Development and implementation of a treatment pathway to reduce coronary angiograms - lessons from a failure.

BACKGROUND: The rates of coronary angiograms (CA) and related procedures (percutaneous intervention [PCI]) are significantly higher in Germany than in other Organisation for Economic Co-ordination and Development (OECD) countries. The current guidelines recommend non-invasive diagnosis of coronary heart disease (CHD); CA should only have a limited role in choosing the appropriate revascularisation procedure. The aim of the present study was to explore whether improvements in guideline adherence can be achieved through the implementation of regional treatment pathways. We chose four regions of Germany with high utilisation of CAs for the study. Here we report the results of the concomitant qualitative study. METHODS: General practitioners and specialist physicians (cardiologists, hospital-based cardiologists, emergency physicians, radiologists and nuclear medicine specialists) caring for patients with suspected CHD were invited to develop regional treatment pathways. Four academic departments provided support for moderation, provision of materials, etc. The study team observed session discussions and took notes. After the development of the treatment pathways, 45 semi-structured interviews were conducted with the participating physicians. Interviews and field notes were transcribed verbatim and underwent qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Pathway development received little support among the participants. Although consensus documents were produced, the results were unlikely to improve practice. The participants expressed very little commitment to change. Although this attempt clearly failed in all study regions, our experience provides relevant insights into the process of evidence appraisal and implementation. A lack of organisational skills, ignorance of current evidence and guidelines, and a lack of feedback regarding one's own clinical behaviour proved to be insurmountable. CA was still seen as the diagnostic gold standard by most interviewees. CONCLUSIONS: Oversupply and overutilisation can be assumed to be present in study regions but are not immediately perceived by clinicians. The problem is unlikely to be solved by regional collaborative initiatives; optimised resource planning within the health care system combined with appropriate economic incentives might best address these issues.

Determinants of referral for suspected coronary artery disease: a qualitative study based on decision thresholds.

BACKGROUND: Chest pain is a frequent consultation issue in primary care, with coronary artery disease (CAD) being a serious potential cause. Primary care physicians (PCPs) assess the probability for CAD and refer patients to secondary care if necessary. Our aim was to explore PCPs' referral decisions, and to investigate determinants which influenced those decisions. METHODS: PCPs working in Hesse, Germany, were interviewed in a qualitative study. We used 'stimulated recall' with participants to discuss patients with suspected CAD. With a sample size of 26 cases from nine practices we reached inductive thematic saturation. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed by inductive-deductive thematic content analysis. For the final interpretation of the material, we used the concept of decision thresholds proposed by Pauker and Kassirer. RESULTS: PCPs reflected on their decisions for or against a referral. Aside from patient characteristics determining disease probability, we identified general factors which can be understood as influencing the referral threshold. These factors relate to the practice environment, to PCPs themselves and to non-diagnostic patient characteristics. Proximity of specialist practice, relationship with specialist colleagues, and trust played a role. PCPs sometimes felt that invasive procedures were performed too easily. They tried to steer their patients through the system with the intent to avoid over-treatment. Most PCPs were unaware of guidelines but relied on informal local consensus, largely influenced by specialists. As a result, PCPs gatekeeping role was limited. CONCLUSIONS: We could identify a large number of factors that impact referral for suspected CAD. Several of these factors offer possibilities to improve care at the clinical and system level. The threshold model proposed by Pauker and Kassirer was a useful framework for this kind of data analysis.