Health-related quality of life and risk factor control: the importance of educational level in prevention of cardiovascular diseases.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to describe and to analyse the importance of educational level for controlled risk factors and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS: This observational study was conducted in nine European countries (5632 patients in 249 practices). We compared patients with a low level of education (up to 9 years) with patients with a high level of education (>9 years), with regard to controlled cardiovascular disease risk factors and HRQoL. A multilevel approach was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Patients with a low level of education were older (P < 0.001), more often female (P < 0.001), more often single (P < 0.001) and had a higher number of other conditions (e.g. heart failure) (P < 0.001). Significant differences in terms of controlled risk factors were revealed for blood pressure (RR) ≤ 140/90 mmHg (P = 0.039) and the sum of controlled risk factors (P = 0.027). Higher age, lower education, female gender, living as single, patient group (coronary heart disease patients) and the number of other conditions were negatively associated with HRQoL. A higher sum of controlled risk factors were positively associated with higher HRQoL in the whole sample (r = 0.0086, P < 0.001) as well as in both educational-level groups (r = 0.0075, P = 0.038 in the low-level group and r = 0.0082, P = 0.001 in the high-level group). CONCLUSION: Patients with a lower educational level were more often females, singles, had a higher number of other conditions, a higher number of uncontrolled risk factors and a lower HRQoL. However, the higher the control of risk factors was, the higher the HRQoL was overall as well as in both educational-level groups.

Involving patients in detecting quality gaps in a fragmented healthcare system: development of a questionnaire for Patients' Experiences Across Health Care Sectors (PEACS).

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a generic questionnaire to evaluate experiences and reported outcomes in patients who receive treatment across a range of healthcare sectors. DESIGN: Mixed-methods design including focus groups, pretests and field test. SETTING: The patient questionnaire was developed in the context of a nationwide program in Germany aimed at quality improvements across the healthcare sectors. PARTICIPANTS: For the field test, 589 questionnaires were distributed to patients via 47 general practices. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Descriptive item analyzes non-responder analysis and factor analysis (PCA). Retest coefficients (r) calculated by correlation of sum scores of PCA factors. Quality gaps were assessed by the proportion of responders choosing a response category defined as indicating shortcomings in quality of care. RESULTS: The conceptual phase showed good content validity. Four hundred and seventy-four patients who received a range of treatment across a range of sectors were included (response rate: 80.5%). Data analysis confirmed the construct, oriented to the patient care journey with a focus on transitions between healthcare sectors. Quality gaps were assessed for the topics 'Indication', including shared-decision-making (6 items, 24.5-62.9%) and 'Discharge and Transition' (10 items; 20.7-48.2%). Retest coefficients ranged from r = 0.671 until r = 0.855 and indicated good reliability. Low ratios of item-non-response (0.8-9.3%) confirmed a high acceptance by patients. CONCLUSIONS: The number of patients with complex healthcare needs is increasing. Initiatives to expand quality assurance across organizational borders and healthcare sectors are therefore urgently needed. A validated questionnaire (called PEACS 1.0) is available to measure patients' experiences across healthcare sectors with a focus on quality improvement.

Physician awareness of knee and hip pain in the context of coronary heart disease treatment.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of physical activity for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease (CVD) has been well documented. The aim of the present study was to determine the level of awareness among general practitioners (GPs) of knee and hip problems in patients with CVD or CVD risk. DESIGN: Cross-sectional questionnaire survey. SETTING AND SUBJECTS: Thirty-five Austrian GPs and 1,118 patients were included. The GPs completed an extraction form about the presence or absence of documented evidence of problems related to the knee and/or hip joint within the patient medical data. Patients, in turn, were asked to complete a questionnaire that included the Oxford Knee/Hip Score and the cardiovascular risk-chart established by the European Society of Cardiology. RESULTS: In 748 patients' data from medical records and questionnaires were available. 40.9% of these patients suffered from serious knee pain and 32.1% from hip pain. However, in the medical records, in only 51.3% (knee) and 48.1% (hip) of these pain-patients the problems were documented. CONCLUSION: Joint disorders of the knee and hip problems are considerable barriers to effective physical activity and can therefore contribute to the development of CVD. Our data showed that GP awareness of such knee/hip disorders should be improved.

Identifying factors associated with experiences of coronary heart disease patients receiving structured chronic care and counselling in European primary care.

BACKGROUND: Primary care for chronic illness varies across European healthcare systems. In patients suffering from coronary heart disease (CHD), factors associated with patients' experiences of receiving structured chronic care and counselling at the patient and practice level were investigated. METHODS: In an observational study comprising 140 general practices from five European countries (Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the United Kingdom), 30 patients with Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) per practice were chosen at random to partake in this research. Patients were provided with a questionnaire and the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC-5A) - instrument. Practice characteristics were assessed through a practice questionnaire and face to face interviews. Data were aggregated to obtain two practice scores representing quality management and CHD care, respectively. A hierarchical multilevel analysis was performed to examine the impact of patient and practice characteristics on PACIC scores. RESULTS: The final sample included 1745 CHD-patients from 131 general practices with a mean age of 67.8 (SD 9.9) years. The overall PACIC score was 2.84 (95%CI: 2.79; 2.89) and the 5A score reflecting structured lifestyle counselling was 2.75 (95% CI: 2.69; 2.79). At the patient level, male gender, more frequent practice contact and fewer related or unrelated conditions were associated with higher PACIC scores. At the practice level, performance scores reflecting quality management (p = 0.013) and CHD care (p = 0.009) were associated with improved assessment of the structured chronic care and counselling received. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' perceived quality of care varies. However, good practice management and organisation of care were positively reflected in patients' assessments of receiving structured chronic illness care. This highlights the importance of integrating patient experiences into quality measurements to provide feedback to health care professionals.

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

BACKGROUND: Primary 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. METHODS: In 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. RESULTS: We 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. CONCLUSIONS: CVRM 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.

Development and pilot of an internationally standardized measure of cardiovascular risk management in European primary care.

BACKGROUND: Primary care can play an important role in providing cardiovascular risk management in patients with established Cardiovascular Diseases (CVD), patients with a known high risk of developing CVD, and potentially for individuals with a low risk of developing CVD, but who have unhealthy lifestyles. To describe and compare cardiovascular risk management, internationally valid quality indicators and standardized measures are needed. As part of a large project in 9 European countries (EPA-Cardio), we have developed and tested a set of standardized measures, linked to previously developed quality indicators. METHODS: A structured stepwise procedure was followed to develop measures. First, the research team allocated 106 validated quality indicators to one of the three target populations (established CVD, at high risk, at low risk) and to different data-collection methods (data abstraction from the medical records, a patient survey, an interview with lead practice GP/a practice survey). Secondly, we selected a number of other validated measures to enrich the assessment. A pilot study was performed to test the feasibility. Finally, we revised the measures based on the findings. RESULTS: The EPA-Cardio measures consisted of abstraction forms from the medical-records data of established Coronary Heart Disease (CHD)-patients--and high-risk groups, a patient questionnaire for each of the 3 groups, an interview questionnaire for the lead GP and a questionnaire for practice teams. The measures were feasible and accepted by general practices from different countries. CONCLUSIONS: An internationally standardized measure of cardiovascular risk management, linked to validated quality indicators and tested for feasibility in general practice, is now available. Careful development and pilot testing of the measures are crucial in international studies of quality of healthcare.

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 (Cronbach's alpha 0.92) and adequate test-retest reliability (Pearson's r > 0.7). Relationships to external criteria regarding medication management were acceptable (Spearman's 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.

[An evidence-based seminar changes cognition rather than medical students' personal attitudes towards diagnostic uncertainty in a primary care setting]. / Evidenzbasiertes Seminar im Studium verbessert Verständnis, aber nur wenig die persönli- che Haltung zu diagnostischer Unsicherheit in der Allgemeinmedizin.

Progress in medical research has led to an increased number of diagnostic tests. However, the diagnostic accuracy of these tests often lacks evaluation in the primary care setting. Ignorance of evidence-based diagnostic strategies may cause a distorted estimation of diagnostic certainty in general practice and may increase pointless application of diagnostic tests. This study investigates the attitudes of students towards diagnostic accuracy and evaluates whether a seminar about evidence-based diagnosis has an impact on these attitudes. 424 medical students were asked to complete a questionnaire before and after a 90-minute seminar. Before the seminar, 71% of the students thought that due to a lack of resources some diagnostic tests--although necessary--are not being reimbursed. At the end of the seminar, this proportion was reduced by 12% (p<0.001). The call for global reimbursement for all diagnostic tests was reduced by 25% (p<0.001). In contrast, there was no change in the proportion of students (21%) that incorrectly attributed diagnostic uncertainty to a lower competence of the general practitioner. Thus, it seems that after a single seminar there was a cognitive change concerning the application of diagnostic tests rather than a change in the personal attitudes of students towards diagnostic uncertainty in primary care. In this context, the continuous implementation of the principles of evidence-based medicine would be necessary to improve the students' decision-making skills on the basis of a critical attitude including the reasonable handling of uncertainties in medical care.

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].

BACKGROUND: Diabetes 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/DESIGN: The 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. DISCUSSION: This 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.

Cardiovascular risk factors and motivation for a healthy life-style in a German community--results of the GP-based Oestringen study.

This paper explores the motivation of patients towards a healthy life-style in a small community with a special general practice and community-based health education program in order to identify reasons for different motivations and barriers and to improve preventive measures and outcome. The last of six standardised health surveys carried out over 9 years in the five general practices was therefore combined with a questionnaire to explore the attitudes of a sample of patients from these practices (N = 1044) and all attendees of 11 health education courses (N = 153). In addition to the cardiovascular risk factors, data were collected on sociodemographic factors and motivations for health promotion. The results show that, over time, the risk factors of hypertension (P < 0.001) and smoking (P < 0.005) had decreased. Health-promoting activities were not associated with cardiovascular risk factors; the motivations "duty" and "staying young" correlated with gender (P < 0.05). Patients with good health and white collar professions were more active. About 20% specified specific barriers to health-related activities. As expected, the participants of an educational program were more highly motivated by "fun", "fitness" and "meaningfulness". This group was mainly female. Future preventive measures should take into account that motivation for health promotion depends more on psychosocial factors than on risk factors; frequent obstacles should be noticed in the community.

[An assessment of patient education programmes for patients with type 1 and 2 diabetes, asthma and COPD, coronary heart disease, hypertension, congestive heart failure, and breast cancer in Germany]. / Erhebung und Bewertung von Schulungs- programmen für Patienten mit Diabetes mellitus Typ 1 und Typ 2, Asthma und COPD, KHK, Hypertonie, Herzinsuffizienz und Brustkrebs in Deutschland.

BACKGROUND: Patient education programmes will be a mandatory part of the new legislation on disease management programmes for chronic diseases in Germany. Today, only little is known about the number, variety and effectiveness of implemented patient education programmes in Germany. METHODS: 176 potential providers of patient education programmes were identified by literature search, Internet search, and interviews with health education experts. We developed a semi-structured questionnaire. Assessment of content and quality was conducted in two steps by using defined criteria of the Co-ordinating Committee, the Head Association of the statutory health insurances and the respective Medical Associations: the first step was to check whether the programme had a structured teaching concept and whether all requirements for education with respect to a given disease had been taken into account. In the second step, we used balance sheets for reviewing the strengths and weaknesses of the programmes. RESULTS: 49 providers handed in 95 pa tient education programmes for assess ment. Due to formal mistakes only 91 programmes could be analysed. 49 programmes failed the criteria of the first assessment step. For the remaining 42 patient education programmes balance sheets were prepared. Areas of the most frequent deficiencies included: lack of scientific evaluation of the effectiveness of the programme, lack of transparency of cost data, and quality improvement activities. CONCLUSIONS: For the purpose of a nation-wide implementation of disease management programmes the existing patient education programmes in Germany need to be further improved. Single examples demonstrated that the accessible criteria of self-management are not sufficient for the evaluation of already established patient education programmes.

[Structured medication management in primary care - a tool to promote medication safety]. / Das strukturierte Medikamentenmanagement in der Hausarztpraxis - ein Beitrag zur Förderung der Arzneimitteltherapiesicherheit.

Patients with chronic disease usually need to take multiple medications. Drug-related interactions, adverse events, suboptimal adherence, and self-medication are components that can affect medication safety and lead to serious consequences for the patient. At present, regular medication reviews to check what medicines have been prescribed and what medicines are actually taken by the patient or the structured evaluation of drug-related problems rarely take place in Germany. The process of "medication reconciliation" or "medication review" as developed in the USA and the UK aim at increasing medication safety and therefore represent an instrument of quality assurance. Within the HeiCare(®) project a structured medication management was developed for general practice, with medical assistants playing a major role in the implementation of the process. Both the structured medication management and the tools developed for the medication check and medication counselling will be outlined in this article; also, findings on feasibility and acceptance in various projects and experiences from a total of 200 general practices (56 HeiCare(®), 29 HiCMan,115 PraCMan) will be described. The results were obtained from questionnaires and focus group discussions. The implementation of a structured medication management intervention into daily routine was seen as a challenge. Due to the high relevance of medication reconciliation for daily clinical practice, however, the checklists - once implemented successfully - have been applied even after the end of the project. They have led to the regular review and reconciliation of the physicians' documentation of the medicines prescribed (medication chart) with the medicines actually taken by the patient.

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.

Which practice characteristics are associated with the quality of cardiovascular disease prevention in European primary care?

BACKGROUND: Prevention of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) is a major health issue worldwide. Primary care plays an important role in cardiovascular risk management (CVRM). Guidelines and quality of care measures to assess CVRM in primary care practices are available. In this study, we assessed the relationship between structural and organisational practice characteristics and the quality of care provided in individuals at high risk for developing CVD in European primary care. METHODS: An observational study was conducted in 267 general practices from 9 European countries. Previously developed quality indicators were abstracted from medical records of randomly sampled patients to create a composite quality measure. Practice characteristics were collected by a practice questionnaire and face to face interviews. Data were aggregated using factor analysis to four practice scores representing structural and organisational practice features. A hierarchical multilevel analysis was performed to examine the impact of practice characteristics on quality of CVRM. RESULTS: The final sample included 4223 individuals at high risk for developing CVD (28% female) with a mean age of 66.5 years (SD 9.1). Mean indicator achievement was 59.9% with a greater variation between practices than between countries. Predictors at the patient level (age, gender) had no influence on the outcome. At the practice level, the score 'Preventive Services' (13 items) was positively associated with clinical performance (r = 1.92; p = 0.0058). Sensitivity analyses resulted in a 5-item score (PrevServ_5) that was also positively associated with the outcome (r = 4.28; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: There was a positive association between the quality of CVRM in individuals at high risk for developing CVD and the availability of preventive services related to risk assessment and lifestyle management supported by information technology.

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.

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 (ß 2.24, P < 0.0001) and frequent questioning about medication use (ß 0.66, P = 0.0031). At the patient level, "not [being] married" (ß -0.81, P = 0.0064) and "number of prescribed medications" (ß -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.

What components of chronic care organisation relate to better primary care for coronary heart disease patients? An observational study.

OBJECTIVES: Cardiovascular risk management (CVRM) received by patients shows large variation across countries. In this study we explored the aspects of primary care organisation associated with key components of CVRM in coronary heart disease (CHD) patients. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: 273 primary care practices in Austria, Belgium, England, Finland, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Slovenia, Switzerland and Spain. PARTICIPANTS: A random sample of 4563 CHD patients identified by coded diagnoses in eight countries, based on prescription lists and while visiting the practice in one country each. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: We performed an audit in primary care practices in 10 European countries. We used six indicators to measure key components of CVRM: risk factor recording, antiplatelet therapy, influenza vaccination, blood pressure levels (systolic <140 and diastolic <90 mm Hg), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol <2.5 mmol/l. Data from structured questionnaires were used to construct an overall measure and six domain measures of practice organisation based on 39 items. Using multilevel regression analyses we explored the effects of practice organisation on CVRM, controlling for patient characteristics. RESULTS: Better overall organisation of a primary care practice was associated with higher scores on three indicators: risk factor registration (B=0.0307, p<0.0001), antiplatelet therapy (OR 1.05, p=0.0245) and influenza vaccination (OR 1.12, p<0.0001). Overall practice organisation was not found to be related with recorded blood pressure or cholesterol levels. Only the organisational domains 'self-management support' and 'use of clinical information systems' were linked to three CVRM indicators. CONCLUSIONS: A better organisation of a primary care practice was associated with better scores on process indicators of CVRM in CHD patients, but not on intermediate patient outcome measures. Direct support for patients and clinicians seemed most influential.

Secondary prevention in patients with coronary heart diseases: what factors are associated with health status in usual primary care?

BACKGROUND: For patients with coronary heart diseases a substantial part of secondary prevention is delivered in primary care. Along with the growing importance of prevention, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an indicator of patient-centered care that has gained increased attention. Different approaches for reorganization in primary care have been associated with improvements in HRQoL. However, these are often results of complex interventions. Evidence on aspects concerning usual primary care that actually have an impact on HRQoL remains scarce. Therefore, this observational study aimed to identify factors which are associated with HRQoL in usual primary care at practice and patient-level. METHODS: This observational study was conducted in eight European countries. We were able to match data from survey instruments for 3505 patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) in 228 practices. A multilevel analysis was performed to identify associations of EQ-5D scores at patient and practice-level. RESULTS: After dropping patients with missing information, our cohort consisted of 2656 patients. In this sample, 30.5% were female and the mean age was 67.5 years (SD 10.1). The final model included a total set of 14 potential explanatory variables. At practice-level no variable was associated with EQ-5D. At patient-level, lower education (r = -0.0381, p<0.0001), female gender (r = -0.0543, p<0.0001) and a higher number of other conditions (r = -0.0340, p<0.0001), had a strong negative effect on HRQoL. Strong positive associations with HRQoL were found for a good medication adherence (Morisky) (r = 0.0195, p<0.0001) and more positive evaluations of physicians' clinical behavior (r = 0.0282, p = 0.002). In terms of HRQoL no differences between single-handed and group practices exist. CONCLUSION: The results of our study suggest that a better patient-physician relationship rather than organization of CHD care is associated with higher HRQOL in the primary care setting. The results may imply that interventions to improve HRQoL require a strong patient-centered approach.

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.

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.