Feedback GAP: study protocol for a cluster-randomized trial of goal setting and action plans to increase the effectiveness of audit and feedback interventions in primary care

Background

The implementation of new medical knowledge into general practice is a complex process. Blended learning may offer an effective and efficient educational intervention to reduce the knowledge-to-practice gap. The aim of this study was to compare knowledge acquisition about dementia management between a blended learning approach using online modules in addition to quality circles (QCs) and QCs alone.

Methods

In this cluster-randomised trial with QCs as clusters and general practitioners (GPs) as participants, 389 GPs from 26 QCs in the western part of Germany were invited to participate. Data on the GPs' knowledge were obtained at three points in time by means of a questionnaire survey. Primary outcome was the knowledge gain before and after the interventions. A subgroup analysis of the users of the online modules was performed.

Results

166 GPs were available for analysis and filled out a knowledge test at least two times. A significant increase of knowledge was found in both groups that indicated positive learning effects of both approaches. However, there was no significant difference between the groups. A subgroup analysis of the GPs who self-reported that they had actually used the online modules showed that they had a significant increase in their knowledge scores.

Conclusion

A blended learning approach was not superior to a QCs approach for improving knowledge about dementia management. However, a subgroup of GPs who were motivated to actually use the online modules had a gain in knowledge.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN36550981.     

Improving stroke prevention therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation in primary care: protocol for a pragmatic,cluster-randomized trial

Background

The prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) is growing as the population ages, and at least 15% of ischemic strokes are attributed to AF. However, many high-risk AF patients are not offered guideline-recommended stroke prevention therapy due to a variety of system, provider, and patient-level barriers.

Methods

We will conduct a pragmatic, cluster-randomized controlled trial randomizing primary care clinics to test a “toolkit” of quality improvement interventions in primary care. In keeping with the recommendations of the chronic care model to simultaneously activate patients and facilitate proactive care by providers, the toolkit includes provider-focused strategies (education, audit and feedback, electronic decision support, and reminders) plus patient-directed strategies (educational letters and reminders). The trial will include two feedback cycles at baseline and approximately 6 months and a final data collection at approximately 12 months. The study will be powered to show a difference of 10% in the primary outcome of proportion of patients receiving guideline-recommended stroke prevention therapy. Analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle and will be blind to treatment allocation. Unit of analysis will be the patient; models will use generalized estimating equations to account for clustering at the clinical level.

Discussion

Stroke prevention therapy using anticoagulation in patients with AF is known to reduce strokes by two thirds or more in clinical trials, but most studies indicate under-use of this treatment in real-world practice. If the toolkit successfully improves care for patients with AF, stakeholders will be engaged to facilitate broader application to maximize the potential to improve patient outcomes. The intervention toolkit tested in this project could also provide a model to improve quality of care for other chronic cardiovascular conditions managed in primary care.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01927445). Registered August 14, 2014 at https://clinicaltrials.gov/.

     

Acupuncture for chronic headache in primary care: large,pragmatic, randomised trial

Objective To determine the effects of a policy of “use acupuncture” on headache, health status, days off sick, and use of resources in patients with chronic headache compared with a policy of “avoid acupuncture.”Design Randomised, controlled trial.Setting General practices in England and Wales.Participants 401 patients with chronic headache, predominantly migraine.Interventions Patients were randomly allocated to receive up to 12 acupuncture treatments over three months or to a control intervention offering usual care.Main outcome measures Headache score, SF-36 health status, and use of medication were assessed at baseline, three, and 12 months. Use of resources was assessed every three months.Results Headache score at 12 months, the primary end point, was lower in the acupuncture group (16.2, SD 13.7, n = 161, 34% reduction from baseline) than in controls (22.3, SD 17.0, n = 140, 16% reduction from baseline). The adjusted difference between means is 4.6 (95% confidence interval 2.2 to 7.0; P = 0.0002). This result is robust to sensitivity analysis incorporating imputation for missing data. Patients in the acupuncture group experienced the equivalent of 22 fewer days of headache per year (8 to 38). SF-36 data favoured acupuncture, although differences reached significance only for physical role functioning, energy, and change in health. Compared with controls, patients randomised to acupuncture used 15% less medication (P = 0.02), made 25% fewer visits to general practitioners (P = 0.10), and took 15% fewer days off sick (P = 0.2).Conclusions Acupuncture leads to persisting, clinically relevant benefits for primary care patients with chronic headache, particularly migraine. Expansion of NHS acupuncture services should be considered.     

A proactive approach to migraine in primary care: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial

Background:

Migraine is a common, disabling headache disorder that leads to lost quality of life and productivity. We investigated whether a proactive approach to patients with migraine, including an educational intervention for general practitioners, led to a decrease in headache and associated costs.

Methods:

We conducted a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Participants were randomized to one of two groups: practices receiving the intervention and control practices. Participants were prescribed two or more doses of triptan per month. General practitioners in the intervention group received training on treating migraine and invited participating patients for a consultation and evaluation of the therapy they were receiving. Physicians in the control group continued with usual care. Our primary outcome was patients’ scores on the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) at six months. We considered a reduction in score of 2.3 points to be clinically relevant. We used the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) questionnaire to determine if such distress was a possible effect modifier. We also examined the interventions’ cost-effectiveness.

Results:

We enrolled 490 patients in the trial (233 to the intervention group and 257 to the control group). Of the 233 patients in the intervention group, 192 (82.4%) attended the consultation to evaluate the treatment of their migraines. Of these patients, 43 (22.3%) started prophylaxis. The difference in change in score on the HIT-6 between the intervention and control groups was 0.81 (p = 0.07, calculated from modelling using generalized estimating equations). For patients with low levels of psychological distress (baseline score on the K10 ≤ 20) this change was −1.51 (p = 0.008), compared with a change of 0.16 (p = 0.494) for patients with greater psychological distress. For patients who were not using prophylaxis at baseline and had two or more migraines per month, the mean HIT-6 score improved by 1.37 points compared with controls (p = 0.04). We did not find the intervention to be cost-effective.

Interpretation:

An educational intervention for general practitioners and a proactive approach to patients with migraine did not result in a clinically relevant improvement of symptoms. Psychological distress was an important confounder of success. (Current Controlled Trials registration no. ISRCTN72421511.)Migraine is a common, disabling headache disorder that results in lost quality of life and productivity, both during and between attacks.^1–8 Many patients with migraine suffer unnecessarily because they are not using their medications appropriately, or they are unaware of the possibility of prophylactic treatment. In the Netherlands, 3% of patients who take triptans consume 12 or more doses of the drug each month.⁹ These patients account for almost half of the costs associated with triptan use.¹⁰ In addition, although more than 25% of patients with migraine have two or more attacks each month, making them eligible for preventive treatment, only 8%–12% of patients use prophylaxis.^2,3,11–13 More than half of the patients with migraine in Dutch primary care who have an indication for prophylaxis have not discussed that option with their general practitioner.¹³We investigated whether a proactive approach to identifying patients with migraine who are receiving suboptimal treatment (i.e., inviting them to a consultation to evaluate their current treatment regimen and advising them about the options available for treating their migraine) could increase the use of preventive treatment and reduce the overuse of triptans, thereby reducing headache recurrence and associated costs. Our intervention involved educational sessions for general practitioners. Earlier studies aimed at reducing the overuse of other medications in primary care, such as benzodiazepines and acid-repressive drugs, showed that a proactive intervention led to a reduction in the use of medications.^14,15Because most patients with migraine in the Netherlands are treated by their general practitioner, we evaluated the costs and effects of a proactive approach to migraine in primary care. We included patients who had two or more attacks per month, because improvement could be reasonably expected in this group.     

Effect of a web-based audit and feedback intervention with outreach visits on the clinical performance of multidisciplinary teams: a cluster-randomized trial in cardiac rehabilitation

Background

The objective of this study was to assess the effect of a web-based audit and feedback (A&F) intervention with outreach visits to support decision-making by multidisciplinary teams.

Methods

We performed a multicentre cluster-randomized trial within the field of comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation (CR) in the Netherlands. Our participants were multidisciplinary teams in Dutch CR centres who were enrolled in the study between July 2012 and December 2013 and received the intervention for at least 1 year. The intervention included web-based A&F with feedback on clinical performance, facilities for goal setting and action planning, and educational outreach visits. Teams were randomized either to receive feedback that was limited to psychosocial rehabilitation (study group A) or to physical rehabilitation (study group B). The main outcome measure was the difference in performance between study groups in 11 care processes and six patient outcomes, measured at patient level. Secondary outcomes included effects on guideline concordance for the four main CR therapies.

Results

Data from 18 centres (14,847 patients) were analysed, of which 12 centres (9353 patients) were assigned to group A and six (5494 patients) to group B. During the intervention, a total of 233 quality improvement goals was identified by participating teams, of which 49 (21%) were achieved during the study period. Except for a modest improvement in data completeness (4.5% improvement per year; 95% CI 0.65 to 8.36), we found no effect of our intervention on any of our primary or secondary outcome measures.

Conclusions

Within a multidisciplinary setting, our web-based A&F intervention engaged teams to define local performance improvement goals but failed to support them in actually completing the improvement actions that were needed to achieve those goals. Future research should focus on improving the actionability of feedback on clinical performance and on addressing the socio-technical perspective of the implementation process.

Trial registration

NTR3251

     

The Calgary Audit and Feedback Framework: a practical,evidence-informed approach for the design and implementation of socially constructed learning interventions using audit and group feedback

Background

Audit and feedback interventions may be strengthened using social interaction. The Calgary office of the Alberta Physician Learning Program (CPLP) developed a process for audit and group feedback for physicians. This paper extends previous work in which we developed a conceptual model of physician responses to audit and group feedback based on a qualitative analysis of six audit and group feedback sessions. The present study explored the mediating factors for successfully engaging physician groups in change planning through audit and group feedback.

Methods

To understand why some groups were more interactive than others, we completed a comparative case analysis of the six audit and group feedback projects from the prior study. We used framework analysis to build the case studies, triangulated our observations across data sources to validate findings, compared the case studies for similarities and differences that influenced social interaction (mediating factors), and thematically categorized mediating factors into an organizing framework.

Results

Mediating factors for socially interactive AGFS were a pre-existing relationship between the program team and the physician group, projects addressing important, actionable questions, easily interpretable data visualization in the reports, and facilitation of the groups that included reflective questioning. When these factors were in place (cases 1, 2A, 3), the audit and group feedback sessions were dynamic, with physicians sharing and comparing practices, and raising change cues (such as declaring commitments to de-prescribing, planning educational interventions, and improving documentation). In cases 2C–D, the mediating factors were less well established and in these cases, the sessions showed little physician reflection or change planning. We organized the mediating factors into a framework linking the factors for successful sessions to the conceptual model of physician behaviors which these mediating factors drive.

Conclusions

We propose the Calgary Audit and Feedback Framework as a practical tool to help foster socially constructed learning in audit and group feedback sessions. Ensuring that the four factors, relationship, question choice, data visualization, and facilitation, are considered for design and implementation of audit and group feedback will help physicians move from reactions to their data towards planning for change.

     

Using information from asthma patients: a trial of information feedback in primary care.

OBJECTIVE--To test the effects of feedback of information about patients'' asthma to primary care teams. DESIGN--Patients'' reports of morbidity, use of health services, and drug use on questionnaire was given to primary care teams. Randomised controlled trial with general practices as the subject of the intervention was used to test effectiveness of supplying information. SETTING--Primary care in district health authority, London. SUBJECTS--23 general practices, each of which notified at least 20 asthmatic patients aged 15-60 years for each principal. Practices were randomly allocated to an invention group (receiving feedback of information on control of asthma) or a control group (no feedback). INTERVENTION--Information on cards inserted in patients'' medical records; booklet copies of information for team members; formal presentation to primary care teams; poster displays of data on patients in each practice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Type and frequency of asthma symptoms, use of health services, use of asthma drugs. RESULTS--Reported morbidity at entry to the study was substantial: 45% (818) patients reported breathlessness at least once a week. Less than half these patients were using inhaled steroids regularly. Intervention and control groups did not differ in practice or patient characteristics on entry to the study. In spite of the potential for improvement no differences were observed between the two practice groups at the end of the study--for example, breathlessness at least once a week in last six months was experienced by 36% in intervention group v 35% in control group (t = -0.27, P < 0.79); surgery attendance in last six months by 48% v 48% (t = -0.05, P < 0.96); regular use of inhaled steroids by 60% v 58% (t = 0.51, P < 0.62). CONCLUSION--Feedback to general practitioners of information about patients'' asthma does not on its own lead to change in the outcome of clinical care.     

A cluster randomised controlled trial of the community effectiveness of two interventions in rural Malawi to improve health care and to reduce maternal, newborn and infant mortality

Background

Paclitaxel-eluting stents decrease angiographic and clinical restenosis following percutaneous coronary intervention compared to bare metal stents. TAXUS Element is a third-generation paclitaxel-eluting stent which incorporates a novel, thinner-strut, platinum-enriched metal alloy platform. The stent is intended to have enhanced radiopacity and improved deliverability compared to other paclitaxel-eluting stents. The safety and efficacy of the TAXUS Element stent are being evaluated in the pivotal PERSEUS clinical trials.

Methods/Design

The PERSEUS trials include two parallel studies of the TAXUS Element stent in single, de novo coronary atherosclerotic lesions. The PERSEUS Workhorse study is a prospective, randomized (3:1), single-blind, non-inferiority trial in subjects with lesion length ≤28 mm and vessel diameter ≥2.75 mm to ≤4.0 mm which compares TAXUS Element to the TAXUS Express² paclitaxel-eluting stent system. The Workhorse study employs a novel Bayesian statistical approach that uses prior information to limit the number of study subjects exposed to the investigational device and thus provide a safer and more efficient analysis of the TAXUS Element stent. PERSEUS Small Vessel is a prospective, single-arm, superiority trial in subjects with lesion length ≤20 mm and vessel diameter ≥2.25 mm to <2.75 mm that compares TAXUS Element with a matched historical bare metal Express stent control.

Discussion

The TAXUS PERSEUS clinical trial program uses a novel statistical approach to evaluate whether design and metal alloy iterations in the TAXUS Element stent platform provide comparable safety and improved procedural performance compared to the previous generation Express stent. PERSEUS trial enrollment is complete and primary endpoint data are expected in 2010. PERSEUS Workhorse and Small Vessel are registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov, identification numbers NCT00484315 and NCT00489541.     

Effectiveness of steam inhalation and nasal irrigation for chronic or recurrent sinus symptoms in primary care: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial

Background:Systematic reviews support nasal saline irrigation for chronic or recurrent sinus symptoms, but trials have been small and few in primary care settings. Steam inhalation has also been proposed, but supporting evidence is lacking. We investigated whether brief pragmatic interventions to encourage use of nasal irrigation or steam inhalation would be effective in relieving sinus symptoms.Methods:We conducted a pragmatic randomized controlled trial involving adults (age 18–65 yr) from 72 primary care practices in the United Kingdom who had a history of chronic or recurrent sinusitis and reported a “moderate to severe” impact of sinus symptoms on their quality of life. Participants were recruited between Feb. 11, 2009, and June 30, 2014, and randomly assigned to 1 of 4 advice strategies: usual care, daily nasal saline irrigation supported by a demonstration video, daily steam inhalation, or combined treatment with both interventions. The primary outcome measure was the Rhinosinusitis Disability Index (RSDI). Patients were followed up at 3 and 6 months. We imputed missing data using multiple imputation methods.Results:Of the 961 patients who consented, 871 returned baseline questionnaires (210 usual care, 219 nasal irrigation, 232 steam inhalation and 210 combined treatment). A total of 671 (77.0%) of the 871 participants reported RSDI scores at 3 months. Patients’ RSDI scores improved more with nasal irrigation than without nasal irrigation by 3 months (crude change −7.42 v. −5.23; estimated adjusted mean difference between groups −2.51, 95% confidence interval −4.65 to −0.37). By 6 months, significantly more patients maintained a 10-point clinically important improvement in the RSDI score with nasal irrigation (44.1% v. 36.6%); fewer used over-the-counter medications (59.4% v. 68.0%) or intended to consult a doctor in future episodes. Steam inhalation reduced headache but had no significant effect on other outcomes. The proportion of participants who had adverse effects was the same in both intervention groups.Interpretation:Advice to use steam inhalation for chronic or recurrent sinus symptoms in primary care was not effective. A similar strategy to use nasal irrigation was less effective than prior evidence suggested, but it provided some symptomatic benefit. Trial registration: ISRCTN, no. 88204146.Rhinosinusitis probably affects more than 25 million Americans and 2.5 million Canadians.¹ Quality of life of patients with chronic or recurrent sinusitis has been reported to be similar to congestive heart disease and chronic pulmonary disease.² Antibiotics are prescribed for nearly all patients with sinusitis,³ but the evidence is modest⁴ and an international priority is to contain antibiotic resistance.⁵ Steam inhalation is widely advocated in rhinosinusitis, but a Cochrane review of steam for the “common cold” found equivocal evidence,⁶ and a recent primary care trial found no benefit and some harm (mild thermal injury) for pragmatic advice to inhale steam twice daily for a range of respiratory tract infections.⁷ The Cochrane review of nasal saline irrigation reported benefit.⁸ However, most of the trials were small, mainly from secondary care settings, and the review documented symptom data from only 129 participants, with high heterogeneity. Two small randomized controlled trials included some participants from primary care settings.^9,10 One of the studies compared a gravity-based nasal irrigation device with routine care among 76 participants mainly from primary care settings; it found that symptoms improved very little in the control group (by 1 point on the Rhinosinusitis Disability Index [RSDI] converted to a 100-point scale), as compared with a 14-point improvement in the irrigation group.⁹ The other (published since the Cochrane review) compared a positive-pressure squeeze bottle with saline nasal spray among 121 volunteers from various sources and found an 8.5-point improvement in the control group, as compared with a 15-point improvement in the irrigation group.¹⁰We conducted a large pragmatic randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness of brief advice to use nasal irrigation or steam inhalation in routine primary care for chronic or recurrent sinus symptoms.     

Management of alcoholism in the primary care setting.

Primary care physicians can play an important role in managing alcoholic patients. Identifying and treating alcoholism early, before it has interfered with patients'' relationships and work, may increase the likelihood of prolonged recovery. Simple office interventions can help motivate patients to abstain and seek treatment. People who abuse alcohol and are unwilling to abstain can benefit from a recommendation to reduce their intake of alcohol. For alcohol-dependent patients who decide to stop drinking, primary care physicians often can manage withdrawal on an outpatient basis. Selecting an appropriate treatment program for each alcoholic patient is important, and referral to a specialist to assist in matching patients to treatments is often necessary. Primary care physicians also can help prevent relapse. Although disulfiram is of limited value, primary care physicians can support recovery by identifying coexistent psychosocial problems, helping patients to restructure their lives, and ensuring continuity of care.     

Cost effectiveness analysis of a randomised trial of acupuncture for chronic headache in primary care

Objective To evaluate the cost effectiveness of acupuncture in the management of chronic headache.Design Cost effectiveness analysis of a randomised controlled trial.Setting General practices in England and Wales.Participants 401 patients with chronic headache, predominantly migraine.Interventions Patients were randomly allocated to receive up to 12 acupuncture treatments over three months from appropriately trained physiotherapists, or to usual care alone.Main outcome measure Incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained.Results Total costs during the one year period of the study were on average higher for the acupuncture group (£403; $768; €598) than for controls (£217) because of the acupuncture practitioners'' costs. The mean health gain from acupuncture during the one year of the trial was 0.021 quality adjusted life years (QALYs), leading to a base case estimate of £9180 per QALY gained. This result was robust to sensitivity analysis. Cost per QALY dropped substantially when the analysis incorporated likely QALY differences for the years after the trial.Conclusions Acupuncture for chronic headache improves health related quality of life at a small additional cost; it is relatively cost effective compared with a number of other interventions provided by the NHS.     

Screening and diagnosis of alcoholism in the primary care setting.

As many as 20% of patients seeing their primary physicians may suffer from alcohol abuse and dependence. Often the problem goes unrecognized. In this article I summarize what is known regarding the natural history, risk factors, and available screening techniques for alcoholism. Ultimately, a diagnosis of alcoholism is based on a patient''s history, and there are various approaches to obtaining a thorough alcohol history and overcoming patient denial regarding an alcohol problem. Primary physicians have an important role in educating patients about alcoholism.     

The Salford Lung Study protocol: a pragmatic,randomised phase III real-world effectiveness trial in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Background

New treatments need to be evaluated in real-world clinical practice to account for co-morbidities, adherence and polypharmacy.

Methods

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), ≥40 years old, with exacerbation in the previous 3 years are randomised 1:1 to once-daily fluticasone furoate 100 μg/vilanterol 25 μg in a novel dry-powder inhaler versus continuing their existing therapy. The primary endpoint is the mean annual rate of COPD exacerbations; an electronic medical record allows real-time collection and monitoring of endpoint and safety data.

Conclusions

The Salford Lung Study is the world’s first pragmatic randomised controlled trial of a pre-licensed medication in COPD.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT01551758","term_id":"NCT01551758"}}NCT01551758.