Cardiovascular Risks of RA Go Undetected in Primary Care

AbstractIntroductionThe Ukrainian primary healthcare programme of preventive and screening recommendations has not been evidence-based. The traditional system of continuous medical education in Ukraine places participants in the role of passive listeners. This study explored the effects of an interactive training course on evidence-based prevention and screening of cardiovascular risks, on changes in Ukrainian family doctors’ (FDs) and primary care nurses’ (PCNs) knowledge and readiness to change practice over time.MethodsThree hundred and seven FDs and PCNs participated in the study. Changes in participants’ knowledge were assessed with 20 multiple choice questions, and their readiness to change practice with a five-item questionnaire. These were administered before, immediately after, three and twelve months after training.ResultsThe mean pre-course knowledge score was 6.1 (SD 1.8) out of 20, increasing to 14.9 (SD 2.3) immediately afterwards (p<0.001). Three months later it was 10.2 (SD 3.2) and at one year it was 10.4 (SD 3.3), both of which were significantly higher than the pre-training level (p<0.005). The percentage of participants that were highly motivated to change their practice increased from 18.4% before the training to 62.3% immediately afterwards (p<0.001). Three months later, this fell to 40.4%. At 12 months it further reduced to 27.4%, but was still significantly higher than the baseline level (p<0.001).ConclusionsThe interactive training was effective in increasing both participants’ knowledge and their readiness to change their clinical practice. The impact of the training diminished over time, but was still evident a year later.

Download Full-text

Effects of the Multidisciplinary Risk Assessment and Management Program for Patients with Diabetes Mellitus (RAMP-DM) on biomedical outcomes, observed cardiovascular events and cardiovascular risks in primary care: a longitudinal comparative study

Cardiovascular Diabetology ◽

10.1186/s12933-014-0127-6 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 13 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 26

Author(s):

Fang Fang Jiao ◽

Colman Siu Cheung Fung ◽

Carlos King Ho Wong ◽

Yuk Fai Wan ◽

Daisy Dai ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Diabetes Mellitus ◽

Risk Assessment ◽

Primary Care ◽

Comparative Study ◽

Cardiovascular Events ◽

Management Program ◽

Cardiovascular Risks ◽

Patients With Diabetes ◽

Risk Assessment And Management

Download Full-text

Cardiovascular risk in primary care: comparison between Framingham Score and waist circumference

REVISTA CIÊNCIAS EM SAÚDE ◽

10.21876/rcshci.v11i4.1152 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (4) ◽

pp. 53-60

Author(s):

Nina Vitória de Souza Silva Andrade ◽

Isis Marinho de Noronha ◽

Larisse Xavier Almeida ◽

Fernanda Siqueira ◽

Tatiana Onofre

Keyword(s):

Primary Care ◽

Cardiovascular Risk ◽

High Risk ◽

Waist Circumference ◽

Density Lipoprotein ◽

Weighted Kappa ◽

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Risk Category ◽

Cardiovascular Risks ◽

Cross Sectional

Objectives: To estimate and compare the cardiovascular risk using the Framingham risk score (FRS) and waist circumference (WC) in primary care individuals and, secondarily, determine the main factors associated with these scores. Methods: Cross-sectional study involving individuals of both sexes attended in a primary health unit and aging between 30 and 74 years. The cardiovascular risks (FRS and WC) were stratified as low, intermediate, and high. The weighted Kappa coefficient was used to assess agreements between scores. Results: Fifty-five individuals (52.8 ± 9.4 years, 70.9% women) were evaluated. Using the FRS, 40.0% of the sample presented a low risk, 45.5% intermediate risk, and 14.5% high risk of cardiovascular disease. Conversely, when analyzed using the WC score, the highest frequency (71%) was observed in the high-risk category. Also, no agreement (K= 0.36; p= 0.55) was found between scores. FRS was associated with hypertension (p<0.01), diabetes (p=0.01), and stress in women (p=0.01), while the WC score was associated with hypertension (p=0.02), obesity (p<0.01), and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol HDL-c (p=0.03). Conclusions: Primary care individuals presented intermediate cardiovascular risk in the FRS and high risk in the WC, with no agreement between scores. Hypertension, diabetes, stress, obesity, and HDL-c represented the factors that were most associated with these scores.

Download Full-text

Fool’s Gold: Psychologists Using Disingenuous Reasoning to Mislead Legislatures into Granting Psychologists Prescriptive Authority

American Journal of Law & Medicine ◽

10.1017/s0098858800002586 ◽

2003 ◽

Vol 29 (4) ◽

pp. 489-524

Author(s):

Brent Pollitt

Keyword(s):

Primary Care ◽

Mental Illness ◽

Nurse Practitioners ◽

Primary Care Physicians ◽

American Psychological Association ◽

The United States ◽

Psychotropic Medications ◽

American Psychological ◽

Training Requirements ◽

Prescriptive Authority

Mental illness is a serious problem in the United States. Based on “current epidemiological estimates, at least one in five people has a diagnosable mental disorder during the course of a year.” Fortunately, many of these disorders respond positively to psychotropic medications. While psychiatrists write some of the prescriptions for psychotropic medications, primary care physicians write more of them. State legislatures, seeking to expand patient access to pharmacological treatment, granted physician assistants and nurse practitioners prescriptive authority for psychotropic medications. Over the past decade other groups have gained some form of prescriptive authority. Currently, psychologists comprise the primary group seeking prescriptive authority for psychotropic medications.The American Society for the Advancement of Pharmacotherapy (“ASAP”), a division of the American Psychological Association (“APA”), spearheads the drive for psychologists to gain prescriptive authority. The American Psychological Association offers five main reasons why legislatures should grant psychologists this privilege: 1) psychologists’ education and clinical training better qualify them to diagnose and treat mental illness in comparison with primary care physicians; 2) the Department of Defense Psychopharmacology Demonstration Project (“PDP”) demonstrated non-physician psychologists can prescribe psychotropic medications safely; 3) the recommended post-doctoral training requirements adequately prepare psychologists to prescribe safely psychotropic medications; 4) this privilege will increase availability of mental healthcare services, especially in rural areas; and 5) this privilege will result in an overall reduction in medical expenses, because patients will visit only one healthcare provider instead of two–one for psychotherapy and one for medication.

Download Full-text