How to Evaluate Online Education for General Practitioners: Development of a Tailored Questionnaire for Heart Failure Education.

Physician-oriented online education could be a pathway to improve care for patients with heart failure, however, it is difficult to measure the impact of such education. Self-efficacy is a potential outcome measure. In this article, we develop a methodology for analyzing an educational intervention for general practitioners (GPs) using self-efficacy as a concept. This study was partly conducted within the setting of an observational study, IMPACT-B, where we developed online education for GPs. We designed and refined a 24-item questionnaire using item analysis, and exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Ninety-one GPs completed the questionnaire before and after the online education. Follow-up data after 6 months was available for 13 GPs. Item analysis revealed a high degree of internal consistency (coefficient alpha 0.95) and validity. Each additional year of experience was associated with an average baseline self-efficacy score of 0.50 points (95% CI [0.21-0.80]), and each additional patient in HF follow-up with an average score of 2.0 points (95% CI [0.48-3.5]). Items that differentiated most between GPs with high and low self-efficacy were the treatment of congestion as well as titrating medication and MRA in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Factor analysis reduced the number of questions to 14, mapping to three factors (diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up), and improved the model fit as measured by the goodness-of-fit indicator comparative-fit-index (from 0.83 to 0.91). We demonstrated a method to assess the impact of online education on general practitioners. This led to a questionnaire that was reliable, valid, and convenient to use in an implementation context.

Community pharmacists' perceptions on multidisciplinary heart failure care: an exploratory qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) is an important health problem and guidelines recommend multidisciplinary management. The pharmacist is an important member of the multidisciplinary heart failure team, both in the hospital and community setting. This study aims to explore the perceptions of community pharmacists on their role in HF care. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study based on face-to-face semi-structured interviews with 13 Belgian community pharmacists between September 2020 and December 2020. We used the Qualitative Analysis Guide of Leuven (QUAGOL) method as guidance for data analysis until data saturation was reached. We structured interview content into a thematic matrix. RESULTS: We identified two major themes: heart failure management and multidisciplinary management. Pharmacists feel responsible for the pharmacological and non-pharmacological management of heart failure, citing easy access and pharmacological expertise as important assets. Diagnostic uncertainty, lack of knowledge and time, disease complexity and difficulties in communication with patients and informal care providers are barriers to optimal management. General practitioners are the most important partners in multidisciplinary community heart failure management, although pharmacists perceive a lack of appreciation and cooperation and deplore communication difficulties. They feel intrinsically motivated to provide extended pharmaceutical care in HF but cite the lack of financial viability and information sharing structures as important barriers. CONCLUSION: The importance of pharmacist involvement in multidisciplinary heart failure teams is undisputed by Belgian pharmacists, who cite easy access and pharmacological expertise as important assets. They point out several barriers impeding evidence-based pharmacist care for outpatients with heart failure: diagnostic uncertainty and disease complexity, lack of multidisciplinary information technology and insufficient resources. We recommend that future policy should focus on improved medical data exchanges between primary and secondary care electronic health records as well as the reinforcement of interprofessional relationships between locally affiliated pharmacists and general practitioners.

Mixed-methods evaluation of a multifaceted heart failure intervention in general practice: the OSCAR-HF pilot study.

AIMS: Heart failure (HF) is an important health problem for which multidisciplinary care is recommended, yet few studies involve primary care practitioners in the multidisciplinary management of HF. We set up a multifaceted prospective observational trial, OSCAR-HF, piloting audit and feedback, natriuretic peptide testing at the point of care, and the assistance of a specialist HF nurse in primary care. The aim was to optimize HF care in general practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: This is an analysis at 6 month follow-up of the study interventions of the OSCAR-HF pilot study, a nonrandomized, noncontrolled prospective observational trial conducted in eight Belgian general practices [51 general practitioners (GPs)]. Patients who were assessed by their GP to have HF constituted the OSCAR-HF study population. We used descriptive statistics and mixed-effects modelling for the quantitative analysis and thematic analysis of the focus group interviews. There was a 10.2% increase in the registered HF population after 6 months of follow-up (n = 593) compared with baseline (n = 538) and a 27% increase in objectified HF diagnoses (baseline n = 359 to 456 at T6 M). Natriuretic peptide testing (with or without referral) accounted for 54% (n = 60/111) of the newly registered HF diagnoses. There was no difference in the proportion of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction who received their target dosage of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors or beta-blockers at 6 months compared with baseline (P = 0.9). Patients who received an HF nurse intervention (n = 53) had significantly worse quality of life at baseline [difference in Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) score 9.2 points; 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.0, 14] and had a significantly greater improvement in quality-of-life scores at the 6 month follow-up [change in MLHFQ score -9.8 points; 95% CI -15, -4.5] than patients without an HF nurse intervention. GPs found audit and feedback valuable but time intensive. Natriuretic peptides were useful, but the point-of-care test was impractical, and the assistance of an HF nurse was a useful addition to routine HF care. CONCLUSIONS: The use of audit and feedback combined with natriuretic peptide testing was a successful strategy to increase the number of registered and objectified HF diagnoses at 6 months. GPs and HF nurses selected patients with worse quality-of-life scores at baseline for the HF nurse intervention, which led to a significantly greater improvement in quality-of-life scores at the 6 month follow-up compared with patients without an HF nurse intervention. The interventions were deemed feasible and useful by the participating GPs with some specific remarks that can be used for optimization. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02905786), registered on 14 September 2016 at https://clinicaltrials.gov/.

Diet or medication in primary care patients with IBS: the DOMINO study - a randomised trial supported by the Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE Trials Programme) and the Rome Foundation Research Institute.

BACKGROUND: In Europe, IBS is commonly treated with musculotropic spasmolytics (eg, otilonium bromide, OB). In tertiary care, a low fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides and polyols (FODMAP) diet provides significant improvement. Yet, dietary treatment remains to be explored in primary care. We evaluated the effect of a smartphone FODMAP-lowering diet application versus OB on symptoms in primary care IBS. METHODS: IBS patients, recruited by primary care physicians, were randomised to 8 weeks of OB (40 mg three times a day) or diet and followed for 24 weeks. We compared IBS Symptom Severity Score and the proportion of responders (improvement ≥50 points) in all patients and the subgroup fulfilling Rome IV criteria (Rome+). We also evaluated treatment efficacy, quality of life, anxiety, depression, somatic symptom severity (Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ15, PHQ9)) and treatment adherence and analysed predictors of response. RESULTS: 459 primary care IBS patients (41±15 years, 76% female, 70% Rome+) were randomised. The responder rate after 8 weeks was significantly higher with diet compared with OB (71% (155/218) vs 61% (133/217), p=0.03) and more pronounced in Rome+ (77% (118/153) vs 62% (98/158), p=0.004). Patients allocated to diet (199/212) were 94% adherent compared with 73% with OB (148/202) (p<0.001). The significantly higher response rate with diet was already observed after 4 weeks (62% (132/213) vs 51% (110/215), p=0.02) and a high symptom response persisted during follow-up. Predictors of response were female gender (OR=2.08, p=0.04) for diet and PHQ15 (OR=1.10, p=0.02) for OB. CONCLUSION: In primary care IBS patients, a FODMAP-lowering diet application was superior to a spasmolytic agent in improving IBS symptoms. A FODMAP-lowering diet should be considered the first-line treatment for IBS in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04270487.

Machine learning optimization of an electronic health record audit for heart failure in primary care.

AIMS: The diagnosis of heart failure (HF) is an important problem in primary care. We previously demonstrated a 74% increase in registered HF diagnoses in primary care electronic health records (EHRs) following an extended audit procedure. What remains unclear is the accuracy of registered HF pre-audit and which EHR variables are most important in the extended audit strategy. This study aims to describe the diagnostic HF classification sequence at different stages, assess general practitioner (GP) HF misclassification, and test the predictive performance of an optimized audit. METHODS AND RESULTS: This is a secondary analysis of the OSCAR-HF study, a prospective observational trial including 51 participating GPs. OSCAR used an extended audit based on typical HF risk factors, signs, symptoms, and medications in GPs' EHR. This resulted in a list of possible HF patients, which participating GPs had to classify as HF or non-HF. We compared registered HF diagnoses before and after GPs' assessment. For our analysis of audit performance, we used GPs' assessment of HF as primary outcome and audit queries as dichotomous predictor variables for a gradient boosted machine (GBM) decision tree algorithm and logistic regression model. Of the 18 011 patients eligible for the audit intervention, 4678 (26.0%) were identified as possible HF patients and submitted for GPs' assessment in the audit stage. There were 310 patients with registered HF before GP assessment, of whom 146 (47.1%) were judged not to have HF by their GP (over-registration). There were 538 patients with registered HF after GP assessment, of whom 374 (69.5%) did not have registered HF before GP assessment (under-registration). The GBM and logistic regression model had a comparable predictive performance (area under the curve of 0.70 [95% confidence interval 0.65-0.77] and 0.69 [95% confidence interval 0.64-0.75], respectively). This was not significantly impacted by reducing the set of predictor variables to the 10 most important variables identified in the GBM model (free-text and coded cardiomyopathy, ischaemic heart disease and atrial fibrillation, digoxin, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and combinations of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors and beta-blockers with diuretics). This optimized query set was enough to identify 86% (n = 461/538) of GPs' self-assessed HF population with a 33% reduction (n = 1537/4678) in screening caseload. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic coding of HF in primary care health records is inaccurate with a high degree of under-registration and over-registration. An optimized query set enabled identification of more than 80% of GPs' self-assessed HF population.

The effect of automated audit and feedback on data completeness in the electronic health record of the general physician: protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The electronic health record (EHR) of the general physician (GP) is an important tool that can be used to assess and improve the quality of healthcare. However, there are some problems when (re) using the data gathered in the EHR for quality assessments. One problem is the lack of data completeness in the EHR. Audit and feedback (A&F) is a well-known quality intervention that can improve the quality of healthcare. We hypothesize that an automated A&F intervention can be adapted to improve the data completeness of the EHR of the GP, more specifically, the number of correctly registered diagnoses of type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease. METHODS: This study is a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial with an intervention at the level of GP practice. The intervention consists of an audit and extended electronically delivered feedback with multiple components that will be delivered 4 times electronically to general practices over 12 months. The data will be analyzed on an aggregated level (per GP practice). The primary outcome is the percentage of correctly registered diagnoses of type 2 diabetes. The key secondary outcome is the registration of chronic kidney disease. Exploratory secondary outcomes are the registration of heart failure, biometric data and lifestyle habits, and the evolution of 4 different EHR-extractable quality indicators. DISCUSSION: This cluster randomized controlled trial intends to primarily improve the registration of type 2 diabetes in the EHR of the GP and to secondarily improve the registration of chronic kidney disease. In addition, the registration of heart failure, lifestyle parameters, and biometric data in the EHR of the GP are explored together with 4 EHR-extractable quality indicators. By doing so, this study aims to improve the data completeness of the EHR, paving the way for future quality assessments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04388228 . Registered on May 14, 2020.

Cardiologists' perceptions on multidisciplinary collaboration in heart failure care - a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Cardiologists play a key role in multidisciplinary care by guiding heart failure (HF) management in the hospital and in the community. Regional implementation of multidisciplinary health care interventions depends on how they perceive collaboration with other health care disciplines, yet research on this topic is limited. This study aimed to explore the views and opinions of cardiologists on multidisciplinary collaboration in HF care. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study based on face-to-face semi-structured interviews with 11 Belgian cardiologists between September 2019 and February 2020. We used the Qualitative Analysis Guide of Leuven (QUAGOL) method as guidance for data analysis until data saturation was reached. RESULTS: Cardiologists consider the general practitioner (GP) and HF nurse as the most important partners in HF management. Cardiologists identified four problems in current multidisciplinary collaboration: the communication of a HF diagnosis to the patient, advanced care planning, titration of HF medication by the GP and electronic data exchange and communication. Three themes emerged as ideas for improvement of HF care: 1) expansion of the role of the HF nurse, 2) implementation of a structured, patient-centered, and flexible model of disease management program and 3) integrated data approaches. CONCLUSION: Cardiologists value close cooperation with GPs in HF management. They advocate an expanded future role for the HF nurse, increased eHealth, and structured disease management to optimize current HF care.

Impact of primary care involvement and setting on multidisciplinary heart failure management: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Multidisciplinary disease management programmes (DMPs) are a cornerstone of modern guideline-recommended care for heart failure (HF). Few programmes are community initiated or involve primary care professionals, despite the importance of home-based care for HF. We compared the outcomes of different multidisciplinary HF DMPs in relation to their recruitment setting and involvement of primary care health professionals. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials published in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane between 2000 and 2020 using Cochrane Collaboration methodology. Our meta-analysis included 19 randomized controlled trials (7577 patients), classified according to recruitment setting and involvement of primary care professionals. Thirteen studies recruited in the hospital (n = 5243 patients) and six in the community (n = 2334 patients). Only six studies involved primary care professionals (n = 3427 patients), with two of these recruited in the community (n = 225 patients). Multidisciplinary HF DMPs that recruited in the community had no significant effect on all-cause and HF readmissions nor on mortality, irrespective of primary care involvement. Studies that recruited in the hospital demonstrated a significant reduction in mortality (relative risk 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.76, 0.98]), HF readmissions (0.70, 95% CI [0.54, 0.89]), and all-cause readmissions (0.72, 95% CI [0.60, 0.87]). However, the difference in effect size between recruitment setting and involvement of primary care was not significant in a meta-regression analysis. Multidisciplinary HF DMPs that recruit in the community have no significant effect on mortality or hospital readmissions, unlike DMPs that recruit in the hospital, although the difference in effect size was not significant in a meta-regression analysis. Only six multidisciplinary studies involved primary care professionals. Given demographic evolutions and the importance of integrated home-based care for patients with HF, future multidisciplinary HF DMPs should consider integrating primary care professionals and evaluating the effectiveness of this model.

Implementing standards of care for heart failure patients in general practice - the IMPACT-B study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) is an important health problem. Most chronic HF management occurs in primary care. Although guidelines exist, there is an important implementation gap in current HF care in Belgium. METHODS: We will conduct a non-randomised, non-controlled prospective observational trial to implement guideline-recommended disease management interventions in primary care in Leuven, a region of ±100.000 inhabitants. These interventions include education of general practitioners, reimbursement of the analysis of circulating natriuretic peptides and audits in the electronic health record (EHR), training and implementation of HF educators in primary care, and a protocol to structure transition to primary care after discharge. The main objective is to study and implement interventions in an iterative implementation process. CONCLUSIONS: We will evaluate the implementation of several guideline-recommended disease management interventions to optimise the diagnosis and treatment of heart failure in a real-world primary care setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04334447 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Impact of an extended audit on identifying heart failure patients in general practice: baseline results of the OSCAR-HF pilot study.

AIMS: Identifying heart failure (HF) patients in general practice is challenging, and little is known about the current quality of care. We implemented an extended audit from the electronic health records (EHRs) of general practitioners (GPs) to identify HF patients and investigate patient characteristics and quality of care. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study describes the baseline results of the OSCAR-HF pilot study in eight general practices (51 GPs) in Flanders, Belgium. This prospective trial ran for 6 months. Interventions included an extended audit, an N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide point-of-care test, and assistance of a specialist HF nurse. The extended audit searched on risk factors for HF, HF symptoms, signs, and medication in the GPs' EHR to generate a list of possible HF patients. GPs determined which patients had HF. Those HF patients constituted the OSCAR-HF study population. Each patient file was manually revised to extract biomarker measurements, echocardiography data, and quality indicators. An independent panel of experts assessed the validity of GPs' HF diagnoses. Feedback about the validity of the HF diagnosis was given to the GP. Out of 18 011 patients ≥ 40 years, we identified 310 patients with a registered HF diagnosis before the study start (HF prevalence: 1.7%). The extended audit led to a 74% increase in identified HF patients (n = 538, HF prevalence: 3.0%) with a mean age of 79 ± 11 years. The prevalence of HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) was 20% (n = 110). A high proportion of patients underwent echocardiography in the past 5 years (86%, n = 462). Natriuretic peptides were rarely available in patients' files (19%, n = 100). Medical specialists should improve communication about the HF diagnosis because a specialist diagnosis was present in only 225 patients (42%) while 67% (n = 359) of the HF diagnoses were judged objectified by a panel of experts. Assigning a diagnosis of HF was particularly difficult in HF patients with preserved EF (HFpEF). HFrEF treatment rates with renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockers (84%, n = 92) and beta-blockers (86%, n = 94) were very good; however, target doses were hardly reached (34% and 14%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlighted the need to improve case finding for HF in general practice and showed that an extended audit in the GPs' EHR was a successful strategy to do so. To improve the quality of HF care in general practice, specific strategies are needed to diagnose HFpEF and to reach target doses of disease-modifying drugs in HFrEF patients.