Evaluating a cardiovascular disease risk management care continuum within a learning healthcare system: a prospective cohort study

• Main Authors: T Katrien J Groenhof, A Titia Lely, Saskia Haitjema, Hendrik M Nathoe, Marlous F Kortekaas, Folkert W Asselbergs, Michiel L Bots, Monika Hollander, UCC CVRM study group
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Royal College of General Practitioners 2020-11-01
• Series: BJGP Open
• Subjects: learning healthcare system; continuity of patient care; cardiovascular risk management; cardiovascular diseases
• Online Access: https://bjgpopen.org/content/4/5/bjgpopen20X101109

Background: Many patients now present with multimorbidity and chronicity of disease. This means that multidisciplinary management in a care continuum, integrating primary care and hospital care services, is needed to ensure high quality care. Aim: To evaluate cardiovascular risk management (CVRM) via linkage of health data sources, as an example of a multidisciplinary continuum within a learning healthcare system (LHS). Design & setting: In this prospective cohort study, data were linked from the Utrecht Cardiovascular Cohort (UCC) to the Julius General Practitioners' Network (JGPN) database. UCC offers structured CVRM at referral to the University Medical Centre (UMC) Utrecht. JGPN consists of electronic health record (EHR) data from referring GPs. Method: The cardiovascular risk factors were extracted for each patient 13 months before referral (JGPN), at UCC inclusion, and during 12 months follow-up (JGPN). The following areas were assessed: registration of risk factors; detection of risk factor(s) requiring treatment at UCC; communication of risk factors and actionable suggestions from the specialist to the GP; and change of management during follow-up. Results: In 52% of patients, ≥1 risk factors were registered (that is, extractable from structured fields within routine care health records) before UCC. In 12%–72% of patients, risk factor(s) existed that required (change or start of) treatment at UCC inclusion. Specialist communication included the complete risk profile in 67% of letters, but lacked actionable suggestions in 86%. In 29% of patients, at least one risk factor was registered after UCC. Change in management in GP records was seen in 21%–58% of them. Conclusion: Evaluation of a multidisciplinary LHS is possible via linkage of health data sources. Efforts have to be made to improve registration in primary care, as well as communication on findings and actionable suggestions for follow-up to bridge the gap in the CVRM continuum.