Cargando…

Findings and lessons learnt implementing a cardiovascular disease quality improvement program in Australian primary care: a mixed method evaluation

BACKGROUND: There are discrepancies between evidence-based guidelines for screening and management of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and implementation in Australian general practice. Quality-improvement (QI) initiatives aim to reduce these gaps. This study evaluated a QI program (QPulse) that focusse...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hespe, C. M., Giskes, K., Harris, M. F., Peiris, D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8790896/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35078460
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-07310-6
_version_ 1784640115845365760
author Hespe, C. M.
Giskes, K.
Harris, M. F.
Peiris, D.
author_facet Hespe, C. M.
Giskes, K.
Harris, M. F.
Peiris, D.
author_sort Hespe, C. M.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: There are discrepancies between evidence-based guidelines for screening and management of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and implementation in Australian general practice. Quality-improvement (QI) initiatives aim to reduce these gaps. This study evaluated a QI program (QPulse) that focussed on CVD assessment and management. METHODS: This mixed-methods study explored the implementation of guidelines and adoption of a QI program with a CVD risk-reduction intervention in 34 general practices. CVD screening and management were measured pre- and post-intervention. Qualitative analyses examined participants’ Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) goals and in-depth interviews with practice stakeholders focussed on barriers and enablers to the program and were analysed thematically using Normalisation Process Theory (NPT). RESULTS: Pre- and post-intervention data were available from 15 practices (n = 19,562 and n = 20,249, respectively) and in-depth interviews from seven practices. At baseline, 45.0% of patients had their BMI measured and 15.6% had their waist circumference recorded in the past 2 years and blood pressure, lipids and smoking status were measured in 72.5, 61.5 and 65.3% of patients, respectively. Most high-risk patients (57.5%) were not prescribed risk-reducing medications. After the intervention there were no changes in the documentation and prevalence of risk factors, attainment of BP and lipid targets or prescription of CVD risk-reducing medications. However, there was variation in performance across practices with some showing isolated improvements, such as recording waist circumference (0.7-32.2% pre-intervention to 18.5-69.8% post-intervention), BMI and smoking assessment. Challenges to the program included: lack of time, need for technical support, a perceived lack of value for quality improvement work, difficulty disseminating knowledge across the practice team, tensions between the team and clinical staff and a part-time workforce. CONCLUSION: The barriers associated with this QI program was considerable in Australian GP practices. Findings highlighted they were not able to effectively operationalise the intervention due to numerous factors, ranging from lack of internal capacity and leadership to competing demands and insufficient external support. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Reference Number (ACTRN12615000108516), registered 06/02/2015. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-07310-6.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8790896
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87908962022-01-26 Findings and lessons learnt implementing a cardiovascular disease quality improvement program in Australian primary care: a mixed method evaluation Hespe, C. M. Giskes, K. Harris, M. F. Peiris, D. BMC Health Serv Res Research BACKGROUND: There are discrepancies between evidence-based guidelines for screening and management of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and implementation in Australian general practice. Quality-improvement (QI) initiatives aim to reduce these gaps. This study evaluated a QI program (QPulse) that focussed on CVD assessment and management. METHODS: This mixed-methods study explored the implementation of guidelines and adoption of a QI program with a CVD risk-reduction intervention in 34 general practices. CVD screening and management were measured pre- and post-intervention. Qualitative analyses examined participants’ Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) goals and in-depth interviews with practice stakeholders focussed on barriers and enablers to the program and were analysed thematically using Normalisation Process Theory (NPT). RESULTS: Pre- and post-intervention data were available from 15 practices (n = 19,562 and n = 20,249, respectively) and in-depth interviews from seven practices. At baseline, 45.0% of patients had their BMI measured and 15.6% had their waist circumference recorded in the past 2 years and blood pressure, lipids and smoking status were measured in 72.5, 61.5 and 65.3% of patients, respectively. Most high-risk patients (57.5%) were not prescribed risk-reducing medications. After the intervention there were no changes in the documentation and prevalence of risk factors, attainment of BP and lipid targets or prescription of CVD risk-reducing medications. However, there was variation in performance across practices with some showing isolated improvements, such as recording waist circumference (0.7-32.2% pre-intervention to 18.5-69.8% post-intervention), BMI and smoking assessment. Challenges to the program included: lack of time, need for technical support, a perceived lack of value for quality improvement work, difficulty disseminating knowledge across the practice team, tensions between the team and clinical staff and a part-time workforce. CONCLUSION: The barriers associated with this QI program was considerable in Australian GP practices. Findings highlighted they were not able to effectively operationalise the intervention due to numerous factors, ranging from lack of internal capacity and leadership to competing demands and insufficient external support. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Reference Number (ACTRN12615000108516), registered 06/02/2015. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-07310-6. BioMed Central 2022-01-26 /pmc/articles/PMC8790896/ /pubmed/35078460 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-07310-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Hespe, C. M.
Giskes, K.
Harris, M. F.
Peiris, D.
Findings and lessons learnt implementing a cardiovascular disease quality improvement program in Australian primary care: a mixed method evaluation
title Findings and lessons learnt implementing a cardiovascular disease quality improvement program in Australian primary care: a mixed method evaluation
title_full Findings and lessons learnt implementing a cardiovascular disease quality improvement program in Australian primary care: a mixed method evaluation
title_fullStr Findings and lessons learnt implementing a cardiovascular disease quality improvement program in Australian primary care: a mixed method evaluation
title_full_unstemmed Findings and lessons learnt implementing a cardiovascular disease quality improvement program in Australian primary care: a mixed method evaluation
title_short Findings and lessons learnt implementing a cardiovascular disease quality improvement program in Australian primary care: a mixed method evaluation
title_sort findings and lessons learnt implementing a cardiovascular disease quality improvement program in australian primary care: a mixed method evaluation
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8790896/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35078460
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-07310-6
work_keys_str_mv AT hespecm findingsandlessonslearntimplementingacardiovasculardiseasequalityimprovementprograminaustralianprimarycareamixedmethodevaluation
AT giskesk findingsandlessonslearntimplementingacardiovasculardiseasequalityimprovementprograminaustralianprimarycareamixedmethodevaluation
AT harrismf findingsandlessonslearntimplementingacardiovasculardiseasequalityimprovementprograminaustralianprimarycareamixedmethodevaluation
AT peirisd findingsandlessonslearntimplementingacardiovasculardiseasequalityimprovementprograminaustralianprimarycareamixedmethodevaluation