OBJECTIVE: To compare an educational group intervention with individual care to improve clinical and management variables among patients with cardiovascular risk (CVR) in community health care (PC). METHODS: A randomised controlled experimental study was developed in 7 PC centres of Barcelona (Spain). A total of 2,127 patients included in the chronic diseases protocol of the centres were selected. The intervention group (IG) attended four educative workshops led by their nurses during one year. Clinical and management variables (number of visits, pharmaceutical expenditure, nurse time consumption) were measured at baseline and 3 months after the intervention in the IG and in the control group (CG). Pre-post-intervention and IG vs. CG differences were analysed. RESULTS: Among the 672 patients belonging to the IG, 144 were lost due to failing to attend the workshops. CG (n=824) had no withdrawals. At the end of follow-up there were no significant differences between their clinical variables. The number of visits and pharmaceutical expenditure increased in the IG. However, the annual dedication of nurses per patient per year was 39.59 minutes in the IG and 60 minutes in the CG. CONCLUSIONS: Nurse group control of patients with CVR in PC saves nurse-time compared with the usual individual visits. However, further studies are needed to better define what type of patient that is more susceptible to follow cardiovascular control through group workshops and whether this time-saving is related to the use of other health resources.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare an educational group intervention with individual care to improve clinical and management variables among patients with cardiovascular risk (CVR) in community health care (PC). METHODS: A randomised controlled experimental study was developed in 7 PC centres of Barcelona (Spain). A total of 2,127 patients included in the chronic diseases protocol of the centres were selected. The intervention group (IG) attended four educative workshops led by their nurses during one year. Clinical and management variables (number of visits, pharmaceutical expenditure, nurse time consumption) were measured at baseline and 3 months after the intervention in the IG and in the control group (CG). Pre-post-intervention and IG vs. CG differences were analysed. RESULTS: Among the 672 patients belonging to the IG, 144 were lost due to failing to attend the workshops. CG (n=824) had no withdrawals. At the end of follow-up there were no significant differences between their clinical variables. The number of visits and pharmaceutical expenditure increased in the IG. However, the annual dedication of nurses per patient per year was 39.59 minutes in the IG and 60 minutes in the CG. CONCLUSIONS: Nurse group control of patients with CVR in PC saves nurse-time compared with the usual individual visits. However, further studies are needed to better define what type of patient that is more susceptible to follow cardiovascular control through group workshops and whether this time-saving is related to the use of other health resources.