Jong-Wook Ban1, Rafael Perera2, Richard Stevens2. 1. Evidence-Based Health Care Programme, Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK jong-wook.ban@conted.ox.ac.uk. 2. Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Medical Science Division, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical prediction rules (CPRs) can help general practitioners (GPs) address challenges in cardiovascular disease. A survey published in 2014 evaluated GPs' awareness and use of CPRs in the UK. However, many new CPRs have been published since and it is unknown which cardiovascular CPRs are currently recognised and used. AIM: To identify cardiovascular CPRs recognised and used by GPs, and to assess how GPs' familiarity and use have changed over time. DESIGN & SETTING: An online survey of GPs in the UK was undertaken. METHOD: Using comparable methods to the 2014 survey, GPs were recruited from a network of doctors in the UK. They were asked how familiar they were with cardiovascular CPRs, how frequently they used them, and why they used them. The results were compared with the 2014 survey. RESULTS: Most of 401 GPs were familiar with QRISK scores, ABCD scores, CHADS scores, HAS-BLED score, Wells scores for deep vein thrombosis, and Wells scores for pulmonary embolism. The proportions of GPs using these CPRs were 96.3%, 65.1%, 97.3%, 93.0%, 92.5%, and 82.0%, respectively. GPs' use increased by 31.2% for QRISK scores, by 13.5% for ABCD scores, by 54.6% for CHADS scores, by 33.2% for Wells scores for deep vein thrombosis, and by 43.6% for Wells scores for pulmonary embolism; and decreased by 45.9% for the Joint British Societies (JBS) risk calculator, by 38.7% for Framingham risk scores, and by 8.7% for New Zealand tables. GPs most commonly used cardiovascular CPRs to guide therapy and referral. CONCLUSION: The study found GPs' familiarity and use of cardiovascular CPRs changed substantially. Integrating CPRs into guidelines and practice software might increase familiarity and use.
BACKGROUND: Clinical prediction rules (CPRs) can help general practitioners (GPs) address challenges in cardiovascular disease. A survey published in 2014 evaluated GPs' awareness and use of CPRs in the UK. However, many new CPRs have been published since and it is unknown which cardiovascular CPRs are currently recognised and used. AIM: To identify cardiovascular CPRs recognised and used by GPs, and to assess how GPs' familiarity and use have changed over time. DESIGN & SETTING: An online survey of GPs in the UK was undertaken. METHOD: Using comparable methods to the 2014 survey, GPs were recruited from a network of doctors in the UK. They were asked how familiar they were with cardiovascular CPRs, how frequently they used them, and why they used them. The results were compared with the 2014 survey. RESULTS: Most of 401 GPs were familiar with QRISK scores, ABCD scores, CHADS scores, HAS-BLED score, Wells scores for deep vein thrombosis, and Wells scores for pulmonary embolism. The proportions of GPs using these CPRs were 96.3%, 65.1%, 97.3%, 93.0%, 92.5%, and 82.0%, respectively. GPs' use increased by 31.2% for QRISK scores, by 13.5% for ABCD scores, by 54.6% for CHADS scores, by 33.2% for Wells scores for deep vein thrombosis, and by 43.6% for Wells scores for pulmonary embolism; and decreased by 45.9% for the Joint British Societies (JBS) risk calculator, by 38.7% for Framingham risk scores, and by 8.7% for New Zealand tables. GPs most commonly used cardiovascular CPRs to guide therapy and referral. CONCLUSION: The study found GPs' familiarity and use of cardiovascular CPRs changed substantially. Integrating CPRs into guidelines and practice software might increase familiarity and use.
Authors: Romana Pylypchuk; Sue Wells; Andrew Kerr; Katrina Poppe; Tania Riddell; Matire Harwood; Dan Exeter; Suneela Mehta; Corina Grey; Billy P Wu; Patricia Metcalf; Jim Warren; Jeff Harrison; Roger Marshall; Rod Jackson Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-05-04 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: David Jiménez; Drahomir Aujesky; Lisa Moores; Vicente Gómez; José Luis Lobo; Fernando Uresandi; Remedios Otero; Manuel Monreal; Alfonso Muriel; Roger D Yusen Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2010-08-09
Authors: Ralph B D'Agostino; Ramachandran S Vasan; Michael J Pencina; Philip A Wolf; Mark Cobain; Joseph M Massaro; William B Kannel Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-01-22 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Paula Theresa Bradley; Nicola Hall; Gregory Maniatopoulos; Richard D Neal; Vinidh Paleri; Scott Wilkes Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-02-19 Impact factor: 2.692