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.
Ahmet Fuat a Centre for Integrated Health Care Research,
Wolfson Research Institute, University of Durham, Stockton-on-Tees TS17
6BH, b Darlington Memorial Hospital, Darlington, County Durham DL3
6HX
Correspondence to: A Fuat ahmet{at}fuat.freeserve.co.uk
Objective:
To ascertain the beliefs, current
practices, and decision making of general practitioners in the
diagnosis and management of suspected heart failure in primary care,
with a view to identifying barriers to good care.
What is already known on this topic
Although modern management with accurate diagnosis and treatment
improves prognosis considerably, unacceptable variations exist in the
clinical application of current guidelines for heart failure What this study adds
Uncertainty about diagnosis led to poor uptake of evidence based
treatment strategies for heart failure patients, and, despite
awareness, reluctance to initiate modern treatment Local organisational factors around NHS provision of diagnostic
services, resources, and interaction between primary and secondary care
influence how general practitioners manage heart failure Implementation strategies for heart failure management across primary
and secondary care are needed that are specific to their locality and
multifaceted
Design:
A qualitative approach using focus groups with 30 general practitioners from four primary care groups. The sampling strategy was stratified and purposive. The contents of interviews were transcribed and analysed according to the principles of
"pragmatic variant" grounded theory.
Setting:
North east England.
Results:
Three categories of difficulties contribute to variations in medical practice and to the reasons why general practitioners experience difficulties in diagnosing and managing heart
failure. The first is uncertainty about clinical practice, including
lack of confidence in establishing an accurate diagnosis and worries
about using angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors,
blockers, and
spironolactone in patients who are often elderly and frail, with
comorbidity and polypharmacy. The second is a lack of awareness of
relevant research evidence in what was perceived to be a complex and
rapidly changing therapeutic field. Doubts about the applicability of
research findings in primary care, and fear of information overload
also emerged. The third category consists of influences of individual
preference and local organisational factors. Medical training, negative
clinical experiences, and outside agencies influenced the behaviour of
general practitioners and professional culture. Local factors included
the availability of diagnostic services, resources (such as accessible
cardiologists), and interactions between professionals in primary or
secondary care, and they seemed to shape the practice and decision
making processes in primary care.
Conclusions:
The national service framework for
coronary heart disease stresses that the substandard care of patients
with heart failure is unacceptable. This study identified barriers to
be overcome across primary and secondary care in implementation strategies that are specific to the locality and multifaceted. Single
strategies
for example, the provision of guidelines
are unlikely to
have an impact on clinical outcomes, and new, conjoint models of care
need to be explored.
Heart failure is a common condition with a high morbidity and mortality
and is largely managed in primary care
General practitioners expressed a lack of confidence in establishing an
accurate diagnosis of left ventricular systolic dysfunction, even if
open access echocardiography was available
Read all Rapid Responses