Jason Yue, Samia Kazi, Tu Nguyen, Clara Kayei Chow
{"title":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
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。
Comparing secondary prevention for patients with coronary heart disease and stroke attending Australian general practices: a cross-sectional study using nationwide electronic database.
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.
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.