Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background The perceptions of general practitioners (GP), cardiologists and pharmacists on multidisciplinary heart failure (HF) care were studied before. However, geriatricians are often overlooked in HF research, despite the high prevalence of HF in the elderly. Therefore, we investigated how geriatricians perceive their role in multidisciplinary HF care. Methods This study is a qualitative semi-structured interview study with geriatricians, working in Flanders, Belgium. Purposive sampling was performed, and interviews were conducted until data saturation was reached. The QUAGOL method was used for data analysis. Results Thirteen geriatricians were interviewed. They reported to feel confident about HF management and see themselves as the guardians of the patient during hospitalization. Regarding care organization during the hospitalization phase, striking differences were reported in triage at the emergency department (ED). Geriatricians were satisfied with the collaboration with the cardiologists and valued their role, although they reported differences in vision about dealing with geriatric HF patients. Regarding transmural care organization, follow-up after hospitalization was valued highly to prevent rehospitalization but most geriatricians did not see this as their responsibility. They mostly passed on the follow-up to the GP and the cardiologist. Some did take this follow-up into their own hands in various forms because of the high rehospitalization rate and many suggested ways to improve the organization of multidisciplinary HF care. Advance care planning was seen as an important aspect of geriatrics, yet they expected more involvement from both the cardiologist and the GP in this matter. Conclusions Based on these results, our study highlights three recommendations for optimizing the care of geriatric HF patients. First, the development of standardized methods to triage patients at the ED, in combination with geriatric-cardiologist co-management to ensure that each patient receives appropriate in-hospital care. Secondly, structured and closer transitional follow-up to limit readmission rates. Lastly, inclusion of advance care planning as a mandatory component in every HF program.

ObjectivesThe present study investigated (1) trends in the prevalence and incidence of knee osteoarthritis over a 20-year period (1996–2015); (2) trends in multimorbidity and (3) trends in drug prescriptions.DesignRegistry-based study.SettingPrimary healthcare, Flanders, Belgium.ParticipantsData were collected from Intego, a general practice-based morbidity registration network. In the study period between 1996 and 2015, data from 440 140 unique patients were available.Outcome measuresTrends in prevalence and incidence rate of knee osteoarthritis were computed using joinpoint regression analysis. The mean disease count was calculated to assess trends in multimorbidity. In addition, the number of drug prescriptions was identified by the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification code and trends were equally recorded with joinpoint regression.ResultsThe total age-standardised prevalence of knee osteoarthritis increased from 2.0% in 1996 to 3.6% in 2015. An upward trend was observed with an average annual percentage change (AAPC) of 2.5 (95% CI 2.2 to 2.9). In 2015, the prevalence rates in the 10 year age groups from the 45–54 years age group onwards were 3.1%, 5.6%, 9.0% and 13.9%, to reach 15.0% in people aged 85 years and older. The incidence remained stable with 3.75‰ in 2015 (AAPC=−0.5, 95% CI −1.4 to 0.5). The mean disease count significantly increased from 1.63 to 2.34 (p<0.001) for incident cases with knee osteoarthritis. Finally, we observed a significantly positive trend in the overall prescription of acetaminophen (AAPC=6.7, 95% CI 5.6 to 7.7), weak opioids (AAPC=4.0, 95% CI 0.9 to 7.3) and glucosamine (AAPC=8.6, 95% CI 2.4 to 15.1). Oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were most prescribed, with a prevalence rate of 29.8% in 2015, but remained stable during the study period (AAPC=0.0, 95% CI −1.1 to 1.1).ConclusionsIncreased prevalence, multimorbidity, and number of drug prescriptions confirm an increased burden of knee osteoarthritis. In future, these trends can be used to prioritise initiatives for improvement in care.

Multidisciplinary disease management programmes (DMPs) are a cornerstone of modern guideline‐recommended care for heart failure (HF). Few programmes are community initiated or involve primary care professionals, despite the importance of home‐based care for HF. We compared the outcomes of different multidisciplinary HF DMPs in relation to their recruitment setting and involvement of primary care health professionals. We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials published in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane between 2000 and 2020 using Cochrane Collaboration methodology. Our meta‐analysis included 19 randomized controlled trials (7577 patients), classified according to recruitment setting and involvement of primary care professionals. Thirteen studies recruited in the hospital (n = 5243 patients) and six in the community (n = 2334 patients). Only six studies involved primary care professionals (n = 3427 patients), with two of these recruited in the community (n = 225 patients). Multidisciplinary HF DMPs that recruited in the community had no significant effect on all‐cause and HF readmissions nor on mortality, irrespective of primary care involvement. Studies that recruited in the hospital demonstrated a significant reduction in mortality (relative risk 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.76, 0.98]), HF readmissions (0.70, 95% CI [0.54, 0.89]), and all‐cause readmissions (0.72, 95% CI [0.60, 0.87]). However, the difference in effect size between recruitment setting and involvement of primary care was not significant in a meta‐regression analysis. Multidisciplinary HF DMPs that recruit in the community have no significant effect on mortality or hospital readmissions, unlike DMPs that recruit in the hospital, although the difference in effect size was not significant in a meta‐regression analysis. Only six multidisciplinary studies involved primary care professionals. Given demographic evolutions and the importance of integrated home‐based care for patients with HF, future multidisciplinary HF DMPs should consider integrating primary care professionals and evaluating the effectiveness of this model.

ObjectivesHeart failure is an important health problem and patients are generally older with several comorbidities. Multidisciplinary heart failure care is therefore recommended. However, there is little evidence in real-world settings on how to involve primary care health professionals and how to evaluate such programmes. The main objective of this study is to integrate and evaluate several disease management interventions in a primary care setting.DesignProspective, non-randomised, observational implementation study with a mixed-methods process evaluation conducted over 3 years (2020–2022).SettingPrimary care practices and two regional hospitals (one tertiary, one secondary) in the Leuven region, Belgium, serving approximately 100 000 inhabitants.Participants100 general practitioners (GPs) from 19 practices participated. A total of 96 patients were included in the disease management programme. Inclusion criteria for patients included high-risk status for heart failure (HF) readmission, based on clinical criteria. Exclusion criteria were not explicitly defined but participation required informed consent.InterventionsFour interventions were implemented: (1) online HF education for GPs, (2) reimbursed natriuretic peptide (NP) testing, (3) patient education by trained primary care HF educators and (4) a structured transitional care protocol posthospital discharge.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPrimary outcomes included GP self-efficacy in HF management, NP testing rates, HF registration in electronic health records and patient self-efficacy (9-item European Heart Failure Self-Care Behaviour Scale (EHFScB-9)). Secondary outcomes included patient quality of life (Short Form-12 questionnaire (SF-12)), hospital readmission rates and provider satisfaction.ResultsGPs felt more competent in the management of HF after an online education (eight point increase in self-efficacy score after 6 months follow-up, (CI 2.9 to 13, p<0.001)). GPs conducted 314 reimbursed NP tests, half of which scored above age-specific thresholds for referral. After initiation, there was a significant increase in NP testing (Bayes Factor 64), with a total rate of 5.4 tests per 1000 patient years. The proportion of registered HF in patients aged 40 years or older in GPs’ electronic health records increased from 2.27% to 2.57% between 2020 and 2022. 96 patients were included in the disease management programme, 75% of these inclusions followed the transitional protocol after discharge for HF. There was significant improvement in patients’ self-efficacy after 6-month follow-up (an EHFScB-9 score change of 2.7 points, 95% CI 0.62 to 4.8), but no significant change in quality of life (an SF-12 score change of 0.15 points, 95% CI −1.1 to 1.4). Adherence to the transitional protocol depended on the presence of a specialist HF nurse during admission, 84% of all patients were seen within 14 days after discharge by their general practitioner. Time-trend analysis revealed an increase of HF as a secondary rather than primary cause of admission. Participating healthcare professionals reported satisfaction with the programme.ConclusionsThe IMPACT-B study demonstrated that an integrated disease management programme for HF could be implemented and assessed in routine clinical practice. The programme resulted in increased awareness and registration of HF in primary care, increased self-management of patients and improved follow-up after discharge, although these results should be interpreted cautiously given the uncontrolled pre-post study design.Trial registrationTrial registration NCT04334447 (clinicaltrials.gov).

The authors of \"Integration or Fragmentation of Health Care? Examining Policies and Politics in a Belgian Case Study\" present a fresh perspective on the inertia of integrated care (IC) implementation. They conclude that the decisive power in Belgium is fragmented and undermines efforts towards IC. As researchers in integrated heart failure (HF) care and active primary healthcare professionals, we comment on the three policy initiatives evaluated by Martens et al from a bottom-up perspective. A Learning Healthcare Network (LHCN) was established September 2019 to overcome fragmentation, the lack of evaluation and capacity loss each time a pilot project ends. This commentary wishes to illustrate that a LHCN can be a powerful meso-level mechanism to engage in alignment work and to overcome macro-level barriers that are often difficult to change and not supportive of IC.

Background Heart failure (HF) is an important health problem and guidelines recommend multidisciplinary management. The pharmacist is an important member of the multidisciplinary heart failure team, both in the hospital and community setting. This study aims to explore the perceptions of community pharmacists on their role in HF care. Methods We conducted a qualitative study based on face-to-face semi-structured interviews with 13 Belgian community pharmacists between September 2020 and December 2020. We used the Qualitative Analysis Guide of Leuven (QUAGOL) method as guidance for data analysis until data saturation was reached. We structured interview content into a thematic matrix. Results We identified two major themes: heart failure management and multidisciplinary management. Pharmacists feel responsible for the pharmacological and non-pharmacological management of heart failure, citing easy access and pharmacological expertise as important assets. Diagnostic uncertainty, lack of knowledge and time, disease complexity and difficulties in communication with patients and informal care providers are barriers to optimal management. General practitioners are the most important partners in multidisciplinary community heart failure management, although pharmacists perceive a lack of appreciation and cooperation and deplore communication difficulties. They feel intrinsically motivated to provide extended pharmaceutical care in HF but cite the lack of financial viability and information sharing structures as important barriers. Conclusion The importance of pharmacist involvement in multidisciplinary heart failure teams is undisputed by Belgian pharmacists, who cite easy access and pharmacological expertise as important assets. They point out several barriers impeding evidence-based pharmacist care for outpatients with heart failure: diagnostic uncertainty and disease complexity, lack of multidisciplinary information technology and insufficient resources. We recommend that future policy should focus on improved medical data exchanges between primary and secondary care electronic health records as well as the reinforcement of interprofessional relationships between locally affiliated pharmacists and general practitioners.

Physician-oriented online education could be a pathway to improve care for patients with heart failure, however, it is difficult to measure the impact of such education. Self-efficacy is a potential outcome measure. In this article, we develop a methodology for analyzing an educational intervention for general practitioners (GPs) using self-efficacy as a concept. This study was partly conducted within the setting of an observational study, IMPACT-B, where we developed online education for GPs. We designed and refined a 24-item questionnaire using item analysis, and exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Ninety-one GPs completed the questionnaire before and after the online education. Follow-up data after 6 months was available for 13 GPs. Item analysis revealed a high degree of internal consistency (coefficient alpha 0.95) and validity. Each additional year of experience was associated with an average baseline self-efficacy score of 0.50 points (95% CI [0.21-0.80]), and each additional patient in HF follow-up with an average score of 2.0 points (95% CI [0.48-3.5]). Items that differentiated most between GPs with high and low self-efficacy were the treatment of congestion as well as titrating medication and MRA in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Factor analysis reduced the number of questions to 14, mapping to three factors (diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up), and improved the model fit as measured by the goodness-of-fit indicator comparative-fit-index (from 0.83 to 0.91). We demonstrated a method to assess the impact of online education on general practitioners. This led to a questionnaire that was reliable, valid, and convenient to use in an implementation context.

Background Cardiologists play a key role in multidisciplinary care by guiding heart failure (HF) management in the hospital and in the community. Regional implementation of multidisciplinary health care interventions depends on how they perceive collaboration with other health care disciplines, yet research on this topic is limited. This study aimed to explore the views and opinions of cardiologists on multidisciplinary collaboration in HF care. Methods We conducted a qualitative study based on face-to-face semi-structured interviews with 11 Belgian cardiologists between September 2019 and February 2020. We used the Qualitative Analysis Guide of Leuven (QUAGOL) method as guidance for data analysis until data saturation was reached. Results Cardiologists consider the general practitioner (GP) and HF nurse as the most important partners in HF management. Cardiologists identified four problems in current multidisciplinary collaboration: the communication of a HF diagnosis to the patient, advanced care planning, titration of HF medication by the GP and electronic data exchange and communication. Three themes emerged as ideas for improvement of HF care: 1) expansion of the role of the HF nurse, 2) implementation of a structured, patient-centered, and flexible model of disease management program and 3) integrated data approaches. Conclusion Cardiologists value close cooperation with GPs in HF management. They advocate an expanded future role for the HF nurse, increased eHealth, and structured disease management to optimize current HF care.

Background A comprehensive disease management programme (DMP) with a central role for general practitioners (GPs) is needed to improve heart failure (HF) care. However, previous research has shown that GPs have mixed experiences with multidisciplinary HF care. Therefore, in this study, we explore the perceptions that GPs have regarding their role in current and future HF care, prior to the design of an HF disease management programme. Methods This was a qualitative semi-structured interview study with Belgian GPs until data saturation was reached. The QUAGOL method was used for data analysis. Results In general, GPs wanted to assume a central role in HF care. Current interdisciplinary collaboration with cardiologists was perceived as smooth, partly because of the ease of access. In contrast, due to less well-established communication and the variable knowledge of nurses regarding HF care, collaboration with home care nurses was perceived as suboptimal. With regard to the future organization of HF care, all GPs confirmed the need for a structured chronic care approach and envisioned this as a multidisciplinary care pathway: flexible, patient-centred, without additional administration and with appropriate delegation of some critical tasks, including education and monitoring. GPs considered all-round general practice nurses as the preferred partner to delegate tasks to in HF care and reported limited experience in collaborating with specialist HF nurses. Conclusion GPs expressed the need for a protocol-driven care pathway in chronic HF care. However, in contrast to the existing care trajectories, this pathway should be flexible, without additional administrative burdens and with a central role for GPs.

Aims Heart failure (HF) is an important health problem for which multidisciplinary care is recommended, yet few studies involve primary care practitioners in the multidisciplinary management of HF. We set up a multifaceted prospective observational trial, OSCAR‐HF, piloting audit and feedback, natriuretic peptide testing at the point of care, and the assistance of a specialist HF nurse in primary care. The aim was to optimize HF care in general practice. Methods and results This is an analysis at 6 month follow‐up of the study interventions of the OSCAR‐HF pilot study, a nonrandomized, noncontrolled prospective observational trial conducted in eight Belgian general practices [51 general practitioners (GPs)]. Patients who were assessed by their GP to have HF constituted the OSCAR‐HF study population. We used descriptive statistics and mixed‐effects modelling for the quantitative analysis and thematic analysis of the focus group interviews. There was a 10.2% increase in the registered HF population after 6 months of follow‐up (n = 593) compared with baseline (n = 538) and a 27% increase in objectified HF diagnoses (baseline n = 359 to 456 at T6 M). Natriuretic peptide testing (with or without referral) accounted for 54% (n = 60/111) of the newly registered HF diagnoses. There was no difference in the proportion of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction who received their target dosage of renin‐angiotensin‐aldosterone system inhibitors or beta‐blockers at 6 months compared with baseline (P = 0.9). Patients who received an HF nurse intervention (n = 53) had significantly worse quality of life at baseline [difference in Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) score 9.2 points; 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.0, 14] and had a significantly greater improvement in quality‐of‐life scores at the 6 month follow‐up [change in MLHFQ score −9.8 points; 95% CI −15, −4.5] than patients without an HF nurse intervention. GPs found audit and feedback valuable but time intensive. Natriuretic peptides were useful, but the point‐of‐care test was impractical, and the assistance of an HF nurse was a useful addition to routine HF care. Conclusions The use of audit and feedback combined with natriuretic peptide testing was a successful strategy to increase the number of registered and objectified HF diagnoses at 6 months. GPs and HF nurses selected patients with worse quality‐of‐life scores at baseline for the HF nurse intervention, which led to a significantly greater improvement in quality‐of‐life scores at the 6 month follow‐up compared with patients without an HF nurse intervention. The interventions were deemed feasible and useful by the participating GPs with some specific remarks that can be used for optimization. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02905786), registered on 14 September 2016 at https://clinicaltrials.gov/.