Cluster randomised controlled trial to compare three methods of promoting secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in primary

doi:10.1136/bmj.322.7298.1338

BMJ 2001;322:1338 ( 2 June )

Primary care

Cluster randomised controlled trial to compare three methods of promoting secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in primary care

Michael Moher, medical coordinator, ^a Patricia Yudkin, university lecturer in medical statistics, ^a Lucy Wright, nursing coordinator, ^a Rebecca Turner, research associate, ^b Alice Fuller, data analyst, ^a Theo Schofield, university lecturer in general practice, ^a David Mant, professor of general practice, ^a for the Assessment of Implementation Strategies (ASSIST) Trial Collaborative Group.

^a Department of Primary Health Care, University of Oxford, Institute of Health Sciences, Oxford OX3 7LF, ^b MRC Clinical Trials Unit, 222 Euston Road, London NW1 2AD

Correspondence to: M Moher michael.moher{at}dphpc.ox.ac.uk

Objective: To assess the effectiveness of three differentmethods of promoting secondary prevention of coronary heart diseasein primarycare.
Design: Pragmatic, unblinded, cluster randomised controlledtrial.
Setting: Warwickshire.
Subjects: 21 general practices received intervention;outcome measured in 1906 patients aged 55-75 years with establishedcoronary heartdisease.
Interventions: Audit of notes with summary feedback to primaryhealth care team (audit group); assistance with setting up a diseaseregister and systematic recall of patients to general practitioner(GP recall group); assistance with setting up a disease registerand systematic recall of patients to a nurse led clinic (nurserecallgroup).
Main outcome measures: At 18 months' follow up: adequate assessment(defined) of 3 risk factors (blood pressure, cholesterol, andsmoking status); prescribing of hypotensive agents, lipid loweringdrugs, and antiplatelet drugs; blood pressure, serum cholesterollevel, and plasma cotininelevels.
Results: Adequate assessment of all 3 risk factorswas much more common in the nurse and GP recall groups (85%, 76%)than the audit group (52%). The advantage in the nurse recallcompared with the audit group was 33% (95% confidence interval19% to 46%); in the GP recall group compared with the audit group23% (10% to 36%), and in the nurse recall group compared withthe GP recall group 9% ( $-$ 3% to 22%). However, these differencesin assessment were not reflected in clinical outcomes. Mean bloodpressure (148/80, 147/81, 148/81 mm Hg), total cholesterol (5.4,5.5, 5.5 mmol/l), and cotinine levels (% probable smokers 17%,16%, 19%) varied little between the nurse recall, GP recall, andaudit groups respectively, as did prescribing of hypotensive andlipid lowering agents. Prescribing of antiplatelet drugs was higherin the nurse recall group (85%) than the GP recall or audit groups(80%, 74%). After adjustment for baseline levels, the advantagein the nurse recall group compared with the audit group was 10%(3% to 17%), in the nurse recall group compared with the GP recallgroup 8% (1% to 15%) and in the GP recall group compared withthe audit group 2% ( $-$ 6% to 10%).
Conclusions: Setting up a register and recall system improvedpatient assessment at 18 months' follow up but was not consistentlybetter than audit alone in improving treatment or risk factorlevels. Understanding the reasons for this is the key next stepin improving the quality of care of patients with coronary heartdisease.

What is already known on this topic
Effective preventive care of patients with any chronic disease requires planned and quality assured follow up on the basis of an up to date register

Strategies for changing clinical practice in primary care have been of limited effectiveness

What this study adds
Setting up a coronary heart disease register for a practice substantially increases follow up and adequate assessment of patients at risk

Improved assessment and follow up does not necessarily improve clinical outcome

Follow up by nurses is as effective as, and may be more effective than, follow up by doctors

Patients are being followed up and adequately assessed without the recommended preventive drugs being prescribed

© BMJ 2001

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us Add to Digg

Digg

Technorati What's this?

Relevant Articles

Effectiveness of the diabetes education and self management for ongoing and newly diagnosed (DESMOND) programme for people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes: cluster randomised controlled trial: M J Davies, S Heller, T C Skinner, M J Campbell, M E Carey, S Cradock, H M Dallosso, H Daly, Y Doherty, S Eaton, C Fox, L Oliver, K Rantell, G Rayman, K Khunti on behalf of the Diabetes Education and Self Management for Ongoing and Newly Diagnosed Collaborative
BMJ 2008 336: 491-495. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Coronary heart disease registers do not improve clinical outcomes
BMJ 2001 322: 0. [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

Davies, M J, Heller, S, Skinner, T C, Campbell, M J, Carey, M E, Cradock, S, Dallosso, H M, Daly, H, Doherty, Y, Eaton, S, Fox, C, Oliver, L, Rantell, K, Rayman, G, Khunti, K, on behalf of the Diabetes Education and Self Manag, (2008). Effectiveness of the diabetes education and self management for ongoing and newly diagnosed (DESMOND) programme for people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes: cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ 336: 491-495 [Abstract] [Full text]
Khunti, K., Stone, M., Paul, S., Baines, J., Gisborne, L., Farooqi, A., Luan, X., Squire, I. (2007). Disease management programme for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease and heart failure in primary care: a cluster randomised controlled trial. Heart 93: 1398-1405 [Abstract] [Full text]
Jamtvedt, G., Young, J. M, Kristoffersen, D. T, O'Brien, M. A., Oxman, A. D (2006). Does telling people what they have been doing change what they do? A systematic review of the effects of audit and feedback. Qual Saf Health Care 15: 433-436 [Abstract] [Full text]
Byrne, M., Murphy, A. W, Walsh, J. C, Shryane, E., McGroarty, M., Kelleher, C. C (2006). A cross-sectional study of secondary cardiac care in general practice: impact of personal and practice characteristics. Fam Pract 23: 295-302 [Abstract] [Full text]
Clark, A. M., Hartling, L., Vandermeer, B., McAlister, F. A. (2005). Meta-Analysis: Secondary Prevention Programs for Patients with Coronary Artery Disease. ANN INTERN MED 143: 659-672 [Abstract] [Full text]
Turner, R. M, Thompson, S. G, Spiegelhalter, D. J (2005). Prior distributions for the intracluster correlation coefficient, based on multiple previous estimates, and their application in cluster randomized trials. Clin Trials 2: 108-118 [Abstract]
Raftery, J. P, Yao, G. L, Murchie, P., Campbell, N. C, Ritchie, L. D (2005). Cost effectiveness of nurse led secondary prevention clinics for coronary heart disease in primary care: follow up of a randomised controlled trial. BMJ 330: 707- [Abstract] [Full text]
Campbell, N C (2004). Secondary prevention clinics: improving quality of life and outcome. Heart 90: iv29-iv32 [Abstract] [Full text]
Campbell, M. K, Elbourne, D. R, Altman, D. G (2004). CONSORT statement: extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ 328: 702-708 [Full text]
Vale, M. J., Jelinek, M. V., Best, J. D., Dart, A. M., Grigg, L. E., Hare, D. L., Ho, B. P., Newman, R. W., McNeil, J. J. (2003). Coaching patients On Achieving Cardiovascular Health (COACH): A Multicenter Randomized Trial in Patients With Coronary Heart Disease. Arch Intern Med 163: 2775-2783 [Abstract] [Full text]
Lancaster, T. (2003). The benefits of nurse led secondary prevention clinics continued after 4 years. Evid. Based Med. 8: 158-158 [Full text]
Frijling, B D, Lobo, C M, Hulscher, M E J L, Akkermans, R P, van Drenth, B B, Prins, A, van der Wouden, J C, Grol, R P T M (2003). Intensive support to improve clinical decision making in cardiovascular care: a randomised controlled trial in general practice. Qual Saf Health Care 12: 181-187 [Abstract] [Full text]
Murchie, P., Campbell, N. C, Ritchie, L. D, Simpson, J. A, Thain, J. (2003). Secondary prevention clinics for coronary heart disease: four year follow up of a randomised controlled trial in primary care. BMJ 326: 84-84 [Abstract] [Full text]
(2003). OTHER ARTICLES NOTED (Nov 01 to 18 Oct 02). Evid. Based Nurs. 6: e1-1 [Full text]
Summerskill, W. S., Pope, C. (2002). 'I saw the panic rise in her eyes, and evidence-based medicine went out of the door.' An exploratory qualitative study of the barriers to secondary prevention in the management of coronary heart disease. Fam Pract 19: 605-610 [Abstract] [Full text]
Lancaster, T., Moher, M. (2002). Review: multidisciplinary coronary heart disease management programmes improve the process of care and reduce hospital admissions. Evid. Based Med. 7: 62-62 [Full text]
George Carruthers, S (2002). Recall to a general practitioner or to a nurse clinic improved assessment in patients with coronary artery disease. Evid. Based Med. 7: 30-30 [Full text]
Lancaster, T., Moher, M. (2001). Updating guidelines on stable angina. BMJ 323: 1202-1202 [Full text]