors, including IT support, clinical relevance for daily practice, rotation of staff and workload. Both intrinsic and extrinsic drivers for implementation were identified. Reminders, feedback and IT solutions were strategies used to improve and sustain the use of these instruments. The scores were seen as valuable support systems in improving uniformity in treatment practices, educating interns, conducting research and quantifying a practitioner's own risk assessment. However, health care practitioners varied in their perceptions regarding the influence of cardiac risk scores on treatment decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Health care practitioners disagree on the value of cardiac risk scores for clinical practice. Practitioners driven by intrinsic motivations predominantly experienced benefits in policy-making, education and research. Practitioners who were forced to use cardiac risk scores were less likely to take into account the risk score in their treatment decisions. The results of this study can be used to develop strategies that stimulate or sustain cardiac risk score use in practice, while taking into account barriers that affect cardiac risk score use, and possibly reduce practice variation in the management of unstable angina and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients.

Adherence to Cardiac Practice Guidelines in the Management of Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Systematic Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: In the management of non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTACS) a gap between guideline-recommended care and actual practice has been reported. A systematic overview of the actual extent of this gap, its potential impact on patient-outcomes, and influential factors is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To examine the extent of guideline adherence, to study associations with the occurrence of adverse cardiac events, and to identify factors associated with guideline adherence. METHOD: Systematic literature review, for which PUBMED, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane library were searched until March 2016. Further, a manual search was performed using reference lists of included studies. Two reviewers independently performed quality-assessment and data extraction of the eligible studies. RESULTS: Adherence rates varied widely within and between 45 eligible studies, ranging from less than 5.0 % to more than 95.0 % for recommendations on acute and discharge pharmacological treatment, 34.3 % - 93.0 % for risk stratification, and 16.0 % - 95.8 % for performing coronary angiography. Seven studies indicated that higher adherence rates were associated with lower mortality. Several patient-related (e.g. age, gender, co-morbidities) and organization-related (e.g. teaching hospital) factors influencing adherence were identified. CONCLUSION: This review showed wide variation in guideline adherence, with a substantial proportion of NST-ACS patients possibly not receiving guideline-recommended care. Consequently, lower adherence might be associated with a higher risk for poor prognosis. Future research should further investigate the complex nature of guideline adherence in NST-ACS, its impact on clinical care, and factors influencing adherence. This knowledge is essential to optimize clinical management of NSTACS patients and could guide future quality improvement initiatives.

Selecting patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome for coronary angiography: a nationwide clinical vignette study in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: Cardiac guidelines recommend that the decision to perform coronary angiography (CA) in patients with Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome (NST-ACS) is based on multiple factors. It is, however, unknown how cardiologists weigh these factors in their decision-making. The aim was to investigate the importance of different clinical characteristics, including information derived from risk scores, in the decision-making of Dutch cardiologists regarding performing CA in patients with suspected NST-ACS. DESIGN: A web-based survey containing clinical vignettes. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Registered Dutch cardiologists were approached to complete the survey, in which they were asked to indicate whether they would perform CA for 8 vignettes describing 7 clinical factors: age, renal function, known coronary artery disease, persistent chest pain, presence of risk factors, ECG findings and troponin levels. Cardiologists were divided into two groups: group 1 received vignettes 'without' a risk score present, while group 2 completed vignettes 'with' a risk score present. RESULTS: 129 (of 946) cardiologists responded. In both groups, elevated troponin levels and typical ischaemic changes (p<0.001) made cardiologists decide more often to perform CA. Severe renal dysfunction (p<0.001) made cardiologists more hesitant to decide on CA. Age and risk score could not be assessed independently, as these factors were strongly associated. Inspecting the factors together showed, for example, that cardiologists were more hesitant to perform CA in elderly patients with high-risk scores than in younger patients with intermediate risk scores. CONCLUSIONS: When deciding to perform in-hospital CA (≤72 hours after patient admission) in patients with suspected NST-ACS, cardiologists tend to rely mostly on troponin levels, ECG changes and renal function. Future research should focus on why CA is less often recommended in patients with severe renal dysfunction, and in elderly patients with high-risk scores. In addition, the impact of age and risk score on decision-making should be further investigated.

A cross-sectional multicentre study of cardiac risk score use in the management of unstable angina and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVES: Quantitative risk assessment in unstable angina (UA) and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), by using cardiac risk scores, is recommended in international guidelines. However, a gap between recommended care and actual practice exists, as these instruments seem underused in practice. The present study aimed to determine the extent of cardiac risk score use and to study factors associated with lower or higher cardiac risk score use. SETTING: 13 hospitals throughout the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective chart review of 1788 charts of patients with UA and NSTEMI, discharged in 2012. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: The extent of cardiac risk score use reflected in a documented risk score outcome in the patient's chart. Factors associated with cardiac risk score use determined by generalised linear mixed models. RESULTS: In 57% (n=1019) of the charts, physicians documented the use of a cardiac risk score. Substantial variation between hospitals was observed (16.7-87%), although this variation could not be explained by the presence of on-site revascularisation facilities or a hospitals' teaching status. Obese patients (OR=1.49; CI 95%1.03 to 2.15) and former smokers (OR=1.56; CI 95%1.15 to 2.11) were more likely to have a cardiac risk score documented. Risk scores were less likely to be used among patients diagnosed with UA (OR=0.60; CI 95% 0.46 to 0.77), in-hospital resuscitation (OR=0.23; CI 95% 0.09 to 0.64), in-hospital heart failure (OR=0.46; CI 95% 0.27 to 0.76) or tachycardia (OR=0.45; CI 95% 0.26 to 0.75). CONCLUSIONS: Despite recommendations in cardiac guidelines, the use of cardiac risk scores has not been fully implemented in Dutch practice. A substantial number of patients did not have a cardiac risk score documented in their chart. Strategies to improve cardiac risk score use should pay special attention to patient groups in which risk scores were less often documented, as these patients may currently be undertreated.

Clinical decision-making of cardiologists regarding admission and treatment of patients with suspected unstable angina or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: protocol of a clinical vignette study.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiologists face the difficult task of rapidly distinguishing cardiac-related chest pain from other conditions, and to thoroughly consider whether invasive diagnostic procedures or treatments are indicated. The use of cardiac risk-scoring instruments has been recommended in international cardiac guidelines. However, it is unknown to what degree cardiac risk scores and other clinical information influence cardiologists' decision-making. This paper describes the development of a binary choice experiment using realistic descriptions of clinical cases. The study aims to determine the importance cardiologists put on different types of clinical information, including cardiac risk scores, when deciding on the management of patients with suspected unstable angina or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Cardiologists were asked, in a nationwide survey, to weigh different clinical factors in decision-making regarding patient admission and treatment using realistic descriptions of patients in which specific characteristics are varied in a systematic way (eg, web-based clinical vignettes). These vignettes represent patients with suspected unstable angina or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Associations between several clinical characteristics, with cardiologists' management decisions, will be analysed using generalised linear mixed models. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received ethics approval and informed consent will be obtained from all participating cardiologists. The results of the study will provide insight into the relative importance of cardiac risk scores and other clinical information in cardiac decision-making. Further, the results indicate cardiologists' adherence to the European Society of Cardiology guideline recommendations. In addition, the detailed description of the method of vignette development applied in this study could assist other researchers or clinicians in creating future choice experiments.