BACKGROUND: Research findings suggest that the level of cardiovascular risk factor recording in general practice is not yet optimal. Several studies indicate a relation between the organization of cardiovascular disease prevention at practice level and cardiovascular risk factor recording. AIM: To explore the relation between the organization of cardiovascular disease prevention and risk factor recording in general practice. METHOD: A cross-sectional study was conducted using data on adherence to selected practice guidelines and on cardiovascular risk factor recording from 95 general practices. Practice guidelines were developed beforehand in a consensus procedure. Adherence was assessed by means of a questionnaire and practice observations. Risk factor recording was assessed by an audit of 50 medical records per practice. RESULTS: Factor analysis of risk factor recording revealed three dimensions explaining 76% of the variance: recording of health-related behaviour, recording of clinical parameters, and recording of medical background parameters. Adherence to the guideline 'proactively invite patients to attend for assessment of cardiovascular risk' was related to a higher recording level in all three dimensions. Practice characteristics did not show a consistent relationship to the level of risk factor recording. CONCLUSION: This study indicates that the presence of a system of proactive invitation was related to the recording of cardiovascular risk factors in medical records in general practice.
BACKGROUND: Research findings suggest that the level of cardiovascular risk factor recording in general practice is not yet optimal. Several studies indicate a relation between the organization of cardiovascular disease prevention at practice level and cardiovascular risk factor recording. AIM: To explore the relation between the organization of cardiovascular disease prevention and risk factor recording in general practice. METHOD: A cross-sectional study was conducted using data on adherence to selected practice guidelines and on cardiovascular risk factor recording from 95 general practices. Practice guidelines were developed beforehand in a consensus procedure. Adherence was assessed by means of a questionnaire and practice observations. Risk factor recording was assessed by an audit of 50 medical records per practice. RESULTS: Factor analysis of risk factor recording revealed three dimensions explaining 76% of the variance: recording of health-related behaviour, recording of clinical parameters, and recording of medical background parameters. Adherence to the guideline 'proactively invite patients to attend for assessment of cardiovascular risk' was related to a higher recording level in all three dimensions. Practice characteristics did not show a consistent relationship to the level of risk factor recording. CONCLUSION: This study indicates that the presence of a system of proactive invitation was related to the recording of cardiovascular risk factors in medical records in general practice.
Authors: Jarja Ijäs; Seija Alanen; Minna Kaila; Eeva Ketola; Solja Nyberg; Maritta A Välimäki; Marjukka Mäkelä Journal: Scand J Prim Health Care Date: 2009 Impact factor: 2.581
Authors: Johan S de Koning; Niek S Klazinga; Peter J Koudstaal; Ad Prins; Gerard J J M Borsboom; Johan P Mackenbach Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2005-01-27 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Justin B Echouffo-Tcheugui; Rebecca K Simmons; Kate M Williams; Roslyn S Barling; A Toby Prevost; Ann Louise Kinmonth; Nicholas J Wareham; Simon J Griffin Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2009-05-12 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Susan K Maue; James H Jackson; Bruce A Weiss; Marc L Rivo; Vishu Jhaveri; Barbara Lennert Journal: J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) Date: 2003 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.738