Search

Dominik Ose, Cornelia Mahler, Ines Vogel, Sabine Ludt, Joachim Szecsenyi, Tobias FreundUniversity Hospital of Heidelberg, Department of General Practice and Health Services Research, Heidelberg, GermanyBackground: Medication adherence can be essential for improving health outcomes. Patients with multiple chronic conditions, often receiving multiple medications, are at higher risk for medication nonadherence. Previous research has focused on concordance between patients and providers about which medication should be taken. However, the question of whether patients and providers are concordant in rating actual medication intake has not been answered as yet. This study aimed to explore the extent and predictors of patient – provider concordance in rating medication adherence in patients with multiple chronic conditions.Methods: Overall medication adherence was measured by self-report (Medication Adherence Report Scale, MARS-D) in a sample of 92 patients with multiple chronic conditions. Twelve treating primary care physicians were asked to rate medication adherence in these patients using a mirrored version of the MARS-D. Concordance between external rating and self-reported medication adherence was analyzed descriptively. Predictors of concordance in rating medication adherence were explored in a multilevel analysis.Results: Patients rate their medication adherence markedly higher than their general practitioner. Accordingly, the percentage of concordance ranges between 40% (forgot to take medication) and 61% (deliberately omitted a dose). In multilevel analysis, concordance in rating medication adherence was positively associated with being the single primary care provider (β 2.24, P < 0.0001) and frequent questioning about medication use (β 0.66, P = 0.0031). At the patient level, “not [being] married” (ß −0.81, P = 0.0064) and “number of prescribed medications” (β −0.10, P = 0.0203) were negative predictors of patient – provider concordance in rating medication adherence.Conclusion: Concordance for rating medication adherence between general practitioners and their patients was low. Talking about medication on a regular basis and better continuity of care may enhance patient – provider concordance in rating medication adherence as a prerequisite for shared decisions concerning medication in patients with multiple chronic conditions.Keywords: patient – provider concordance, medication adherence, primary health care, multimorbidity, communication

Copyright of Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objectives: To analyze the necessity and potential usefulness of a computerized physician order entry (CPOE) system in supporting the writing of pharmacotherapeutic recommendations in discharge letters.Methods: Systematic analysis of drug recommendations in discharge letters of a hospital providing tertiary care, structured interviews with in-hospital prescribers, and focus groups with general practitioners who admit patients to this hospital.Results: We analyzed 1800 randomly selected discharge letters, 1205 of which contained pharmacotherapeutic recommendations. The frequencies, structure, and quality of these recommendations varied considerably between departments. Nearly 16% of the recommendations contained both proprietary (brand) and non-proprietary names (active ingredient). Interviewed clinicians expressed interest in CPOE systems that check for contraindications and interactions between drugs, suggest cheaper products, and automatically insert active ingredients when omitted. The focus group sessions confirmed that the pharmacotherapeutic recommendations in current discharge letters do not effectively support daily clinical practice.Conclusions: Documenting active ingredients as well as brand names in drug therapy recommendations is currently not part of clinical practice. Computerized decision support can help to optimise the structure and communication of therapeutic information across interfaces and can be a quality factor with considerable influence on process quality, outcome quality, and costs of cooperative patient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Primary care has an important role in cardiovascular risk management (CVRM) and a minimum size of scale of primary care practices may be needed for efficient delivery of CVRM . We examined CVRM in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) in primary care and explored the impact of practice size. Methods In an observational study in 8 countries we sampled CHD patients in primary care practices and collected data from electronic patient records. Practice samples were stratified according to practice size and urbanisation; patients were selected using coded diagnoses when available. CVRM was measured on the basis of internationally validated quality indicators. In the analyses practice size was defined in terms of number of patients registered of visiting the practice. We performed multilevel regression analyses controlling for patient age and sex. Results We included 181 practices (63% of the number targeted). Two countries included a convenience sample of practices. Data from 2960 CHD patients were available. Some countries used methods supplemental to coded diagnoses or other inclusion methods introducing potential inclusion bias. We found substantial variation on all CVRM indicators across practices and countries. We computed aggregated practice scores as percentage of patients with a positive outcome. Rates of risk factor recording varied from 55% for physical activity as the mean practice score across all practices (sd 32%) to 94% (sd 10%) for blood pressure. Rates for reaching treatment targets for systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure and LDL cholesterol were 46% (sd 21%), 86% (sd 12%) and 48% (sd 22%) respectively. Rates for providing recommended cholesterol lowering and antiplatelet drugs were around 80%, and 70% received influenza vaccination. Practice size was not associated to indicator scores with one exception: in Slovenia larger practices performed better. Variation was more related to differences between practices than between countries. Conclusions CVRM measured by quality indicators showed wide variation within and between countries and possibly leaves room for improvement in all countries involved. Few associations of performance scores with practice size were found.

Abstract Background Primary care can play an important role in providing cardiovascular risk management in patients with established Cardiovascular Diseases (CVD), patients with a known high risk of developing CVD, and potentially for individuals with a low risk of developing CVD, but who have unhealthy lifestyles. To describe and compare cardiovascular risk management, internationally valid quality indicators and standardized measures are needed. As part of a large project in 9 European countries (EPA-Cardio), we have developed and tested a set of standardized measures, linked to previously developed quality indicators. Methods A structured stepwise procedure was followed to develop measures. First, the research team allocated 106 validated quality indicators to one of the three target populations (established CVD, at high risk, at low risk) and to different data-collection methods (data abstraction from the medical records, a patient survey, an interview with lead practice GP/a practice survey). Secondly, we selected a number of other validated measures to enrich the assessment. A pilot study was performed to test the feasibility. Finally, we revised the measures based on the findings. Results The EPA-Cardio measures consisted of abstraction forms from the medical-records data of established Coronary Heart Disease (CHD)-patients - and high-risk groups, a patient questionnaire for each of the 3 groups, an interview questionnaire for the lead GP and a questionnaire for practice teams. The measures were feasible and accepted by general practices from different countries. Conclusions An internationally standardized measure of cardiovascular risk management, linked to validated quality indicators and tested for feasibility in general practice, is now available. Careful development and pilot testing of the measures are crucial in international studies of quality of healthcare.

Abstract Background Despite important improvements in available prevention and treatment, cardiovascular diseases (CVD) remain an important cause of morbidity and mortality. Not all high-risk patients and patients with CVD have healthy lifestyles and receive the best possible healthcare. Internationally comparative data are needed to compare cardiovascular risk management in different countries, and to examine the impact of improvement programs and others factors. Objectives This study aims to provide internationally comparative data on cardiovascular risk management provided in primary care and on health-related lifestyles of patients in Europe. The study will also explore the views of doctors and patients on innovative preventive services for CVDs. Design and methods An observational cross-sectional study is planned. In 10 European countries, stratified samples of 36 practices per country will be recruited. In each practice, three samples of 15 patients each will be sampled: patients with coronary heart disease, patients at high risk for CVD, and healthy adult patients. The quality of cardiovascular risk management has been specified in terms of 44 performance indicators that resulted from an international Delphi-procedure with general practitioners. Most indicators are based on medical records, and some on a structured interview with a contact person of the practice. Lifestyle (smoking, physical exercise, diet) will be measured with previously validated questionnaires that are completed by patients. Additional measures include practice characteristics and exposure to programs to improve cardiovascular care.

Background Diabetes model projects in different regions of Germany including interventions such as quality circles, patient education and documentation of medical findings have shown improvements of HbA1c levels, blood pressure and occurrence of hypoglycaemia in before-after studies (without control group). In 2002 the German Ministry of Health defined legal regulations for the introduction of nationwide disease management programs (DMP) to improve the quality of care in chronically ill patients. In April 2003 the first DMP for patients with type 2 diabetes was accredited. The evaluation of the DMP is essential and has been made obligatory in Germany by the Fifth Book of Social Code. The aim of the study is to assess the effectiveness of DMP by example of type 2 diabetes in the primary care setting of two German federal states (Rheinland-Pfalz and Sachsen-Anhalt). Methods/Design The study is three-armed: a prospective cluster-randomized comparison of two interventions (DMP 1 and DMP 2) against routine care without DMP as control group. In the DMP group 1 the patients are treated according to the current situation within the German-Diabetes-DMP. The DMP group 2 represents diabetic care within ideally implemented DMP providing additional interventions (e.g. quality circles, outreach visits). According to a sample size calculation a sample size of 200 GPs (each GP including 20 patients) will be required for the comparison of DMP 1 and DMP 2 considering possible drop-outs. For the comparison with routine care 4000 patients identified by diabetic tracer medication and age (> 50 years) will be analyzed. Discussion This study will evaluate the effectiveness of the German Diabetes-DMP compared to a Diabetes-DMP providing additional interventions and routine care in the primary care setting of two different German federal states.

Background: Despite important improvements in available prevention and treatment, cardiovascular diseases (CVD) remain an important cause of morbidity and mortality. Not all high-risk patients and patients with CVD have healthy lifestyles and receive the best possible healthcare. Internationally comparative data are needed to compare cardiovascular risk management in different countries, and to examine the impact of improvement programs and others factors.Objectives: This study aims to provide internationally comparative data on cardiovascular risk management provided in primary care and on health-related lifestyles of patients in Europe. The study will also explore the views of doctors and patients on innovative preventive services for CVDs.Design and Methods: An observational cross-sectional study is planned. In 10 European countries, stratified samples of 36 practices per country will be recruited. In each practice, three samples of 15 patients each will be sampled: patients with coronary heart disease, patients at high risk for CVD, and healthy adult patients. The quality of cardiovascular risk management has been specified in terms of 44 performance indicators that resulted from an international Delphi-procedure with general practitioners. Most indicators are based on medical records, and some on a structured interview with a contact person of the practice. Lifestyle (smoking, physical exercise, diet) will be measured with previously validated questionnaires that are completed by patients. Additional measures include practice characteristics and exposure to programs to improve cardiovascular care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study aimed to describe and to analyse the importance of educational level for controlled risk factors and health-related quality of life (HRQoL)., Methods: This observational study was conducted in nine European countries (5632 patients in 249 practices). We compared patients with a low level of education (up to 9 years) with patients with a high level of education (>9 years), with regard to controlled cardiovascular disease risk factors and HRQoL. A multilevel approach was used for statistical analysis., Results: Patients with a low level of education were older (P < 0.001), more often female (P < 0.001), more often single (P < 0.001) and had a higher number of other conditions (e.g. heart failure) (P < 0.001). Significant differences in terms of controlled risk factors were revealed for blood pressure (RR) ≤ 140/90 mmHg (P = 0.039) and the sum of controlled risk factors (P = 0.027). Higher age, lower education, female gender, living as single, patient group (coronary heart disease patients) and the number of other conditions were negatively associated with HRQoL. A higher sum of controlled risk factors were positively associated with higher HRQoL in the whole sample (r = 0.0086, P < 0.001) as well as in both educational-level groups (r = 0.0075, P = 0.038 in the low-level group and r = 0.0082, P = 0.001 in the high-level group)., Conclusion: Patients with a lower educational level were more often females, singles, had a higher number of other conditions, a higher number of uncontrolled risk factors and a lower HRQoL. However, the higher the control of risk factors was, the higher the HRQoL was overall as well as in both educational-level groups., (© The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association. All rights reserved.)

Background: The aim of the EUROPREVIEW study was to explore patients' beliefs about primary care prevention, to assess their needs to make changes in lifestyle and their willingness to receive support from GPs., Methods: A cross-sectional survey was undertaken in 22 European countries with 10 practices each that consecutively included 40 patients between 30 and 70 years. Validity of the structured questionnaire was evaluated by pilot testing after translation und back-translation for every country. This explorative analysis compared German data on lifestyle factors like smoking, body weight and physical activity to those from other European countries., Results: There were no differences in patients' needs for changes in unhealthy habits and the views of patients that GPs initiated a discussion on lifestyle factors. In Germany significantly less patients wish to receive advice by their GP [eating habits 41.1 (Germany %) vs. 66.6 (other countries %), physical activity 31.0 vs. 57.0, body weight 44.1 vs. 67.1, smoking 49.1 vs. 63.3, alcohol 43.5 vs. 55.9]., Conclusion: Further research should firstly adress the reasons for the low demand by German patients for health advice on lifestyle factors and, if necessary, secondly evaluate the opportunities for a better range of preventive services in primary care., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Aim: Patient perspective is crucial concerning health care and quality improvement. During episodes of care, patients come into contact with multidisciplinary health-care providers in inpatient and outpatient settings and are in a unique position to describe processes throughout the entire chain of care. The aim of this study was to identify patients’ experiences and preferences with fragmented cross-sectoral care to develop a patient-centred cross-sectoral quality-assessment instrument., Method: Patient perspective was analysed using qualitative focus-group methods. Patients were recruited from general practices if they had experienced cross-sectoral care. Focus group discussions were audiotaped, transcribed and analysed using ATLAS.ti software. Categories were extracted deductively according to a previously developed focus group guide and supplemented by inductive analyses., Results: Patients identified quality gaps mainly concerning communication and coordination of care mostly along the cross-sectoral interfaces. Referrals and hospitalisations were characterised by redundant examinations and deficits in forwarding clinical findings. Support and organisation of follow-up care was rated to be improvable mainly during inpatient care and discharge. Patients identified also quality deficits concerning inpatient hygiene factors and changes of medication. Lack of transparency and responsibility within the entire chain of care caused anxiety and unstableness of patients., Conclusion: Patients' experiences provide important information to identify quality gaps along the entire chain of care. Study results can be used to develop a cross-sectoral patient-centred quality assessment instrument., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Objective: The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a generic questionnaire to evaluate experiences and reported outcomes in patients who receive treatment across a range of healthcare sectors., Design: Mixed-methods design including focus groups, pretests and field test., Setting: The patient questionnaire was developed in the context of a nationwide program in Germany aimed at quality improvements across the healthcare sectors., Participants: For the field test, 589 questionnaires were distributed to patients via 47 general practices., Main Measurements: Descriptive item analyzes non-responder analysis and factor analysis (PCA). Retest coefficients (r) calculated by correlation of sum scores of PCA factors. Quality gaps were assessed by the proportion of responders choosing a response category defined as indicating shortcomings in quality of care., Results: The conceptual phase showed good content validity. Four hundred and seventy-four patients who received a range of treatment across a range of sectors were included (response rate: 80.5%). Data analysis confirmed the construct, oriented to the patient care journey with a focus on transitions between healthcare sectors. Quality gaps were assessed for the topics 'Indication', including shared-decision-making (6 items, 24.5-62.9%) and 'Discharge and Transition' (10 items; 20.7-48.2%). Retest coefficients ranged from r = 0.671 until r = 0.855 and indicated good reliability. Low ratios of item-non-response (0.8-9.3%) confirmed a high acceptance by patients., Conclusions: The number of patients with complex healthcare needs is increasing. Initiatives to expand quality assurance across organizational borders and healthcare sectors are therefore urgently needed. A validated questionnaire (called PEACS 1.0) is available to measure patients' experiences across healthcare sectors with a focus on quality improvement., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press in association with the International Society for Quality in Health Care.)

Background: The benefit of physical activity for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease (CVD) has been well documented. The aim of the present study was to determine the level of awareness among general practitioners (GPs) of knee and hip problems in patients with CVD or CVD risk., Design: Cross-sectional questionnaire survey., Setting and Subjects: Thirty-five Austrian GPs and 1,118 patients were included. The GPs completed an extraction form about the presence or absence of documented evidence of problems related to the knee and/or hip joint within the patient medical data. Patients, in turn, were asked to complete a questionnaire that included the Oxford Knee/Hip Score and the cardiovascular risk-chart established by the European Society of Cardiology., Results: In 748 patients' data from medical records and questionnaires were available. 40.9% of these patients suffered from serious knee pain and 32.1% from hip pain. However, in the medical records, in only 51.3% (knee) and 48.1% (hip) of these pain-patients the problems were documented., Conclusion: Joint disorders of the knee and hip problems are considerable barriers to effective physical activity and can therefore contribute to the development of CVD. Our data showed that GP awareness of such knee/hip disorders should be improved.

Background: Cardiovascular prevention can be provided to patients at different risk levels. The aim of this study was to compare the quality of cardiovascular prevention provided in European primary care between patients with diagnosed coronary heart disease (CHD) and individuals at high risk due to known risk factors but not labelled with a diagnosis of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Additionally, we aimed to identify individual and practice factors to predict risk factor control., Methods: An international cross-sectional study was conducted in 10 European countries. Clinical record data were abstracted for quality indicators for 8928 patients in 10 countries and patient questionnaires were completed by 7846 patients in nine countries. Information about 320 general practices was assessed using practice questionnaires and interviews. Hierarchical multilevel modelling was used for analyses., Results: Recording of risk factors and advice was higher in the CHD than in the high-risk group. Risk factor control was better in the CHD group: uncontrolled levels of blood pressure (34.2 vs. 49.3%; p < 0.001), cholesterol (32.4 vs. 64.5%; p < 0.001). Predictors of risk factor control were medication adherence (RR 0.97; p = 0.007) and health-related quality of life (RR 0.86; p = 0.005). Being at high risk (RR 1.42; p < 0.001), being single (RR 1.12; p < 0.001), and having lower educational level (RR 1.09; p < 0.001) were associated with poorer risk factor control. Practice factors were not associated with outcomes., Conclusions: Strategies to improve guidelines adherence in cardiovascular prevention may be stronger focused on individuals at risk before CVD is diagnosed and require organizational and political support to reinforce general practices.

Patients with chronic disease usually need to take multiple medications. Drug-related interactions, adverse events, suboptimal adherence, and self-medication are components that can affect medication safety and lead to serious consequences for the patient. At present, regular medication reviews to check what medicines have been prescribed and what medicines are actually taken by the patient or the structured evaluation of drug-related problems rarely take place in Germany. The process of "medication reconciliation" or "medication review" as developed in the USA and the UK aim at increasing medication safety and therefore represent an instrument of quality assurance. Within the HeiCare(®) project a structured medication management was developed for general practice, with medical assistants playing a major role in the implementation of the process. Both the structured medication management and the tools developed for the medication check and medication counselling will be outlined in this article; also, findings on feasibility and acceptance in various projects and experiences from a total of 200 general practices (56 HeiCare(®), 29 HiCMan,115 PraCMan) will be described. The results were obtained from questionnaires and focus group discussions. The implementation of a structured medication management intervention into daily routine was seen as a challenge. Due to the high relevance of medication reconciliation for daily clinical practice, however, the checklists - once implemented successfully - have been applied even after the end of the project. They have led to the regular review and reconciliation of the physicians' documentation of the medicines prescribed (medication chart) with the medicines actually taken by the patient., (Copyright © 2013. Published by Elsevier GmbH.)

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) has a high prevalence in western countries. Diagnosis and treatment of CRC is complex and requires multidisciplinary collaboration across the interface of health care sectors. In Germany, a new nationwide established program aims to provide quality information of healthcare delivery across different sectors. Within this context, this study describes the development of a set of quality indicators charting the whole pathway of CRC-care including data specifications that are necessary to operationalize these indicators before practice testing., Methods: Indicators were developed following a systematic 10 step modified 'RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method' which involved a multidisciplinary panel of thirteen participants. For each indicator in the final set, data specifications relating to sources of quality information, data collection procedures, analysis and feedback were described., Results: The final indicator set included 52 indicators covering diagnostic procedures (11 indicators), therapeutic management (28 indicators) and follow-up (6 indicators). In addition, 7 indicators represented patient perspectives. Primary surgical tumor resection and pre-operative radiation (rectum carcinoma only) were perceived as most useful tracer procedures initiating quality data collection. To assess the quality of CRC care across sectors, various data sources were identified: medical records, administrative inpatient and outpatient data, sickness-funds billing code systems and patient survey., Conclusion: In Germany, a set of 52 quality indicators, covering necessary aspects across the interfaces and pathways relevant to CRC-care has been developed. Combining different sectors and sources of health care in quality assessment is an innovative and challenging approach but reflects better the reality of the patient pathway and experience of CRC-care.

Background: Prevention of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) is a major health issue worldwide. Primary care plays an important role in cardiovascular risk management (CVRM). Guidelines and quality of care measures to assess CVRM in primary care practices are available. In this study, we assessed the relationship between structural and organisational practice characteristics and the quality of care provided in individuals at high risk for developing CVD in European primary care., Methods: An observational study was conducted in 267 general practices from 9 European countries. Previously developed quality indicators were abstracted from medical records of randomly sampled patients to create a composite quality measure. Practice characteristics were collected by a practice questionnaire and face to face interviews. Data were aggregated using factor analysis to four practice scores representing structural and organisational practice features. A hierarchical multilevel analysis was performed to examine the impact of practice characteristics on quality of CVRM., Results: The final sample included 4223 individuals at high risk for developing CVD (28% female) with a mean age of 66.5 years (SD 9.1). Mean indicator achievement was 59.9% with a greater variation between practices than between countries. Predictors at the patient level (age, gender) had no influence on the outcome. At the practice level, the score 'Preventive Services' (13 items) was positively associated with clinical performance (r = 1.92; p = 0.0058). Sensitivity analyses resulted in a 5-item score (PrevServ&#95;5) that was also positively associated with the outcome (r = 4.28; p < 0.0001)., Conclusions: There was a positive association between the quality of CVRM in individuals at high risk for developing CVD and the availability of preventive services related to risk assessment and lifestyle management supported by information technology.

Objectives: Cardiovascular risk management (CVRM) received by patients shows large variation across countries. In this study we explored the aspects of primary care organisation associated with key components of CVRM in coronary heart disease (CHD) patients., Design: Observational study., Setting: 273 primary care practices in Austria, Belgium, England, Finland, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Slovenia, Switzerland and Spain., Participants: A random sample of 4563 CHD patients identified by coded diagnoses in eight countries, based on prescription lists and while visiting the practice in one country each., Main Outcome Measure: We performed an audit in primary care practices in 10 European countries. We used six indicators to measure key components of CVRM: risk factor recording, antiplatelet therapy, influenza vaccination, blood pressure levels (systolic <140 and diastolic <90 mm Hg), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol <2.5 mmol/l. Data from structured questionnaires were used to construct an overall measure and six domain measures of practice organisation based on 39 items. Using multilevel regression analyses we explored the effects of practice organisation on CVRM, controlling for patient characteristics., Results: Better overall organisation of a primary care practice was associated with higher scores on three indicators: risk factor registration (B=0.0307, p<0.0001), antiplatelet therapy (OR 1.05, p=0.0245) and influenza vaccination (OR 1.12, p<0.0001). Overall practice organisation was not found to be related with recorded blood pressure or cholesterol levels. Only the organisational domains 'self-management support' and 'use of clinical information systems' were linked to three CVRM indicators., Conclusions: A better organisation of a primary care practice was associated with better scores on process indicators of CVRM in CHD patients, but not on intermediate patient outcome measures. Direct support for patients and clinicians seemed most influential.

Background: Primary care for chronic illness varies across European healthcare systems. In patients suffering from coronary heart disease (CHD), factors associated with patients' experiences of receiving structured chronic care and counselling at the patient and practice level were investigated., Methods: In an observational study comprising 140 general practices from five European countries (Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the United Kingdom), 30 patients with Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) per practice were chosen at random to partake in this research. Patients were provided with a questionnaire and the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC-5A) - instrument. Practice characteristics were assessed through a practice questionnaire and face to face interviews. Data were aggregated to obtain two practice scores representing quality management and CHD care, respectively. A hierarchical multilevel analysis was performed to examine the impact of patient and practice characteristics on PACIC scores., Results: The final sample included 1745 CHD-patients from 131 general practices with a mean age of 67.8 (SD 9.9) years. The overall PACIC score was 2.84 (95%CI: 2.79; 2.89) and the 5A score reflecting structured lifestyle counselling was 2.75 (95% CI: 2.69; 2.79). At the patient level, male gender, more frequent practice contact and fewer related or unrelated conditions were associated with higher PACIC scores. At the practice level, performance scores reflecting quality management (p = 0.013) and CHD care (p = 0.009) were associated with improved assessment of the structured chronic care and counselling received., Conclusions: Patients' perceived quality of care varies. However, good practice management and organisation of care were positively reflected in patients' assessments of receiving structured chronic illness care. This highlights the importance of integrating patient experiences into quality measurements to provide feedback to health care professionals.

Background: Detection and registration of high risk for cardiovascular diseases (CVD) by assessing individual's absolute cardiovascular risk is recommended in clinical guidelines. Effective interventions to reduce cardiovascular risk are available, but not optimally implemented. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of cardiovascular risk-factor recording and lifestyle counselling in high-risk patients in European primary care and to identify factors related to these clinical processes., Methods: An international cross-sectional observational study was conducted in stratified samples of primary care practices in nine European countries. Patient records were audited, using a structured data-abstraction tool based on internationally developed quality indicators. To identify factors associated with the recording, additional data were collected in a patient survey. Descriptive and multilevel data analyses were conducted., Results: In 268 general practices across Europe, 3723 records of individuals at high risk for cardiovascular diseases were audited. We found important variations in the quality of documentation of risk factors and lifestyle interventions. Recording of risk factors was best for blood pressure (92.5% of audited records, 95% CI 0.89-0.96). Lifestyle advice was recorded best for smoking cessation (65.6%, 95% CI 0.58-0.73) and worst for physical activity (38.8%, 95% CI 0.31-0.47). Of the study population, 50.6% (0.42-0.59) had elevated blood pressure levels, 59.8% (0.51-0.69) had total cholesterol >5 mmol/l, and 30.5% (0.22-0.39) were smokers. Multivariate analyses showed that recording of risk factors and counselling were related to specific patient characteristics more than to country effects., Conclusions: Analysis of different country results can be helpful for developing quality-improvement strategies.

Background: For patients with coronary heart diseases a substantial part of secondary prevention is delivered in primary care. Along with the growing importance of prevention, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an indicator of patient-centered care that has gained increased attention. Different approaches for reorganization in primary care have been associated with improvements in HRQoL. However, these are often results of complex interventions. Evidence on aspects concerning usual primary care that actually have an impact on HRQoL remains scarce. Therefore, this observational study aimed to identify factors which are associated with HRQoL in usual primary care at practice and patient-level., Methods: This observational study was conducted in eight European countries. We were able to match data from survey instruments for 3505 patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) in 228 practices. A multilevel analysis was performed to identify associations of EQ-5D scores at patient and practice-level., Results: After dropping patients with missing information, our cohort consisted of 2656 patients. In this sample, 30.5% were female and the mean age was 67.5 years (SD 10.1). The final model included a total set of 14 potential explanatory variables. At practice-level no variable was associated with EQ-5D. At patient-level, lower education (r = -0.0381, p<0.0001), female gender (r = -0.0543, p<0.0001) and a higher number of other conditions (r = -0.0340, p<0.0001), had a strong negative effect on HRQoL. Strong positive associations with HRQoL were found for a good medication adherence (Morisky) (r = 0.0195, p<0.0001) and more positive evaluations of physicians' clinical behavior (r = 0.0282, p = 0.002). In terms of HRQoL no differences between single-handed and group practices exist., Conclusion: The results of our study suggest that a better patient-physician relationship rather than organization of CHD care is associated with higher HRQOL in the primary care setting. The results may imply that interventions to improve HRQoL require a strong patient-centered approach.

Objectives: A clinical practice guideline (CPG) contains specifically developed recommendations that can serve physicians as a decision aid in evidence-based practice. The implementation of heart failure (HF) CPGs represents a challenge in general practice. As part of the development of a tailored curriculum, aim of this study was to identify barriers of guideline adherence and needs for medical education (CME) in HF care., Methods: We conducted a modified focus group with elements of a workshop of three hours duration. Thirteen GPs collected and discussed together and parallel in smaller groups barriers of guideline implementation. Afterwards they performed a needs assessment for a tailored CME curriculum for chronic HF. The content of the discussions was analysed qualitatively according to Mayring and categorised thematically., Results: Barriers of guideline adherence were found in the following areas: doctor: procedural knowledge (knowledge gaps), communicative and organisational skills (e.g. time management) and attitude (dissatisfaction with time-money-relation)., Patients: individual case-related problems (multimorbidity, psychiatric comorbidity, expectations and beliefs). Doctor and patient: Adherence and barriers of communication. Main measures for improvement of care concerned the areas of the identified barriers of guideline adherence with the focus on application-oriented training of the abovementioned procedural knowledge and skills, but also the supply of tools (like patient information leaflets) and patient education., Conclusion: For a CME-curriculum for HF tailored to the needs of GPs, a comprehensive educational approach seems necessary. It should be broad-based and include elements of knowledge and skills to be addressed and trained case-related. Additional elements should include support in the implementation of organisational processes in the practice and patient education.

Background and Objective: Changes between health care sectors represent a critical phase in long-term pharmacotherapy. The aim of the Hei CARE(®) project was to close the communication gap at the interface between primary care physicians (PCP), hospital physicians and patients, and to improve quality and safety of pharmacotherapy., Methods: Physicians who enrolled patients with long-term pharmacotherapy were able to participate in the Hei CARE(®) project. After enrolment the patient's medication was entered in the internet-based medication knowledge data base AiD PRAXIS and checked for medication interactions and optimized if necessary. At hospitalisation medication was transferred electronically to the hospital (AiD KLINIK(®)) and on discharge integrated in the discharge letter and faxed to the primary care physician (PCP). The project was evaluated using quantitative and qualitative methods. Hei CARE(®) -cases, in which medication was transferred electronically as planned, were compared with the other cases. PCPs' experiences were collected in focus groups., Results: One thousand and three chronically ill patients of 56 primary care practices participated. 259 patients were hospitalized between October 2005 and March 2009 of which entrance and discharge medication were transferred both ways via the electronic prescribing platform in 67 cases. The number of changes in medication was reduced in comparison to the other cases. Participating PCPs reported positive changes through Hei CARE(®) as well as further potential for optimizing communication across health care sectors., Conclusion: Use of a common internet-based medication knowledge data base (Hei CARE(®) ) in both health care sectors reduced the number of changes in pharmacotherapy. Seamless care in chronically ill patients was thereby improved. The project also demonstrated that improving communication across health care sectors is a slow process., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Background: Primary care can play an important role in providing cardiovascular risk management in patients with established Cardiovascular Diseases (CVD), patients with a known high risk of developing CVD, and potentially for individuals with a low risk of developing CVD, but who have unhealthy lifestyles. To describe and compare cardiovascular risk management, internationally valid quality indicators and standardized measures are needed. As part of a large project in 9 European countries (EPA-Cardio), we have developed and tested a set of standardized measures, linked to previously developed quality indicators., Methods: A structured stepwise procedure was followed to develop measures. First, the research team allocated 106 validated quality indicators to one of the three target populations (established CVD, at high risk, at low risk) and to different data-collection methods (data abstraction from the medical records, a patient survey, an interview with lead practice GP/a practice survey). Secondly, we selected a number of other validated measures to enrich the assessment. A pilot study was performed to test the feasibility. Finally, we revised the measures based on the findings., Results: The EPA-Cardio measures consisted of abstraction forms from the medical-records data of established Coronary Heart Disease (CHD)-patients--and high-risk groups, a patient questionnaire for each of the 3 groups, an interview questionnaire for the lead GP and a questionnaire for practice teams. The measures were feasible and accepted by general practices from different countries., Conclusions: An internationally standardized measure of cardiovascular risk management, linked to validated quality indicators and tested for feasibility in general practice, is now available. Careful development and pilot testing of the measures are crucial in international studies of quality of healthcare.

Objective: To compare different interventions used to communicate cardiovascular risk and assess their impact on patient related outcomes., Methods: A systematic search of six electronic data sources from January 1980 to November 2008. Data was extracted from the included studies and a narrative synthesis of the results was conducted., Results: Fifteen studies were included. Only four studies assessed individuals' actual cardiovascular risk; the rest were analogue studies using hypothetical risk profiles. Heterogeneity in study design and outcomes was found. The results from individual studies suggest that presenting patients with their cardiovascular risk in percentages or frequencies, using graphical representation and short timeframes, is best for achieving risk reduction through behaviour change. However, this summary is tentative and needs further exploration., Conclusion: Better quality trials are needed that compare different risk presentation formats, before conclusions can be drawn as to the most effective ways to communicate cardiovascular risk to patients., Practice Implications: Instead of directing attention to the accuracy of cardiovascular risk prediction, more should be paid to the effective presentation of risk, to help patients reduce risk by lifestyle change or active treatment., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cardiovascular risk management plays an important role in primary care. In patients at high risk for cardiovascular diseases (CVD) lifestyle and, where appropriate, medical interventions are recommended in guidelines. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important outcome in clinical practice. This study aimed to assess the HRQoL of this patient group and to investigate the impact of both patients' characteristics and practice quality scores on their assessments of HRQoL., Methods and Findings: An observational study in 218 general practices from 8 European countries was conducted. 2142 patients at risk for CVD (33.5% female) with a mean age of 66.3 (SD 9.1) years completed a questionnaire including the EQ-5D instrument and provided data from medical record. Validated quality indicators of general practices were assessed using practice questionnaires and face-to-face interviews. A hierarchical multilevel analysis was performed to identify predictors of EQ-5D scores at patient and practice level. The mean EQ-5D score was 0.78 (SD 0.19). Female gender (r=-0.03, p<0.0016), age (r=-0.01, p=0.0387) and lower educational level (r=-0.03, p<0.0001) were correlated negatively with EQ-5D scores. Clinically more important was the correlation of HRQoL with the frequency of practice contacts (r=-0.12, p<0.0001) and the number of uncontrolled risk factors (r= -0.01, p<0.0039). Medication adherence (r=0.032, p<0.0001), and physical activity (r=0.02, p<0.0001) were identified as positive predictors of HRQoL. The EUPROPEP-score category 'organization' (r=0.02, p<0.0001) was positively related to EQ-5D scores, whereas other practice scores were not correlated to EQ-5D-scores., Conclusions: In patients at risk for CVD, good medication adherence, regular physical activity, controlling of biomedical risk factor levels and patient-centered practice organization have been shown to be positively correlated to HRQoL and should therefore be targeted in interventions not only to reduce morbidity but also to sustain or even to ameliorate HRQoL., (© 2011 Ludt et al.)

Background: The number of patients with chronic diseases is increasing which poses a challenge to healthcare organisations. A proactive, structured, and population-orientated approach is needed: the chronic care model (CCM) provides such a framework., Aim: To assess organisational conditions for providing structured chronic care according to the CCM across different healthcare systems., Design of Study: International observational study., Setting: A stratified sample of 315 primary care practices in 10 European countries and Israel in 2008 and 2009., Method: Practice questionnaires and interviews. Outcome measures were mean practice scores on CCM domains per country, as a percentage of the maximum score, and the influence of practice size and urbanisation on these scores., Results: Practice size showed large differences with the largest practices in Spain, England, Finland, and Israel. These countries, with a strong primary care orientation, had most physicians and staff involved per practice. The CCM domains 'clinical information systems' and 'decision support' had total practice means of 90%; other domains scored about 50%. Spain and England scored above average on almost all domains. Practice size and urbanisation had little impact., Conclusion: Characteristics for chronic care delivery differed for most CCM domains. The most common characteristics related to computerisation, providing a good starting point and high potential everywhere. All countries showed room for improvement. Further research should focus on relations between practice characteristics, organisational features, including health system and primary care orientation, and outcomes. Primary care seems suited for chronic care delivery; however, a stronger primary care was associated with better scores.

Objectives Patients' self-report of medicine taking is a feasible method of assessing their adherence to prescribed pharmacological treatment. Aim of this study was to assess whether the German version of the Medication Adherence Report Scale (MARS-D) is an appropriate instrument for measuring patient adherence. Methods After translation into German, the questionnaire was sent to 1488 patients with chronic diseases and patients with risk factors of cardiovascular disease. Reliability and validity of the MARS-D were assessed and compared with the psychometric properties of the original English version. The relationship between patients' characteristics and adherent behaviour was estimated using bivariate correlation and a linear regression model. Results The MARS-D was analysed if patients were taking medicines and the MARS-D was complete leaving 523 (35.1%) analysable questionnaires. Internal consistency of the MARS-D (Cronbach's alpha 0.60-0.69) was satisfactory and comparable to the English original (Cronbach's alpha 0.69-0.90). Test-retest reliability was satisfactory (Pearson's r 0.61-0.63), however, lower than in the English sample (r = 0.97). Convergent validity was low but showed statistical significance. Patient socio-demographic characteristics had weak influence on MARS-D score indicating high reported adherence for older patients (P < 0.05), patients with German mother tongue (P < 0.05) and high number of medicines (P < 0.01). Conclusions Preliminary psychometric evaluation of the MARS-D is encouraging. MARS-D is an appropriate measure to detect patients at risk of non-adherence. The MARS-D could be used in routine care to support communication about the medication taking behaviour, as self-report of non-adherent behaviour corresponds to the facts.

Background: With free movement of labour in Europe, European guidelines on cardiovascular care and the enlargement of the European Union to include countries with disparate health care systems, it is important to develop common quality standards for cardiovascular prevention and risk management across Europe., Methods: Panels from nine European countries (Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands, Slovenia, United Kingdom and Switzerland) developed quality indicators for the prevention and management of cardiovascular disease in primary care. A two-stage modified Delphi process was used to identify indicators that were judged valid for necessary care., Results: Forty-four out of 202 indicators (22%) were rated as valid. These focused predominantly on secondary prevention and management of established cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Less agreement on indicators of preventive care or on indicators for the management of hypertension and hypercholesterolaemia in patients without established disease was observed. Although 85% of the 202 potential indicators assessed were rated valid by at least one panel, lack of consensus among panels meant that the set that could be agreed upon among all panels was much smaller., Conclusion: Indicators for the management of established cardiovascular disease have been developed, which can be used to measure the quality of cardiovascular care across a wide range of countries. Less agreement on how the quality of preventive care should be assessed was observed, probably caused by differences in health systems, culture and attitudes to prevention.

Progress in medical research has led to an increased number of diagnostic tests. However, the diagnostic accuracy of these tests often lacks evaluation in the primary care setting. Ignorance of evidence-based diagnostic strategies may cause a distorted estimation of diagnostic certainty in general practice and may increase pointless application of diagnostic tests. This study investigates the attitudes of students towards diagnostic accuracy and evaluates whether a seminar about evidence-based diagnosis has an impact on these attitudes. 424 medical students were asked to complete a questionnaire before and after a 90-minute seminar. Before the seminar, 71% of the students thought that due to a lack of resources some diagnostic tests--although necessary--are not being reimbursed. At the end of the seminar, this proportion was reduced by 12% (p<0.001). The call for global reimbursement for all diagnostic tests was reduced by 25% (p<0.001). In contrast, there was no change in the proportion of students (21%) that incorrectly attributed diagnostic uncertainty to a lower competence of the general practitioner. Thus, it seems that after a single seminar there was a cognitive change concerning the application of diagnostic tests rather than a change in the personal attitudes of students towards diagnostic uncertainty in primary care. In this context, the continuous implementation of the principles of evidence-based medicine would be necessary to improve the students' decision-making skills on the basis of a critical attitude including the reasonable handling of uncertainties in medical care.

Background: Diabetes model projects in different regions of Germany including interventions such as quality circles, patient education and documentation of medical findings have shown improvements of HbA1c levels, blood pressure and occurrence of hypoglycaemia in before-after studies (without control group). In 2002 the German Ministry of Health defined legal regulations for the introduction of nationwide disease management programs (DMP) to improve the quality of care in chronically ill patients. In April 2003 the first DMP for patients with type 2 diabetes was accredited. The evaluation of the DMP is essential and has been made obligatory in Germany by the Fifth Book of Social Code. The aim of the study is to assess the effectiveness of DMP by example of type 2 diabetes in the primary care setting of two German federal states (Rheinland-Pfalz and Sachsen-Anhalt)., Methods/design: The study is three-armed: a prospective cluster-randomized comparison of two interventions (DMP 1 and DMP 2) against routine care without DMP as control group. In the DMP group 1 the patients are treated according to the current situation within the German-Diabetes-DMP. The DMP group 2 represents diabetic care within ideally implemented DMP providing additional interventions (e.g. quality circles, outreach visits). According to a sample size calculation a sample size of 200 GPs (each GP including 20 patients) will be required for the comparison of DMP 1 and DMP 2 considering possible drop-outs. For the comparison with routine care 4000 patients identified by diabetic tracer medication and age (> 50 years) will be analyzed., Discussion: This study will evaluate the effectiveness of the German Diabetes-DMP compared to a Diabetes-DMP providing additional interventions and routine care in the primary care setting of two different German federal states.

Background: Patient education programmes will be a mandatory part of the new legislation on disease management programmes for chronic diseases in Germany. Today, only little is known about the number, variety and effectiveness of implemented patient education programmes in Germany., Methods: 176 potential providers of patient education programmes were identified by literature search, Internet search, and interviews with health education experts. We developed a semi-structured questionnaire. Assessment of content and quality was conducted in two steps by using defined criteria of the Co-ordinating Committee, the Head Association of the statutory health insurances and the respective Medical Associations: the first step was to check whether the programme had a structured teaching concept and whether all requirements for education with respect to a given disease had been taken into account. In the second step, we used balance sheets for reviewing the strengths and weaknesses of the programmes., Results: 49 providers handed in 95 pa tient education programmes for assess ment. Due to formal mistakes only 91 programmes could be analysed. 49 programmes failed the criteria of the first assessment step. For the remaining 42 patient education programmes balance sheets were prepared. Areas of the most frequent deficiencies included: lack of scientific evaluation of the effectiveness of the programme, lack of transparency of cost data, and quality improvement activities., Conclusions: For the purpose of a nation-wide implementation of disease management programmes the existing patient education programmes in Germany need to be further improved. Single examples demonstrated that the accessible criteria of self-management are not sufficient for the evaluation of already established patient education programmes.