A multifaceted intervention according to the Audit Project Odense method improved secondary prevention of ischemic heart disease: a randomised controlled trial. Recurrent aphthous stomatitis unresponsive to topical corticosteroids: a study of the comparative therapeutic effects of systemic prednisone and systemic sulodexide. Small group intervention vs formal seminar for improving appropriate drug use. Rational prescribing in primary care (RaPP): a cluster randomized trial of a tailored intervention. An outreach intervention to implement evidence based practice in residential care: a randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN67855475]. Educational strategies to promote evidence-based community pharmacy practice: a cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT). Multidisciplinary HIV adherence intervention: a randomized study. Modifying dyspepsia management in primary care: a cluster randomised controlled trial of educational outreach compared with passive guideline dissemination. Multifaceted intervention to improve rheumatologists' management of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis: a randomized controlled trial.
No single quality improvement instrument has proved consistently effective, but multifaceted interventions are believed to have the greatest impact. However, only little is known regarding what combinations are likely to be successful.
                To evaluate the impact of a multifaceted intervention strategy combining GP registrations, outreach visits and feedback, targeting secondary prevention of ischemic heart disease in general practice.
                A randomised controlled trial including 28 GPs in Ringkjøbing County, Denmark. Half of the GPs received outreach visits and feedback on their prescribing of heart disease drugs. Evaluation was based on registration of consultations with patients suffering from ischemic heart disease.
                The intervention had a statistically significant impact on prescribing of lipid lowering drugs [odds ratio 1.59; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 2.53] and acetylsalicylic acid (odds ratio 2.54; 95% CI 1.21 to 5.31).
                An intervention strategy combining outreach visits, feedback and GP registrations is a promising way of improving the quality of preventive treatment in general practice. Recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS) is a common oral condition, the etiology of which remains largely unclear. Numerous therapeutic protocols have been tried. Apart from immunomodulators, no therapy is unequivocally effective, and many systemic therapies have potential adverse effects.
                To compare, in patients with frequent RAS unresponsive to conventional therapies, the therapeutic effectiveness of systemic prednisone with that of systemic sulodexide, a low-molecular-weight heparin with immunosuppressive activity but few adverse effects.
                The study involved a group of 30 patients suffering from frequent minor RAS over >or= 4 months unresponsive to topical corticosteroids. Patients were randomly assigned to one of three study groups: blind therapy with systemic sulodexide or systemic prednisone and control (no treatment). The outcomes were assessed blind on the basis of the days to recovery from pain and days to recovery from ulceration (epithelialization) during the first month of therapy; the number of aphthae appearing during the second month of therapy; and the number of aphthae appearing in the 2 months after the end of the 2-month treatment cycle.
                The effectiveness of systemic sulodexide was almost comparable with that of systemic prednisone in patients with frequent RAS, without significant adverse effects. In an attempt to evaluate the efficacy of different methods of interventions to improve the appropriate use of drugs for acute diarrhoea, a controlled study has been carried out in 6 districts in Yogyakarta and Central Java provinces, Indonesia. This study was designed to investigate the impacts of two different methods of educational intervention, i.e. a small group face-to-face intervention and a formal seminar for prescribers, on prescribing practice in acute diarrhoea. The districts were randomly assigned into 3 groups and 15 health centers were selected from each district. Prescribers in Group 1 underwent a small group face-to-face intervention conducted in the respective health center. Those in Group 2 attended a formal seminar conducted at the district level. Prescribers in Group 3 served as the control group. Both interventions were given on a single occasion without follow-up supervision or monitoring. Written information materials on the appropriate management of acute diarrhoea were developed and were provided to all prescribers in the intervention groups. Focus group discussions (FGDs) involving prescribers and consumers in the 6 districts were carried out to identify various underlying motivations of drug use in acute diarrhoea. The findings of the FGDs were used as part of the intervention materials. To evaluate the impacts of these interventions on prescribing practice, a prescribing survey for patients under five years old with acute diarrhoea was carried out in health centers covering 3-month periods before and after the intervention. The results showed that both interventions were equally effective in improving the levels of knowledge of prescribers about the appropriate management of acute diarrhoea. They were also partially effective in improving the appropriate use of drugs, reducing the use of non-rehydration medications. There was a highly significant reduction of antimicrobial usage either after small-group face-to-face intervention (77.4 +/- 2.7% to 60.4 +/- 2.9%; P < 0.001) or formal seminar (82.3 +/- 3.0% to 72.3 +/- 3.6%; P < 0.001), and the former caused significantly (P < 0.001) greater reduction than the latter. There was also a significant (P < 0.01) reduction in the usage of antidiarrhoeals after both interventions, i.e. from 20.3 +/- 3.7% to 12.5 +/- 3.3% (P < 0.01) after face-to-face intervention and from 48.5 +/- 4.1% to 27.0 +/- 4.3% (P < 0.01) after seminar. However, the formal seminar had a significantly (P < 0.01) greater impact than the small group face-to-face intervention. There was also a trend toward increased oral rehydration solution (ORS) usage after both interventions, but this did not achieve the level of statistical significance (P > 0.05). No changes were observed in the control group. Although the small group face-to-face intervention did not appear to offer greater impacts over large seminars in improving the appropriate use of drugs in acute diarrhoea, since the unit cost of training is far less costly than the seminar, it might be feasibly implemented in the existing supervisory structure of the health system. A gap exists between evidence and practice regarding the management of cardiovascular risk factors. This gap could be narrowed if systematically developed clinical practice guidelines were effectively implemented in clinical practice. We evaluated the effects of a tailored intervention to support the implementation of systematically developed guidelines for the use of antihypertensive and cholesterol-lowering drugs for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.
                We conducted a cluster-randomized trial comparing a tailored intervention to passive dissemination of guidelines in 146 general practices in two geographical areas in Norway. Each practice was randomized to either the tailored intervention (70 practices; 257 physicians) or control group (69 practices; 244 physicians). Patients started on medication for hypertension or hypercholesterolemia during the study period and all patients already on treatment that consulted their physician during the trial were included. A multifaceted intervention was tailored to address identified barriers to change. Key components were an educational outreach visit with audit and feedback, and computerized reminders linked to the medical record system. Pharmacists conducted the visits. Outcomes were measured for all eligible patients seen in the participating practices during 1 y before and after the intervention. The main outcomes were the proportions of (1) first-time prescriptions for hypertension where thiazides were prescribed, (2) patients assessed for cardiovascular risk before prescribing antihypertensive or cholesterol-lowering drugs, and (3) patients treated for hypertension or hypercholesterolemia for 3 mo or more who had achieved recommended treatment goals. The intervention led to an increase in adherence to guideline recommendations on choice of antihypertensive drug. Thiazides were prescribed to 17% of patients in the intervention group versus 11% in the control group (relative risk 1.94; 95% confidence interval 1.49-2.49, adjusted for baseline differences and clustering effect). Little or no differences were found for risk assessment prior to prescribing and for achievement of treatment goals.
                Our tailored intervention had a significant impact on prescribing of antihypertensive drugs, but was ineffective in improving the quality of other aspects of managing hypertension and hypercholesterolemia in primary care. The aim of this project was to assess whether outreach visits would improve the implementation of evidence based clinical practice in the area of falls reduction and stroke prevention in a residential care setting.
                Twenty facilities took part in a randomized controlled trial with a seven month follow-up period. Two outreach visits were delivered by a pharmacist. At the first a summary of the relevant evidence was provided and at the second detailed audit information was provided about fall rates, psychotropic drug prescribing and stroke risk reduction practices (BP monitoring, aspirin and warfarin use) for the facility relevant to the physician. The effect of the interventions was determined via pre- and post-intervention case note audit. Outcomes included change in percentage patients at risk of falling who fell in a three month period prior to follow-up and changes in use of psychotropic medications. Chi-square tests, independent samples t-test, and logistic regression were used in the analysis.
                Data were available from case notes at baseline (n = 897) and seven months follow-up (n = 902), 452 residential care staff were surveyed and 121 physicians were involved with 61 receiving outreach visits. Pre-and post-intervention data were available for 715 participants. There were no differences between the intervention and control groups for the three month fall rate. We were unable to detect statistically significant differences between groups for the psychotropic drug use of the patients before or after the intervention. The exception was significantly greater use of "as required" antipsychotics in the intervention group compared with the control group after the pharmacy intervention (RR = 4.95; 95%CI 1.69-14.50). There was no statistically significant difference between groups for the numbers of patients "at risk of stroke" on aspirin at follow-up.
                While the strategy was well received by the physicians involved, there was no change in prescribing patterns. Patient care in residential settings is complex and involves contributions from the patient's physician, family and residential care staff. The project highlights challenges of delivering evidence based care in a setting in which there is a paucity of well controlled trial evidence but where significant health outcomes can be attained. Community pharmacists have increasing involvement in the self-management of minor illness as a result of the availability of a wider range of over-the-counter (OTC) medicines. We undertook a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of educational strategies to implement evidence-based guidelines for the sale of OTC anti-fungals in the community pharmacy setting.
                The aim of the study was to compare the effectiveness and efficiency of two guideline dissemination strategies in community pharmacy settings.
                A 2 x 2 factorial, cluster RCT was conducted with 60 community pharmacies in the Grampian region of Scotland. The interventions included dissemination of an evidence-based guideline for OTC management of vulvovaginal candidiasis (thrush) by postal dissemination (control), educational outreach visit or attendance at a continuing professional education session. Pre- and post-intervention simulated patient visits were made to participating pharmacies. The simulated patients completed assessment forms following each visit. The primary outcome was the appropriateness (based upon the guidelines) of sale or no sale of OTC anti-fungals.
                There were no significant differences in the proportion of appropriate outcomes following educational outreach [odds ratio (OR) = 1.1; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 2.45] or continuing professional education (OR = 0.88; 95% CI 0.41 to 1.91).
                Neither strategy was effective in improving the appropriateness of OTC management of vulvovaginal candidiasis by community pharmacy staff. Further research is needed to identify barriers to guideline implementation and evidence-based practice in this setting. Maintaining greater than 95% adherence to antiretroviral medication is necessary in order to have the greatest therapeutic impact on HIV infection. Furthermore, evidence suggests that adherence rates of between 70% and 89% are significantly associated with viral rebound and the development of drug resistance. Adherence rates at and above the 95% level are difficult for patients to achieve and maintain. Our aim was to determine if an adherence intervention could improve adherence among patients attending an ambulatory care clinic at a large public hospital. The intervention was delivered by a multidisciplinary team of health care professionals and consisted of education coupled with the provision of devices designed to assist patient memory and adherence. A crucial component of the intervention consisted of the identification of patient specific barriers to adherence and the development of strategies to circumvent these problems. Adherence was assessed using patient self-report over the past 4, 7, and 28 days and by calculation of the Morisky score. The study was conducted as a randomised controlled trial using the stepped wedge design with a total of 68 subjects randomised to receive the intervention over a 20-week period. Adherence before and after the intervention formed the analysis. There was a significant decrease in the number of missed doses over the past 4 (1.9 to 1.0, p < 0.001), 7 (3.0 to 1.8, p < 0.001) and 28 (7.4 to 4.2, p < 0.001) days and a decrease in the Morisky score, indicating an improvement in medication taking behaviour (1.3 to 0.5 p < 0.001). Quality improvement initiatives in health services rely upon the effective introduction of clinical practice guidelines. However, even well constructed guidelines have little effect unless supported by dissemination and implementation strategies.
                To test the effectiveness of 'educational outreach' as a strategy for facilitating the uptake of dyspepsia management guidelines in primary care.
                A pragmatic, cluster-randomised controlled trial of guideline introduction, comparing educational outreach with postal guideline dissemination alone.
                One-hundred and fourteen general practices (233 general practitioners) in the Salford and Trafford Health authority catchment area in the northwest of England.
                All practices received guidelines by post in July 1997. The intervention group practices began to receive educational outreach three months later. This consisted of practice-based seminars with hospital specialists at which guideline recommendations were appraised, and implementation plans formulated. Seminars were followed up with 'reinforcement' visits after a further 12 weeks. Outcome measures were: (a) the appropriateness of referral for; and (b) findings at, open access upper gastrointestinal endoscopy; (c) costs of GP prescriptions for acid-suppressing drugs, and (d) the use of laboratory-based serological tests for Helicobacter pylori. Data were collected for seven months before and/or after the intervention and analysed by intention-to-treat.
                (a) The proportion of appropriate referrals was higher in the intervention group in the six-month post-intervention period (practice medians: control = 50.0%, intervention = 63.9%, P < 0.05); (b) the proportion of major findings at endoscopy did not alter significantly; (c) there was a greater rise in overall expenditure on acid-suppressing drugs in the intervention as compared with the control group (+8% versus +2%, P = 0.005); and (d) the median testing rate per practice for H pylori in the post-intervention period was significantly greater in the intervention group (four versus O, P < 0.001).
                This study suggests that educational outreach may be more effective than passive guideline dissemination in changing clinical behaviour. It also demonstrates that unpredictable and unanticipated outcomes may emerge. To assess the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention to improve the management of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP).
                Of 21 rheumatologists, 11 were randomly assigned to a 3-part intervention consisting of a lecture and discussion regarding optimal management of GIOP, a confidential doctor-specific audit regarding management of GIOP, and a reminder mailing including concise pharmacologic recommendations. The remaining 10 rheumatologists received no special education. Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) taking oral glucocorticoids seen in the 2 months after the intervention were followed for 6 months. Medical records were assessed to determine the proportion undergoing bone mineral density testing or receiving pharmacologic interventions for GIOP during the 6 months before and 6 months after the intervention.
                There were 373 patients with RA taking oral glucocorticoids whose records were assessed. Patients in both arms of the trial were similar with respect to age, sex, menopausal status, glucocorticoid dosage and duration, duration of RA, disease-modifying antirheumatic drug use, and the proportion with comorbid conditions. At baseline, there was no significant difference between the patients with respect to osteoporosis medication use (intervention 32% versus control 34%) or bone densitometry use (intervention 9% versus control 5%). After the intervention and a 6-month followup period, there were no differences in treatment (intervention 33% versus control 38%) or bone densitometry use (intervention 8% versus control 8%). Adjusting for patient and physician characteristics did not significantly change these results.
                A multifaceted intervention for GIOP, including doctor education, practice audit, and treatment suggestions, had no significant benefit on testing or treatment by rheumatologists over a 6-month followup period. Other intervention approaches need to be tested.
No single treatment was found to be effective and therefore the results remain inconclusive in regard to the best systemic intervention for RAS. This is likely to reflect the poor methodological rigour of trials, and lack of studies for certain drugs, rather than the true effect of the intervention. It is also recognised that in clinical practice, individual drugs appear to work for individual patients and so the interventions are likely to be complex in nature. In addition, it is acknowledged that systemic interventions are often reserved for those patients who have been unresponsive to topical treatments, and therefore may represent a select group of patients.