Future Health Today: A pragmatic cluster randomised trial of quality improvement activities in general practice for patients at risk of undiagnosed cancer.
Sophie Chima, Javiera Martinez Gutierrez, Barbara Hunter, Adrian Laughlin, Patty Chondros, Natalie Lumsden, Douglas Boyle, Craig Nelson, Paul Amores, An Duy Tran, Jo-Anne Manski-Nankervis, Jon Emery
{"title":"Future Health Today: A pragmatic cluster randomised trial of quality improvement activities in general practice for patients at risk of undiagnosed cancer.","authors":"Sophie Chima, Javiera Martinez Gutierrez, Barbara Hunter, Adrian Laughlin, Patty Chondros, Natalie Lumsden, Douglas Boyle, Craig Nelson, Paul Amores, An Duy Tran, Jo-Anne Manski-Nankervis, Jon Emery","doi":"10.3399/BJGP.2024.0491","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Diagnosing cancer in general practice is complex, given the non-specific nature of many presenting symptoms and the overlap of potential diagnoses. This trial evaluated the effectiveness of a technology, Future Health Today (FHT), which provides clinical decision support, auditing, and quality improvement monitoring, on the appropriate follow-up of patients at risk of undiagnosed cancer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Pragmatic, cluster randomised trial in Australian general practice. Practices were randomly assigned to receive recommendations for follow-up investigations for cancer (FHT cancer module) or the active control. Algorithms were applied to the electronic medical record and used demographic information and abnormal test results that are associated with risk of undiagnosed cancer (anaemia/iron-deficiency, thrombocytosis and raised PSA) to identify patients requiring further investigation and provide recommendations for care. The intervention consisted of the FHT cancer module, a case-based learning series and ongoing practice support. Using intention-to-treat approach, between arms difference in the proportion of patients with abnormal test results followed-up according to guidelines was determined at 12-months.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>7555 patients were identified as at risk of undiagnosed cancer. At 12-months post-randomisation, 76.2% of patients in the intervention arm had received recommended follow-up (21 practices, n=2820/3709), compared to 70% in the control arm (19 practices, n=2693/3846; estimated between arm difference in percentages=2.6%, 95% CI -2.8% to 7.9%; odds ratio=1.15, 95% CI 0.87-1.53; p=0.332).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The FHT cancer module intervention did not increase the proportion of patients receiving guideline-concordant care. The proportion of patients receiving recommended followed-up was high, suggesting a possible ceiling effect for the intervention.</p>","PeriodicalId":55320,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of General Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of General Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2024.0491","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Diagnosing cancer in general practice is complex, given the non-specific nature of many presenting symptoms and the overlap of potential diagnoses. This trial evaluated the effectiveness of a technology, Future Health Today (FHT), which provides clinical decision support, auditing, and quality improvement monitoring, on the appropriate follow-up of patients at risk of undiagnosed cancer.
Methods: Pragmatic, cluster randomised trial in Australian general practice. Practices were randomly assigned to receive recommendations for follow-up investigations for cancer (FHT cancer module) or the active control. Algorithms were applied to the electronic medical record and used demographic information and abnormal test results that are associated with risk of undiagnosed cancer (anaemia/iron-deficiency, thrombocytosis and raised PSA) to identify patients requiring further investigation and provide recommendations for care. The intervention consisted of the FHT cancer module, a case-based learning series and ongoing practice support. Using intention-to-treat approach, between arms difference in the proportion of patients with abnormal test results followed-up according to guidelines was determined at 12-months.
Results: 7555 patients were identified as at risk of undiagnosed cancer. At 12-months post-randomisation, 76.2% of patients in the intervention arm had received recommended follow-up (21 practices, n=2820/3709), compared to 70% in the control arm (19 practices, n=2693/3846; estimated between arm difference in percentages=2.6%, 95% CI -2.8% to 7.9%; odds ratio=1.15, 95% CI 0.87-1.53; p=0.332).
Conclusions: The FHT cancer module intervention did not increase the proportion of patients receiving guideline-concordant care. The proportion of patients receiving recommended followed-up was high, suggesting a possible ceiling effect for the intervention.
期刊介绍:
The British Journal of General Practice is an international journal publishing research, editorials, debate and analysis, and clinical guidance for family practitioners and primary care researchers worldwide.
BJGP began in 1953 as the ‘College of General Practitioners’ Research Newsletter’, with the ‘Journal of the College of General Practitioners’ first appearing in 1960. Following the change in status of the College, the ‘Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners’ was launched in 1967. Three editors later, in 1990, the title was changed to the ‘British Journal of General Practice’. The journal is commonly referred to as the ''BJGP'', and is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners.