Search

Objectives To compare secondary prevention care for patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke, exploring particularly the influences due to frequency and regularity of primary care visits. Setting Secondary prevention for patients (≥18 years) in the National Prescription Service administrative electronic health record database collated from 458 Australian general practice sites across all states and territories. Design Retrospective cross- sectional and panel study. Patient and care- level characteristics were compared for differing CHD/stroke diagnoses. Associations between the type of cardiovascular diagnosis and medication prescription as well as risk factor assessment were examined using multivariable logistic regression. Participants Patients with three or more general practice encounters within 2 years of their latest visit during 2016--2020. Outcome measures Proportions and odds ratios (ORs) for (1) prescription of antihypertensives, antilipidaemics and antiplatelets and (2) assessment of blood pressure (BP) and low- density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL- C) in patients with stroke only compared against those with CHD only and those with both conditions. Results There were 111 892 patients with CHD only, 27 863 with stroke only and 9791 with both conditions. Relative to patients with CHD, patients with stroke were underprescribed antihypertensives (70.8% vs 82.8%), antilipidaemics (63.1% vs 78.7%) and antiplatelets (42.2% vs 45.7%). With sociodemographic factors, comorbidities and level of care considered as covariates, the odds of non- prescription of any recommended secondary prevention medications were higher in patients with stroke only (adjusted OR 1.37; 95% CI (1.31, 1.44)) compared with patients with CHD only. Patients with stroke only were also more likely to have neither BP nor LDL- C monitored (adjusted OR 1.26; 95% CI (1.18, 1.34)). Frequent and regular general practitioner encounters were independently associated with the prescription of secondary prevention medications (p<0.001). Conclusions Secondary prevention management is suboptimal in cardiovascular disease patients and worse post- stroke compared with post- CHD. More frequent and regular primary care encounters were associated with improved secondary prevention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Women with a history of gestational diabetes (GD) have a high risk of developing diabetes and subsequent cardiovascular disease (CVD). Aim: To assess whether diabetes screening and CVD risk screening occurred in general practice (GP) among postpartum women with GD. Methods: This is a retrospective study of clinical record data of women with GD, under active GP management, from the MedicineInsight programme, run by Australia's National Prescribing Service MedicineWise, with GP sites located in Australia from January 2015 to March 2021. Documentation of screening for diabetes, assessment of lipids and measurement of blood pressure (BP) was assessed using proportions and mixed‐effects logistic regression with a log follow‐up time offset. Results: There were 10 413 women, with a mean age of 37.9 years (standard deviation, 7.6), from 406 clinics with a mean follow‐up of 4.6 years (interquartile range, 1.8–6.2 years) A total of 29.41% (3062/10 413; 95% confidence interval [CI], 28.53–30.28) had not been assessed for diabetes, 37.40% (3894/10 413; 95% CI, 36.47–38.32) were not assessed for lipids and 2.19% (228/10 413; 95% CI, 1.91–2.47) had no BP documented. In total, 51.82% (5396/10 413; 95% CI, 50.86–52.78) were screened for all three (diabetes + lipids + BP) at least once. Obesity, comorbidities and dyslipidaemia were associated with increased likelihood of screening. New diabetes diagnosis was documented in 5.73% (597/10 413; 95% CI, 5.29–6.18) of the cohort. Conclusion: Screening for diabetes and hyperlipidaemia was suboptimal in this high‐risk cohort of women with prior GD. Improved messaging that women with a GD diagnosis are at high cardiovascular risk may improve subsequent screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the results of an "Innovations in Education Survey" conducted by Childhood Education International, highlighting the importance of proactive education leaders in seeking and implementing innovative ideas. Topics discussed include respondents' familiarity with and interest in education innovation, their willingness to implement innovative ideas, and the barriers they face in doing so.

The original article has been corrected. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]