The effects of multidisciplinary collaborative care on cardiovascular risk factors among patients with diabetes in primary care settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary collaborative care has been widely recommended as an effective strategy for managing diabetes; however, the cardiovascular risk factors of patients with diabetes are often inadequately managed in primary care settings. This study aimed to assess the effect of multidisciplinary collaboration on cardiovascular risk factors among patients with diabetes in primary care settings. METHODS: Five databases (i.e., Medline, Embase, CINAHL, SCOPUS and CENTRAL) were systematically searched to retrieve randomised controlled trials. Studies were eligible for inclusion if the interventions included a multidisciplinary team with professionals from at least three health disciplines and focused on patients with diabetes in primary care settings. A random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled effects. RESULTS: In total, 19 studies comprising 6538 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed that compared with usual care, multidisciplinary collaborative care significantly reduced cardiovascular risk factors, including mean systolic blood pressure (-3.27 mm Hg, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: -4.72 to -1.82, p < 0.01), diastolic blood pressure (-1.4 mm Hg, 95 % CI: -2.32 to -0.47, p < 0.01), glycated haemoglobin (-0.42 %, 95 % CI: -0.59 to -0.25, p < 0.01), low-density lipoprotein (-0.16 mmol/L, 95 % CI: -0.26 to -0.06, p < 0.01) and high-density lipoprotein (0.06 mmol/L, 95 % CI: 0.00-0.12, p < 0.05). The subgroup analysis showed multidisciplinary collaboration was more effective in reducing cardiovascular risk factors when it comprised team members from a number of different disciplines, combined pharmacological and non-pharmacological components, included both face-to-face and remote interactions and was implemented in high-income countries. CONCLUSION: Multidisciplinary collaborative care is associated with reduced cardiovascular risk factors among patients with diabetes in primary care. Further studies need to be conducted to determine the optimal team composition.

Process evaluation of a data-driven quality improvement program within a cluster randomised controlled trial to improve coronary heart disease management in Australian primary care.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluates primary care practices' engagement with various features of a quality improvement (QI) intervention for patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) in four Australian states. METHODS: Twenty-seven practices participated in the QI intervention from November 2019 -November 2020. A combination of surveys, semi-structured interviews and other materials within the QUality improvement in primary care to prevent hospitalisations and improve Effectiveness and efficiency of care for people Living with heart disease (QUEL) study were used in the process evaluation. Data were summarised using descriptive statistical and thematic analyses for 26 practices. RESULTS: Sixty-four practice team members and Primary Health Networks staff provided feedback, and nine of the 63 participants participated in the interviews. Seventy-eight percent (40/54) were either general practitioners or practice managers. Although 69% of the practices self-reported improvement in their management of heart disease, engagement with the intervention varied. Forty-two percent (11/26) of the practices attended five or more learning workshops, 69% (18/26) used Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles, and the median (Interquartile intervals) visits per practice to the online SharePoint site were 170 (146-252) visits. Qualitative data identified learning workshops and monthly feedback reports as the key features of the intervention. CONCLUSION: Practice engagement in a multi-featured data-driven QI intervention was common, with learning workshops and monthly feedback reports identified as the most useful features. A better understanding of these features will help influence future implementation of similar interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) number ACTRN12619001790134.

The evaluation of the Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles for a healthcare quality improvement intervention in primary care.

BACKGROUND: The Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle is an iterative framework that has been gaining traction in primary care for quality improvement. However, its implementation remains understudied. This study evaluated the completion, achievement of goal, content quality, and enablers and barriers associated with completion of high-quality PDSA cycles in cardiovascular disease management in general practices. METHODS: This study analysed data from intervention practices of the QUality improvement in primary care to prevent hospitalisations and improve Effectiveness and efficiency of care for people Living people with coronary heart disease (QUEL) study. Content quality of cycles was assessed using a scoring system created based on established criteria of ideal PDSA cycles in the healthcare context. Practice-level factors associated with completion and cycles achieving the planned goal were explored through logistic regression models, and with content quality score through linear regression model. Enablers and barriers were assessed using thematic analysis of practices' responses to the PDSA sections. RESULTS: Ninety-seven cycles were reported by 18/26 (69%) practices. Seventy-seven percent of the cycles were completed and 68% achieved the planned goal. Content quality was low, with a median score of 56% (interquartile interval: 44%, 67%). Odds of cycles that were completed and achieved what was planned increased by 3.6- and 9.6-fold, respectively, with more general practitioners (GPs) within practices. Content quality was higher by 15% with more GPs. Lack of interprofessional engagement was a barrier to implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Cycles were well completed, but poor in content quality, with high variability between practices. Human or capital resources and organisational support may be critical for the completion and cycles achieving the planned goals.

Time-resolved phosphoproteome and proteome analysis reveals kinase signaling on master transcription factors during myogenesis.

Myogenesis is governed by signaling networks that are tightly regulated in a time-dependent manner. Although different protein kinases have been identified, knowledge of the global signaling networks and their downstream substrates during myogenesis remains incomplete. Here, we map the myogenic differentiation of C2C12 cells using phosphoproteomics and proteomics. From these data, we infer global kinase activity and predict the substrates that are involved in myogenesis. We found that multiple mitogen-activated protein kinases (MAPKs) mark the initial wave of signaling cascades. Further phosphoproteomic and proteomic profiling with MAPK1/3 and MAPK8/9 specific inhibitions unveil their shared and distinctive roles in myogenesis. Lastly, we identified and validated the transcription factor nuclear factor 1 X-type (NFIX) as a novel MAPK1/3 substrate and demonstrated the functional impact of NFIX phosphorylation on myogenesis. Altogether, these data characterize the dynamics, interactions, and downstream control of kinase signaling networks during myogenesis on a global scale.