The effectiveness of a co-management care model on older hip fracture patients in China - A multicentre non-randomised controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines recommend orthogeriatric care to improve older hip fracture patients' outcomes, but few studies have been conducted in China. This study evaluated the effects of an orthogeriatric co-management care model in six Chinese hospitals. METHODS: This non-randomised controlled study was designed as an exploratory trial and was conducted in 3 urban and 3 suburban hospitals. Eligible patients were aged ≥ 65 years with X-ray confirmed hip fracture and admitted to hospital within 21 days of injury. All patients received three times follow-ups within one year (1-month, 4-month and 12-month post admission). Co-management care was implemented in 1 urban hospital, while usual care continued in 5 urban and suburban hospitals. Patient demographics, pre-, peri- and post-operative information, complications and mortality were collected at baseline and follow-ups. The primary outcome was proportion of patients receiving surgery within 48 hours from ward arrival. Secondary outcomes included osteoporosis assessment, in-hospital rehabilitation, length of hospital stay, in-hospital mortality and one-year cumulative mortality. FINDINGS: There were 2,071 eligible patients enrolled (1,110 intervention, 961 control). Compared to usual care, a significantly higher proportion of intervention patients received surgery within 48 hours (75% vs 27%, p<0.0001), osteoporosis assessment (99.9% vs 60.6%, p<0.0001), rehabilitation (99.1% vs 3.9%, p<0.0001) and shorter length of hospital stay (6.1 days vs 12.0 days, p<0.0001). The intervention group saw a significant lower in-hospital mortality rate than the control group (adjusted relative risk 0.021, 95% CI 0.001 to 0.45, P=0.01). One-year cumulative mortality was also significantly reduced in the intervention group (hazard ratio 0.59, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.80, p=0.01). INTERPRETATION: Co-management care of older hip fracture patients resulted in better outcomes, including decreased time to surgery, improved clinical management, and reduced one-year mortality. A randomised controlled trial is needed to provide definitive evidence. FUNDING: The study is supported by Capital's Funds for Health Improvement and Research (2018-1-2071).

An electronic clinical decision support tool to assist primary care providers in cardiovascular disease risk management: development and mixed methods evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Challenges remain in translating the well-established evidence for management of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk into clinical practice. Although electronic clinical decision support (CDS) systems are known to improve practitioner performance, their development in Australian primary health care settings is limited. OBJECTIVES: Study aims were to (1) develop a valid CDS tool that assists Australian general practitioners (GPs) in global CVD risk management, and (2) preliminarily evaluate its acceptability to GPs as a point-of-care resource for both general and underserved populations. METHODS: CVD risk estimation (based on Framingham algorithms) and risk-based management advice (using recommendations from six Australian guidelines) were programmed into a software package. Tool validation: Data from 137 patients attending a physician's clinic were analyzed to compare the tool's risk scores with those obtained from an independently programmed algorithm in a separate statistics package. The tool's management advice was compared with a physician's recommendations based on a manual review of the guidelines. Field test: The tool was then tested with 21 GPs from eight general practices and three Aboriginal Medical Services. Customized CDS-based recommendations were generated for 200 routinely attending patients (33% Aboriginal) using information extracted from the health record by a research assistant. GPs reviewed these recommendations during each consultation. Changes in CVD risk factor measurement and management were recorded. In-depth interviews with GPs were conducted. RESULTS: Validation testing: the tool's risk assessment algorithm correlated very highly with the independently programmed version in the separate statistics package (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.999). For management advice, there were only two cases of disagreement between the tool and the physician. Field test: GPs found 77% (153/200) of patient outputs easy to understand and agreed with screening and prescribing recommendations in 72% and 64% of outputs, respectively; 26% of patients had their CVD risk factor history updated; 73% had at least one CVD risk factor measured or tests ordered. For people assessed at high CVD risk (n = 82), 10% and 9%, respectively, had lipid-lowering and BP-lowering medications commenced or dose adjustments made, while 7% newly commenced anti-platelet medications. Three key qualitative findings emerged: (1) GPs found the tool enabled a systematic approach to care; (2) the tool greatly influenced CVD risk communication; (3) successful implementation into routine care would require integration with practice software, minimal data entry, regular revision with updated guidelines, and a self-auditing feature. There were no substantive differences in study findings for Aboriginal Medical Services GPs, and the tool was generally considered appropriate for use with Aboriginal patients. CONCLUSION: A fully-integrated, self-populating, and potentially Internet-based CDS tool could contribute to improved global CVD risk management in Australian primary health care. The findings from this study will inform a large-scale trial intervention.

Gaps in cardiovascular disease risk management in Australian general practice.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the management of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in Australian general practice. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: National cross-sectional survey of 99 Australian general practitioners participating in the Bettering the Evaluation and Care of Health (BEACH) program. Data on 2618 consecutive adult patients presenting to the participating GPs over a 5-week period from September to October 2006 were analysed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportions of patients screened, treated and reaching targets according to (1) current Australian CVD risk guidelines and (2) overall or absolute CVD risk. RESULTS: Blood pressure (BP) had not been recorded for 13% of the sample. Of 1400 patients not prescribed antihypertensive medication, treatment was indicated for 8%. Of 821 patients already prescribed antihypertensive medication, 59% were achieving target BPs. Data on low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels were not available for 53% of the 2175 patients who should have had lipid screening according to the guidelines. Of 624 patients not prescribed a statin, treatment was indicated for 41%. Of 368 already prescribed a statin, 62% were achieving target LDL cholesterol levels. Sufficient data for calculation of absolute risk had been recorded for 74% of the 1736 patients for whom such calculation was recommended by the guidelines. The remaining 26% either had at least one required variable unmeasured (20%) or missing from the data collection (6%). For those at high absolute CVD risk (without established disease) and those with established CVD, 23% and 53%, respectively, had been prescribed both antihypertensive medication and a statin. CONCLUSIONS: Gaps between guideline recommendations and practice in recording and managing BP were relatively low compared with gaps for lipids. When stratified by absolute risk, patients at high risk of a cardiovascular event were found to be substantially undertreated.