Development of the Champlain primary care cardiovascular disease prevention and management guideline: tailoring evidence to community practice.

PROBLEM ADDRESSED: A well documented gap remains between evidence and practice for clinical practice guidelines in cardiovascular disease (CVD) care. OBJECTIVE OF PROGRAM: As part of the Champlain CVD Prevention Strategy, practitioners in the Champlain District of Ontario launched a large quality-improvement initiative that focused on increasing the uptake in primary care practice settings of clinical guidelines for heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and CVD risk factors. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: The Champlain Primary Care CVD Prevention and Management Guideline is a desktop resource for primary care clinicians working in the Champlain District. The guideline was developed by more than 45 local experts to summarize the latest evidence-based strategies for CVD prevention and management, as well as to increase awareness of local community-based programs and services. CONCLUSION: Evidence suggests that tailored strategies are important when implementing specific practice guidelines. This article describes the process of creating an integrated clinical guideline for improvement in the delivery of cardiovascular care.

Contribution of patient and physician factors to cardiac rehabilitation enrollment: a prospective multilevel study.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is an established means of reducing mortality, yet is grossly underutilized. This is due to both health system and patient-level factors; issues that have yet to be investigated concurrently. This study utilized a hierarchical design to examine physician and patient-level factors affecting verified CR enrollment. DESIGN: A prospective multisite study, using a multilevel design of 1490 coronary artery disease outpatients nested within 97 Ontario cardiology practices (mean 15 per cardiologist). METHODS: Cardiologists completed a survey regarding CR attitudes. Outpatients were surveyed prospectively to assess factors affecting CR enrollment. Patients were mailed a follow-up survey 9 months later to self-report CR enrollment. This was verified with 40 CR sites. RESULTS: Five hundred and fifty (43.4%) outpatients were referred, and 469 (37.0%) enrolled in CR. In mixed logistic regression analyses, factors affecting verified CR enrollment were greater strength of physician endorsement (P=0.005), shorter distance to CR (P=0.001), being married (P=0.01), and fewer perceived CR barriers (P=0.03). CONCLUSION: Both physician and patient factors play a part in CR enrollment. Patient CR barriers should be addressed during referral discussions, and reasons why physicians fail to uniformly endorse CR exploration. Although distance to CR was related to patient enrollment patterns, greater access to home-based CR services should be provided.

Contribution of patient and physician factors to cardiac rehabilitation referral: a prospective multilevel study.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR), in most developed countries, is a proven means of reducing mortality but it is grossly underutilized owing to factors involving both the health system and patients. These issues have not been investigated concurrently. To this end, we employed a hierarchical design to investigate physician and patient factors that affect verified CR referral. METHODS: This study was prospective with a multilevel design. We assessed 1,490 outpatients with coronary artery disease attending 97 cardiology practices. Cardiologists completed a survey about attitudes to CR referral. Outpatients were surveyed prospectively to assess sociodemographic, clinical, behavioral, psychosocial and health system factors that affected CR referral. Responses were analyzed by mixed logistic regression analyses. After 9 months, CR referral was verified at 40 centers. RESULTS: Health-care providers referred 550 (43.4%) outpatients to CR. Factors affecting verified referral included positive physician perceptions of CR (P = 0.03), short distance to the closest CR site (P = 0.003), the perception of fewer barriers to CR (P < 0.001) and a sense of personal control over their condition by the patient (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Physician-related and patient-related factors both contribute to CR referral. The most relevant physician perceptions of such programs are program quality and perceived benefit. For patients, the most relevant factors are perceived barriers to CR, which might be conveyed during prereferral discussions. Work to improve physicians' perceptions and patients' understanding might improve use of rehabilitation services.

Hospitalization costs of primary stenting versus thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction: cost analysis of the Canadian STAT Study.

BACKGROUND: We previously showed that primary stenting was more effective than accelerated tPA in reducing the 6-month composite of death, reinfarction, stroke, or repeat revascularization for ischemia. This study looks at the hospitalization costs of primary stenting compared with accelerated tPA. METHODS AND RESULTS: Initial and 6-month hospitalization costs were computed for all patients randomly assigned to primary stenting (n=62) or accelerated tPA (n=61) in the Stenting versus Thrombolysis in Acute myocardial infarction Trial (STAT). Costs and resource usage were collected in detail for each patient. Physician fees were obtained directly from billings to the Ontario Health Insurance Plan. The length of initial hospitalization was 6.7+/-11.3 days in the stent group and 8.7+/-6.7 days in the tPA group (P<0.001). Total hospitalization days at 6 months were 8.3+/-13 days in the stent group and 12.1+/-14.0 days in the tPA group (P=0.001). Hospitalization costs were less in the stent group for the initial hospitalization, 6354 dollars +/-6382 versus 7893 dollars +/-4429 (P=0.001), and at 6 months, 7100 dollars +/-7111 versus 9559 dollars +/-6933 (P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In centers in which facilities and experienced interventionists are available, primary stenting is less costly and more effective than thrombolysis.