Evidence Hub

Strategies for improving guideline adherence of anticoagulants for patients with atrial fibrillation in primary healthcare: A systematic review

E. Gebreyohannes, Deanna N. Mill, S. Salter, L. Chalmers, L. Bereznicki, Kenneth Lee

Thrombosis Research, 2021

16 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines on atrial fibrillation management help optimize the use of oral anticoagulants. However, guideline non-adherence is common, particularly in the primary care setting. The primary aim of this systematic review was to identify effective strategies for improving adherence to guideline-directed thromboprophylaxis to patients with atrial fibrillation in the primary care setting.

METHODS

A search was conducted on 6 electronic databases (Medline, Embase, ScienceDirect, Scopus, the Cumulative Indexing of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Web of Science) supplemented by a Google advanced search. Studies aimed at improving oral thromboprophylaxis guideline adherence in patients with atrial fibrillation, in the primary care setting, were included in the study.

RESULTS

A total of 33 studies were included in this review. Nine studies employed electronic decision support (EDS), of which 4 reported modest improvements in guideline adherence. Five of 6 studies that utilized local guidelines as quality improvement measures reported improvement in guideline adherence. All 5 studies that employed coordinated care and the use of specialist support and 4 of the 5 studies that involved pharmacist-led interventions reported improvements in guideline adherence. Interventions based mainly on feedback from audits were less effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Multifaceted interventions, especially those incorporating coordinated care and specialist support, pharmacists, or…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free