Search

BACKGROUND:In primary care, multiple priorities and system pressures make closing the gap between evidence and practice challenging. Most implementation studies focus on single conditions, limiting generalisability. We compared an adaptable implementation package against an implementation control and assessed effects on adherence to four different evidence-based quality indicators. METHODS AND FINDINGS:We undertook two parallel, pragmatic cluster-randomised trials using balanced incomplete block designs in general practices in West Yorkshire, England. We used 'opt-out' recruitment, and we randomly assigned practices that did not opt out to an implementation package targeting either diabetes control or risky prescribing (Trial 1); or blood pressure (BP) control or anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation (AF) (Trial 2). Within trials, each arm acted as the implementation control comparison for the other targeted indicator. For example, practices assigned to the diabetes control package acted as the comparison for practices assigned to the risky prescribing package. The implementation package embedded behaviour change techniques within audit and feedback, educational outreach, and computerised support, with content tailored to each indicator. Respective patient-level primary endpoints at 11 months comprised the following: achievement of all recommended levels of haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), BP, and cholesterol; risky prescribing levels; achievement of recommended BP; and anticoagulation prescribing. Between February and March 2015, we recruited 144 general practices collectively serving over 1 million patients. We stratified computer-generated randomisation by area, list size, and pre-intervention outcome achievement. In April 2015, we randomised 80 practices to Trial 1 (40 per arm) and 64 to Trial 2 (32 per arm). Practices and trial personnel were not blind to allocation. Two practices were lost to follow-up but provided some outcome data. We analysed the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, adjusted for potential confounders at patient level (sex, age) and practice level (list size, locality, pre-intervention achievement against primary outcomes, total quality scores, and levels of patient co-morbidity), and analysed cost-effectiveness. The implementation package reduced risky prescribing (odds ratio [OR] 0.82; 97.5% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-0.99, p = 0.017) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £1,359 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), but there was insufficient evidence of effect on other primary endpoints (diabetes control OR 1.03, 97.5% CI 0.89-1.18, p = 0.693; BP control OR 1.05, 97.5% CI 0.96-1.16, p = 0.215; anticoagulation prescribing OR 0.90, 97.5% CI 0.75-1.09, p = 0.214). No statistically significant effects were observed in any secondary outcome except for reduced co-prescription of aspirin and clopidogrel without gastro-protection in patients aged 65 and over (adjusted OR 0.62; 97.5% CI 0.39-0.99; p = 0.021). Main study limitations concern our inability to make any inferences about the relative effects of individual intervention components, given the multifaceted nature of the implementation package, and that the composite endpoint for diabetes control may have been too challenging to achieve. CONCLUSIONS:In this study, we observed that a multifaceted implementation package was clinically and cost-effective for targeting prescribing behaviours within the control of clinicians but not for more complex behaviours that also required patient engagement. TRIAL REGISTRATION:The study is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN91989345).

BACKGROUND:There are widely recognised variations in the delivery and outcomes of healthcare but an incomplete understanding of their causes. There is a growing interest in using routinely collected 'big data' in the evaluation of healthcare. We developed a set of evidence-based 'high impact' quality indicators (QIs) for primary care and examined variations in achievement of these indicators using routinely collected data in the United Kingdom (UK). METHODS:Cross-sectional analysis of routinely collected, electronic primary care data from a sample of general practices in West Yorkshire, UK (n = 89). The QIs covered aspects of care (including processes and intermediate clinical outcomes) in relation to diabetes, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, chronic kidney disease (CKD) and 'risky' prescribing combinations. Regression models explored the impact of practice and patient characteristics. Clustering within practice was accounted for by including a random intercept for practice. RESULTS:Median practice achievement of the QIs ranged from 43.2% (diabetes control) to 72.2% (blood pressure control in CKD). Considerable between-practice variation existed for all indicators: the difference between the highest and lowest performing practices was 26.3 percentage points for risky prescribing and 100 percentage points for anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation. Odds ratios associated with the random effects for practices emphasised this; there was a greater than ten-fold difference in the likelihood of achieving the hypertension indicator between the lowest and highest performing practices. Patient characteristics, in particular age, gender and comorbidity, were consistently but modestly associated with indicator achievement. Statistically significant practice characteristics were identified less frequently in adjusted models. CONCLUSIONS:Despite various policy and improvement initiatives, there are enduring inappropriate variations in the delivery of evidence-based care. Much of this variation is not explained by routinely collected patient or practice variables, and is likely to be attributable to differences in clinical and organisational behaviour.

Background: Implementing evidence-based recommendations is challenging in UK primary care, especially given system pressures and multiple guideline recommendations competing for attention. Implementation packages that can be adapted and hence applied to target multiple guideline recommendations could offer efficiencies for recommendations with common barriers to achievement. We developed and evaluated a package of evidence-based interventions (audit and feedback, educational outreach and reminders) incorporating behaviour change techniques to target common barriers, in two pragmatic trials for four "high impact" indicators: risky prescribing; diabetes control; blood pressure control; and anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation. We observed a significant, cost-effective reduction in risky prescribing but there was insufficient evidence of effect on the other outcomes. We explored the impact of the implementation package on both social processes (Normalisation Process Theory; NPT) and hypothesised determinants of behaviour (Theoretical Domains Framework; TDF).Methods: We conducted a prospective multi-method process evaluation. Observational, administrative and interview data collection and analyses in eight primary care practices were guided by NPT and TDF. Survey data from trial and process evaluation practices explored fidelity.Results: We observed three main patterns of variation in how practices responded to the implementation package. First, in integration and achievement, the package "worked" when it was considered distinctive and feasible. Timely feedback directed at specific behaviours enabled continuous goal setting, action and review, which reinforced motivation and collective action. Second, impacts on team-based determinants were limited, particularly when the complexity of clinical actions impeded progress. Third, there were delivery delays and unintended consequences. Delays in scheduling outreach further reduced ownership and time for improvement. Repeated stagnant or declining feedback that did not reflect effort undermined engagement.Conclusions: Variable integration within practice routines and organisation of care, variable impacts on behavioural determinants, and delays in delivery and unintended consequences help explain the partial success of an adaptable package in primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In primary care, multiple priorities and system pressures make closing the gap between evidence and practice challenging. Most implementation studies focus on single conditions, limiting generalisability. We compared an adaptable implementation package against an implementation control and assessed effects on adherence to four different evidence-based quality indicators.Methods and Findings: We undertook two parallel, pragmatic cluster-randomised trials using balanced incomplete block designs in general practices in West Yorkshire, England. We used 'opt-out' recruitment, and we randomly assigned practices that did not opt out to an implementation package targeting either diabetes control or risky prescribing (Trial 1); or blood pressure (BP) control or anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation (AF) (Trial 2). Within trials, each arm acted as the implementation control comparison for the other targeted indicator. For example, practices assigned to the diabetes control package acted as the comparison for practices assigned to the risky prescribing package. The implementation package embedded behaviour change techniques within audit and feedback, educational outreach, and computerised support, with content tailored to each indicator. Respective patient-level primary endpoints at 11 months comprised the following: achievement of all recommended levels of haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), BP, and cholesterol; risky prescribing levels; achievement of recommended BP; and anticoagulation prescribing. Between February and March 2015, we recruited 144 general practices collectively serving over 1 million patients. We stratified computer-generated randomisation by area, list size, and pre-intervention outcome achievement. In April 2015, we randomised 80 practices to Trial 1 (40 per arm) and 64 to Trial 2 (32 per arm). Practices and trial personnel were not blind to allocation. Two practices were lost to follow-up but provided some outcome data. We analysed the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, adjusted for potential confounders at patient level (sex, age) and practice level (list size, locality, pre-intervention achievement against primary outcomes, total quality scores, and levels of patient co-morbidity), and analysed cost-effectiveness. The implementation package reduced risky prescribing (odds ratio [OR] 0.82; 97.5% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-0.99, p = 0.017) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £1,359 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), but there was insufficient evidence of effect on other primary endpoints (diabetes control OR 1.03, 97.5% CI 0.89-1.18, p = 0.693; BP control OR 1.05, 97.5% CI 0.96-1.16, p = 0.215; anticoagulation prescribing OR 0.90, 97.5% CI 0.75-1.09, p = 0.214). No statistically significant effects were observed in any secondary outcome except for reduced co-prescription of aspirin and clopidogrel without gastro-protection in patients aged 65 and over (adjusted OR 0.62; 97.5% CI 0.39-0.99; p = 0.021). Main study limitations concern our inability to make any inferences about the relative effects of individual intervention components, given the multifaceted nature of the implementation package, and that the composite endpoint for diabetes control may have been too challenging to achieve.Conclusions: In this study, we observed that a multifaceted implementation package was clinically and cost-effective for targeting prescribing behaviours within the control of clinicians but not for more complex behaviours that also required patient engagement.Trial Registration: The study is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN91989345). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There are recognised gaps between evidence and practice in general practice, a setting posing particular implementation challenges. We earlier screened clinical guideline recommendations to derive a set of 'high-impact' indicators based upon criteria including potential for significant patient benefit, scope for improved practice and amenability to measurement using routinely collected data. Here, we explore health professionals' perceived determinants of adherence to these indicators, examining the degree to which determinants were indicator-specific or potentially generalisable across indicators.Methods: We interviewed 60 general practitioners, practice nurses and practice managers in West Yorkshire, the UK, about adherence to four indicators: avoidance of risky prescribing; treatment targets in type 2 diabetes; blood pressure targets in treated hypertension; and anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation. Interview questions drew upon the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Data were analysed using framework analysis.Results: Professional role and identity and environmental context and resources featured prominently across all indicators whilst the importance of other domains, for example, beliefs about consequences, social influences and knowledge varied across indicators. We identified five meta-themes representing more general organisational and contextual factors common to all indicators.Conclusions: The TDF helped elicit a wide range of reported determinants of adherence to 'high-impact' indicators in primary care. It was more difficult to pinpoint which determinants, if targeted by an implementation strategy, would maximise change. The meta-themes broadly underline the need to align the design of interventions targeting general practices with higher level supports and broader contextual considerations. However, our findings suggest that it is feasible to develop interventions to promote the uptake of different evidence-based indicators which share common features whilst also including content-specific adaptations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There are recognised gaps between evidence and practice in general practice, a setting which provides particular challenges for implementation. We earlier screened clinical guideline recommendations to derive a set of 'high impact' indicators based upon criteria including potential for significant patient benefit, scope for improved practice and amenability to measurement using routinely collected data. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a multifaceted, adaptable intervention package to implement four targeted, high impact recommendations in general practice.Methods/design: The research programme Action to Support Practice Implement Research Evidence (ASPIRE) includes a pair of pragmatic cluster-randomised trials which use a balanced incomplete block design. Clusters are general practices in West Yorkshire, United Kingdom (UK), recruited using an 'opt-out' recruitment process. The intervention package adapted to each recommendation includes combinations of audit and feedback, educational outreach visits and computerised prompts with embedded behaviour change techniques selected on the basis of identified needs and barriers to change. In trial 1, practices are randomised to adapted interventions targeting either diabetes control or risky prescribing and those in trial 2 to adapted interventions targeting either blood pressure control in patients at risk of cardiovascular events or anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation. The respective primary endpoints comprise achievement of all recommended target levels of haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), blood pressure and cholesterol in patients with type 2 diabetes, a composite indicator of risky prescribing, achievement of recommended blood pressure targets for specific patient groups and anticoagulation prescribing in patients with atrial fibrillation. We are also randomising practices to a fifth, non-intervention control group to further assess Hawthorne effects. Outcomes will be assessed using routinely collected data extracted 1 year after randomisation. Economic modelling will estimate intervention cost-effectiveness. A process evaluation involving eight non-trial practices will examine intervention delivery, mechanisms of action and unintended consequences.Discussion: ASPIRE will provide 'real-world' evidence about the effects, cost-effectiveness and delivery of adapted intervention packages targeting high impact recommendations. By implementing our adaptable intervention package across four distinct clinical topics, and using 'opt-out' recruitment, our findings will provide evidence of wider generalisability.Trial Registration: ISRCTN91989345. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Implementing evidence-based recommendations is challenging in UK primary care, especially given system pressures and multiple guideline recommendations competing for attention. Implementation packages that can be adapted and hence applied to target multiple guideline recommendations could offer efficiencies for recommendations with common barriers to achievement. We developed and evaluated a package of evidence-based interventions (audit and feedback, educational outreach and reminders) incorporating behaviour change techniques to target common barriers, in two pragmatic trials for four “high impact” indicators: risky prescribing; diabetes control; blood pressure control; and anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation. We observed a significant, cost-effective reduction in risky prescribing but there was insufficient evidence of effect on the other outcomes. We explored the impact of the implementation package on both social processes (Normalisation Process Theory; NPT) and hypothesised determinants of behaviour (Theoretical Domains Framework; TDF). Methods We conducted a prospective multi-method process evaluation. Observational, administrative and interview data collection and analyses in eight primary care practices were guided by NPT and TDF. Survey data from trial and process evaluation practices explored fidelity. Results We observed three main patterns of variation in how practices responded to the implementation package. First, in integration and achievement, the package “worked” when it was considered distinctive and feasible. Timely feedback directed at specific behaviours enabled continuous goal setting, action and review, which reinforced motivation and collective action. Second, impacts on team-based determinants were limited, particularly when the complexity of clinical actions impeded progress. Third, there were delivery delays and unintended consequences. Delays in scheduling outreach further reduced ownership and time for improvement. Repeated stagnant or declining feedback that did not reflect effort undermined engagement. Conclusions Variable integration within practice routines and organisation of care, variable impacts on behavioural determinants, and delays in delivery and unintended consequences help explain the partial success of an adaptable package in primary care.