Availability of Specialty Services for Cardiovascular Prevention Practice in the Southeastern United States.

OBJECTIVES: A comprehensive cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention approach should address patients' medical, behavioral, and psychological issues. The aim of this study was to understand the clinician-reported availability of a pertinent CVD preventive workforce across various specialties using a survey study in the southeastern United States, an area with a disproportionate burden of CVD and commonly known as the Stroke Belt. METHODS: We surveyed physicians, advanced practice providers (APPs), and pharmacists in internal medicine, family medicine, endocrinology, and cardiology regarding available specialists in CVD preventive practice. We examined categorical variables using the χ2 test and continuous variables using the t test/analysis of variance. RESULTS: A total of 263 clinicians from 21 health systems participated (27.6% response rate, 91.5% from North Carolina). Most were women (54.5%) and physicians (72.5%) specializing in cardiology (43.6%) and working at academic centers (51.3%). Overall, most clinicians stated having adequate specialist services to manage hypertension (86.6%), diabetes mellitus (90.1%), and dyslipidemia (84%), with >50% stating having adequate specialist services for obesity, smoking cessation, diet/nutrition, and exercise counseling. Many reported working with an APP (69%) or a pharmacist (56.5%). Specialist services for exercise therapy, psychology, behavioral counseling, and preventive cardiology were less available. When examined across the four specialties, the majority reported having adequate specialist services for hypertension, diabetes mellitus, obesity, dyslipidemia, and diet/nutrition counseling. Providers from all four specialties were less likely to work with exercise therapists, psychologists, behavioral counselors, and preventive cardiologists. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of providers expressed having adequate specialists for hypertension, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, obesity, smoking cessation, diet/nutrition, and exercise counseling. Most worked together with APPs and pharmacists but less frequently with exercise therapists, psychologists, behavioral counselors, and preventive cardiologists. Further research should explore approaches to use and expand less commonly available specialists for optimal CVD preventive care.

Clinicians' self-reported efficacy in cardiovascular prevention practice in the southeastern United States.

Aim: We assessed self-reported efficacy in cardiovascular prevention practice among internal medicine, family medicine, endocrinology and cardiology clinicians. Patients & methods: We emailed a 21-item questionnaire to 956 physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants and pharmacists. Results: 264 clinicians responded (median age: 39 years, 55% women, 47.9% specialists). Most expressed high self-efficacy in lifestyle counselling, prescribing statins, metformin, and aspirin in primary prevention, but low self-efficacy in managing specialized conditions like elevated lipoprotein(a). Compared with specialists, PCPs expressed lower self-efficacy in managing advanced lipid disorders and higher self-efficacy in prescribing sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists. Conclusion: Self-efficacy in cardiovascular prevention varied across specialties. Future research should explore relevant provider, clinic and system level factors to optimize cardiovascular prevention.

Specialty preference for cardiovascular prevention practice in the Southeast US and role of a preventive cardiologist.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention is practiced concurrently by providers from several specialties. Our goal was to understand providers' preference of specialties in CVD prevention practice and the role of preventive cardiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 11 October 2021 and 1 March 2022, we surveyed providers from internal medicine, family medicine, endocrinology, and cardiology specialties to examine their preference of specialties in managing various domains of CVD prevention. We examined categorical variables using Chi square test and continuous variables using t or analysis of variance test. RESULTS: Of 956 invitees, 263 from 21 health systems and 9 states responded. Majority of respondents were women (54.5%), practicing physicians (72.5%), specializing in cardiology (43.6%), and working at academic centers (51.3%). Respondents favored all specialties to prescribe statins (43.2%), ezetimibe (37.8%), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors (30.5%), and aspirin in primary prevention (36.3%). Only 7.9% and 9.5% selected cardiologists and preventive cardiologists, respectively, to prescribe SGLT2 inhibitors. Most preferred specialists (i.e. cardiology and endocrinology) to manage advanced lipid disorders, refractory hypertension, and premature coronary heart disease. The most common conditions selected for preventive cardiologists to manage were genetic lipid disorders (17%), cardiovascular risk assessment (15%), dyslipidemia (13%), and refractory/resistant hypertension (12%). CONCLUSIONS: For CVD prevention practice, providers favored all specialties to manage common conditions, specialists to manage complex conditions, and preventive cardiologists to manage advanced lipid disorders. Cardiologists were least preferred to prescribe SGLT2 inhibitor. Future research should explore reasons for selected CVD prevention practice preferences to optimize care coordination and for effective use of limited expertise.