Impact of a multifaceted intervention on cholesterol management in primary care practices: guideline adherence for heart health randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Physician adherence to National Cholesterol Education Program clinical practice guidelines has been poor. METHODS: We recruited 68 primary care family and internal medicine practices; 66 were randomly allocated to a study arm; 5 practices withdrew, resulting in 29 receiving the Third Adult Treatment Panel (ATP III) intervention and 32 receiving an alternative intervention focused on the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC-7). The ATP III providers received a personal digital assistant providing the Framingham risk scores and ATP III-recommended treatment. All practices received copies of each clinical practice guideline, an introductory lecture, 1 performance feedback report, and 4 visits for intervention-specific academic detailing. Data were abstracted at 61 practices from random samples of medical records of patients treated from June 1, 2001, through May 31, 2003 (baseline), and from May 1, 2004, through April 30, 2006 (follow-up). The proportion screened with subsequent appropriate decision making (primary outcome) was calculated. Generalized estimating equations were used to compare results by arm, accounting for clustering of patients within practices. RESULTS: We examined 5057 baseline and 3821 follow-up medical records. The screening rate for lipid levels increased from 43.6% to 49.0% (ATP III practices) and from 40.1% to 50.8% (control practices) (net difference, -5.3% [P = .22]). Appropriate management of lipid levels decreased slightly (73.4% to 72.3%) in ATP III practices and more markedly (79.7% to 68.9%) in control practices. The net change in appropriate management favored the intervention (+9.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.8%-16.6% [P < .01]). Appropriate drug prescription within 4 months decreased in both arms (38.8% to 24.8% in ATP III practices and 45.3% to 24.1% in control practices; net change, +7.2% [P = .37]) Overtreatment declined from 6.6% to 3.9% in ATP III and rose from 4.2% to 6.4% in control practices (net change, -4.9% [P = .01]). CONCLUSIONS: A multifactor intervention including personal digital assistant-based decision support may improve primary care physician adherence to the ATP III guidelines. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00224848.

The Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) Trial and Hurricane Katrina: lessons for managing clinical trials during and after a natural disaster.

Hurricane Katrina was one of the most catastrophic natural disasters to hit the United States. It had a major impact on health care in New Orleans, LA and the surrounding region, not only in relation to acute illness but also chronic disease. When Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans on August 29, 2005, there were 193 participants being followed in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) Trial at Tulane University Health Sciences Center. In the immediate aftermath of the storm, the Tulane University ACCORD Study site, in collaboration with the Study Coordinating Center and the Southeast Clinical Center Network office of the trial at Wake Forest University Health Sciences in North Carolina, took several actions in order to locate the participants, ensure their safety, and maintain the scientific integrity of the trial. We describe the actions taken and the relative success/failure of such actions.

Quality of cholesterol screening and management with respect to the National Cholesterol Education's Third Adult Treatment Panel (ATPIII) guideline in primary care practices in North Carolina.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to previous national cholesterol guidelines has been low. We assessed whether lipid screening and management was consistent with the National Cholesterol Education's ATPIII in a sample of primary care practices participating in a quality improvement study. METHODS: Demographic and clinical data were abstracted from charts of 5071 patients aged 21 to 84 years, which were seen between June 1, 2001, and May 31, 2003, at 60 practices. Clinical sites were non-university-based primary care practices from 22 North Carolina counties. A dyslipidemia screening test was defined as a lipid profile performed on persons when not on a lipid-lowering drug. Among patients receiving a lipid profile, the proportion of patients appropriately treated, per ATPIII, was calculated. Practice level variation in screening and management was examined using the 50th (20th and 80th) percentile values across practices. RESULTS: The median practice level dyslipidemia screening rate during the 2 years was 40.1% (25.8%, 53.7%) of their age-eligible patients. The appropriate decision regarding lipid-lowering therapy was documented within 4 months of the lipid profile for 79.3% (69.0%, 86.0%) of practices' patients. Within 4 months, among the drug-ineligible patients, 100% (94%, 100%) were not prescribed drugs; 33.3% (6.3%, 50.0%) of the drug-eligible patients were prescribed lipid-lowering agents. CONCLUSIONS: The median dyslipidemia screening rate met the recommendations. There remains a need to improve the management of dyslipidemia; in particular, there was a significant underprescription of lipid-lowering drugs.