Dataset Information

Training general practitioners to improve evidence-based drug treatment of patients with heart failure: a cluster randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: AIMS:To assess whether a single training session for general practitioners (GPs) improves the evidence-based drug treatment of heart failure (HF) patients, especially of those with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS AND RESULTS:A cluster randomised controlled trial was performed for which patients with established HF were eligible. Primary care practices (PCPs) were randomised to care-as-usual or to the intervention group in which GPs received a half-day training session on HF management. Changes in HF medication, health status, hospitalisation and survival were compared between the two groups. Fifteen PCPs with 200 HF patients were randomised to the intervention group and 15 PCPs with 198 HF patients to the control group. Mean age was 76.9 (SD 10.8) years; 52.5% were female. On average, the patients had been diagnosed with HF 3.0 (SD 3.0) years previously. In total, 204 had HFrEF and 194 HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). In participants with HFrEF, the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers decreased in 6 months in both groups [5.2%; (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.0-10.0)] and 5.6% (95% CI 2.8-13.4)], respectively [baseline-corrected odds ratio (OR) 1.07 (95% CI 0.55-2.08)], while beta-blocker use increased in both groups by 5.2% (95% CI 2.0-10.0) and 1.1% (95% CI 0.2-6.3), respectively [baseline-corrected OR 0.82 (95% CI 0.42-1.61)]. For health status, hospitalisations or survival after 12-28 months there were no significant differences between the two groups, also not when separately analysed for HFrEF and HFpEF. CONCLUSION:A half-day training session for GPs does not improve drug treatment of HF in patients with established HF.

SUBMITTER: Valk MJM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7596131 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Training general practitioners to improve evidence-based drug treatment of patients with heart failure: a cluster randomised controlled trial.

Valk M J M MJM Hoes A W AW Mosterd A A Landman M A MA Zuithoff N P A NPA Broekhuizen B D L BDL Rutten F H FH

Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation 20201101 11

<h4>Aims</h4>To assess whether a single training session for general practitioners (GPs) improves the evidence-based drug treatment of heart failure (HF) patients, especially of those with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).<h4>Methods and results</h4>A cluster randomised controlled trial was performed for which patients with established HF were eligible. Primary care practices (PCPs) were randomised to care-as-usual or to the intervention group in which GPs received a half-day training s ...[more]

PMID: 32997300

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe German clinical guideline on tobacco addiction recommends that general practitioners (GPs) provide brief stop-smoking advice to their patients according to the "5A" or the much briefer "ABC" method, but its implementation is insufficient. A lack of training is one barrier for GPs to provide such advice. Moreover, the respective effectiveness of a 5A or ABC training regarding subsequent delivery of stop-smoking advice has not been investigated. We developed a training for GPs according to both methods, and conducted a pilot study with process evaluation to optimize the trainings according to the needs of GPs. This study aims at evaluating the effectiveness of both trainings.MethodsA pragmatic 2-arm cluster randomised controlled trial with a pre-post data collection will be conducted in 48 GP practices in North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany). GPs will be randomised to receive a 3.5-h-training in delivering either 5A or ABC, including peer coaching and intensive role plays with professional actors. The patient-reported primary outcome (receipt of GP advice to quit: yes/no) and secondary outcomes (recommendation rates of smoking cessation treatments, group comparison (5A versus ABC): receipt of GP advice to quit) will be collected in smoking patients routinely consulting their GP within 4?weeks prior, and 4?weeks following the training. Additional secondary outcomes will be collected at 4, 12 and 26?weeks following the consultation: use of cessation treatments during the last quit attempt (if so) since the GP consultation, and point-prevalence abstinence rates. The primary data analysis will be conducted using a mixed-effects logistic regression model with random effects for the cluster variable.DiscussionIf the training increases the rates of delivery of stop-smoking advice, it would offer a low-threshold strategy for the guideline implementation in German primary care. Should one method prove superior, a more specific guideline recommendation can be proposed.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00012786); registered on 22th August 2017, prior to the first patient in.

Project description:BACKGROUND:For a decade, experts have suggested integrating mental health care into primary care to help bridge mental health Treatment Gap. General Practitioners (GPs) are the first port-of-call for many patients with mental ill-health. In Indonesia, the WHO mhGAP is being systematically introduced to its network of 10,000 primary care clinics as an add-on mental health training for pairs of GPs and Nurses, since the end of 2015. In one of 34 provinces, there exists an integrated care model: the co-location of clinical psychologists in primary care clinics. This trial evaluates patient outcomes among those provided mental health care by GPs with those treated by clinical psychologists in primary care. METHODS:In this partially-randomised, pragmatic, two-arm cluster non-inferiority trial, 14 primary care clinics were assigned to receive the WHO mhGAP training and 14 clinics with the co-location framework were assigned to the Specialist arm. Participants (patients) were blinded to the existence of the other pathway, and outcome assessors were blinded to group assignment. All adult primary care patients who screened positive for psychiatric morbidity were eligible. GPs offered psychosocial and/or pharmacological interventions and Clinical Psychologists offered psychosocial interventions. The primary outcome was health and social functioning as measured by the HoNOS and secondary outcomes include disability measured by WHODAS 2.0, health-related quality of life measured by EQ-5D-3L, and resource use and costs evaluated from a health services perspective, at six months. RESULTS:153 patients completed the outcome assessment following GP care alongside 141 patients following Clinical Psychologists care. Outcomes of GP care were proven to be statistically not inferior to Clinical Psychologists in reducing symptoms of social and physical impairment, reducing disability, and improving health-related quality of life at six months. Economic analyses indicate lower costs and better outcomes in the Specialist arm and suggest a 50% probability of WHO mhGAP framework being cost-effective at the Indonesian willingness to pay threshold per QALY. CONCLUSION:General Practitioners supported by nurses in primary care clinics could effectively manage mild to moderate mental health issues commonly found among primary care patients. They provide non-stigmatising mental health care within community context, helping to reduce the mental health Treatment Gap. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02700490.

Project description:BackgroundEarly diagnosis of dementia benefits both patient and caregiver. Nevertheless, dementia in primary care is currently under-diagnosed. Some educational interventions developed to improve dementia diagnosis and management were successful in increasing the number of dementia diagnoses and in changing attitudes and knowledge of health care staff. However, none of these interventions focussed on collaboration between GPs and nurses in dementia care. We developed an EASYcare-based Dementia Training Program (DTP) aimed at stimulating collaboration in dementia primary care. We expect this program to increase the number of cognitive assessments and dementia diagnoses and to improve attitudes and knowledge of GPs and nurses.MethodsThe DTP is a complex educational intervention that consists of two workshops, a coaching program, access to an internet forum, and a Computerized Clinical Decision Support System on dementia diagnostics. One hundred duos of GPs and nurses will be recruited, from which 2/3 will be allocated to the intervention group and 1/3 to the control group. The effects of implementation of the DTP will be studied in a cluster-randomised controlled trial. Primary outcomes will be the number of cognitive assessments and dementia diagnoses in a period of 9 months following workshop participation. Secondary outcomes are measured on GP and nurse level: adherence to national guidelines for dementia, attitude, confidence and knowledge regarding dementia diagnosis and management; on patient level: number of emergency calls, visits and consultations and patient satisfaction; and on caregiver level: informal caregiver burden and satisfaction. Data will be collected from GPs' electronic medical records, self-registration forms and questionnaires. Statistical analysis will be performed using the MANOVA-method. Also, exploratory analyses will be performed, in order to gain insight into barriers and facilitators for implementation and the possible causal relations between the rate of success of the intervention components and the outcomes.DiscussionWe developed multifaceted dementia training programme. Novelties in this programme are the training in fixed collaborative duos and the inclusion of an individual coaching program. The intervention is designed according to international guidelines and educational standards. Exploratory analysis will reveal its successful elements. Selection bias and contamination may be threats to the reliability of future results of this trial. Nevertheless, the results of this trial may provide useful information for policy makers and developers of continuing medical education.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT00459784.

Project description:ObjectiveTo test whether a complex intervention facilitating early cancer rehabilitation by involvement of the general practitioner (GP) soon after diagnosis improves patients' satisfaction with their GPs.DesignA cluster randomised controlled trial. All general practices in Denmark were randomised to an intervention or a control group before the start of the study. Patients included those with cancer who were subsequently allocated to either group based on the randomisation status of their GP.ParticipantsAdult patients with cancer treated for incident cancer at the public regional hospital (Vejle Hospital, Denmark) were included between May 2008 and February 2009. A total of 955 patients registered with 323 practices were included, of which 486 patients were allocated to the intervention group and 469 to the control group.InterventionThe intervention included a patient interview assessing the need for rehabilitation, improved information from the hospital to GPs including information on the patients' current needs along with information about needs of patients with cancer in general. Further, GPs were encouraged to proactively contact the patients and facilitate the patients' rehabilitation course.Outcome measures6 months after inclusion of the patient, patient satisfaction with their GP during the last 12 months in five different dimensions of GP care was assessed using the Danish version of the EuroPEP (European Patients Evaluate General Practice Care) questionnaire (DanPEP). 14 months after inclusion, patient satisfaction with the GP regarding the cancer course and GP's satisfaction with own contribution to the patients' rehabilitation course were assessed using ad hoc questions specifically designed for this study.ResultsNo overall effect of the intervention was observed. Subgroup analysis of the patients with breast cancer showed statistically significant improvement of satisfaction with the GP in two of the five DanPEP dimensions.ConclusionsThis complex intervention aiming at improving GPs' services in cancer rehabilitation had no impact on patient satisfaction.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, registration ID number NCT01021371.

Project description:Leadership has become an increasingly important issue in medicine as leadership skills, job satisfaction and patient outcomes correlate positively. Various leadership training and physician psychological well-being programmes have been developed internationally, yet no standard is established in primary care. The IMPROVEjob leadership program was developed to improve job satisfaction among German general practitioners and practice personnel. Its acceptance and effectiveness were evaluated. The IMPROVEjob intervention is a participatory, interdisciplinary and multimodal leadership intervention that targets leadership, workflows and communication in general practices using three elements: (1) two leadership workshops with skills training; (2) a toolbox with printed and online material, and (3) a 9-month implementation phase supported by facilitators. A cluster-randomised trial with a waiting-list control evaluated the effectiveness on the primary outcome job satisfaction assessed by the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (range 0-100). A mixed-methods approach with questionnaires and participant interviews evaluated the acceptance of the intervention and factors influencing the implementation of intervention content. Statistical analyses respected the clustered data structure. The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated intervention adjustments: online instead of on-site workshops, online material instead of facilitator practice visits. Overall, 52 of 60 practices completed the study, with altogether 70 practice leaders, 16 employed physicians, and 182 practice assistants. According to an intention-to-treat analysis, job satisfaction decreased between baseline and follow-up (not significantly) in the total study population and in both study arms, while the subgroup of practice leaders showed a non-significant increase. A mixed multilevel regression model showed no effect of the intervention on job satisfaction (b = - 0.36, p > 0.86), which was influenced significantly by a greater sense of community (b = 0.14, p < 0.05). The acceptance of the IMPROVEjob workshops was high, especially among practice leaders compared to assistants (1 = best to 5 = worst): skills training 1.78 vs. 2.46, discussions within the practice team 1.87 vs. 2.28, group discussions 1.96 vs. 2.21. The process evaluation revealed that the COVID-19 pandemic complicated change processes and delayed the implementation of intervention content in practice routines. The workshops within the participatory IMPROVEjob intervention were rated very positively but the multimodal intervention did not improve job satisfaction 9 months into the pandemic. Qualitative data showed an impairment of implementation processes by the unforeseeable COVID pandemic.Trial registration Registration number: DRKS00012677 on 16/10/2019.

Dataset Information

Training general practitioners to improve evidence-based drug treatment of patients with heart failure: a cluster randomised controlled trial.

Publications

Training general practitioners to improve evidence-based drug treatment of patients with heart failure: a cluster randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets