Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Original research
Education on cardiac risk and CPR in cardiology clinic waiting rooms: a randomised clinical trial
  1. Daniel McIntyre1,
  2. Aravinda Thiagalingam1,2,
  3. Harry Klimis1,
  4. Amy Von Huben1,
  5. Simone Marschner1,
  6. Clara K Chow1,2
  1. 1Westmead Applied Research Centre, The University of Sydney, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia
  2. 2Department of Cardiology, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Daniel McIntyre, The University of Sydney Westmead Applied Research Centre, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia; daniel.mcintyre{at}sydney.edu.au

Abstract

Objective Waiting time is inevitable during cardiovascular (CV) care. This study examines whether waiting room-based CV education could complement CV care.

Methods A 2:1 randomised clinical trial of patients in waiting rooms of hospital cardiology clinics. Intervention participants received a series of tablet-delivered CV educational videos and were randomised 1:1 to receive another video on cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) or no extra video. Control received usual care. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants reporting high motivation to improve CV risk-modifying behaviours (physical activity, diet and blood pressure monitoring) post-clinic. Secondary outcomes: clinic satisfaction, CV lifestyle risk factors (RFs) and confidence to perform CPR. Assessors were blinded to treatment allocation.

Results Among 514 screened, 330 were randomised (n=220 intervention, n=110 control) between December 2018 and March 2020, mean age 53.8 (SD 15.2), 55.2% male. Post-clinic, more intervention participants reported high motivation to improve CV risk-modifying behaviours: 29.6% (64/216) versus 18.7% (20/107), relative risk (RR) 1.63 (95% CI 1.04 to 2.55). Intervention participants reported higher clinic satisfaction RR: 2.19 (95% CI 1.45 to 3.33). Participants that received the CPR video (n=110) reported greater confidence to perform CPR, RR 1.61 (95% CI 1.20 to 2.16). Overall, the proportion of participants reporting optimal CV RFs increased between baseline and 30-day follow-up (16.1% vs 24.8%, OR=2.44 (95% CI 1.38 to 4.49)), but there was no significant between-group difference at 30 days.

Conclusion CV education delivery in the waiting room is a scalable concept and may be beneficial to CV care. Larger studies could explore its impact on clinical outcomes.

Trial registration number ANZCTR12618001725257.

  • education
  • delivery of health care
  • chest pain
  • quality of health care
  • health care economics and organizations

Data availability statement

Data are available on reasonable request. Deidentified study data will be made available to researchers who provide a methodologically sound proposal and after the signing of a non-disclosure agreement. To submit a data use proposal, please email the principal investigator at clara.chow@sydney.edu.au.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Data availability statement

Data are available on reasonable request. Deidentified study data will be made available to researchers who provide a methodologically sound proposal and after the signing of a non-disclosure agreement. To submit a data use proposal, please email the principal investigator at clara.chow@sydney.edu.au.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Twitter @clara_chow

  • Contributors Study concept and design: DM, AT and CKC. Acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data: all authors. Drafting of manuscript: DM, AT and CKC. Critical revision of manuscript: all authors. Statistical analysis: DM, AVH, SM and CKC. Obtained funding: DM, AT and CKC. Study supervision: AT and CKC.

  • Funding This work was supported by the Agency for Clinical Innovation Research Grants Scheme. CKC is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Career Development Fellowship cosponsored by the National Heart Foundation of Australia.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Linked Articles