Comparison of estimates and calculations of risk of coronary heart disease by doctors and nurses using different calculation tools in general practice: cross sectional study

R.J. McManus, J. Mant, C.F.M. Meulendijks, R.A. Salter, Helen M. Pattison, A.K. Roalfe, F.D. Richard Hobbs

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of using different risk calculation tools on how general practitioners and practice nurses evaluate the risk of coronary heart disease with clinical data routinely available in patients' records. DESIGN: Subjective estimates of the risk of coronary heart disease and results of four different methods of calculation of risk were compared with each other and a reference standard that had been calculated with the Framingham equation; calculations were based on a sample of patients' records, randomly selected from groups at risk of coronary heart disease. SETTING: General practices in central England. PARTICIPANTS: 18 general practitioners and 18 practice nurses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Agreement of results of risk estimation and risk calculation with reference calculation; agreement of general practitioners with practice nurses; sensitivity and specificity of the different methods of risk calculation to detect patients at high or low risk of coronary heart disease. RESULTS: Only a minority of patients' records contained all of the risk factors required for the formal calculation of the risk of coronary heart disease (concentrations of high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol were present in only 21%). Agreement of risk calculations with the reference standard was moderate (kappa=0.33-0.65 for practice nurses and 0.33 to 0.65 for general practitioners, depending on calculation tool), showing a trend for underestimation of risk. Moderate agreement was seen between the risks calculated by general practitioners and practice nurses for the same patients (kappa=0.47 to 0.58). The British charts gave the most sensitive results for risk of coronary heart disease (practice nurses 79%, general practitioners 80%), and it also gave the most specific results for practice nurses (100%), whereas the Sheffield table was the most specific method for general practitioners (89%). CONCLUSIONS: Routine calculation of the risk of coronary heart disease in primary care is hampered by poor availability of data on risk factors. General practitioners and practice nurses are able to evaluate the risk of coronary heart disease with only moderate accuracy. Data about risk factors need to be collected systematically, to allow the use of the most appropriate calculation tools.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)459-464
Number of pages6
JournalBMJ
Volume324
Issue number7335
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 23 Feb 2002

Fingerprint

General Practice
Coronary Disease
Cross-Sectional Studies
Nurses
General Practitioners
England
HDL Cholesterol
Primary Health Care

Keywords

  • risk calculation tools
  • general practitioner
  • practice nurse
  • coronary heart disease
  • patients' records

Cite this

McManus, R.J. ; Mant, J. ; Meulendijks, C.F.M. ; Salter, R.A. ; Pattison, Helen M. ; Roalfe, A.K. ; Hobbs, F.D. Richard. / Comparison of estimates and calculations of risk of coronary heart disease by doctors and nurses using different calculation tools in general practice: cross sectional study. In: BMJ. 2002 ; Vol. 324, No. 7335. pp. 459-464.
@article{1f4ed741100546b185cef0068957ff3f,
title = "Comparison of estimates and calculations of risk of coronary heart disease by doctors and nurses using different calculation tools in general practice: cross sectional study",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of using different risk calculation tools on how general practitioners and practice nurses evaluate the risk of coronary heart disease with clinical data routinely available in patients' records. DESIGN: Subjective estimates of the risk of coronary heart disease and results of four different methods of calculation of risk were compared with each other and a reference standard that had been calculated with the Framingham equation; calculations were based on a sample of patients' records, randomly selected from groups at risk of coronary heart disease. SETTING: General practices in central England. PARTICIPANTS: 18 general practitioners and 18 practice nurses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Agreement of results of risk estimation and risk calculation with reference calculation; agreement of general practitioners with practice nurses; sensitivity and specificity of the different methods of risk calculation to detect patients at high or low risk of coronary heart disease. RESULTS: Only a minority of patients' records contained all of the risk factors required for the formal calculation of the risk of coronary heart disease (concentrations of high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol were present in only 21{\%}). Agreement of risk calculations with the reference standard was moderate (kappa=0.33-0.65 for practice nurses and 0.33 to 0.65 for general practitioners, depending on calculation tool), showing a trend for underestimation of risk. Moderate agreement was seen between the risks calculated by general practitioners and practice nurses for the same patients (kappa=0.47 to 0.58). The British charts gave the most sensitive results for risk of coronary heart disease (practice nurses 79{\%}, general practitioners 80{\%}), and it also gave the most specific results for practice nurses (100{\%}), whereas the Sheffield table was the most specific method for general practitioners (89{\%}). CONCLUSIONS: Routine calculation of the risk of coronary heart disease in primary care is hampered by poor availability of data on risk factors. General practitioners and practice nurses are able to evaluate the risk of coronary heart disease with only moderate accuracy. Data about risk factors need to be collected systematically, to allow the use of the most appropriate calculation tools.",
keywords = "risk calculation tools, general practitioner, practice nurse, coronary heart disease, patients' records",
author = "R.J. McManus and J. Mant and C.F.M. Meulendijks and R.A. Salter and Pattison, {Helen M.} and A.K. Roalfe and Hobbs, {F.D. Richard}",
year = "2002",
month = "2",
day = "23",
doi = "10.1136/bmj.324.7335.459",
language = "English",
volume = "324",
pages = "459--464",
journal = "BMJ",
issn = "0959-8138",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "7335",

}

Comparison of estimates and calculations of risk of coronary heart disease by doctors and nurses using different calculation tools in general practice: cross sectional study. / McManus, R.J.; Mant, J.; Meulendijks, C.F.M.; Salter, R.A.; Pattison, Helen M.; Roalfe, A.K.; Hobbs, F.D. Richard.

In: BMJ, Vol. 324, No. 7335, 23.02.2002, p. 459-464.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of estimates and calculations of risk of coronary heart disease by doctors and nurses using different calculation tools in general practice: cross sectional study

AU - McManus, R.J.

AU - Mant, J.

AU - Meulendijks, C.F.M.

AU - Salter, R.A.

AU - Pattison, Helen M.

AU - Roalfe, A.K.

AU - Hobbs, F.D. Richard

PY - 2002/2/23

Y1 - 2002/2/23

N2 - OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of using different risk calculation tools on how general practitioners and practice nurses evaluate the risk of coronary heart disease with clinical data routinely available in patients' records. DESIGN: Subjective estimates of the risk of coronary heart disease and results of four different methods of calculation of risk were compared with each other and a reference standard that had been calculated with the Framingham equation; calculations were based on a sample of patients' records, randomly selected from groups at risk of coronary heart disease. SETTING: General practices in central England. PARTICIPANTS: 18 general practitioners and 18 practice nurses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Agreement of results of risk estimation and risk calculation with reference calculation; agreement of general practitioners with practice nurses; sensitivity and specificity of the different methods of risk calculation to detect patients at high or low risk of coronary heart disease. RESULTS: Only a minority of patients' records contained all of the risk factors required for the formal calculation of the risk of coronary heart disease (concentrations of high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol were present in only 21%). Agreement of risk calculations with the reference standard was moderate (kappa=0.33-0.65 for practice nurses and 0.33 to 0.65 for general practitioners, depending on calculation tool), showing a trend for underestimation of risk. Moderate agreement was seen between the risks calculated by general practitioners and practice nurses for the same patients (kappa=0.47 to 0.58). The British charts gave the most sensitive results for risk of coronary heart disease (practice nurses 79%, general practitioners 80%), and it also gave the most specific results for practice nurses (100%), whereas the Sheffield table was the most specific method for general practitioners (89%). CONCLUSIONS: Routine calculation of the risk of coronary heart disease in primary care is hampered by poor availability of data on risk factors. General practitioners and practice nurses are able to evaluate the risk of coronary heart disease with only moderate accuracy. Data about risk factors need to be collected systematically, to allow the use of the most appropriate calculation tools.

AB - OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of using different risk calculation tools on how general practitioners and practice nurses evaluate the risk of coronary heart disease with clinical data routinely available in patients' records. DESIGN: Subjective estimates of the risk of coronary heart disease and results of four different methods of calculation of risk were compared with each other and a reference standard that had been calculated with the Framingham equation; calculations were based on a sample of patients' records, randomly selected from groups at risk of coronary heart disease. SETTING: General practices in central England. PARTICIPANTS: 18 general practitioners and 18 practice nurses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Agreement of results of risk estimation and risk calculation with reference calculation; agreement of general practitioners with practice nurses; sensitivity and specificity of the different methods of risk calculation to detect patients at high or low risk of coronary heart disease. RESULTS: Only a minority of patients' records contained all of the risk factors required for the formal calculation of the risk of coronary heart disease (concentrations of high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol were present in only 21%). Agreement of risk calculations with the reference standard was moderate (kappa=0.33-0.65 for practice nurses and 0.33 to 0.65 for general practitioners, depending on calculation tool), showing a trend for underestimation of risk. Moderate agreement was seen between the risks calculated by general practitioners and practice nurses for the same patients (kappa=0.47 to 0.58). The British charts gave the most sensitive results for risk of coronary heart disease (practice nurses 79%, general practitioners 80%), and it also gave the most specific results for practice nurses (100%), whereas the Sheffield table was the most specific method for general practitioners (89%). CONCLUSIONS: Routine calculation of the risk of coronary heart disease in primary care is hampered by poor availability of data on risk factors. General practitioners and practice nurses are able to evaluate the risk of coronary heart disease with only moderate accuracy. Data about risk factors need to be collected systematically, to allow the use of the most appropriate calculation tools.

KW - risk calculation tools

KW - general practitioner

KW - practice nurse

KW - coronary heart disease

KW - patients' records

UR - http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/324/7335/459

U2 - 10.1136/bmj.324.7335.459

DO - 10.1136/bmj.324.7335.459

M3 - Article

VL - 324

SP - 459

EP - 464

JO - BMJ

JF - BMJ

SN - 0959-8138

IS - 7335

ER -