Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background The use of clinical quality registries as means for data driven improvement in healthcare seem promising. However, their use has been shown to be challenged by a number of aspects, and we suggest some may be related to poor implementation. There is a paucity of literature regarding barriers and facilitators for registry implementation, in particular aspects related to data collection and entry. We aimed to illuminate this by exploring how staff perceive the implementation process related to the registries within the field of cardiac rehabilitation in England and Denmark. Methods A qualitative, interview-based study with staff involved in collecting and/or entering data into the two case registries (England N  = 12, Denmark N = 12). Interviews were analysed using content analysis. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to guide interviews and the interpretation of results. Results The analysis identified both similarities and differences within and between the studied registries, and resulted in clarification of staffs´ experiences in an overarching theme: ´Struggling with practices´ and five categories; the data entry process, registry quality, resources and management support, quality improvement and the wider healthcare context. Overall, implementation received little focused attention. There was a lack of active support from management, and staff may experience a struggle of fitting use of a registry into a busy and complex everyday practice. Conclusion The study highlights factors that may be important to consider when planning and implementing a new clinical quality registry within the field of cardiac rehabilitation, and is possibly transferrable to other fields. The results may thus be useful for policy makers, administrators and managers within the field and beyond. Targeting barriers and utilizing knowledge of facilitating factors is vital in order to improve the process of registry implementation, hence helping to achieve the intended improvement of care processes and outcomes.

Objective Few patients achieve full control of their coronary artery disease (CAD) risk factors. Follow-up, such as cardiac rehabilitation, is important to increase adherence to lifestyle changes and treatment, to improve the patient’s risk profile, and to treat established complications of CAD clinical events. However, the type of follow-up patients receive varies. Therefore, the aim of this research note was to describe and compare patients’ self-reported use of health services, the type of follow-up patients reported to prefer, and the type of information patients reported to be important, in two countries with different follow-up practices after PCI. Results We included 3417 patients in Norway and Denmark, countries with different follow-up strategies after PCI. The results showed large differences between the countries regarding health services used. In Denmark the most frequently used health services were consultations at outpatient clinics followed by visits to the general practitioner and visits to the fitness centre, whereas in Norway visits to the general practitioner were most common, followed by rehospitalisation and no follow-up used. However, patients found the same type of follow-up and information important in both countries. Patients’ perceived need for follow-up and information decreased over time, suggesting a need for early follow-up when the patients are motivated. Trial registration : NCT03810612 (18/01/2019).

Background One in five patients with ischaemic heart disease (IHD) develop comorbid depression or anxiety. Depression is associated with risk of non-adherence to cardiac rehabilitation (CR) and dropout, inadequate risk factor management, poor quality of life (QoL), increased healthcare costs and premature death. In 2020, IHD and depression are expected to be among the top contributors to the disease-burden worldwide. Hence, it is paramount to treat both the underlying somatic disease as well as depression and anxiety. eMindYourHeart will evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a therapist-assisted eHealth intervention targeting depression and anxiety in patients with IHD, which may help fill this gap in clinical care. Methods eMindYourHeart is a multi-center, two-armed, unblinded randomised controlled trial that will compare a therapist-assisted eHealth intervention to treatment as usual in 188 CR patients with IHD and comorbid depression or anxiety. The primary outcome of the trial is symptoms of depression, measured with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) at 3 months. Secondary outcomes evaluated at 3, 6, and 12 months include symptoms of depression and anxiety (HADS), perceived stress, health complaints, QoL (HeartQoL), trial dropout (number of patients dropped out in either arm at 3 months) and cost-effectiveness. Discussion To our knowledge, this is the first trial to evaluate both the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a therapist-assisted eHealth intervention in patients with IHD and comorbid psychological distress as part of CR. Integrating screening for and treatment of depression and anxiety into standard CR may decrease dropout and facilitate better risk factor management, as it is presented as “one package” to patients, and they can access the eMindYourHeart program in their own time and at their own convenience. The trial holds a strong potential for improving the quality of care for an increasing population of patients with IHD and comorbid depression, anxiety or both, with likely benefits to patients, families, and society at large due to potential reductions in direct and indirect costs, if proven successful. Trial registration The trial was prospectively registered on https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04172974 on November 21, 2019 with registration number [NCT04172974].

Background Approximately 30% of patients with atrial fibrillation suffer from depression. Depression in patients with atrial fibrillation is associated with poor health outcomes, reduced health-related quality of life, and elevated societal costs. Preventing depression in this population may therefore lead to better health outcomes for the individual patient and reduced burden on society. Online psychological interventions are innovative and evidence-based modes of healthcare delivery. The objective was—through a user-centered design—to develop a personalized online psychological intervention aiming at preventing depression in patients with atrial fibrillation. Methods Guided by the Intervention Mapping framework for the development of complex interventions, we used a qualitative design and conducted a series of collaborative workshops with patients ( n  = 8) with atrial fibrillation. Results Through intensive collaboration, we developed the HOPE-AF intervention targeting nine risk factors for depression that were meaningful to patients. It contains four basic modules that give effective tools to handle daily psychological struggles. Furthermore, patients will receive personal risk factors modules. The evidence-based psychological methodology was applied to all modules. Primary lessons learned were (1) engaging patients from the start to ensure the intervention becomes meaningful; (2) using positive phrasing in all patient-related materials to promote motivation; (3) incorporating patients’ choice of preference where possible to personalize the intervention. Conclusion Based on a user-centered design, the HOPE-AF intervention aiming to prevent depression in patients with AF, was developed. It was confirmed that it is crucial to engage end-users in the development of complex interventions to accommodate their needs and preferences. The Hope-AF intervention will now be tested in a feasibility study.

ObjectivesTo investigate use of data from a clinical quality registry for cardiac rehabilitation in Denmark, considering the extent to which data are used for local quality improvement and what facilitates the use of these data, with a particular focus on whether there are differences between frontline staff and managers.DesignCross-sectional nationwide survey study.Setting, methods and participantsA previously validated, Swedish questionnaire regarding use of data from clinical quality registries was translated and emailed to frontline staff, mid-level managers and heads of departments (n=175) in all 30 hospital departments participating in the Danish Cardiac Rehabilitation Database. Data were analysed descriptively and through multiple linear regression.ResultsSurvey response rate was 58% (101/175). Reports of registry use at department level (measured through an index comprising seven items; score min 0, max 7, where a low score indicates less use of data) varied significantly between groups of respondents: frontline staff mean score 1.3 (SD=2.0), mid-level management mean 2.4 (SD=2.3) and heads of departments mean 3.0 (SD=2.5), p=0.006. Overall, department level use of data was positively associated with higher perceived data quality and usefulness (regression coefficient=0.22, p=0.019), management request for data (regression coefficient=0.40, p=0.008) and personal motivation of the respondent (regression coefficient=1.63, p<0.001). Among managers, use of registry data was associated with data quality and usefulness (regression coefficient=0.43, p=0.027), and among frontline staff, reported data use was associated with management involvement in quality improvement work (regression coefficient=0.90, p=0.017) and personal motivation (regression coefficient=1.66, p<0.001).ConclusionsThe findings suggest relatively sparse use of data in local quality improvement work. A complex interplay of factors seem to be associated with data use with varying aspects being of importance for frontline staff and managers.

BackgroundAnxiety and depression are prevalent in 20% of cardiac patients and associated with poor health outcomes, therefore guidelines recommend screening for these conditions in cardiac rehabilitation (CR). However, routine screening in CR is under administered, and it is unknown if this practice has been further impacted during the COVID-19 pandemic.AimTo investigate screening practice and analyse factors associated with screening for anxiety and depression in CR during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsObservational data from the National Audit of Cardiac Rehabilitation (NACR) from April 2018 to March 2022 were used. Screening practice was analysed using descriptive statistics. A multivariate logistic regression model was conducted to analyse associations with screening for anxiety and depression. Sensitivity analyses were performed on sociodemographic to identify significant shifts in the population happening across the included years.ResultsThe study population consisted of 245,705 patients where 128,643 (52.4%) were screened for anxiety and depression (figure 1). Patients were less likely to be screened in the period April 2020-March 2021 compared to the previous years with an odds-ratio of 0.40 (CI 0.38-0.43, p<0.001). The following year showed an odds-ratio of 0.58 (CI 0.55-0.61, p<0.001). Furthermore, being female, living alone, non-white ethnicity, living in deprived areas, current smoking and low level of physical activity were negatively associated with screening while revascularisation, functional capacity testing and CR certification were positively associated with screening. Regarding comorbidities, history of anxiety, depression, angina pectoris, arthritis, rheumatism, osteoporosis, and chronic back pain were positively associated with screening, while diabetes, hyperlipidaemia, stroke, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were negatively associated with screening.Abstract 10 Figure 1Flowchart of the study populationConclusionWe found a substantial drop in screening for anxiety and depression in CR during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Screening practice seems to be improving in the following year but is still far from pre-COVID-19.Please submit this entire document via email to education@bacpr.comThe document should be saved as the surname and initial of the lead author followed by the submission data in the following format:SURNAME INITIAL DAY MONTH YEARFor exampleSmith T 01 05 2022(Deadline: midday, Date: Monday 11th July, 2022)

BackgroundThe use of clinical quality registries as means for data driven improvement in healthcare seem promising. However, their use has been shown to be challenged by a number of aspects, and we suggest some may be related to poor implementation. There is a paucity of literature regarding barriers and facilitators for registry implementation, in particular aspects related to data collection and entry. We aimed to illuminate this by exploring how staff perceive the implementation process related to the registries within the field of cardiac rehabilitation in England and Denmark.MethodsA qualitative, interview-based study with staff involved in collecting and/or entering data into the two case registries (England N=12, Denmark N=12). Interviews were analysed using content analysis. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to guide interviews and the interpretation of results.ResultsThe analysis identified both similarities and differences within and between the studied registries, and resulted in clarification of staffs experiences in an overarching theme: Struggling with practices and five categories; the data entry process, registry quality, resources and management support, quality improvement and the wider healthcare context. Overall, implementation received little focused attention. There was a lack of active support from management, and staff may experience a struggle of fitting use of a registry into a busy and complex everyday practice.Conclusion The study highlights factors that may be important to consider when planning and implementing a new clinical quality registry within the field of cardiac rehabilitation, and is possibly transferrable to other fields. The results may thus be useful for policy makers, administrators and managers within the field and beyond. Targeting barriers and utilizing knowledge of facilitating factors is vital in order to improve the process of registry implementation, hence helping to achieve the intended improvement of care processes and outcomes.

One in five patients with ischaemic heart disease (IHD) develop comorbid depression or anxiety. Depression is associated with risk of non-adherence to cardiac rehabilitation (CR) and dropout, inadequate risk factor management, poor quality of life (QoL), increased healthcare costs and premature death. In 2020, IHD and depression are expected to be among the top contributors to the disease-burden worldwide. Hence, it is paramount to treat both the underlying somatic disease as well as depression and anxiety. eMindYourHeart will evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a therapist-assisted eHealth intervention targeting depression and anxiety in patients with IHD, which may help fill this gap in clinical care.BACKGROUNDOne in five patients with ischaemic heart disease (IHD) develop comorbid depression or anxiety. Depression is associated with risk of non-adherence to cardiac rehabilitation (CR) and dropout, inadequate risk factor management, poor quality of life (QoL), increased healthcare costs and premature death. In 2020, IHD and depression are expected to be among the top contributors to the disease-burden worldwide. Hence, it is paramount to treat both the underlying somatic disease as well as depression and anxiety. eMindYourHeart will evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a therapist-assisted eHealth intervention targeting depression and anxiety in patients with IHD, which may help fill this gap in clinical care.eMindYourHeart is a multi-center, two-armed, unblinded randomised controlled trial that will compare a therapist-assisted eHealth intervention to treatment as usual in 188 CR patients with IHD and comorbid depression or anxiety. The primary outcome of the trial is symptoms of depression, measured with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) at 3 months. Secondary outcomes evaluated at 3, 6, and 12 months include symptoms of depression and anxiety (HADS), perceived stress, health complaints, QoL (HeartQoL), trial dropout (number of patients dropped out in either arm at 3 months) and cost-effectiveness.METHODSeMindYourHeart is a multi-center, two-armed, unblinded randomised controlled trial that will compare a therapist-assisted eHealth intervention to treatment as usual in 188 CR patients with IHD and comorbid depression or anxiety. The primary outcome of the trial is symptoms of depression, measured with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) at 3 months. Secondary outcomes evaluated at 3, 6, and 12 months include symptoms of depression and anxiety (HADS), perceived stress, health complaints, QoL (HeartQoL), trial dropout (number of patients dropped out in either arm at 3 months) and cost-effectiveness.To our knowledge, this is the first trial to evaluate both the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a therapist-assisted eHealth intervention in patients with IHD and comorbid psychological distress as part of CR. Integrating screening for and treatment of depression and anxiety into standard CR may decrease dropout and facilitate better risk factor management, as it is presented as \"one package\" to patients, and they can access the eMindYourHeart program in their own time and at their own convenience. The trial holds a strong potential for improving the quality of care for an increasing population of patients with IHD and comorbid depression, anxiety or both, with likely benefits to patients, families, and society at large due to potential reductions in direct and indirect costs, if proven successful. Trial registration The trial was prospectively registered on https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04172974 on November 21, 2019 with registration number [NCT04172974].DISCUSSIONTo our knowledge, this is the first trial to evaluate both the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a therapist-assisted eHealth intervention in patients with IHD and comorbid psychological distress as part of CR. Integrating screening for and treatment of depression and anxiety into standard CR may decrease dropout and facilitate better risk factor management, as it is presented as \"one package\" to patients, and they can access the eMindYourHeart program in their own time and at their own convenience. The trial holds a strong potential for improving the quality of care for an increasing population of patients with IHD and comorbid depression, anxiety or both, with likely benefits to patients, families, and society at large due to potential reductions in direct and indirect costs, if proven successful. Trial registration The trial was prospectively registered on https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04172974 on November 21, 2019 with registration number [NCT04172974].