Background: Heart failure (HF) diagnosis as reported in primary care medical records is not always properly confirmed and could result in over-registration.Objectives: To determine the proportion of registered HF that can be confirmed with information from primary care medical records and to analyse related factors.Methods: A cross-sectional study. The medical records of 595 HF patients attended in two primary healthcare centres in Barcelona (Spain) were revised and validated by a team of experts who classified diagnosis into confirmed, unconfirmed, and misdiagnosis. Variables potentially related to the confirmation of the diagnosis were analysed. The revision of medical records and data collection took place from 15 January to 31 March 2014.Results: Mean (standard deviation) age was 78 (10) years and 58% were women. The diagnosis could be confirmed in 53.6% of patients. Factors associated with a greater probability of having a confirmed diagnosis were age (yearly OR: 0.97, 95%CI: 0.95–0.99), cardiologist follow-up (OR: 3.66, 95%CI: 2.46–5.48), history of ischaemic heart disease (OR: 2.18, 95%CI: 1.36–2.48), atrial fibrillation (OR: 2.01, 95%CI: 1.34–3.03), and prescription of loop diuretics (OR: 3.24, 95%CI: 2.14–4.89).Conclusion: Only in half of the patients labelled as HF in primary care medical records could this diagnosis be further confirmed. Variables regularly registered in clinical practice could help general practitioners identify those patients requiring a revision of their HF diagnosis.
BackgroundPrimary care has an important role in cardiovascular risk management (CVRM) and a minimum size of scale of primary care practices may be needed for efficient delivery of CVRM . We examined CVRM in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) in primary care and explored the impact of practice size.MethodsIn an observational study in 8 countries we sampled CHD patients in primary care practices and collected data from electronic patient records. Practice samples were stratified according to practice size and urbanisation; patients were selected using coded diagnoses when available. CVRM was measured on the basis of internationally validated quality indicators. In the analyses practice size was defined in terms of number of patients registered of visiting the practice. We performed multilevel regression analyses controlling for patient age and sex.ResultsWe included 181 practices (63% of the number targeted). Two countries included a convenience sample of practices. Data from 2960 CHD patients were available. Some countries used methods supplemental to coded diagnoses or other inclusion methods introducing potential inclusion bias. We found substantial variation on all CVRM indicators across practices and countries. We computed aggregated practice scores as percentage of patients with a positive outcome. Rates of risk factor recording varied from 55% for physical activity as the mean practice score across all practices (sd 32%) to 94% (sd 10%) for blood pressure. Rates for reaching treatment targets for systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure and LDL cholesterol were 46% (sd 21%), 86% (sd 12%) and 48% (sd 22%) respectively. Rates for providing recommended cholesterol lowering and antiplatelet drugs were around 80%, and 70% received influenza vaccination. Practice size was not associated to indicator scores with one exception: in Slovenia larger practices performed better. Variation was more related to differences between practices than between countries.ConclusionsCVRM measured by quality indicators showed wide variation within and between countries and possibly leaves room for improvement in all countries involved. Few associations of performance scores with practice size were found.
ObjectivesCardiovascular risk management (CVRM) received by patients shows large variation across countries. In this study we explored the aspects of primary care organisation associated with key components of CVRM in coronary heart disease (CHD) patients.DesignObservational study.Setting273 primary care practices in Austria, Belgium, England, Finland, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Slovenia, Switzerland and Spain.ParticipantsA random sample of 4563 CHD patients identified by coded diagnoses in eight countries, based on prescription lists and while visiting the practice in one country each.Main outcome measureWe performed an audit in primary care practices in 10 European countries. We used six indicators to measure key components of CVRM: risk factor recording, antiplatelet therapy, influenza vaccination, blood pressure levels (systolic <140 and diastolic <90 mm Hg), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol <2.5 mmol/l. Data from structured questionnaires were used to construct an overall measure and six domain measures of practice organisation based on 39 items. Using multilevel regression analyses we explored the effects of practice organisation on CVRM, controlling for patient characteristics.ResultsBetter overall organisation of a primary care practice was associated with higher scores on three indicators: risk factor registration (B=0.0307, p<0.0001), antiplatelet therapy (OR 1.05, p=0.0245) and influenza vaccination (OR 1.12, p<0.0001). Overall practice organisation was not found to be related with recorded blood pressure or cholesterol levels. Only the organisational domains ‘self-management support’ and ‘use of clinical information systems’ were linked to three CVRM indicators.ConclusionsA better organisation of a primary care practice was associated with better scores on process indicators of CVRM in CHD patients, but not on intermediate patient outcome measures. Direct support for patients and clinicians seemed most influential.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.