Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Kate Jolly a Primary Medical Care, University of Southampton,
Aldermoor Health Centre, Southampton SO16 5ST, b Medical Statistics Unit, London
School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, c Department of Medical Statistics and Evaluation, Imperial
College School of Medicine, Hammersmith Hospital, London W12 0NN, d General Practice
and Primary Care Research Unit, Institute of Public Health, University
of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 2SR
Correspondence to: Professor
D Mant, Department of Primary Health Care, University of Oxford,
Institute of Health Sciences, Oxford OX3 7LF
Objective:
To assess the effectiveness of a programme to coordinate and support follow up care in general practice after a
hospital diagnosis of myocardial infarction or angina.
Design:
Randomised controlled trial; stratified random allocation of practices to intervention and control groups.
Setting:
All 67 practices in Southampton and south west Hampshire, England.
Subjects:
597 adult patients (422 with myocardial
infarction and 175 with a new diagnosis of angina) who were recruited
during hospital admission or attendance at a chest pain clinic between April 1995 and September 1996.
Intervention:
Programme to coordinate preventive care
led by specialist liaison nurses which sought to improve communication between hospital and general practice and to encourage general practice
nurses to provide structured follow up.
Main outcome measures:
Serum total cholesterol
concentration, blood pressure, distance walked in 6 minutes, confirmed
smoking cessation, and body mass index measured at 1 year follow up.
Results:
Of 559 surviving patients at 1 year, 502 (90%) were followed up. There was no significant difference
between the intervention and control groups in smoking (cotinine
validated quit rate 19% v 20%), lipid concentrations
(serum total cholesterol 5.80 v 5.93 mmol/l), blood
pressure (diastolic pressure 84 v 85 mm Hg), or fitness
(distance walked in 6 minutes 443 v 433 m). Body mass
index was slightly lower in the intervention group (27.4 v 28.2; P=0.08).
Conclusions:
Although the programme was effective in
promoting follow up in general practice, it did not improve health
outcome. Simply coordinating and supporting existing NHS care is
insufficient. Ischaemic heart disease is a chronic condition which
requires the same systematic approach to secondary prevention applied
in other chronic conditions such as diabetes mellitus.
Key messages
Read all Rapid Responses