Stefan Viktor Vormfelde1, Manar Abu Abed, Thanh Duc Hua, Simon Schneider, Tim Friede, Jean-François Chenot. 1. Department of Clinical Pharmacology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Department of General Practice, University Medical Center Göttingen, Department of Medical Statistics University Medical Center Göttingen, Institute for Community Medicine, Section General Practice and Family Medicine, University of Greifswald.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Orally anticoagulated patients with insufficient knowledge about their treatment have a higher risk of complications. Standardized patient education could raise their level of knowledge and improve time spent within target INR range. METHODS: This cluster randomized trial included 319 anticoagulated patients drawn from 22 general medical practices. 185 patients received patient education, conducted by practice nurses, consisting of a video, a brochure, and a questionnaire; 134 control patients received only the brochure. The primary endpoint was knowledge about treatment six months after the patient education session. The secondary endpoints were time in the INR (international normalized ratio) target range and complications of anticoagulation. RESULTS:Patients in the intervention and control groups were of comparable mean age (73 vs. 72 years). They answered a comparable number of questions correctly before the intervention (6.8 ± 0.2 vs. 6.7 ± 0.2) but differed significantly on this measure at six months (9.9 ± 0.2 vs. 7.6 ± 0.2, mean difference 2.3 questions, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.5-3.1, p< 0.001). In the six months prior to the intervention, the INR was in the target range 65 ± 2% vs. 66 ± 3% of the time; in the six months afterward, 71 ± 1% vs. 64 ± 3% of the time (mean difference 7 percentage points, 95% CI -2 to -16 percentage points, p = 0.11). The complication rates were comparable in the two groups (12% vs. 16%, p = 0.30). Patients in the intervention group approved of patient education sessions to a greater extent than control patients (87% vs. 56%). CONCLUSION: Patient education was found to be practical, to improve knowledge relating to patient safety in a durable manner, and to meet with the approval of the patients who received it. There was a statistically non-significant trend toward an improvement of the time spent in the INR target range. In view of the major knowledge deficits of orally anticoagulated patients, standardized patient education ought to be made a part of their routine care.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Orally anticoagulated patients with insufficient knowledge about their treatment have a higher risk of complications. Standardized patient education could raise their level of knowledge and improve time spent within target INR range. METHODS: This cluster randomized trial included 319 anticoagulated patients drawn from 22 general medical practices. 185 patients received patient education, conducted by practice nurses, consisting of a video, a brochure, and a questionnaire; 134 control patients received only the brochure. The primary endpoint was knowledge about treatment six months after the patient education session. The secondary endpoints were time in the INR (international normalized ratio) target range and complications of anticoagulation. RESULTS:Patients in the intervention and control groups were of comparable mean age (73 vs. 72 years). They answered a comparable number of questions correctly before the intervention (6.8 ± 0.2 vs. 6.7 ± 0.2) but differed significantly on this measure at six months (9.9 ± 0.2 vs. 7.6 ± 0.2, mean difference 2.3 questions, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.5-3.1, p< 0.001). In the six months prior to the intervention, the INR was in the target range 65 ± 2% vs. 66 ± 3% of the time; in the six months afterward, 71 ± 1% vs. 64 ± 3% of the time (mean difference 7 percentage points, 95% CI -2 to -16 percentage points, p = 0.11). The complication rates were comparable in the two groups (12% vs. 16%, p = 0.30). Patients in the intervention group approved of patient education sessions to a greater extent than control patients (87% vs. 56%). CONCLUSION:Patient education was found to be practical, to improve knowledge relating to patient safety in a durable manner, and to meet with the approval of the patients who received it. There was a statistically non-significant trend toward an improvement of the time spent in the INR target range. In view of the major knowledge deficits of orally anticoagulated patients, standardized patient education ought to be made a part of their routine care.
Authors: Talitha I Verhoef; Georgia Ragia; Anthonius de Boer; Rita Barallon; Genovefa Kolovou; Vana Kolovou; Stavros Konstantinides; Saskia Le Cessie; Efstratios Maltezos; Felix J M van der Meer; William K Redekop; Mary Remkes; Frits R Rosendaal; Rianne M F van Schie; Anna Tavridou; Dimitrios Tziakas; Mia Wadelius; Vangelis G Manolopoulos; Anke H Maitland-van der Zee Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-11-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: A John Camm; Gregory Y H Lip; Raffaele De Caterina; Irene Savelieva; Dan Atar; Stefan H Hohnloser; Gerhard Hindricks; Paulus Kirchhof Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2012-08-24 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Stephen E Kimmel; Benjamin French; Scott E Kasner; Julie A Johnson; Jeffrey L Anderson; Brian F Gage; Yves D Rosenberg; Charles S Eby; Rosemary A Madigan; Robert B McBane; Sherif Z Abdel-Rahman; Scott M Stevens; Steven Yale; Emile R Mohler; Margaret C Fang; Vinay Shah; Richard B Horenstein; Nita A Limdi; James A S Muldowney; Jaspal Gujral; Patrice Delafontaine; Robert J Desnick; Thomas L Ortel; Henny H Billett; Robert C Pendleton; Nancy L Geller; Jonathan L Halperin; Samuel Z Goldhaber; Michael D Caldwell; Robert M Califf; Jonas H Ellenberg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-11-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Alec Vahanian; Ottavio Alfieri; Felicita Andreotti; Manuel J Antunes; Gonzalo Barón-Esquivias; Helmut Baumgartner; Michael Andrew Borger; Thierry P Carrel; Michele De Bonis; Arturo Evangelista; Volkmar Falk; Bernard Lung; Patrizio Lancellotti; Luc Pierard; Susanna Price; Hans-Joachim Schäfers; Gerhard Schuler; Janina Stepinska; Karl Swedberg; Johanna Takkenberg; Ulrich Otto Von Oppell; Stephan Windecker; Jose Luis Zamorano; Marian Zembala Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2012-08-25 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: Munir Pirmohamed; Girvan Burnside; Niclas Eriksson; Andrea L Jorgensen; Cheng Hock Toh; Toby Nicholson; Patrick Kesteven; Christina Christersson; Bengt Wahlström; Christina Stafberg; J Eunice Zhang; Julian B Leathart; Hugo Kohnke; Anke H Maitland-van der Zee; Paula R Williamson; Ann K Daly; Peter Avery; Farhad Kamali; Mia Wadelius Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-11-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Miney Paquette; Daniel M Witt; Anne Holbrook; Jane Skov; Jack Ansell; Holger J Schünemann; Wojtek Wiercioch; Robby Nieuwlaat Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2019-05-28
Authors: Daniel M Witt; Robby Nieuwlaat; Nathan P Clark; Jack Ansell; Anne Holbrook; Jane Skov; Nadine Shehab; Juliet Mock; Tarra Myers; Francesco Dentali; Mark A Crowther; Arnav Agarwal; Meha Bhatt; Rasha Khatib; John J Riva; Yuan Zhang; Gordon Guyatt Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2018-11-27
Authors: Brystana G Kaufman; Sunghee Kim; Karen Pieper; Larry A Allen; Bernard J Gersh; Gerald V Naccarelli; Michael D Ezekowitz; Gregg C Fonarow; Kenneth W Mahaffey; Daniel E Singer; Paul S Chan; James V Freeman; Jack Ansell; Peter R Kowey; James A Rieffel; Jonathan Piccini; Eric Peterson; Emily C O'Brien Journal: Heart Date: 2017-08-08 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Anna C Alegiani; Anne C Rahn; Anke Steckelberg; Götz Thomalla; Christoph Heesen; Sascha Köpke Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2020-12-07 Impact factor: 4.003