Headrick L A, Speroff T, Pelecanos H I, Cebul R D
Department of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio.
Arch Intern Med. 1992 Dec;152(12):2490-6.
We compared three approaches for improving compliance with the practice guidelines of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP).
A randomized controlled trial.
Academic group practices of a major urban teaching hospital.
Study physicians were three equivalent groups of PG-2 and PG-3 residents (N = 33) seeing patients in equivalent outpatient clinics. Continuity patients of these residents were included (N = 240) if they were younger than 66 years, saw their primary physician during the intervention period, were not pregnant, and had no serious life-shortening noncardiac illnesses.
Three interventions were implemented over a 5-week period. Control group physicians (group 1) were offered only a standard lecture provided through the Physician Cholesterol Education Program (PCEP). Group 2 physicians were offered the PCEP lecture and also received generic chart reminders of the NCEP guidelines on each eligible patient's chart. Group 3 physicians were offered the PCEP lecture and also received timely patient-specific feedback, including acknowledgement of recent lipid values and management, and explicit recommendations for further action. Knowledge of lipid disorders was tested before and after the PCEP lecture, and physicians' attitudes were surveyed following the intervention period.
The three groups were similar in baseline (preintervention) compliance with NCEP recommendations (average, 39%) and physicians' knowledge. Patients were similar across groups in number of coronary artery disease risk factors and cholesterol values. Significant within-group improvements in compliance were noted for groups 2 and 3 (7.6% and 10.6%, respectively), but not for group 1 (4.5%). Importantly, there were no differences observed in improvements across groups. In exploratory analyses, however, there was a significant correlation between improved compliance and the number of patients seen by each provider in group 3 that was not observed in groups 1 or 2. Notably, changes in compliance were unrelated to PCEP lecture attendance (8.6% vs 8.1% for attenders vs nonattenders, respectively), level of postgraduate training, baseline or later tests of knowledge, or patient factors. The postintervention survey revealed marked overestimation by physicians of their personal compliance with NCEP guidelines, although there was strong support for clinic efforts that would screen patients for lipid disorders independent of physician initiative.
This study raises questions about the effectiveness of education alone for improving compliance with NCEP guidelines. The effectiveness and efficiency of timely, individualized feedback should be explored in studies over a longer period. Innovative alternative approaches are suggested by the responses to our survey and other research in preventive practices.
我们比较了三种提高对国家胆固醇教育计划(NCEP)实践指南依从性的方法。
一项随机对照试验。
一所大型城市教学医院的学术团体诊所。
研究医生为三组同等的PG - 2和PG - 3住院医师(N = 33),在同等的门诊诊所看诊患者。如果这些住院医师的连续性患者年龄小于66岁,在干预期间看其初级医生,未怀孕且没有严重的非心脏性缩短寿命的疾病,则将其纳入(N = 240)。
在5周内实施了三种干预措施。对照组医生(第1组)仅通过医生胆固醇教育计划(PCEP)获得一次标准讲座。第2组医生获得PCEP讲座,并且在每位符合条件患者的病历上还收到NCEP指南的通用图表提醒。第3组医生获得PCEP讲座,并且还收到及时的针对患者的反馈,包括对近期血脂值和管理的确认以及进一步行动的明确建议。在PCEP讲座前后测试了对脂质紊乱的知识,并在干预期后对医生的态度进行了调查。
三组在基线(干预前)对NCEP建议的依从性(平均39%)和医生知识方面相似。各组患者在冠状动脉疾病危险因素数量和胆固醇值方面相似。第2组和第3组在依从性方面有显著的组内改善(分别为7.6%和10.6%),但第1组没有(4.5%)。重要的是,各组之间在改善情况方面未观察到差异。然而,在探索性分析中,第3组中每位提供者所看诊患者数量与依从性改善之间存在显著相关性,而第1组和第2组未观察到这种相关性。值得注意的是,依从性的变化与参加PCEP讲座无关(参加者与未参加者分别为8.6%对8.1%)、研究生培训水平、基线或后续知识测试或患者因素无关。干预后的调查显示,医生对自己个人对NCEP指南的依从性有明显高估,尽管强烈支持独立于医生主动性对患者进行脂质紊乱筛查的诊所工作。
本研究对仅通过教育提高对NCEP指南依从性的有效性提出了疑问。应在更长时间的研究中探索及时、个性化反馈的有效性和效率。我们的调查回复和预防实践中的其他研究提出了创新的替代方法。