Building a national hernia registry in South Africa: initial ventral hernia repair results from a diverse healthcare sector.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper was to introduce a new registry in a developing country by describing the demographics, management and 30-day outcomes of patients undergoing ventral hernia repair in the public and private healthcare sectors of South Africa. METHODS: This study was a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained hernia registry from the 1st of February 2019 to 29th of February 2020. RESULTS: 353 ventral hernia repair cases were recorded of which 47% were incisional hernias and the remainder were primary hernias. The median age was 54 years with even distribution of males and females. Half of the patients were obese with a median BMI of 31 kg/m2. The private sector performed 190 cases (54%) and the public sector 163 cases (46%). The public sector had more current smokers undergoing elective repairs, 28% vs 15%, p = 0.01 and performed more emergency repair cases, 21% vs 8%, p < 0.01. The majority (89%) of hernias were repaired with mesh and one-third were repaired laparoscopically. 30 day follow up was obtained in 30% of cases, the private sector had better follow up rates (42% vs 14%). CONCLUSION: Participation in the HIG (SA) registry was low with poor follow up over the first year. Ongoing prospective data capture on the HIG (SA) hernia registry will continue to provide further insights into hernia repair practices in South Africa.

General practice performance in referral for suspected cancer: influence of number of cases and case-mix on publicly reported data.

BACKGROUND: Publicly available data show variation in GPs' use of urgent suspected cancer (USC) referral pathways. We investigated whether this could be due to small numbers of cancer cases and random case-mix, rather than due to true variation in performance. METHODS: We analysed individual GP practice USC referral detection rates (proportion of the practice's cancer cases that are detected via USC) and conversion rates (proportion of the practice's USC referrals that prove to be cancer) in routinely collected data from GP practices in all of England (over 4 years) and northeast Scotland (over 7 years). We explored the effect of pooling data. We then modelled the effects of adding random case-mix to practice variation. RESULTS: Correlations between practice detection rate and conversion rate became less positive when data were aggregated over several years. Adding random case-mix to between-practice variation indicated that the median proportion of poorly performing practices correctly identified after 25 cancer cases were examined was 20% (IQR 17 to 24) and after 100 cases was 44% (IQR 40 to 47). CONCLUSIONS: Much apparent variation in GPs' use of suspected cancer referral pathways can be attributed to random case-mix. The methods currently used to assess the quality of GP-suspected cancer referral performance, and to compare individual practices, are misleading. These should no longer be used, and more appropriate and robust methods should be developed.

Effect of longer health service provider delays on stage at diagnosis and mortality in symptomatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: This study explored whether longer provider delays (between first presentation and treatment) were associated with later stage and poorer survival in women with symptomatic breast cancer. METHODS: Data from 850 women with symptomatic breast cancer were linked with the Scottish Cancer Registry; Death Registry; and hospital discharge dataset. Logistic regression and Cox survival analyses with restricted cubic splines explored relationships between provider delays, stage and survival, with sequential adjustment for patient and tumour factors. RESULTS: Although confidence intervals were wide in both adjusted analyses, those with the shortest provider delays had more advanced breast cancer at diagnosis. Beyond approximately 20 weeks, the trend suggests longer delays are associated with more advanced stage, but is not statistically significant. Those with symptomatic breast cancer and the shortest presentation to treatment time (within 4 weeks) had the poorest survival. Longer time to treatment was not significantly associated with worsening mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Poor prognosis patients with breast cancer are being triaged for rapid treatment with limited effect on outcome. Prolonged time to treatment does not appear to be strongly associated with poorer outcomes for patients with breast cancer, but the power of this study to assess the effect of very long delays (>25 weeks) was limited. Efforts to reduce waiting times are important from a quality of life perspective, but tumour biology may often be a more important determinant of stage at diagnosis and survival outcome.

Time from first presentation in primary care to treatment of symptomatic colorectal cancer: effect on disease stage and survival.

BACKGROUND: British 5-year survival from colorectal cancer (CRC) is below the European average, but the reasons are unclear. This study explored if longer provider delays (time from presentation to treatment) were associated with more advanced stage disease at diagnosis and poorer survival. METHODS: Data on 958 people with CRC were linked with the Scottish Cancer Registry, the Scottish Death Registry and the acute hospital discharge (SMR01) dataset. Time from first presentation in primary care to first treatment, disease stage at diagnosis and survival time from date of first presentation in primary care were determined. Logistic regression and Cox survival analyses, both with a restricted cubic spline, were used to model stage and survival, respectively, following sequential adjustment of patient and tumour factors. RESULTS: On univariate analysis, those with <4 weeks from first presentation in primary care to treatment had more advanced disease at diagnosis and the poorest prognosis. Treatment delays between 4 and 34 weeks were associated with earlier stage (with the lowest odds ratio occurring at 20 weeks) and better survival (with the lowest hazard ratio occurring at 16 weeks). Provider delays beyond 34 weeks were associated with more advanced disease at diagnosis, but not increased mortality. Following adjustment for patient, tumour factors, emergency admissions and symptoms and signs, no significant relationship between provider delay and stage at diagnosis or survival from CRC was found. CONCLUSIONS: Although allowing for a nonlinear relationship and important confounders, moderately long provider delays did not impact adversely on cancer outcomes. Delays are undesirable because they cause anxiety; this may be fuelled by government targets and health campaigns stressing the importance of very prompt cancer diagnosis. Our findings should reassure patients. They suggest that a health service's primary emphasis should be on quality and outcomes rather than on time to treatment.

Modifiable and fixed factors predicting quality of life in people with colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: People with colorectal cancer have impaired quality of life (QoL). We investigated what factors were most highly associated with it. METHODS: Four hundred and ninety-six people with colorectal cancer completed questionnaires about QoL, functioning, symptoms, co-morbidity, cognitions and personal and social factors. Disease, treatment and co-morbidity data were abstracted from case notes. Multiple linear regression identified modifiable and unmodifiable factors independently predictive of global quality of life (EORTC-QLQ-C30). RESULTS: Of unmodifiable factors, female sex (P<0.001), more self-reported co-morbidities (P=0.006) and metastases at diagnosis (P=0.036) significantly predicted poorer QoL, but explained little of the variability in the model (R(2)=0.064). Adding modifiable factors, poorer role (P<0.001) and social functioning (P=0.003), fatigue (P=0.001), dyspnoea (P=0.001), anorexia (P<0.001), depression (P<0.001) and worse perceived consequences (P=0.013) improved the model fit considerably (R(2)=0.574). Omitting functioning subscales resulted in recent diagnosis (P=0.002), lower perceived personal control (P=0.020) and travel difficulties (P<0.001) becoming significant predictors. CONCLUSION: Most factors affecting QoL are modifiable, especially symptoms (fatigue, anorexia, dyspnoea) and depression. Beliefs about illness are also important. Unmodifiable factors, including metastatic (or unstaged) disease at diagnosis, have less impact. There appears to be potential for interventions to improve QoL in patients with colorectal cancer.

Patient satisfaction with GP-led melanoma follow-up: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There are no universally accepted guidelines for the follow-up of individuals with cutaneous melanoma. Furthermore, to date, there have been no randomised controlled trials of different models of melanoma follow-up care. This randomised controlled trial was conducted to evaluate the effects of GP-led melanoma follow-up on patient satisfaction, follow-up guideline compliance, anxiety and depression, as well as health status. METHODS: A randomised controlled trial of GP-led follow-up of cutaneous melanoma was conducted over a period of 1 year with assessment by self-completed questionnaires and review of general practice-held medical records at baseline and 12 months later. It took place in 35 general practices in North-east Scotland. Subjects were 142 individuals (51.4% women 48.6% men; mean (s.d.) age 59.2 (15.2) years previously treated for cutaneous melanoma and free of recurrent disease. The intervention consisted of protocol-driven melanoma reviews in primary care, conducted by trained GPs and supported by centralised recall, rapid access pathway to secondary care and a patient information booklet. The main outcome measure was patient satisfaction measured by questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were adherence to guidelines, health status measured by Short Form-36 and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. RESULTS: There were significant improvements in 5 out of 15 aspects of patient satisfaction during the study year in those receiving GP-led melanoma follow-up (all P

Factors contributing to the time taken to consult with symptoms of lung cancer: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine what factors are associated with the time people take to consult with symptoms of lung cancer, with a focus on those from rural and socially deprived areas. METHODS: A cross-sectional quantitative interview survey was performed of 360 patients with newly diagnosed primary lung cancer in three Scottish hospitals (two in Glasgow, one in NE Scotland). Supplementary data were obtained from medical case notes. The main outcome measures were the number of days from (1) the date participant defined first symptom until date of presentation to a medical practitioner; and (2) the date of earliest symptom from a symptom checklist (derived from clinical guidelines) until date of presentation to a medical practitioner. RESULTS: 179 participants (50%) had symptoms for more than 14 weeks before presenting to a medical practitioner (median 99 days; interquartile range 31-381). 270 participants (75%) had unrecognised symptoms of lung cancer. There were no significant differences in time taken to consult with symptoms of lung cancer between rural and/or deprived participants compared with urban and/or affluent participants. Factors independently associated with increased time before consulting about symptoms were living alone, a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and longer pack years of smoking. Haemoptysis, new onset of shortness of breath, cough and loss of appetite were significantly associated with earlier consulting, as were a history of chest infection and renal failure. CONCLUSION: For many people with lung cancer, regardless of location and socioeconomic status, the time between symptom onset and consultation was long enough to plausibly affect prognosis. Long-term smokers, those with COPD and/or those living alone are at particular risk of taking longer to consult with symptoms of lung cancer and practitioners should be alert to this.

Influences on pre-hospital delay in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer: a systematic review.

Colorectal cancer is a major global health problem, with survival varying according to stage at diagnosis. Delayed diagnosis can result from patient, practitioner or hospital delay. This paper reports the results of a review of the factors influencing pre-hospital delay - the time between a patient first noticing a cancer symptom and presenting to primary care or between first presentation and referral to secondary care. A systematic methodology was applied, including extensive searches of the literature published from 1970 to 2003, systematic data extraction, quality assessment and narrative data synthesis. Fifty-four studies were included. Patients' non-recognition of symptom seriousness increased delay, as did symptom denial. Patient delay was greater for rectal than colon cancers and the presence of more serious symptoms, such as pain, reduced delay. There appears to be no relationship between delay and patients' age, sex or socioeconomic status. Initial misdiagnosis, inadequate examination and inaccurate investigations increased practitioner delay. Use of referral guidelines may reduce delay, although evidence is currently limited. No intervention studies were identified. If delayed diagnosis is to be reduced, there must be increased recognition of the significance of symptoms among patients, and development and evaluation of interventions that are designed to ensure appropriate diagnosis and examination by practitioners.

Systematic review of factors influencing patient and practitioner delay in diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal cancer.

As knowledge on the causation of cancers advances and new treatments are developed, early recognition and accurate diagnosis becomes increasingly important. This review focused on identifying factors influencing patient and primary care practitioner delay for upper gastrointestinal cancer. A systematic methodology was applied, including extensive searches of the literature published from 1970 to 2003, systematic data extraction, quality assessment and narrative data synthesis. Included studies were those evaluating factors associated with the time interval between a patient first noticing a cancer symptom and presenting to primary care, between a patient first presenting to primary care and being referred to secondary care, or describing an intervention designed to reduce those intervals. Twenty-five studies were included in the review. Studies reporting delay intervals demonstrated that the patient phase of delay was greater than the practitioner phase, whilst patient-related research suggests that recognition of symptom seriousness is more important than recognition of the presence of the symptom. The main factors related to practitioner delay were misdiagnosis, application and interpretation of tests, and the confounding effect of existing disease. Greater understanding of patient factors is required, along with evaluation of interventions to ensure appropriate diagnosis, examination and investigation.

Patient motivations surrounding participation in phase I and phase II clinical trials of cancer chemotherapy.

Successful advances in the treatment of advanced malignant diseases rely on recruitment of patients into clinical trials of novel agents. However, there is a genuine concern for the welfare of individual patients. The aim of this study was to examine motives of patients entering early clinical trials of novel cancer therapies. Questionnaire survey with both open- and close-ended questions. The patients were surveyed after they had given informed consent and before or during the first cycle of treatment. In all, 38 phase I/II trial patients participated and completed the survey. Obtaining possible health benefit was listed by 89% as being a 'very important' factor in their decision to participate, with only 17% giving reasons of helping future cancer patients and treatment. Other items cited as a 'very important' motivating factor were 'trust in the doctor' (66%), 'being treated by the latest treatment available' (66%), 'better standard of care and closer follow-up' (61%), and 'closer monitoring of patients in trials' (58%). Only 47% patients indicated that someone had explained to them about any 'reasonable' alternatives to the trial. In total, 71% strongly agreed that 'surviving for as long time as possible was the most important thing (for them)'. Nearly all (97%) indicated that they knew the purpose of the trial and had enough time to consider participation in the trial (100%). In this survey, most patients entering phase I and II clinical trials felt they understood the purpose of the research and had given truly informed consent. Despite this, most patients participated in the hope of therapeutic benefit, although this is known to be a rare outcome in this patient subset. Trialists should be aware, and take account of the expectations that participants place in trial drugs.

Provision of oncology services in remote rural areas: a Scottish perspective.

There is a paucity of research into rural health care services. In particular little is known about the provision of specialist cancer services for patients who live in remote rural areas of the UK. This study set out to investigate current models of medical and clinical oncology care in Scotland. A national survey with key health professionals was conducted to identify rural oncology schemes currently in operation. Detailed quantitative data about the schemes together with qualitative data on how health professionals view current models of care were collected by a computer-assisted telephone survey. Schemes that currently provide outpatient and chemotherapy oncology services for remote rural patients fell into three categories: central clinics (5); shared care outreach clinics with chemotherapy provision (11); and shared care outreach clinics without chemotherapy provision (7). All radiotherapy was conducted at central clinics (5). Widely varying practices in delivery of cancer care were found across the country. The main issues for professionals about current models of care involved expertise, travelling and accessibility (for patients), communication and expansion of the rural service. Nation-wide consistency in cancer care has still to be achieved. Travelling for treatment was seen to take its toll on all patients but particularly for the very remote, elderly and poor. Most professionals believe that an expansion of rural services would be of benefit to these patients. It is clear, however, that the proper infrastructure needs to be in place in terms of local expertise, ensured quality of care, and good communication links with cancer centres before this could happen.

Factors influencing time from presentation to treatment of colorectal and breast cancer in urban and rural areas.

Stage at diagnosis and survival from cancer vary according to where people live, suggesting some may have delays in diagnosis. The aim of this study was to determine if time from presentation to treatment was longer for colorectal and breast cancer patients living further from cancer centres, and identify other important factors in delay. Data were collected on 1097 patients with breast and 1223 with colorectal cancer in north and northeast Scotland. Women with breast cancer who lived further from cancer centres were treated more quickly than those living closer to cancer centres (P=0.011). Multilevel modelling found that this was largely due to them receiving earlier treatment at hospitals other than cancer centres. Breast lump, change in skin contour, lymphadenopathy, more symptoms and signs, and increasing age predicted faster treatment. Screen detected cancers and private referrals were treated more quickly. For colorectal cancer, time to treatment was similar for people in rural and urban areas. Quicker treatment was associated with palpable rectal or abdominal masses, tenesmus, abdominal pain, frequent GP consultations, age between 50 and 74 years, tumours of the transverse colon, and iron medication at presentation. Delay was associated with past anxiety or depression. There was variation between general practices and treatment appeared quicker at practices with more female general practitioners.

Providing cancer services to remote and rural areas: consensus study.

There is controversy about how cancer care should be provided to patients in remote and rural areas. The aim of this project was to measure consensus among health professionals who treat rural patients with cancer about priorities for cancer care. A modified Delphi process was used. Of 78 health professionals in Grampian, 62 responded (79%). Of 49 items suggested, there was agreement on 26 (53%), encompassing fast access to diagnosis, high-quality specialist treatment, and well-coordinated delivery of care with good and fast communication and effective team working between all health professionals involved. Specialist oncology nurses in local hospitals were considered a priority along with good facilities, accommodation, and transport for patients. There was no agreement on the best location for chemotherapy (local or central). The only large difference of opinion between participants based in primary and secondary care concerned chemotherapy provision at local community hospitals (primary care was in favour, hospital practitioners against, P&<0.001). In making their decisions, participants took problems of access into account, but were also concerned with quality of care and feasibility in the current health service. Our findings show that more evidence is needed regarding the balance of risks and benefits of local chemotherapy provision. Overall, however, there is agreement on many principles for cancer care that could be translated into practice.

Impact of deprivation and rural residence on treatment of colorectal and lung cancer.

For common cancers, survival is poorer for deprived and outlying, rural patients. This study investigated whether there were differences in treatment of colorectal and lung cancer in these groups. Case notes of 1314 patients in north and northeast Scotland who were diagnosed with lung or colorectal cancer in 1995 or 1996 were reviewed. On univariate analysis, the proportions of patients receiving surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy appeared similar in all socio-economic and rural categories. Adjusting for disease stage, age and other factors, there was less chemotherapy among deprived patients with lung cancer (odds ratio 0.39; 95% confidence intervals 0.16 to 0.96) and less radiotherapy among outlying patients with colorectal cancer (0.39; 0.19 to 0.82). The time between first referral and treatment also appeared similar in all socio-economic and rural groups. Adjusting for disease stage and other variables, times to lung cancer treatment remained similar, but colorectal cancer treatment was quicker for outlying patients (adjusted hazard ratio 1.30; 95% confidence intervals 1.03 to 1.64). These findings suggest that socio-economic status and rurality may have a minor impact on modalities of treatment for colorectal and lung cancer, but do not lead to delays between referral and treatment.

Rural and urban differences in stage at diagnosis of colorectal and lung cancers.

There is evidence that patients living in outlying areas have poorer survival from cancer. This study set out to investigate whether they have more advanced disease at diagnosis. Case notes of 1323 patients in north and northeast Scotland who were diagnosed with lung or colorectal cancer in 1995 or 1996 were reviewed. Of patients with lung cancer, 42% (69/164) living 58 km or more from a cancer centre had disseminated disease at diagnosis compared to 33% (71/215) living within 5 km. For colorectal cancer the respective figures were 24% (38/161) and 16% (31/193). For both cancers combined, the adjusted odds ratio for disseminated disease at diagnosis in furthest group compared to the closest group was 1.59 (P = 0.037). Of 198 patients with non-small-cell lung cancer in the closest group, 56 (28%) had limited disease (stage I or II) at diagnosis compared to 23 of 165 (14%) of the furthest group (P = 0.002). The respective figures for Dukes A and B colorectal cancer were 101 of 196 (52%) and 67 of 172 (39%) (P = 0.025). These findings suggest that patients who live remote from cities and the associated cancer centres have poorer chances of survival from lung or colorectal cancer because of more advanced disease at diagnosis. This needs to be taken into account when planning investigation and treatment services.

Treating patients with colorectal cancer in rural and urban areas: a qualitative study of the patients' perspective.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to explore the perspectives of patients receiving treatment for colorectal cancer and compare priorities and attitudes in rural and urban areas. METHOD: A qualitative study was carried out involving four focus groups in the Aberdeen and Northern Centre for Haematology, Oncology and Radiotherapy. The sample comprised 22 patients at various stages of treatment for colorectal cancer and 10 of their relatives from different locations of Northeast Scotland and Shetland. The main themes generated by participants were identified, and similarities and differences between urban and rural patients were noted within these themes. RESULTS: Components of care that were important to rural and urban patients were speed of referral to specialists for treatment and issues of communication including test results and delivery of bad news. Tensions were perceived at the interface of primary and secondary care and these were blamed for delays in referral and communication breakdowns. For some, the referral process comprised a series of barriers to be overcome, and there were additional hurdles for remote patients referred initially to local (non-specialist) hospitals. Rural patients appeared to be less demanding than their urban counterparts when evaluating their care, and this was extended to the acceptance of some clear transport problems. CONCLUSIONS: For patients, the most important components of cancer care were similar, whether rural or urban residents. The main differences for rural patients were lower expectations of care and more hurdles before reaching specialist care. These differences might explain the trend to more advanced disease at diagnosis in rural patients if they lead to significant delays. GPs have major influences on this and all the patients' priorities.

Rural factors and survival from cancer: analysis of Scottish cancer registrations.

In this survival study 63,976 patients diagnosed with one of six common cancers in Scotland were followed up. Increasing distance from a cancer centre was associated with less chance of diagnosis before death for stomach, breast and colorectal cancers and poorer survival after diagnosis for prostate and lung cancers.

Systematic review of cancer treatment programmes in remote and rural areas.

In an attempt to ensure high quality cancer treatment for all patients in the UK, care is being centralized in specialist centres and units. For patients in outlying areas, however, access problems may adversely affect treatment. In an attempt to assess alternative methods of delivering cancer care, this paper reviews published evidence about programmes that have set out to provide oncology services in remote and rural areas in order to identify evidence of effectiveness and problems. Keyword and textword searches of on-line databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, HEALTHSTAR and CINAHL) from 1978 to 1997 and manual searches of references were conducted. Fifteen papers reported evaluations of oncology outreach programmes, tele-oncology programmes and rural hospital initiatives. All studies were small and only two were controlled, so evidence was suggestive rather than conclusive. There were some indications that shared outreach care was safe and could make specialist care more accessible to outlying patients. Tele-oncology, by which some consultations are conducted using televideo, may be an acceptable adjunct. Larger and more methodologically robust studies are justified and should be conducted.

Secondary prevention in coronary heart disease: baseline survey of provision in general practice.

OBJECTIVE: To determine secondary preventive treatment and habits among patients with coronary heart disease in general practice. DESIGN: Process of care data on a random sample of patients were collected from medical records. Health and lifestyle data were collected by postal questionnaire (response rate 71%). SETTING: Stratified, random sample of general practices in Grampian. SUBJECTS: 1921 patients aged under 80 years with coronary heart disease identified from pre-existing registers of coronary heart disease and nitrate prescriptions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Treatment with aspirin, beta blockers, and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors. Management of lipid concentrations and hypertension according to local guidelines. Dietary habits (dietary instrument for nutritional evaluation score), physical activity (health practice indices), smoking, and body mass index. RESULTS: 825/1319 (63%) patients took aspirin. Of 414 patients with recent myocardial infarction, 131 (32%) took beta blockers, and of 257 with heart failure, 102 (40%) took angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors. Blood pressure was managed according to current guidelines for 1566 (82%) patients but lipid concentrations for only 133 (17%). 673 of 1327 patients (51%) took little or no exercise, 245 of 1333 (18%) were current smokers, 808 of 1264 (64%) were overweight, and 627 of 1213 (52%) ate more fat than recommended. CONCLUSION: In terms of secondary prevention, half of patients had at least two aspects of their medical management that were suboptimal and nearly two thirds had at least two aspects of their health behaviour that would benefit from change. There seems to be considerable potential to increase secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in general practice.

Secondary prevention in coronary heart disease: a randomised trial of nurse led clinics in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether nurse run clinics in general practice improve secondary prevention in patients with coronary heart disease. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: A random sample of 19 general practices in northeast Scotland. PATIENTS: 1173 patients (685 men and 488 women) under 80 years with working diagnoses of coronary heart disease, but without terminal illness or dementia and not housebound. INTERVENTION: Nurse run clinics promoted medical and lifestyle aspects of secondary prevention and offered regular follow up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Components of secondary prevention assessed at baseline and one year were: aspirin use; blood pressure management; lipid management; physical activity; dietary fat; and smoking status. A cumulative score was generated by counting the number of appropriate components of secondary prevention for each patient. RESULTS: There were significant improvements in aspirin management (odds ratio 3.22, 95% confidence interval 2.15 to 4.80), blood pressure management (5.32, 3.01 to 9.41), lipid management (3.19, 2.39 to 4.26), physical activity (1.67, 1.23 to 2.26) and diet (1.47, 1.10 to 1.96). There was no effect on smoking cessation (0.78, 0.47 to 1.28). Of six possible components of secondary prevention, the baseline mean was 3.27. The adjusted mean improvement attributable to intervention was 0.55 of a component (0.44 to 0.67). Improvement was found regardless of practice baseline performance. CONCLUSIONS: Nurse run clinics proved practical to implement in general practice and effectively increased secondary prevention in coronary heart disease. Most patients gained at least one effective component of secondary prevention and, for them, future cardiovascular events and mortality could be reduced by up to a third.