HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Frijling, B D Articles by Grol, R P T M Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Frijling, B D Articles by Grol, R P T M Topic Collections Relevant Article

Intensive support to improve clinical decision making in cardiovascular care: a randomised controlled trial in general practice

¹ Centre for Quality of Care Research, University of Nijmegen, P O Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands
² Department of General Practice, Erasmus University Rotterdam, PO Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Correspondence to:
Dr B D Frijling, Centre for Quality of Care Research, University of Nijmegen, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands;
frijling{at}knmg.nl Objective: To evaluate the effects of feedback reports combined with outreach visits from trained non-physicians on the clinical decision making of general practitioners (GPs) in cardiovascular care.

Design: Pragmatic cluster controlled trial with randomisation of practices to support (intervention group) or no special attention (control group); analysis after 2 years.

Setting: 124 general practices in The Netherlands.

Participants: 185 GPs.

Main outcome measures: Compliance rates for 12 evidence-based indicators for the management of patients with hypertension, hypercholesterolaemia, angina pectoris, or heart failure. The evaluation relied on the prospective recording of patient encounters by the participating GPs.

Results: The GPs reported 30 101 clinical decisions at baseline and 22 454 decisions after the intervention. A significant improvement was seen for five of the 12 indicators: assessment of risk factors in patients with hypercholesterolaemia (odds ratio 2.04; 95% CI 1.44 to 2.88) or angina pectoris (3.07; 1.08 to 8.79), provision of information and advice to patients with hypercholesterolaemia (1.58, 1.17 to 2.13) or hypertension (1.55, 1.35 to 1.77), and checking for clinical signs of deterioration in patients with heart failure (4.11, 2.17 to 7.77). Single handed practices, non-training practices, and practices with older GPs gained particular benefit from the intervention.

Conclusions: Intensive support from trained non-physicians can alter certain aspects of the clinical decision making of GPs in cardiovascular care. The effect is small and the strategy needs further development.

Keywords: cardiovascular disease; decision making; general practice; quality improvement

Relevant Article

Action points

Tim Albert
Qual. Saf. Health Care 2003 12: 236. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]