Article

How general practitioners perceive and grade the cardiovascular risk of their patients.

Mario Negri Institute of Pharmacological Research, Via Eritrea 62, 20158 Milan, Italy.
European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation (Impact Factor: 2.63). 07/2004; 11(3):233-8. DOI: 10.1097/01.hjr.0000129737.84851.99
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Although risk assessment charts have been proposed to identify patients at high cardiovascular risk, in everyday practice general practitioners (GPs) often use their knowledge of the patients to estimate the risk subjectively.
A cross-sectional study aimed to describe how GPs perceive, qualify and grade cardiovascular risk in everyday practice.
General practitioners had to identify in a random sample of 10% of their contacts the first 20 consecutive patients perceived as being at cardiovascular risk. For each patient essential data were collected on clinical history, physical examination and laboratory tests, for the qualification of risk. At the end of the process GPs subjectively estimated the overall patient's level of risk. General practitioners grading was compared with the risk estimate from a reference chart.
Over a mean time of 25 days 3120 patients perceived as being at cardiovascular risk were enrolled. According to the inclusion scheme each GP had contact with more than 200 patients at cardiovascular risk every month. Thirty percent of these patients had atherosclerotic diseases. Up to 72% of patients without any history of atherosclerotic diseases but perceived to be at risk could be classified according to a reference chart as being at moderate to very high risk. Comparing GPs' grading of risk with a chart estimate there was agreement in 42% of the cases. Major determinants of GPs' underestimation of risk were age, sex and smoking habits, while obesity and family history were independently associated with overestimation.
On the basis of their perception GPs properly identify patients at cardiovascular risk in the majority of cases. General practitioners subjective grading of risk level only partially agreed with that given by a chart.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
105 Views
  • MRS Online Proceeding Library 01/2003; 797.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Background In recent decades in Italy, as in all the industrialized nations, the proportion of elderly subjects in the total population is constantly on the increase. However the increased life expectancy is not always paralleled by a true improvement in the quality of life. In this context, it is essential to analyze elderly real health needs and the responses to these needs, especially in terms of healthcare, that the territorial services are perceived to offer. Methods In the period from June to September 2006 we selected randomly one General Practitioner (GP) for each district of the Bari Municipal Area and, form each GP, we randomly chose 25 patients over 65 years old (YO). We conducted phone interviews using a standard data collection questionnaire and, for each of the recruited subjects, the GP filled a data collection sheet. Results Although the mean age (73.6 years) of the population under study was quite high, the general state of health was judged good both by the G P- and by their elderly patients (>75%). Notably, the great majority of elderly patients considered the healthcare they receive to be satisfactory (>60%): in particular, the GP was the true point of reference for this slice of the population for strictly medical problems as well as for advice. On the contrary, the patients attributed little value to social services, which were poorly known and scarcely used (8.5%). Public hospital facilities played a central role in second level healthcare in more than 30% of cases; private facilities covered by public health insurance were also very important. As possible solutions to the problem of loneliness, 36.6% of the patients declared that they approved of nursing homes. Conclusion Decision makers need to create services supporting the key role played by General Practitioners, who are well aware that their assistance is not sufficient to satisfy the health needs of the elderly.
    BMC Health Services Research 01/2007; · 1.77 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Trials have shown a beneficial effect of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in patients with a previous myocardial infarction or heart failure. We evaluated the potential benefit of such therapy in patients with multiple cardiovascular risk factors or atherosclerotic vascular disease who had not had a myocardial infarction. In this double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, we enrolled a cohort of patients who were followed by a network of 860 general practitioners in Italy. Eligible patients were men and women with multiple cardiovascular risk factors or atherosclerotic vascular disease but not myocardial infarction. Patients were randomly assigned to n-3 fatty acids (1 g daily) or placebo (olive oil). The initially specified primary end point was the cumulative rate of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke. At 1 year, after the event rate was found to be lower than anticipated, the primary end point was revised as time to death from cardiovascular causes or admission to the hospital for cardiovascular causes. Of the 12,513 patients enrolled, 6244 were randomly assigned to n-3 fatty acids and 6269 to placebo. With a median of 5 years of follow-up, the primary end point occurred in 1478 of 12,505 patients included in the analysis (11.8%), of whom 733 of 6239 (11.7%) had received n-3 fatty acids and 745 of 6266 (11.9%) had received placebo (adjusted hazard ratio with n-3 fatty acids, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.88 to 1.08; P=0.58). The same null results were observed for all the secondary end points. In a large general-practice cohort of patients with multiple cardiovascular risk factors, daily treatment with n-3 fatty acids did not reduce cardiovascular mortality and morbidity. (Funded by Società Prodotti Antibiotici and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00317707.).
    New England Journal of Medicine 05/2013; 368(19):1800-8. · 54.42 Impact Factor