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":"未来健康今天:针对有未确诊癌症风险的患者在全科诊所开展质量改进活动的实用分组随机试验。","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
背景:由于许多癌症症状并不具有特异性,而且潜在诊断存在重叠,因此全科癌症诊断非常复杂。这项试验评估了一种名为 "今日未来健康"(FHT)的技术的有效性,该技术提供临床决策支持、审计和质量改进监控,可对有未确诊癌症风险的患者进行适当的随访:方法:在澳大利亚全科医生中开展务实的分组随机试验。随机分配诊所接受癌症后续检查建议(FHT 癌症模块)或积极对照组。算法应用于电子病历,并使用人口统计学信息和与未确诊癌症风险相关的异常检查结果(贫血/缺铁、血小板增多和PSA升高)来识别需要进一步检查的患者,并提供护理建议。干预措施包括 FHT 癌症模块、基于案例的系列学习和持续的实践支持。采用意向治疗法,在12个月后确定两组间根据指南进行随访的检查结果异常患者的比例差异:结果:7555 名患者被确认为面临未确诊癌症的风险。随机后12个月时,干预组76.2%的患者接受了建议的随访(21家诊所,n=2820/3709),而对照组为70%(19家诊所,n=2693/3846;估计两组间百分比差异=2.6%,95% CI -2.8%至7.9%;几率比=1.15,95% CI 0.87-1.53;P=0.332):结论:FHT 癌症模块干预并没有提高接受与指南一致的治疗的患者比例。接受建议随访的患者比例较高,这表明干预措施可能存在上限效应。
Future Health Today: A pragmatic cluster randomised trial of quality improvement activities in general practice for patients at risk of undiagnosed cancer.
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.