Improving hypertension control and cardiovascular health: An urgent call to action for nursing.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is a leading cause of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and affects nearly one in two adults in the United States when defined as a blood pressure of at least 130/80 mm Hg or on antihypertensive medication (Virani et al., 2021, Circulation, 143, e254). Long-standing disparities in hypertension awareness, treatment, and control among racial and ethnic populations exist in the United States. High-quality evidence exists for how to prevent and control hypertension and for the role nurses can play in this effort. In response to the 2020 Surgeon General's Call to Action to Control Hypertension, nursing leaders from 11 national organizations identified the critical roles and actions of nursing in improving hypertension control and cardiovascular health, focusing on evidence-based nursing interventions and available resources. AIMS: To develop a unified "Call to Action for Nurses" to improve control of hypertension and cardiovascular health and provide information and resources to execute this call. METHODS: This paper outlines roles that registered nurses, advanced practice nurses, schools of nursing, professional nursing organizations, quality improvement nurses, and nursing researchers can play to control hypertension and prevent CVD in the United States. It describes evidence-based interventions to improve cardiovascular health and outlines actions to bring hypertension and CVD to the forefront as a national priority for nursing. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: Evidence-based interventions exist for nurses to lead efforts to prevent and control hypertension, thus preventing much CVD. Nurses can take actions in their communities, their healthcare setting, and their organization to translate these interventions into real-world practice settings.

Effects of 2 Forms of Practice Facilitation on Cardiovascular Prevention in Primary Care: A Practice-randomized, Comparative Effectiveness Trial.

BACKGROUND: Effective quality improvement (QI) strategies are needed for small practices. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare practice facilitation implementing point-of-care (POC) QI strategies alone versus facilitation implementing point-of-care plus population management (POC+PM) strategies on preventive cardiovascular care. DESIGN: Two arm, practice-randomized, comparative effectiveness study. PARTICIPANTS: Small and mid-sized primary care practices. INTERVENTIONS: Practices worked with facilitators on QI for 12 months to implement POC or POC+PM strategies. MEASURES: Proportion of eligible patients in a practice meeting "ABCS" measures: (Aspirin) Aspirin/antiplatelet therapy for ischemic vascular disease, (Blood pressure) Controlling High Blood Pressure, (Cholesterol) Statin Therapy for the Prevention and Treatment of Cardiovascular Disease, and (Smoking) Tobacco Use: Screening and Cessation Intervention, and the Change Process Capability Questionnaire. Measurements were performed at baseline, 12, and 18 months. RESULTS: A total of 226 practices were randomized, 179 contributed follow-up data. The mean proportion of patients meeting each performance measure was greater at 12 months compared with baseline: Aspirin 0.04 (95% confidence interval: 0.02-0.06), Blood pressure 0.04 (0.02-0.06), Cholesterol 0.05 (0.03-0.07), Smoking 0.05 (0.02-0.07); P<0.001 for each. Improvements were sustained at 18 months. At 12 months, baseline-adjusted difference-in-differences in proportions for the POC+PM arm versus POC was: Aspirin 0.02 (-0.02 to 0.05), Blood pressure -0.01 (-0.04 to 0.03), Cholesterol 0.03 (0.00-0.07), and Smoking 0.02 (-0.02 to 0.06); P>0.05 for all. Change Process Capability Questionnaire improved slightly, mean change 0.30 (0.09-0.51) but did not significantly differ across arms. CONCLUSION: Facilitator-led QI promoting population management approaches plus POC improvement strategies was not clearly superior to POC strategies alone.

Improvement in Blood Pressure Control in Safety Net Clinics Receiving 2 Versions of a Scalable Quality Improvement Intervention: BP MAP A Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trial.

Background Uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) remains a leading cause of death in the United States. The American Medical Association developed a quality improvement program to improve BP control, but it is unclear how to efficiently implement this program at scale across multiple health systems. Methods and Results We conducted BP MAP (Blood Pressure Measure Accurately, Act Rapidly, and Partner With Patients), a comparative effectiveness trial with clinic-level randomization to compare 2 scalable versions of the quality improvement program: Full Support (with support from quality improvement expert) and Self-Guided (using only online materials). Outcomes were clinic-level BP control (<140/90 mm Hg) and other BP-related process metrics calculated using electronic health record data. Difference-in-differences were used to compare changes in outcomes from baseline to 6 months, between intervention arms, and to a nonrandomized Usual Care arm composed of 18 health systems. A total of 24 safety-net clinics in 9 different health systems underwent randomization and then simultaneous implementation. BP control increased from 56.7% to 59.1% in the Full Support arm, and 62.0% to 63.1% in the Self-Guided arm, whereas BP control dropped slightly from 61.3% to 60.9% in the Usual Care arm. The between-group differences-in-differences were not statistically significant (Full Support versus Self-Guided=+1.2% [95% CI, -3.2% to 5.6%], P=0.59; Full Support versus Usual Care=+3.2% [-0.5% to 6.9%], P=0.09; Self-Guided versus Usual Care=+2.0% [-0.4% to 4.5%], P=0.10). Conclusions In this randomized trial, 2 methods of implementing a quality improvement intervention in 24 safety net clinics led to modest improvements in BP control that were not statistically significant. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03818659.

Using Electronic Health Records to Measure Quality Improvement Efforts: Findings from a Large Practice Facilitation Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Federal incentives for electronic health record (EHR) use typically require quality measure reporting over calendar year or 90-day periods. However, required reporting periods may not align with time frames of real-world quality improvement (QI) efforts. This study described primary care practices' ability to obtain measures with reporting periods aligning with a large QI initiative. METHODS: Researchers conducted a substudy of a randomized trial testing practice facilitation strategies for preventive cardiovascular care. Three quality measures (aspirin for ischemic vascular disease; blood pressure control for hypertension; smoking screening/cessation) were collected quarterly over one year. The primary outcome was a binary indicator of whether a practice facilitator obtained all three measures with "rolling 12-month" reporting periods (that is, the year preceding each study quarter). RESULTS: The study included 107 practices, 63 (58.9%) of which met the primary outcome of obtaining all measures with rolling 12-month reporting periods. Smaller practices were less likely to meet the primary outcome (p < 0.001). Practices used 11 different EHRs, 3 of which were unable to consistently produce rolling 12-month measures; at 33 practices (30.8%) using these 3 EHRs, facilitators met a secondary outcome of obtaining prior calendar year and rolling 3-month measures. Facilitators reported barriers to data collection such as practices lacking optional EHR features, and EHRs' inability to produce reporting periods across two calendar years. CONCLUSION: EHR vendors' compliance with federal reporting requirements is not necessarily sufficient to support real-world QI work. Improvements are needed in the flexibility and usability of EHRs' quality measurement functions, particularly for smaller practices.

Design of healthy hearts in the heartland (H3): A practice-randomized, comparative effectiveness study.

BACKGROUND: The Healthy Hearts in the Heartland (H3) study is part of a nationwide effort, EvidenceNOW, seeking to better understand the ability of small primary care practices to improve "ABCS" clinical quality measures: appropriate Aspirin therapy, Blood pressure control, Cholesterol management, and Smoking cessation. H3 aimed to assess feasibility of implementing Point-of-Care (POC) or POC plus Population Management (POC + PM) quality improvement (QI) strategies to improve ABCS at practices in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. We describe the design and randomization of the H3 study. METHODS: We conducted a two-arm (1:1, POC:POC + PM), practice-randomized, comparative effectiveness study in 226 primary care practices across four "waves" of randomization with a 12-month intervention period, followed by a six-month sustainability period. Randomization controlled imbalance in nine baseline variables through a modified constrained algorithm. Among others, we used initial, unverified estimates of baseline ABCS values. RESULTS: We randomized 112 and 114 practices to POC and POC + PM arms, respectively. Randomization ensured baseline comparability for all nine key variables, including the ABCS measures indicating proportion of patients at the practice level meeting each quality measure. Median(Inner Quartile Range) values were A: 0.78(0.66-0.86) in POC arm vs. 0.77(0.63-0.86) in POC + PM arm, B: 0.64(0.53-0.73) vs. 0.64(0.53-0.75), C: 0.78(0.63-0.86) vs. 0.75(0.64-0.81), S: 0.80(0.65-0.81) vs. 0.79(0.61-0.91). DISCUSSION: Surrogate estimates for the true ABCS at baseline coupled with the unique randomization logic achieved adequate baseline balance on these outcomes. Similar practice- or cluster-randomized trials may consider adaptations of this design. Final analyses on 12- and 18-month ABCS outcomes for the H3 study are forthcoming. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (Initial post: 11/05/2015; identifier: NCT02598284; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02598284?term=NCT02598284&rank=1).