Transitioning to routine breast cancer risk assessment and management in primary care: what can we learn from cardiovascular disease?

To capitalise on advances in breast cancer prevention, all women would need to have their breast cancer risk formally assessed. With ~85% of Australians attending primary care clinics at least once a year, primary care is an opportune location for formal breast cancer risk assessment and management. This study assessed the current practice and needs of primary care clinicians regarding assessment and management of breast cancer risk. Two facilitated focus group discussions were held with 17 primary care clinicians (12 GPs and 5 practice nurses (PNs)) as part of a larger needs assessment. Primary care clinicians viewed assessment and management of cardiovascular risk as an intrinsic, expected part of their role, often triggered by practice software prompts and facilitated by use of an online tool. Conversely, assessment of breast cancer risk was not routine and was generally patient- (not clinician-) initiated, and risk management (apart from routine screening) was considered outside the primary care domain. Clinicians suggested that routine assessment and management of breast cancer risk might be achieved if it were widely endorsed as within the remit of primary care and supported by an online risk-assessment and decision aid tool that was integrated into primary care software. This study identified several key issues that would need to be addressed to facilitate the transition to routine assessment and management of breast cancer risk in primary care, based largely on the model used for cardiovascular disease.

Barriers to primary care clinician adherence to clinical guidelines for the management of low back pain: protocol of a systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies.

INTRODUCTION: Low back pain is the highest ranked condition contributing to years lived with disability, and is a significant economic and societal burden. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines are designed to improve quality of care and reduce practice variation by providing graded recommendations based on the best available evidence. Studies of low back pain guideline implementation have shown no or modest effects at changing clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: To identify enablers and barriers to adherence to clinical practice guidelines for the management of low back pain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies that will be conducted and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement guidelines. Eight databases will be searched using a priori inclusion/exclusion criteria. Two independent reviewers will conduct a structured review and meta-synthesis, and a third reviewer will arbitrate where there is disagreement. This protocol has been registered on PROSPERO 2014. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required. The systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. The review will also be disseminated electronically, in print and at conferences. Updates of the review will be conducted to inform and guide healthcare translation into practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO 2014:CRD42014012961. Available from http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42014012961.

Contributory factors to patient safety incidents in primary care: protocol for a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Organisations need to systematically identify contributory factors (or causes) which impact on patient safety in order to effectively learn from error. Investigations of error have tended to focus on taking a reactive approach to learning from error, mainly relying on incident-reporting systems. Existing frameworks which aim to identify latent causes of error rely almost exclusively on evidence from non-healthcare settings. In view of this, the Yorkshire Contributory Factors Framework (YCFF) was developed in the hospital setting. Eighty-five percent of healthcare contacts occur in primary care. As a result, this review will build on the work that produced the YCFF, by examining the empirical evidence that relates to the contributory factors of error within a primary care setting. METHODS/DESIGN: Four electronic bibliographic databases will be searched: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo and CINAHL. The database search will be supplemented by additional search methodologies including citation searching and snowballing strategies which include reviewing reference lists and reviewing relevant journal table of contents, that is, BMJ Quality and Safety. Our search strategy will include search combinations of three key blocks of terms. Studies will not be excluded based on design. Included studies will be empirical studies conducted in a primary care setting. They will include some description of the factors that contribute to patient safety. One reviewer (SG) will screen all the titles and abstracts, whilst a second reviewer will screen 50% of the abstracts. Two reviewers (SG and AH) will perform study selection, quality assessment and data extraction using standard forms. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion or third party adjudication. Data to be collected include study characteristics (year, objective, research method, setting, country), participant characteristics (number, age, gender, diagnoses), patient safety incident type and characteristics, practice characteristics and study outcomes. DISCUSSION: The review will summarise the literature relating to contributory factors to patient safety incidents in primary care. The findings from this review will provide an evidence-based contributory factors framework for use in the primary care setting. It will increase understanding of factors that contribute to patient safety incidents and ultimately improve quality of health care.

Patient and carer identified factors which contribute to safety incidents in primary care: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND: Patients can have an important role in reducing harm in primary-care settings. Learning from patient experience and feedback could improve patient safety. Evidence that captures patients' views of the various contributory factors to creating safe primary care is largely absent. The aim of this study was to address this evidence gap. METHODS: Four focus groups and eight semistructured interviews were conducted with 34 patients and carers from south-east Australia. Participants were asked to describe their experiences of primary care. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim and specific factors that contribute to safety incidents were identified in the analysis using the Yorkshire Contributory Factors Framework (YCFF). Other factors emerging from the data were also ascertained and added to the analytical framework. RESULTS: Thirteen factors that contribute to safety incidents in primary care were ascertained. Five unique factors for the primary-care setting were discovered in conjunction with eight factors present in the YCFF from hospital settings. The five unique primary care contributing factors to safety incidents represented a range of levels within the primary-care system from local working conditions to the upstream organisational level and the external policy context. The 13 factors included communication, access, patient factors, external policy context, dignity and respect, primary-secondary interface, continuity of care, task performance, task characteristics, time in the consultation, safety culture, team factors and the physical environment. DISCUSSION: Patient and carer feedback of this type could help primary-care professionals better understand and identify potential safety concerns and make appropriate service improvements. The comprehensive range of factors identified provides the groundwork for developing tools that systematically capture the multiple contributory factors to patient safety.

Barriers to primary care clinician adherence to clinical guidelines for the management of low back pain: a systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies

INTRODUCTION: Despite the availability of evidence-based guidelines for the management of low back pain that contain consistent messages, large evidence-practice gaps in primary care remain.

OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies that have explored primary care clinicians' perceptions and beliefs about guidelines for low back pain, including perceived enablers and barriers to guideline adherence.

METHODS: Studies investigatingperceptions and beliefs about low back pain guidelines were included if participants were primary care clinicians and qualitative methods had been used for both data collection and analysis. We searched major databases up to July 2014. Pairs of reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, extracted data, appraised method quality using the CASP checklist, conducted thematic analysis and synthesized the results in narrative format.

RESULTS: Seventeen studies, with a total of 705 participants, were included. We identified three key emergent themes and eight subthemes: (1) guideline implementation and adherence beliefs and perceptions; (2) maintaining the patient-clinician relationship with imaging referrals; (3) barriers to guideline implementation. Clinicians believed that guidelines were categorical, prescriptive and constrained professional practice; however popular clinical practices superseded the guidelines. Imaging referrals were used to manage consultations and to obtain definitive diagnoses. Clinicians' perceptions reflected a lack of content knowledge and understanding of how guidelines are developed.

DISCUSSION: Addressing misconceptions and other barriers to uptake of evidence-based guidelines for managing low back pain is needed to improve knowledge transfer and close the evidence-practice gap in the treatment of this common condition.

Implementation of the diabetes and hypertension guideline lifestyle recommendations in urban Mongolia: A qualitative study of primary care providers

Abstract
Background: Hypertension and diabetes, key risk factors for cardiovascular disease, are significant health problems globally. As cardiovascular disease is one of the leading causes of mortality in Mongolia since 2000, clinical guidelines on arterial hypertension and diabetes were developed and implemented in 2011. This paper explores the barriers and enablers influencing the implementation of these guidelines in the primary care setting.
Methods: A phenomenological qualitative study with semi-structured interviews was conducted to explore the implementation of the diabetes and hypertension guidelines at the primary care level, as well as to gain insight into how practitioners view the usability and practicality of the guidelines. Ten family health centres were randomly chosen from a list of all the family health centres (n = 136) located in Ulaanbaatar City. In each centre, a focus group discussion with nurses (n = 20) and individual interviews with practice doctors (n =10) and practice managers (n= 10) were conducted. Data was analysed using a thematic approach utilising the Theoretical Domains Framework.
Results: The majority of the study participants reported being aware of the guidelines and that they had incorporated them into their daily practice. They also reported having attended guideline training sessions which were focused on practice skill development. The majority of participants expressed satisfaction with the wide range of resources that had been supplied to them by the Mongolian Government to assist with the implementation of the guidelines. The resources, supplied from 2011 onwards, included screening devices, equipment for blood tests, medications and educational materials. Other enablers were the participants’ commitment and passion for guideline implementation and their belief in the simplicity and practicality of the guidelines. Primary care providers reported a number of challenges in implementing the guidelines, including frustration caused by increased workload and long waiting times, time constraints, difficulties with conflicting tasks and low patient health literacy.
Conclusions: This study provides evidence that comprehensive and rigorous dissemination and implementation strategies increase the likelihood of successful implementation of new guidelines in low resource primary care settings. It also offers some key lessons that might be carefully considered when other evidence-based clinical guidelines are to be put into effect in low resource settings and elsewhere.

Implementation of clinical guidelines on diabetes and hypertension in urban Mongolia: a qualitative study of primary care providers' perspectives and experiences

BACKGROUND: Hypertension and diabetes, key risk factors for cardiovascular disease, are significant health problems globally. As cardiovascular disease is one of the leading causes of mortality in Mongolia since 2000, clinical guidelines on arterial hypertension and diabetes were developed and implemented in 2011. This paper explores the barriers and enablers influencing the implementation of these guidelines in the primary care setting.

METHODS: A phenomenological qualitative study with semi-structured interviews was conducted to explore the implementation of the diabetes and hypertension guidelines at the primary care level, as well as to gain insight into how practitioners view the usability and practicality of the guidelines. Ten family health centres were randomly chosen from a list of all the family health centres (n = 136) located in Ulaanbaatar City. In each centre, a focus group discussion with nurses (n = 20) and individual interviews with practice doctors (n = 10) and practice managers (n = 10) were conducted. Data was analysed using a thematic approach utilising the Theoretical Domains Framework.

RESULTS: The majority of the study participants reported being aware of the guidelines and that they had incorporated them into their daily practice. They also reported having attended guideline training sessions which were focused on practice skill development. The majority of participants expressed satisfaction with the wide range of resources that had been supplied to them by the Mongolian Government to assist with the implementation of the guidelines. The resources, supplied from 2011 onwards, included screening devices, equipment for blood tests, medications and educational materials. Other enablers were the participants' commitment and passion for guideline implementation and their belief in the simplicity and practicality of the guidelines. Primary care providers reported a number of challenges in implementing the guidelines, including frustration caused by increased workload and long waiting times, time constraints, difficulties with conflicting tasks and low patient health literacy.

CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that comprehensive and rigorous dissemination and implementation strategies increase the likelihood of successful implementation of new guidelines in low resource primary care settings. It also offers some key lessons that might be carefully considered when other evidence-based clinical guidelines are to be put into effect in low resource settings and elsewhere.

Implementing guidelines to routinely prevent chronic vascular disease in primary care: the preventive evidence into practice cluster randomised controlled trial

Objective: To evaluate an intervention to improve implementation of guidelines for the prevention of chronic vascular disease. Setting: 32 urban general practices in 4 Australian states. Randomisation: Stratified randomisation of practices. Participants: 122 general practitioners (GPS) and practice nurses (PNs) were recruited at baseline and 97 continued to 12 months. 21 848 patient records were audited for those aged 40-69 years who attended the practice in the previous 12 months without heart disease, stroke, diabetes, chronic renal disease, cognitive impairment or severe mental illness. Intervention: The practice level intervention over 6 months included small group training of practice staff, feedback on audited performance, practice facilitation visits and provision of patient education and referral information. Outcome measures: Primary: 1. Change in proportion of patients aged 40-69 years with smoking status, alcohol intake, body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), blood pressure (BP) recorded and for those aged 45-69 years with lipids, fasting blood glucose and cardiovascular risk in the medical record. 2. Change in the level of risk for each factor. Secondary: change in self-reported frequency and confidence of GPS and PNs in assessment. Results: Risk recording improved in the intervention but not the control group for WC (OR 2.52 (95% CI 1.30 to 4.91)), alcohol consumption (OR 2.19 (CI 1.04 to 4.64)), smoking status (OR 2.24 (1.17 to 4.29)) and cardiovascular risk (OR 1.50 (1.04 to 2.18)). There was no change in recording of BP, lipids, glucose or BMI and no significant change in the level of risk factors based on audit data. The confidence but not reported practices of GPS and PNs in the intervention group improved in the assessment of some risk factors. Conclusions: This intervention was associated with improved recording of some risk factors but no change in the level of risk at the follow-up audit. Trial registration number: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ANZCTR): ACTRN12612000578808, results.

Empowering primary care to tackle the obesity epidemic: the Counterweight Programme

Subjects: Obese patients (body mass index greater than or equal to30 kg/m2) or BMIgreater than or equal to28 kg/m2 with obesity-related comorbidities in 80 general practices.

Intervention: The model consists of four phases: (1) audit and project development, (2) practice training and support, (3) nurse-led patient intervention, and (4) evaluation. The intervention programme used evidence-based pathways, which included strategies to empower clinicians and patients. Weight Management Advisers who are specialist obesity dietitians facilitated programme implementation.

Main outcome measures: Proportion of practices trained and recruiting patients, and weight change at 12 months.

Results: By March 2004, 58 of the 62 (93.5%) intervention practices had been trained, 47 (75.8%) practices were active in implementing the model and 1549 patients had been recruited. At 12 months, 33% of patients achieved a clinically meaningful weight loss of 5% or more. A total of 49% of patients were classed as 'completers' in that they attended the requisite number of appointments in 3, 6 and 12 months. 'Completers' achieved more successful weight loss with 40% achieving a weight loss of 5% or more at 12 months.

Conclusion: The Counterweight programme provides a promising model to improve the management of obesity in primary care.

Sponsorship: Educational grant-in-aid from Roche Products Ltd.

The impact of obesity on drug prescribing in primary care

Background

Healthcare costs attributable to obesity have previously involved estimations based on costs of diseases commonly considered as having obesity as an underlying factor.

Aim

To quantify the impact of obesity on total primary care drug prescribing.

Design of study

Review of computer generated and handwritten prescriptions to determine total prescribing volume for all drug classes.

Setting

Twenty-three general practice surgeries in the UK.

Method

Stratified random selection of 1150 patients who were obese (body mass index [BMI]>30 kg/m2) and 1150 age- and sex-matched controls of normal weight (BMI 18.5–<25 kg/m2). Retrospective review of medical records over an 18-month period.

Results

A higher percentage of patients who were obese, compared with those of normal weight, were prescribed at least one drug in the following disease categories: cardiovascular (36% versus 20%), central nervous system (46% versus 35%), endocrine (26% versus 18%), and musculoskeletal and joint disease (30% versus 22%). All of these categories had a P-value of <0.001. Other categories, such as gastrointestinal (24% versus 18%), infections (42% versus 35%), skin (24% versus 19%) had a P-value of <0.01, while respiratory diseases (18% versus 21%) had a P-value of <0.05. Total prescribing volume was significantly higher for the group with obesity and was increased in the region of two- to fourfold in a wide range of prescribing categories: ulcer healing drugs, lipid regulators, β-adrenoreceptor drugs, drugs affecting the rennin angiotensin system, calcium channel blockers, antibacterial drugs, sulphonylureas, biguanides, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) (P<0.001) and fibrates, angiotensin II antagonists, and thyroid drugs (P<0.05). The main impact on prescribing volumes is from numbers of patients treated, although in some areas there is an effect from greater dosage or longer treatment in those who are obese including calcium channel blockers, antihistamines, hypnotics, drugs used in the treatment of nausea and vertigo, biguanides, and NSAIDs (P<0.05) reflected in significantly increased defined daily dose prescribing.

Current approaches to obesity management in UK Primary Care: the Counterweight Programme

Background/Aims Primary care is expected to develop strategies to manage obese patients as part of coronary heart disease and diabetes national service frameworks. Little is known about current management practices for obesity in this setting. The aim of this study is to examine current approaches to obesity management in UK primary care and to identify potential gaps in care.

Method A total of 141 general practitioners (GPs) and 66 practice nurses (PNs) from 40 primary care practices participated in structured interviews to examine clinician self-reported approaches to obesity management. Medical records were also reviewed for 100 randomly selected obese patients from each practice [body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg m−2, n = 4000] to review rates of diet counselling, dietetic or obesity centre referrals, and use of anti-obesity medication. Computerized medical records for the total practice population (n = 206 341, 18–75 years) were searched to examine the proportion of patients with a weight/BMI ever recorded.

Results Eighty-three per cent of GPs and 97% of PNs reported that they would raise weight as an issue with obese patients (P < 0.01). Few GPs (15%) reported spending up to 10 min in a consultation discussing weight-related issues, compared with PNs (76%; P < 0.001). Over 18 months, practice-based diet counselling (20%), dietetic (4%) and obesity centre (1%) referrals, and any anti-obesity medication (2%) were recorded. BMI was recorded for 64.2% of patients and apparent prevalence of obesity was less than expected.

Conclusion Obesity is under-recognized in primary care even in these 40 practices with an interest in weight management. Weight management appears to be based on brief opportunistic intervention undertaken mainly by PNs. While clinicians report the use of external sources of support, few patients are referred, with practice-based counselling being the most common intervention.

A new evidence-based approach to weight management in primary care: the Counterweight Programme

Background/Aims Obesity has become a global epidemic, and a major preventable cause of morbidity and mortality. Management strategies and treatment protocols are however poorly developed and evaluated. The aim of the Counterweight Programme is to develop an evidence-based model for the management of obesity in primary care.

Methods The Counterweight Programme is based on the theoretical model of Evidence-Based Quality Assessment aimed at improving the management of obese adults (18–75 years) in primary care. The model consists of four phases: (1) practice audit and needs assessment, (2) practice support and training, (3) practice nurse-led patient intervention, and (4) evaluation. Patient intervention consisted of screening and treatment pathways incorporating evidence-based approaches, including patient-centred goal setting, prescribed eating plans, a group programme, physical activity and behavioural approaches, anti-obesity medication and weight maintenance strategies. Weight Management Advisers who are specialist obesity dietitians facilitated programme implementation. Eighty practices were recruited of which 18 practices were randomized to act as controls and receive deferred intervention 2 years after the initial audit.

Results By February 2004, 58 of the 62 (93.5%) intervention practices had been trained to run the intervention programme, 47 (75.8%) practices were active in implementing the model and 1256 patients had been recruited (74% female, 26% male, mean age 50.6 years, SD 14). At baseline, 75% of patients had at one or more co-morbidity, and the mean body mass index (BMI) was 36.9 kg/m2 (SD 5.4). Of the 1256 patients recruited, 91% received one of the core lifestyle interventions in the first 12 months. For all patients followed up at 12 months, 34% achieved a clinical meaningful weight loss of 5% or more. A total of 51% of patients were classed as compliant in that they attended the required level of appointments in 3, 6, and 12 months. For fully compliant patients, weight loss improved with 43% achieving a weight loss of 5% or more at 12 months.

Conclusion The Counterweight Programme is an evidence-based weight management model which is feasible to implement in primary care.

Predictors of primary care referrals to a vascular disease prevention lifestyle program among participants in a cluster randomised trial

Background

Cardiovascular disease accounts for a large burden of disease, but is amenable to prevention through lifestyle modification. This paper examines patient and practice predictors of referral to a lifestyle modification program (LMP) offered as part of a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) of prevention of vascular disease in primary care.

Methods

Data from the intervention arm of a cluster RCT which recruited 36 practices through two rural and three urban primary care organisations were used. In each practice, 160 eligible high risk patients were invited to participate. Practices were randomly allocated to intervention or control groups. Intervention practice staff were trained in screening, motivational interviewing and counselling and encouraged to refer high risk patients to a LMP involving individual and group sessions. Data include patient surveys; clinical audit; practice survey on capacity for preventive care; referral records from the LMP. Predictors of referral were examined using multi-level logistic regression modelling after adjustment for confounding factors.

Results

Of 301 eligible patients, 190 (63.1%) were referred to the LMP. Independent predictors of referral were baseline BMI ≥ 25 (OR 2.87 95%CI:1.10, 7.47), physical inactivity (OR 2.90 95%CI:1.36,6.14), contemplation/preparation/action stage of change for physical activity (OR 2.75 95%CI:1.07, 7.03), rural location (OR 12.50 95%CI:1.43, 109.7) and smaller practice size (1–3 GPs) (OR 16.05 95%CI:2.74, 94.24).

Conclusions

Providing a well-structured evidence-based lifestyle intervention, free of charge to patients, with coordination and support for referral processes resulted in over 60% of participating high risk patients being referred for disease prevention. Contrary to expectations, referrals were more frequent from rural and smaller practices suggesting that these practices may be more ready to engage with these programs.