General practitioners’ justifications for therapeutic inertia in cardiovascular prevention: an empirically grounded typology

Abstract

ObjectiveTo construct a typology of general practitioners’ (GPs) responses regarding their justification of therapeutic inertia in cardiovascular primary prevention for high-risk patients with hypertension.DesignEmpirically grounded construction of typology. Types were defined by attributes derived from the qualitative analysis of GPs’ reported reasons for inaction.Participants256 GPs randomised in the intervention group of a cluster randomised controlled trial.SettingGPs members of 23 French Regional Colleges of Teachers in General Practice, included in the EffectS of a multifaceted intervention on CArdiovascular risk factors in high-risk hyPErtensive patients (ESCAPE) trial.Data collection and analysisThe database consisted of 2638 written responses given by the GPs to an open-ended question asking for the reasons why drug treatment was not changed as suggested by the national guidelines. All answers were coded using constant comparison analysis. A matrix analysis of codes per GP allowed the construction of a response typology, where types were defined by codes as attributes. Initial coding and definition of types were performed independently by two teams.ResultsInitial coding resulted in a list of 69 codes in the final codebook, representing 4764 coded references in the question responses. A typology including seven types was constructed. 100 GPs were allocated to one and only one of these types, while 25 GPs did not provide enough data to allow classification. Types (numbers of GPs allocated) were: ‘optimists’ (28), ‘negotiators’ (20), ‘checkers’ (15), ‘contextualisers’ (13), ‘cautious’ (11), ‘rounders’ (8) and ‘scientists’ (5). For the 36 GPs that provided 50 or more coded references, analysis of the code evolution over time and across patients showed a consistent belonging to the initial type for any given GP.ConclusionThis typology could provide GPs with some insight into their general ways of considering changes in the treatment/management of cardiovascular risk factors and guide design of specific physician-centred interventions to reduce inappropriate inaction.Trial registration numberNCT00348855.

Prevalence of primary aldosteronism in primary care: a cross-sectional study

“…The protocol in this research, intentionally designed to minimise bias, is apparently not compatible with routine daily practice in primary care. 17,50 This is reflected in the discrepancy between the a priori calculated sample size and the number of included patients in this research. Although the planned number of screened patients was not reached, nonetheless a prevalence estimate was achieved with a narrow confidence margin (95%, CI = 1.4 to 4.9).…”

Impact of Sustained Use of a Multifaceted Computerized Quality Improvement Intervention for Cardiovascular Disease Management in Australian Primary Health Care

“…Conversely, there was a significant improvement in recommended prescribing of appropriate treatments among those at high CVD risk in the post‐trial period both for the intervention and control groups. The delayed onset of improvement in the intervention group might be related to doctors not prescribing recommended medications immediately following institution of lifestyle change recommendations or initiatives, or a generally more cautious approach to introducing or accepting new treatments . The improvement in prescriptions in the control group during the post‐trial period suggests the intervention had an impact outside the trial setting, although there are obvious limitations in making this assertion given the observational and uncontrolled nature of the study design.…”

“…The delayed onset of improvement in the intervention group might be related to doctors not prescribing recommended medications immediately following institution of lifestyle change recommendations or initiatives, or a generally more cautious approach to introducing or accepting new treatments. 22 The improvement in prescriptions in the control group during the post-trial period suggests the intervention had an impact outside the trial setting, although there are obvious limitations in making this assertion given the observational and uncontrolled nature of the study design. The secular effects of wider distribution of a new guideline advocating for an absolute risk approach to management of cardiovascular risk may have also had relevance to the observed change.…”

Clinical inertia and the 2017 ACA/AHA guideline

“…Studies from many different settings and countries have demonstrated the existence of clinical inertia. Reasons for clinicians' not intensifying therapy have been studied, and a detailed typology for these reasons has been developed . Reasons for clinical inertia include unwarranted optimism, overconcern about adverse effects, and willingness to further negotiate care.…”

“…Reasons for clinicians' not intensifying therapy have been studied, and a detailed typology for these reasons has been developed. 9 Reasons for clinical inertia include unwarranted optimism, overconcern about adverse effects, and willingness to further negotiate care. It has been suggested that clinicians may not be intensifying therapy due to uncertainty as to what is the patient's "true" blood pressure.…”