Comparing secondary prevention for patients with coronary heart disease and stroke attending Australian general practices: a cross-sectional study using nationwide electronic database.

IF 5.6 1区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMJ Quality & Safety Pub Date : 2024-07-22 DOI:10.1136/bmjqs-2022-015699
Jason Yue, Samia Kazi, Tu Nguyen, Clara Kayei Chow
{"title":"Comparing secondary prevention for patients with coronary heart disease and stroke attending Australian general practices: a cross-sectional study using nationwide electronic database.","authors":"Jason Yue, Samia Kazi, Tu Nguyen, Clara Kayei Chow","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2022-015699","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Patients with three or more general practice encounters within 2 years of their latest visit during 2016-2020.</p><p><strong>Outcome measures: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":9077,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Quality & Safety","volume":" ","pages":"499-510"},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Quality & Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2022-015699","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比较澳大利亚全科医生对冠心病和中风患者的二级预防:利用全国电子数据库进行的横断面研究。
目的:比较冠心病和中风患者的二级预防护理:比较冠心病(CHD)和中风患者的二级预防护理,尤其是探讨初级保健就诊频率和规律性的影响因素:背景:国家处方服务管理电子健康记录数据库中的二级预防患者(≥18 岁),该数据库来自澳大利亚各州和地区的 458 个全科诊所:设计:回顾性横断面和小组研究。针对不同的冠心病/脑卒中诊断,比较了患者和护理层面的特征。采用多变量逻辑回归法研究了心血管疾病诊断类型与药物处方以及风险因素评估之间的关系:2016-2020年期间最近一次就诊后两年内有三次或三次以上全科就诊经历的患者:结果:仅患有脑卒中的患者与仅患有冠心病的患者以及同时患有这两种疾病的患者在以下方面的比例和几率比(ORs):(1)开具降压药、抗血脂药和抗血小板药处方;(2)评估血压(BP)和低密度脂蛋白胆固醇(LDL-C):仅患有心脏病的患者有 111 892 人,仅患有中风的患者有 27 863 人,同时患有两种疾病的患者有 9791 人。与心脏病患者相比,脑卒中患者的降压药(70.8% 对 82.8%)、抗血脂药(63.1% 对 78.7%)和抗血小板药(42.2% 对 45.7%)用药不足。考虑到社会人口学因素、合并症和护理水平等协变量,与仅患有冠心病的患者相比,仅患有脑卒中的患者未服用任何推荐的二级预防药物的几率更高(调整后 OR 1.37;95% CI (1.31,1.44))。仅中风患者也更有可能既未监测血压也未监测低密度脂蛋白胆固醇(调整后 OR 1.26;95% CI (1.18,1.34))。经常定期与全科医生会面与开具二级预防药物处方独立相关(P结论:心血管疾病患者的二级预防管理并不理想,中风后患者的二级预防管理比慢性阻塞性肺疾病患者更差。更频繁、更有规律的初级保健就诊与二级预防的改善有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Quality & Safety
BMJ Quality & Safety HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
9.80
自引率
7.40%
发文量
104
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Quality & Safety (previously Quality & Safety in Health Care) is an international peer review publication providing research, opinions, debates and reviews for academics, clinicians and healthcare managers focused on the quality and safety of health care and the science of improvement. The journal receives approximately 1000 manuscripts a year and has an acceptance rate for original research of 12%. Time from submission to first decision averages 22 days and accepted articles are typically published online within 20 days. Its current impact factor is 3.281.
期刊最新文献
What do clinical practice guidelines say about deprescribing? A scoping review. Understanding the enablers and barriers to implementing a patient-led escalation system: a qualitative study. Assessing patient work system factors for medication management during transition of care among older adults: an observational study. Sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll: the only reasons for regulators to target individuals. Patient-activated escalation in hospital: patients and their families are ready!
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1