Use of thromboprophylaxis guidelines and risk stratification tools in atrial fibrillation: A survey of general practitioners in Australia.

Abstract

Rationale and ObjectivesClinical guidelines produced by cardiology societies (henceforth referred to simply as ‘clinical guidelines’) recommend thromboprophylaxis with oral anticoagulants (OACs) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who have moderate‐to‐high stroke risk. However, deviations from these recommendations are observed, especially in the primary healthcare setting. The primary aims of this study were to evaluate the self‐reported use of AF clinical guidelines and risk stratification tools among Australian general practitioners (GPs), and their perceptions regarding the available resources.MethodWe conducted an online survey of Australian GPs. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the findings.ResultsResponses from 115 GPs were included for analysis. Respondents reported various ways of accessing thromboprophylaxis‐related information (n = 113), including clinical guidelines (13.3%), ‘Therapeutic Guidelines©’ (37.2%) and Royal Australian College of General Practitioners websites (16.8%). Of those who reported reasons against accessing information from clinical guidelines (n = 97), the most frequent issues were: too many AF guidelines to choose from (34.0%; 33/97), different guidelines for different diseases (32.0%; 31/97), time‐consuming to read guidelines (21.6%; 21/97), disagreements between different guideline recommendations (20.0%; 19/97), conflict with criteria for government subsidy (17.5%; 17/97) and GPs' busy schedules (15.5%; 15/97). When assessing patients' risk of stroke (n = 112) and bleeding (n = 111), the majority of the respondents reported primarily relying on a formal stroke risk (67.0%) and bleeding risk (55.0%) assessment tools, respectively. Respondents reported using formal stroke and bleeding risk assessment tools mainly when newly initiating patients on therapy (72.4%; 76/105 and 65.3%; 65/101, respectively).ConclusionAmong our small sample of Australian GPs, most did not access thromboprophylaxis‐related information directly from AF‐specific clinical guidelines developed by cardiology societies. Although the majority reported using formal stroke and bleeding assessment tools, these were typically used on OAC initiation only. More focus is needed on formal risk reassessment as clinically indicated and at regular review.