Improving evidence based cardiac care and policy implementation over the patient journey: The potential of coronary heart disease registers

Heart

Volumn 91, Issue 9, 2005, Pages 1127-1130

  Clark, A M ^b   Findlay, Iain N ^a  

^a ROYAL ALEXANDRA HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONGESTIVE CARDIOMYOPATHY; CONSULTATION; CORONARY CARE UNIT; EDITORIAL; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; GENERAL PRACTITIONER; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; ISCHEMIC HEART DISEASE; LABORATORY TEST; LIFESTYLE; PRIMARY MEDICAL CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REGISTER; RISK FACTOR;

CORONARY DISEASE; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; REGISTRIES; SCOTLAND;

EID: 23944503788     PISSN: 13556037     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/hrt.2004.051979     Document Type: Editorial

References (43)

1. Gray J. Evidence-based healthcare. London: Churchill, Livingstone, 1997.
2. Komajda M, Follath F, Swedberg K, et al. The EuroHeart Failure Survey programme-a survey on the quality of care among patients with heart failure in Europe. Part 2: treatment. Eur Heart J 2003;24:464-74.
3. Euroaspire II Study Group. Lifestyle and risk factor management and use of drug therapies in coronary patients from 15 countries. Eur Heart J 2001;22:554-72.
4. Hippisley-Cox J, Pringle M. Inequalities in access to coronary angiography and revascularisation: the association of deprivation and location of primary care services. Br J General Pract 2000;50:449-54.
5. Pell JP, Pell ACH, Norrie J, et al. Effect of socioeconomic deprivation on waiting time for cardiac surgery: retrospective cohort study. Commentary: three decades of the inverse care law. BMJ 2000;320:15-19.
6. MacLeod MCN, Finlayson AR, Pell JP, et al. Geographic, demographic, and socioeconomic variations in the investigation and management of coronary heart disease in Scotland. Heart 1999;81:252-6.
7. Department of Health. National service framework for coronary heart disease. London: Department of Health, 2000.
8. SIGN. Guideline 35: Diagnosis and treatment of heart failure due to left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Edinburgh: SIGN, 1999.
9. SIGN Guidelines Network. Secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. Edinburgh: SIGN Secretariat, 2000.
10. Clinical Standards Board for Scotland. Secondary prevention following myocardial infarction. Edinburgh: Clinical Standards Board for Scotland, 2000.
11. Anon. Third joint task force of European and other societies on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice. European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice. Eur Heart J 2003;24:1601-10.
12. Mosca L, Appel LJ, Benjamin EJ, et al. Evidence-based guidelines for cardiovascular disease prevention in women. Circulation 2004;109:672-93.
13. Bodenheimer T, Grumbach K. Electronic technology - a spark to revitalise primary care? JAMA 2003;290:259-64.
14. Hobbs FR, Erhardt L. Acceptance of guideline recommendations and perceived implementation of coronary heart disease prevention among primary care physicians in five European countries: the reassessing European attitudes about cardiovascular treatment (REACT) survey. Family Practice 2002;19:596-004.
15. Majumdar SR, McAlister FA, Furberg CD. From knowledge to practice in chronic cardiovascular disease: a long and winding road. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;43:1738-10.
16. Delaney BC, Fitzmaurice DA, Riaz A, et al. Can computerised decision support systems deliver improved quality in primary care? BMJ 1999;319:1281.
17. NHS Confederation. Investing in general practice: the new general medicine services contract. London: NHS Confederation, 2003.
18. Department of Health. The NHS plan. HMSO: London, 2000.
19. British Cardiac Society. Fifth report on the provision of services for patients with heart disease. Heart 2002;88(suppl III):iii1-59.
20. Bodenheimer T, Wagner EH, Grumbach K. Improving primary care for patients with chronic illness. JAMA 2002;288:1775-9.
21. Department of Health. Draft national patient information charter. London: Department of Health, 2002.
22. Hunt DL, Haynes RB, Hanna SE, et al. Effects of computer-based clinical decision support systems on physician performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA 1998;280:1339-46.
23. Hippisley-Cox J, Pringle M, Cater R, et al. The electronic patient record in primary care-regression or progression? A cross sectional study. BMJ 2003;326:1439-43.
24. National Academy of Sciences. The computer-based patient record: an essential technology for health care. London: National Academy of Sciences, 2003.
25. Vastag B. Donald M. Berwick, MD, MPP: advocate for evidence-based health system reform, JAMA 2003;291:1945-7.
26. Newton J, Garner S. Disease registers in England. Oxford: Institute of Health Sciences, 2002.
27. Moher M, Yudkin P, Turner R, Schofield T, for the ASSIST collaborative group. An assessment of morbidity registers for coronary heart disease in primary care. J Clin Nursing 2000;315:69-70.
28. Carroll K, Majeed A, Firth C, et al. Prevalence and management of coronary disease in primary care: population-based cross-sectional study using a disease register. Br J General Practice 2003;25:29-35.
29. Horsfield P. Making the most of your disease registers is key to quality points. Pulse 2003;69(41):2-3.
30. Begg AG, Griffith JM. The electonic health record and the management of cardiovascular disease. Br J Cardiol 2002;9:630-3.
31. Grady KL, Dracup K, Kennedy G, et al. Team management of patients with heart failure. Circulation 2000;102:2443-56.
32. Bethell HJ, Turner SC, Evans JA, et al. Cardiac rehabilitation in the United Kingdom. How complete is the provision? Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation 2001;21:111-5.
33. Scottish Executive. Partnership for care. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive, 2003.
34. Gray J, Ekins M, Scammell S, et al. Workload implications of identifying patients witfi ischaemic heart disease in primary care: population-based study. J Public Health Med 2003;25:223-9.
35. Melville MR, Packham C, Brown C, et al. Cardiac rehabilitation: socially deprived patients are less likely to attend but patients ineligible for thrombolysis are less likely to be invited. Heart 1999;82:373-7.
36. McAlister FA, Murphy NF, Simpson CR, et al. Influence of socioeconomic deprivation on the primary care burden and treatment of patients with a diagnosis of heart failure in general practice in Scotland: population based study. BMJ 2004;328:1110.
37. Cooper AF, Jackson G, Weinman J, et al. Factors associated with cardiac rehabilitation attendance: a systematic review of the literature. Clinical Rehabilitation 2002;16:541-52.
38. Clark AM, Sharp C, MacIntyre PD. The role of age in moderating access to cardiac rehabilitation in Scotland. Ageing and Society 2002;22:501-15.
39. Department of Health. National service framework for older people. London: Department of Health, 2001.
40. Centre for Health Informatics, http://www.chi.swan.ac.uk.
41. Anon. Product description of Have a Heart Paisley Central data Repository http://www.show.scot.nhs.uk/hahpregister/HaHP.
42. Clark AM, Blatchford O, Jamieson R, et al for the HaHP IT Group. Ensuring the ethics and legality of disease registers: the solution of the Have a Heart Paisley Register. British Journal of Health Care Computing & Information Management 2003;20(2):44-8.
43. Clark AM, Jamieson R, Findlay I. Registries and informed consent. N Engl J Med 2004;351:612.