Wright John, Warren Erica, Reeves Jayne, Bibby John, Harrison Stephen, Dowswell George, Russell Ian, Russell Daphne
Bradford Royal Infirmary, Bradford, UK.
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2003 Jul;8(3):142-8. doi: 10.1258/135581903322029485.
To evaluate the effectiveness of a tailored and multifaceted approach to the implementation of nationally recommended and evidence-based guidelines in primary care within existing systems and resources.
A non-randomised Latin square to compare guideline implementation in two neighbouring health districts covering 180 general practices. Evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of patients with asthma and angina were implemented actively in one district and passively disseminated in the other district. Outcome measures for asthma were smoking status and inhaler technique. For angina the outcome measures were: smoking status; blood pressure; aspirin prescribed, contraindicated or self-medicated; beta-blocker prescribed or contraindicated; routine hospital admission; prescribed drugs; self-reported change.
There were improvements in all outcome criteria between baseline and follow-up audits, regardless of whether the guideline was actively implemented or passively disseminated. The estimated increase in the proportion of records complying with guidelines was 4% [95% confidence intervals (CI): 0, 8] and was higher in intervention than in control practices. Using only records not compliant at baseline, the corresponding difference was 15% (95% CI: 7, 24). The only significant improvement associated with active implementation was smoking status in angina patients. Both prescribing and hospital admission monthly totals changed during the period of the trial, but there was no significant difference between the pattern of changes in intervention and control districts. A significantly greater proportion of health professionals saw the intervention guideline compared with the control (75% versus 25%). There was a significant correlation between self-reported change and interventions steps (P < 0.05).
Increases in quality markers occurred irrespective of the multifaceted implementation efforts. Some of this increase was due to the method of data collection. Nevertheless, national initiatives may have more influence than local implementation initiatives.
评估在现有系统和资源范围内,采用量身定制的多方面方法在初级保健中实施国家推荐的循证指南的有效性。
采用非随机拉丁方设计,比较两个相邻卫生区180家全科诊所的指南实施情况。针对哮喘和心绞痛患者治疗的循证指南在一个区积极实施,在另一个区被动传播。哮喘的结局指标为吸烟状况和吸入器使用技术。心绞痛的结局指标为:吸烟状况;血压;开具、禁忌或自行服用的阿司匹林;开具或禁忌的β受体阻滞剂;常规住院;开具的药物;自我报告的变化。
在基线审计和随访审计之间,所有结局标准均有改善,无论指南是积极实施还是被动传播。符合指南的记录比例估计增加了4%[95%置信区间(CI):0,8],干预组高于对照组。仅使用基线时不符合规定的记录,相应差异为15%(95%CI:7,24)。与积极实施相关的唯一显著改善是心绞痛患者的吸烟状况。在试验期间,每月的处方量和住院总量均发生了变化,但干预区和对照区的变化模式之间没有显著差异。与对照组相比,显著更多的卫生专业人员查看了干预指南(75%对25%)。自我报告的变化与干预步骤之间存在显著相关性(P<0.05)。
无论多方面的实施努力如何,质量指标均有所提高。部分提高归因于数据收集方法。然而,国家举措可能比地方实施举措更具影响力。