Cardiovascular risk scores: Qualitative study of how primary care practitioners understand and use them

Su May Liew, Claire Blacklock, Jenny Hislop, Paul Glasziou, David Mant

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines and the Quality Outcomes Framework require practitioners to use cardiovascular risk scores in assessments for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Aim To explore GPs understanding and use of cardiovascular risk scores. Design and setting Qualitative study with purposive maximum variation sampling of 20 GPs working in Oxfordshire, UK. Method Thematic analysis of transcriptions of face-toface interviews with participants undertaken by two individuals (one clinical, one non-clinical). Results GPs use cardiovascular risk scores primarily to guide treatment decisions by estimating the risk of a vascular event if the patient remains untreated. They expressed considerable uncertainty about how and whether to take account of existing drug treatment or other types of prior risk modification. They were also unclear about the choice between the older scores, based on the Framingham study, and newer scores, such as QRISK®. There was substantial variation in opinion about whether scores could legitimately be used to illustrate to patients the change in risk as a result of treatment. The overall impression was of considerable confusion. Conclusion The drive to estimate risk more precisely by qualifying guidance and promoting new scores based on partially-treated populations appears to have created unnecessary confusion for little obvious benefit. National guidance needs to be simplified, and, to be fit for purpose, better reflect the ways in which cardiovascular risk scores are currently used in general practice. Patients may be better served by simple advice to use a Framingham score and exercise more clinical judgement, explaining to patients the necessary imprecision of any individual estimate of risk.

Original languageEnglish
JournalBritish Journal of General Practice
Volume63
Issue number611
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2013

Fingerprint

Primary Health Care
Confusion
National Institutes of Health (U.S.)
Primary Prevention
General Practice
Uncertainty
Blood Vessels
Cardiovascular Diseases
Therapeutics
Guidelines
Interviews
Exercise
Delivery of Health Care
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Population

Cite this

@article{fc4aa71d0e6c4d82b230a4759fcb42fc,
title = "Cardiovascular risk scores: Qualitative study of how primary care practitioners understand and use them",
abstract = "Background The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines and the Quality Outcomes Framework require practitioners to use cardiovascular risk scores in assessments for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Aim To explore GPs understanding and use of cardiovascular risk scores. Design and setting Qualitative study with purposive maximum variation sampling of 20 GPs working in Oxfordshire, UK. Method Thematic analysis of transcriptions of face-toface interviews with participants undertaken by two individuals (one clinical, one non-clinical). Results GPs use cardiovascular risk scores primarily to guide treatment decisions by estimating the risk of a vascular event if the patient remains untreated. They expressed considerable uncertainty about how and whether to take account of existing drug treatment or other types of prior risk modification. They were also unclear about the choice between the older scores, based on the Framingham study, and newer scores, such as QRISK{\circledR}. There was substantial variation in opinion about whether scores could legitimately be used to illustrate to patients the change in risk as a result of treatment. The overall impression was of considerable confusion. Conclusion The drive to estimate risk more precisely by qualifying guidance and promoting new scores based on partially-treated populations appears to have created unnecessary confusion for little obvious benefit. National guidance needs to be simplified, and, to be fit for purpose, better reflect the ways in which cardiovascular risk scores are currently used in general practice. Patients may be better served by simple advice to use a Framingham score and exercise more clinical judgement, explaining to patients the necessary imprecision of any individual estimate of risk.",
author = "Liew, {Su May} and Claire Blacklock and Jenny Hislop and Paul Glasziou and David Mant",
year = "2013",
month = "6",
doi = "10.3399/bjgp13X668195",
language = "English",
volume = "63",
journal = "Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners",
issn = "0960-1643",
publisher = "ROYAL COLL GENERAL PRACTITIONERS",
number = "611",

}

Cardiovascular risk scores : Qualitative study of how primary care practitioners understand and use them. / Liew, Su May; Blacklock, Claire; Hislop, Jenny; Glasziou, Paul; Mant, David.

In: British Journal of General Practice, Vol. 63, No. 611, 06.2013.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cardiovascular risk scores

T2 - Qualitative study of how primary care practitioners understand and use them

AU - Liew, Su May

AU - Blacklock, Claire

AU - Hislop, Jenny

AU - Glasziou, Paul

AU - Mant, David

PY - 2013/6

Y1 - 2013/6

N2 - Background The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines and the Quality Outcomes Framework require practitioners to use cardiovascular risk scores in assessments for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Aim To explore GPs understanding and use of cardiovascular risk scores. Design and setting Qualitative study with purposive maximum variation sampling of 20 GPs working in Oxfordshire, UK. Method Thematic analysis of transcriptions of face-toface interviews with participants undertaken by two individuals (one clinical, one non-clinical). Results GPs use cardiovascular risk scores primarily to guide treatment decisions by estimating the risk of a vascular event if the patient remains untreated. They expressed considerable uncertainty about how and whether to take account of existing drug treatment or other types of prior risk modification. They were also unclear about the choice between the older scores, based on the Framingham study, and newer scores, such as QRISK®. There was substantial variation in opinion about whether scores could legitimately be used to illustrate to patients the change in risk as a result of treatment. The overall impression was of considerable confusion. Conclusion The drive to estimate risk more precisely by qualifying guidance and promoting new scores based on partially-treated populations appears to have created unnecessary confusion for little obvious benefit. National guidance needs to be simplified, and, to be fit for purpose, better reflect the ways in which cardiovascular risk scores are currently used in general practice. Patients may be better served by simple advice to use a Framingham score and exercise more clinical judgement, explaining to patients the necessary imprecision of any individual estimate of risk.

AB - Background The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines and the Quality Outcomes Framework require practitioners to use cardiovascular risk scores in assessments for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Aim To explore GPs understanding and use of cardiovascular risk scores. Design and setting Qualitative study with purposive maximum variation sampling of 20 GPs working in Oxfordshire, UK. Method Thematic analysis of transcriptions of face-toface interviews with participants undertaken by two individuals (one clinical, one non-clinical). Results GPs use cardiovascular risk scores primarily to guide treatment decisions by estimating the risk of a vascular event if the patient remains untreated. They expressed considerable uncertainty about how and whether to take account of existing drug treatment or other types of prior risk modification. They were also unclear about the choice between the older scores, based on the Framingham study, and newer scores, such as QRISK®. There was substantial variation in opinion about whether scores could legitimately be used to illustrate to patients the change in risk as a result of treatment. The overall impression was of considerable confusion. Conclusion The drive to estimate risk more precisely by qualifying guidance and promoting new scores based on partially-treated populations appears to have created unnecessary confusion for little obvious benefit. National guidance needs to be simplified, and, to be fit for purpose, better reflect the ways in which cardiovascular risk scores are currently used in general practice. Patients may be better served by simple advice to use a Framingham score and exercise more clinical judgement, explaining to patients the necessary imprecision of any individual estimate of risk.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84878448445&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3399/bjgp13X668195

DO - 10.3399/bjgp13X668195

M3 - Article

VL - 63

JO - Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners

JF - Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners

SN - 0960-1643

IS - 611

ER -