There were no significant effects of interventions on mean blood pressure or cholesterol levels , prescribing , smoking status or body mass index .
There was some suggestion of a " ceiling effect " whereby interventions have a diminishing beneficial effect once certain levels of risk factor management are reached .
There is weak evidence that regular planned recall of patients for appointments , structured monitoring of risk factors and prescribing , and education for patients can be effective in increasing the proportions of patients within target levels for cholesterol control and blood pressure .
BACKGROUND Ischaemic heart disease ( IHD ) is a major cause of mortality and morbidity and its prevalence is set to increase .
Secondary prevention aims to prevent subsequent acute events in people with established IHD .
While the benefits of individual medical and lifestyle interventions is established , the effectiveness of interventions which seek to improve the way secondary preventive care is delivered in primary care or community setting s is less so .
OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness of service organisation interventions , identifying which types and elements of service change are associated with most improvement in clinician and patient adherence to secondary prevention recommendations relating to risk factor levels and monitoring ( blood pressure , cholesterol and lifestyle factors such as diet , exercise , smoking and obesity ) and appropriate prophylactic medication .
Cluster randomised controlled trial to compare three methods of promoting secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in primary care
Abstract Objective : To assess the effectiveness of three different methods of promoting secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in primary care . Design : Pragmatic , unblinded , cluster r and omised controlled trial . Setting : Warwickshire . Subjects : 21 general practice s received intervention ; outcome measured in 1906 patients aged 55 - 75 years with established coronary heart disease . Interventions : Audit of notes with summary feedback to primary health care team ( audit group ) ; assistance with setting up a disease register and systematic recall of patients to general practitioner ( GP recall group ) ; assistance with setting up a disease register and systematic recall of patients to a nurse led clinic ( nurse recall group ) . Main outcome measures : At 18 months ' follow up : adequate assessment ( defined ) of 3 risk factors ( blood pressure , cholesterol , and smoking status ) ; prescribing of hypotensive agents , lipid lowering drugs , and antiplatelet drugs ; blood pressure , serum cholesterol level , and plasma cotinine levels . Results : Adequate assessment of all 3 risk factors was much more common in the nurse and GP recall groups ( 85 % , 76 % ) than the audit group ( 52 % ) . The advantage in the nurse recall compared with the audit group was 33 % ( 95 % confidence interval 19 % to 46 % ) ; in the GP recall group compared with the audit group 23 % ( 10 % to 36 % ) , and in the nurse recall group compared with the GP recall group 9 % ( −3 % to 22 % ) . However , these differences in assessment were not reflected in clinical outcomes . Mean blood pressure ( 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 , and audit groups respectively , as did prescribing of hypotensive and lipid lowering agents . Prescribing of antiplatelet drugs was higher in the nurse recall group ( 85 % ) than the GP recall or audit groups ( 80 % , 74 % ) . After adjustment for baseline levels , the advantage in the nurse recall group compared with the audit group was 10 % ( 3 % to 17 % ) , in the nurse recall group compared with the GP recall group 8 % ( 1 % to 15 % ) and in the GP recall group compared with the audit group 2 % ( −6 % to 10 % ) . Conclusions : Setting up a register and recall system improved patient assessment at 18 months ' follow up but was not consistently better than audit alone in improving treatment or risk factor levels . Underst and ing the reasons for this is the key next step in improving the quality of care of patients with coronary heart disease . 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
There were no significant effects of interventions on mean blood pressure or cholesterol levels , prescribing , smoking status or body mass index .
There was some suggestion of a " ceiling effect " whereby interventions have a diminishing beneficial effect once certain levels of risk factor management are reached .
There is weak evidence that regular planned recall of patients for appointments , structured monitoring of risk factors and prescribing , and education for patients can be effective in increasing the proportions of patients within target levels for cholesterol control and blood pressure .
BACKGROUND Ischaemic heart disease ( IHD ) is a major cause of mortality and morbidity and its prevalence is set to increase .
Secondary prevention aims to prevent subsequent acute events in people with established IHD .
While the benefits of individual medical and lifestyle interventions is established , the effectiveness of interventions which seek to improve the way secondary preventive care is delivered in primary care or community setting s is less so .
OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness of service organisation interventions , identifying which types and elements of service change are associated with most improvement in clinician and patient adherence to secondary prevention recommendations relating to risk factor levels and monitoring ( blood pressure , cholesterol and lifestyle factors such as diet , exercise , smoking and obesity ) and appropriate prophylactic medication .