Background: Despite all available evidence of its effectiveness, cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention (CRSP) is still insufficiently implemented in current clinical practice. Based on an analysis of implementation problems, recently the Dutch clinical algorithm for the assessment of patient’s CRSP needs was revised. The purpose of this paper is to describe the revision process and its results to improve CRSP guideline implementation.
Methods: The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines manual for conducting guideline revisions was followed. Information on the use of the algorithm in practice was collected from electronic medical records and by conducting semi-structured interviews. Next, an expert advisory group identified the problems for use in daily practice and defined the scope for the revision. A multidisciplinary guideline development group subsequently wrote the revised algorithm.
Results: A large variation in assessed patient needs was observed between CRSP clinics. Assessment based on clinical judgement was found to be a source of practice variation and is therefore avoided in the revised algorithm. It was decided to add assessment instruments for anxiety and depression, cardiovascular risk factors, stress, attitude of partner and lifestyle parameters.
Conclusion: The Dutch clinical algorithm for assessing patient needs for CRSP was revised using a combination of patient data from routine practice, knowledge from academic experts and experience from field experts. The revised algorithm is a practical tool consisting of assessment instruments to improve CRSP guideline adherence in the Netherlands. This algorithm may also be useful for other Western countries to organize their CRSP needs assessment procedure.
PiepoliMFCorraUBenzerW. Secondary prevention through cardiac rehabilitation: from knowledge to implementation. A position paper from the Cardiac Rehabilitation Section of the European Association of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil2010; 17(1): 1–17.
2.
ThomasRJKingMLuiK. AACVPR/ACC/AHA 2007 performance measures on cardiac rehabilitation for referral to and delivery of cardiac rehabilitation/secondary prevention services endorsed by the American College of Chest Physicians, American College of Sports Medicine, American Physical Therapy Association, Canadian Association of Cardiac Rehabilitation, European Association for Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation, Inter-American Heart Foundation, National Association of Clinical Nurse Specialists, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol2007; 50(14): 1400–1433.
3.
Bjarnason-WehrensBMcGeeHZwislerAD. Cardiac rehabilitation in Europe: results from the European Cardiac Rehabilitation Inventory Survey. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil2010; 17(4): 410–418.
4.
BethellHLewinRDalalH. Cardiac rehabilitation in the United Kingdom. Heart2009; 95(4): 271–275.
5.
ShortR. Access to cardiac rehabilitation varies widely across Europe. BMJ2008; 336(7653): 1095–1095.
6.
GrimshawJMRussellIT. Effect of clinical guidelines on medical practice: a systematic review of rigorous evaluations. Lancet1993; 342(8883): 1317–1322.
7.
CabanaMDRandCSPoweNR. Why don't physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. JAMA1999; 282(15): 1458–1465.
8.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Clinical guideline 48: MI: Secondary prevention in primary and secondary care for patients following a myocardial infarction. London: NICE, 2007.
9.
GielenSBrutsaertDLSanerHHambrechtR. Cardiac rehabilitation. In: CammAJLuscherTFSerruysPW (eds) The ESC Textbook of Cardiovascular Medicine, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
ShortliffeEHBuchananBGFeigenbaumEA. Knowledge engineering for medical decision making: A review of computer-based clinical decision aids. Proc IEEE1979; 67(9): 1207–1224.
12.
GoudRHasmanAPeekN. Development of a guideline-based decision support system with explanation facilities for outpatient therapy. Comput Methods Programs Biomed2008; 91(2): 145–153.
13.
GoudRde KeizerNFter RietG. Effect of guideline based computerised decision support on decision making of multidisciplinary teams: cluster randomised trial in cardiac rehabilitation. BMJ2009; 338: b1440–b1440.
14.
MezzaniAAgostoniPCohen-SolalA. Standards for the use of cardiopulmonary exercise testing for the functional evaluation of cardiac patients: a report from the Exercise Physiology Section of the European Association for Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil2009; 16(3): 249–267.
15.
HillersTKGuyattGHOldridgeN. Quality of life after myocardial infarction. J Clin Epidemiol1994; 47(11): 1287–1296.
16.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Updating clinical guidelines and correcting errors. The guidelines manual. London: NICE, 2009, pp. 142–147.
17.
CampbellMKFayersPMGrimshawJM. Determinants of the intracluster correlation coefficient in cluster randomized trials: the case of implementation research. Clin Trials2005; 2(2): 99–107.
18.
GoudRvan Engen-VerheulMde KeizerNF. The effect of computerized decision support on barriers to guideline implementation: a qualitative study in outpatient cardiac rehabilitation. Int J Med Inform2010; 79(6): 430–437.
19.
Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust. Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res2002; 11(3): 193–205.
20.
de GuchtVvan ElderenTvan der KampLOldridgeN. Quality of life after myocardial infarction: translation and validation of the MacNew Questionnaire for a Dutch population. Qual Life Res2004; 13(8): 1483–1488.
21.
WoolfSHGrolRHutchinsonAEcclesMGrimshawJ. Clinical guidelines: potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines. BMJ1999; 318(7182): 527–530.
22.
ManciaGGrassiG. The new European Society of Hypertension/European Society of Cardiology (ESH/ESC) Guidelines. Ther Adv Cardiovasc Dis2008; 2(1): 5–12.
NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Getting evidence into practice. Effective health care. Plymouth: Latimer Trend and Company Ltd, 1999.
25.
HebertJRClemowLPbertLOckeneISOckeneJK. Social desirability bias in dietary self-report may compromise the validity of dietary intake measures. Int J Epidemiol1995; 24(2): 389–398.
26.
AdamsSAMatthewsCEEbbelingCB. The effect of social desirability and social approval on self-reports of physical activity. Am J Epidemiol2005; 161(4): 389–398.
27.
DowdingDThompsonC. Measuring the quality of judgement and decision-making in nursing. J Adv Nurs2003; 44(1): 49–57.
28.
PevelerRKilkennyLKinmonthAL. Medically unexplained physical symptoms in primary care: a comparison of self-report screening questionnaires and clinical opinion. J Psychosom Res1997; 42(3): 245–252.
29.
Working Group on Cardiac Rehabilitation and Excercise Physiology and Working Group on Heart Failure of the European Society of Cardiology. Recommendations for exercise training in chronic heart failure patients. Eur Heart J2001; 22(2): 125–135.
30.
SpinhovenPOrmelJSloekersPPKempenGISpeckensAEVan HemertAM. A validation study of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) in different groups of Dutch subjects. Psychol Med1997; 27(2): 363–370.
31.
SpitzerRLKroenkeKWilliamsJB. Validation and utility of a self-report version of PRIME-MD: the PHQ primary care study. Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders. Patient Health Questionnaire. JAMA1999; 282(18): 1737–1744.
32.
RosengrenAHawkenSOunpuuS. Association of psychosocial risk factors with risk of acute myocardial infarction in 11119 cases and 13648 controls from 52 countries (the INTERHEART study): case-control study. Lancet2004; 364(9438): 953–962.
33.
DouwesMHildebrandtVH. Questions on the amount of physical activity (in Dutch). Geneeskunde en Sport2000; 33(1): 9–16.
34.
Wendel-VosGCSchuitAJSarisWHKromhoutD. Reproducibility and relative validity of the short questionnaire to assess health-enhancing physical activity. J Clin Epidemiol2003; 56(12): 1163–1169.
35.
SeppaKLepistoJSillanaukeeP. Five-shot questionnaire on heavy drinking. Alcohol Clin Exp Res1998; 22(8): 1788–1791.
