The Use of Computerized Decision Support Systems in Preventive Cardiology—Principal Results from the National Precard® Survey in Denmark

Abstract

Background

The PRECARD® program has been used for electronic cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment and management in Denmark since 1999. The use of and attitudes toward the program are reported.

Design and Methods

Using an Internet and postal survey to all Danish general practitioners, a total of 592 Danish general practitioners participated in the Internet part of the survey (response rate 19%) and 291 in the postal survey (response rate 73%).

Results

in all, 21.5% of the GPs use PRECARD®, whereas 10% are ex-users. The program is used on average once a week and 64% of the users report that PRECARD® prolongs the consultation somewhat or a lot Both users and ex-users perceive the program to have a favourable effect on the patients, and as an improvement to the dialogue between GP and patient Reasons for no longer using the program are varied, such as technical problems and lack of routine with the program.

Conclusions

Our results indicate that an electronic risk management tool like PRECARD®, is perceived as a quality improvement in preventive cardiology in primary care. However the use of the program is not optimal and it may prolong the consultation. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 12:52-55 © 2005 The European Society of Cardiology

Keywords

primary prevention family practice clinical decision support systems PRECARD®risk assessment cardiovascular disease

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

De Backer

, Ambrosioni

, Borch-Johnsen

European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 2003; 10(suppl): S1–S78.

Conroy

, Pyorala

, Fitzgerald

Estimation of ten-year risk of fatal cardiovascular disease in Europe: the SCORE project. Eur Heart J 2003; 24: 987–1003.

Thomson

, Davidsen

, Ibsen

A new method for CHD prediction and prevention based on regional risk scores and randomised clinical trials; PRECARD and the Copenhagen Risk Score. J Cardiovasc Risk 2001; 8: 291–297.

Thomsen

. Prediction, and prevention of cardiovascular disease. 2000. Dissertation. University of Copenhagen; Research Centre for Prevention and Health.

Mitchell

, Sullivan

. A descriptive feast but an evaluative famine: systematic review of published articles on primary care computing during 1980-97. BMJ 2001; 322: 279–282.

Bodenheimer

, Grumbach

. Electronic technology. A spark to revitalize primary care? JAMA 2003; 290: 259–264.

Montgomery

, Fahey

, Peters

, Macintosh

Evaluation of computer based clinical decision support system and risk chart for management of hypertension in primary care: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2000; 320: 686–690.

Hetlevik

, Holmen

, Kruger

Implementing clinical guidelines in the treatment of hypertension in general practice. Blood Press 1998; 7: 270–276.

Lowensteyn

, Joseph

, Levinton

, Abrahamowicz

Can computerized risk profiles help patients improve their coronary risk? The results of the coronary health assessment study (CHAS). Prev Med 1998; 27: 730–737.

10.

Braithwaite

, Emery

, De Lusignan

Using the Internet to conduct surveys of health professionals: a valid alternative?

Fam Pract 2003, 20: 545–551.

11.

Eccles

, McColl

, Steen

. Effect of computerised evidence based guidelines on management of asthma and angina in adults in primary care: cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2002; 325: 941–948.

12.

Hingorani

, Vallance

. A simple computer program for guiding management of cardiovascular risk factors and prescribing. BMJ 1999; 318: 101–105.

13.

Trivedi

, Kern

, Marcee

, Grannemann

, Kleiber

, Bettinger

Development and implementation of computerized clinical guidelines: barriers and solutions. Methods Int Med 2002; 41: 435–442.

14.

The EUROASPIRE I and II Group. Clinical reality of coronary prevention guidelines: a comparison of EUROASPIRE I and II in nine countries. Lancet 2001; 357: 995.