Mixed method evaluation of an innovation to improve secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in primary care

Authors: E Anne Lacey1; G.S. Kalsi2; Mike J. Macintosh3

Source: Quality in Primary Care, Volume 12, Number 4, December 2004 , pp. 259-265(7)

Publisher: Radcliffe Publishing Ltd.

Buy & download fulltext article:

OR

Price: $20.00 plus tax (Refund Policy)

Abstract:

Secondary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) is high on the primary care agenda, but the evidence base for targeted interventions to improve the quality of services in this area is patchy. This article reports an evaluation of an innovative project aiming to improve secondary prevention in an area of social deprivation. The innovation was based in one primary care trust (PCT), and funded by the voluntary sector.

Three distinct approaches to the evaluation are reported: a before and after audit of services, a survey of patient-reported uptake of services, and qualitative data from staff interviews.

Taken together, the evaluation showed a picture of improved services in intervention practices compared with controls. Against a background of increasing quality of systematic care for CHD, following the introduction of the National Service Framework, intervention practices showed greater gains than control practices. Furthermore, two-thirds of practices that benefited from the innovation reported offering some form of cardiac rehabilitation service locally. Patients in intervention practices were more likely to report appropriate monitoring and treatment for cholesterol management, and were more likely to receive lifestyle advice. Staff interviews revealed the mechanisms by which such improvements had been facilitated.

This evaluation suggests that interventions based at PCT level can facilitate changes in a number of practices in a locality. This model of service delivery might be particularly beneficial in areas of social deprivation where staff are dealing with high levels of disease, and improvements can lead to reductions in health inequalities. The conclusions are qualified, however, by the difficulty in conducting rigorous evaluations of complex innovations against a background of constant change and national and local initiatives.

Keywords: CORONARY HEART DISEASE; EVALUATION; SECONDARY PREVENTION

Document Type: Regular paper

Affiliations: 1: Senior Research Fellow, ScHARR, University of Sheffield, UK 2: Specialist Registrar in Public Health, Chesterfield Primary Care NHS Trust, Chesterfield, UK 3: Lecturer, School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Sheffield, UK

Publication date: 2004-12-01

More about this publication?
Related content

Tools

Key

Free Content
Free content
New Content
New content
Open Access Content
Open access content
Subscribed Content
Subscribed content
Free Trial Content
Free trial content

Text size:

A | A | A | A
Share this item with others: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. print icon Print this page