PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Peter Murchie

Publications and source records attributed to Peter Murchie.

7 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

Cost effectiveness of nurse led secondary prevention clinics for coronary heart disease in primary care: follow up of a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To establish the cost effectiveness of nurse led secondary prevention clinics for coronary heart disease based on four years' follow up of a randomised controlled trial. DESIGN: Cost effectiveness analysis. SETTING: 19 general practices in north east Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: 1343 patients (673 in intervention group and 670 in control group, as originally randomised) aged under 80 years with a diagnosis of coronary heart disease but without terminal illness or dementia and not housebound. INTERVENTION: Nurse led clinics to promote medical and lifestyle components of secondary prevention. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs of clinics; overall costs to health service; and cost per life year and per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained, expressed as incremental gain in intervention group compared with control group. RESULTS: The cost of the intervention (clinics and drugs) was 136 pounds sterling (254 dollars; 195 euros) per patient higher (1998-9 prices) in the intervention group, but the difference in other NHS costs, although lower for the intervention group, was not statistically significant. Overall, 28 fewer deaths occurred in the intervention group leading to a gain in mean life years per patient of 0.110 and of 0.124 QALYs. The incremental cost per life year saved was 1236 pounds sterling and that per QALY was 1097 pounds sterling. CONCLUSION: Nurse led clinics for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in primary care seem to be cost effective compared with most interventions in health care, with the main gains in life years saved.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Running nurse-led secondary prevention clinics for coronary heart disease in primary care: qualitative study of health professionals' perspectives.

BACKGROUND: A randomised trial of nurse-led secondary prevention clinics for coronary heart disease resulted in improved secondary prevention and significantly lowered all-cause mortality at 4-year follow-up. This qualitative trial was conducted to explore the experience of health professionals that had been involved in running the clinics. AIM: To identify the barriers and facilitators to establishing secondary prevention clinics for coronary heart disease within primary care. DESIGN OF STUDY: Semi-structured audiotaped telephone interviews with GPs and nurses involved in running clinics. SETTING: A stratified, random sample of 19 urban, suburban, and rural general practices in north-east Scotland. METHOD: Semi-structured telephone interviews with 19 GPs and 17 practice-based nurses involved in running nurse-led clinics for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. RESULTS: Eight practices had run clinics continuously and 11 had stopped, with eight subsequently restarting. Participants accounted for these patterns by referring to advantages and disadvantages of the clinics in four areas: patient care, development of nursing skills, team working, and infrastructure. Most practitioners perceived benefits for patients from attending secondary prevention clinics, but some, from small rural practices, thought they were unnecessary. The extended role for nurses was welcomed, but was dependent on motivated staff, appropriate training and support. Clinics relied on, and could enhance, team working, however, some doctors were wary of delegating. With regard to infrastructure, staff shortages (especially nurses) and accommodation were as problematic as lack of funds. CONCLUSIONS: Nurse-led secondary prevention clinics were viewed positively by most healthcare professionals that had been involved in running them, but barriers to their implementation had led most to stop running them at some point. Lack of space and staff shortages are likely to remain ongoing problems, but improvements in funding training and communication within practices could help clinics to be put into practice and sustained.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed2004

Effects of secondary prevention clinics on health status in patients with coronary heart disease: 4 year follow-up of a randomized trial in primary care.

BACKGROUND: The long-term effects of disease management programmes for coronary heart disease on health status are unknown. In a randomized trial of nurse-led secondary prevention clinics, we found significantly improved health status at 1 year. Participants were followed-up again at 4 years to determine if improvements had been sustained. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to evaluate the effects on health of nurse-led clinics for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in primary care. METHODS: A total of 1343 patients with coronary heart disease were randomized to nurse-led secondary prevention clinics or usual care, with follow-up at 1 and 4 years by review of medical case notes and national data sets, and postal questionnaires. The study involved a stratified, random sample of 19 general practices in north-east Scotland. Health status was measured by the SF-36 questionnaire, chest pain by the angina TyPE specification and anxiety and depression by the hospital anxiety and depression scale. RESULTS: At 1 year, there were significant improvements in five of eight SF-36 domains (all functioning scales, pain and general health) in patients randomized to clinics. Role limitations attributed to physical problems improved the most [adjusted difference 8.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.16-12.9]. At 4 years, the intervention group scored higher than control in all domains, but differences were no longer significant. At 1 year, fewer patients in the intervention group reported worsening chest pain (odds ratio 0.59, 95% C1 0.37-0.94). At 4 years, there were no significant differences between the proportion of intervention or control group patients who reported chest pain in the last week or who reported worsening chest pain. No significant effects were observed on anxiety or depression at 1 or 4 years. CONCLUSION: We have demonstrated previously a significantly greater survival in attendees at nurse-led secondary prevention clinics. Despite this, improvements in health status achieved in the first year of the study were reduced at 4 years. The case for nurse-led clinics remains strong, but further research is required on ways to optimize current health status.

Aged↗
PubMed2003

Secondary prevention clinics for coronary heart disease: four year follow up of a randomised controlled trial in primary care.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of nurse led clinics in primary care on secondary prevention, total mortality, and coronary event rates after four years. DESIGN: Follow up of a randomised controlled trial by postal questionnaires and review of case notes and national datasets. SETTING: Stratified, random sample of 19 general practices in north east Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: 1343 patients (673 intervention and 670 control) under 80 years with a working diagnosis of coronary heart disease but without terminal illness or dementia and not housebound. INTERVENTION: Nurse led secondary prevention clinics promoted medical and lifestyle components of secondary prevention and offered regular follow up for one year. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Components of secondary prevention (aspirin, blood pressure management, lipid management, healthy diet, exercise, non-smoking), total mortality, and coronary events (non-fatal myocardial infarctions and coronary deaths). RESULTS: Mean follow up was at 4.7 years. Significant improvements were shown in the intervention group in all components of secondary prevention except smoking at one year, and these were sustained after four years except for exercise. The control group, most of whom attended clinics after the initial year, caught up before final follow up, and differences between groups were no longer significant. At 4.7 years, 100 patients in the intervention group and 128 in the control group had died: cumulative death rates were 14.5% and 18.9%, respectively (P=0.038). 100 coronary events occurred in the intervention group and 125 in the control group: cumulative event rates were 14.2% and 18.2%, respectively (P=0.052). Adjusting for age, sex, general practice, and baseline secondary prevention, proportional hazard ratios were 0.75 for all deaths (95% confidence intervals 0.58 to 0.98; P=0.036) and 0.76 for coronary events (0.58 to 1.00; P=0.049) CONCLUSIONS: Nurse led secondary prevention improved medical and lifestyle components of secondary prevention and this seemed to lead to significantly fewer total deaths and probably fewer coronary events. Secondary prevention clinics should be started sooner rather than later.

Adult↗