Accuracy of blood-pressure monitors owned by patients with hypertension (ACCU-RATE study): a cross-sectional, observational study in central England.

BACKGROUND: Home blood-pressure (BP) monitoring is recommended in guidelines and is increasingly popular with patients and health professionals, but the accuracy of patients' own monitors in real-world use is not known. AIM: To assess the accuracy of home BP monitors used by people with hypertension, and to investigate factors affecting accuracy. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional, observational study in urban and suburban settings in central England. METHOD: Patients (n = 6891) on the hypertension register at seven practices in the West Midlands, England, were surveyed to ascertain whether they owned a BP monitor and wanted it tested. Monitor accuracy was compared with a calibrated reference device at 50 mmHg intervals between 0-280/300 mmHg (static pressure test); a difference from the reference monitor of +/-3 mmHg at any interval was considered a failure. Cuff performance was also assessed. Results were analysed by frequency of use, length of time in service, make and model, monitor validation status, purchase price, and any previous testing. RESULTS: In total, 251 (76%, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] = 71 to 80%) of 331 tested devices passed all tests (monitors and cuffs), and 86% (CI] = 82 to 90%) passed the static pressure test; deficiencies were, primarily, because of monitors overestimating BP. A total of 40% of testable monitors were not validated. The pass rate on the static pressure test was greater in validated monitors (96%, 95% CI = 94 to 98%) versus unvalidated monitors (64%, 95% CI = 58 to 69%), those retailing for >£10 (90%, 95% CI = 86 to 94%), those retailing for ≤£10 (66%, 95% CI = 51 to 80%), those in use for ≤4 years (95%, 95% CI = 91 to 98%), and those in use for >4 years (74%, 95% CI = 67 to 82%). All in all, 12% of cuffs failed. CONCLUSION: Patients' own BP monitor failure rate was similar to that demonstrated in studies performed in professional settings, although cuff failure was more frequent. Clinicians can be confident of the accuracy of patients' own BP monitors if the devices are validated and ≤4 years old.

Intensive care unit clinicians identify many barriers to, and facilitators of, early mobilisation: a qualitative study using the Theoretical Domains Framework.

QUESTION: From the perspective of intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians, what are the barriers to and facilitators of implementing early mobilisation? DESIGN: A qualitative study using focus groups, with analysis using the Theoretical Domains Framework. PARTICIPANTS: Physicians, nurses, respiratory therapists and physiotherapists from the ICUs of three university-affiliated hospitals in Montreal, Canada. METHODS: Four focus group meetings were conducted with 33 participating ICU clinicians. Two researchers independently performed thematic content analysis on verbatim transcriptions of the audio recordings using the Theoretical Domains Framework. RESULTS: Data saturation was reached after the third focus group. Thirty-six barriers were categorised in 13 domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework. The key barriers to early mobilisation were: lack of conviction and knowledge regarding the available evidence about early mobilisation; lack of attention to the provision of optimal care; poor communication; the unpredictable nature of the ICU; and limited staffing, equipment, time and clinical knowledge. Twenty-five facilitators categorised in ten TDF domains were also identified. These included individual-level facilitators (intrinsic motivation, positive outcome expectations, conscious effort to mobilise early, good planning/coordination, the presence of ICU champions, and expert support by a physiotherapist) and organisational-level facilitators (reminder system, pro-early mobilisation culture, implementation of an early mobilisation protocol, and improved ICU organisation). CONCLUSIONS: A broad array of barriers to and facilitators of early mobilisation in the ICU were identified in this study. Clinicians can consider whether these barriers and facilitators are operating in their ICU. These may inform the design of tailored knowledge translation interventions to promote early mobilisation in the ICU.

Improving acceptance and uptake of pulmonary rehabilitation after acute exacerbation of COPD: Acceptability, feasibility, and safety of a PR "taster" session delivered before hospital discharge.

The objectives of this study were to (1) assess the acceptability, feasibility, and safety of delivering a pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) "taster" session to patients hospitalized with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; (2) evaluate the changes in patient knowledge and readiness to commence PR; and (3) make recommendations for future intervention iterations. Acceptability was measured by the proportion of patients that accepted to participate. Feasibility was measured by the proportion of eligible participants. Knowledge was evaluated using the modified versions of the Understanding COPD (UCOPD) and Bristol COPD Knowledge (BCKQ) questionnaires. Readiness to commence PR was measured by a modified version of the Readiness to Change Exercise Questionnaire. All measures were delivered pre- and post-intervention. Thirty-one of 34 eligible individuals were able to be approached. Prospective acceptability was low, with 24 individuals declining the intervention, 1 being discharged without making a decision, and only 6 participating. Positive median change was recorded in the modified UCOPD questionnaire (+8), but not the BCKQ (0). Three of the patients were already in the action phase pre-intervention, with all but one in that phase post-intervention. The delivery of a PR "taster" session was not prospectively acceptable to a large portion of patients and only feasible with modifications to the original protocol.

A Retrospective Study Investigating Injury Incidence and Factors Associated with Injury Among Belly Dancers.

Belly dance is an appreciably under researched dance form. As such, little is known of the injury prevalence and risk factors for injury among this dance population. Therefore, the primary objective of this study was to examine the most common injury sites and to identify potential factors associated with injury risk within the belly dance community of New Zealand over a 12-month retrospective period. Dancers who had practiced or performed belly dance during that time span were surveyed using an online or paper-based questionnaire. One hundred and nine injury questionnaires (all from female dancers) qualified for the final analysis. The participants had a median age of 44.3 years and danced a median of 3.0 hours per week. The injury rate was 37% (40 injuries in 109 dancers surveyed), the injury incidence proportion was 24.8% (27 dancers reporting at least one injury), and the per hour injury incidence rate was 1.69 per 1,000 dance hours. Of the two most recently sustained injuries reported, lower limb injuries were the most common, followed by trunk injuries. Age, total dance hours per week, and participation in a non-dance exercise regimen of any kind were associated with a decreased risk of injury; performing regularly was associated with an increased injury rate. It is concluded that an understanding of the incidence and sites of injuries may help create awareness that belly dance can be injurious, and subsequently lead to the development of future interventions.

Can Patients With COPD Assimilate Disease-Specific Information During an Acute Exacerbation?: Results of a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The study aimed to determine the feasibility and effectiveness of an introductory disease-specific educational program delivered during an acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD) on objective measures of disease-specific knowledge. METHODS: Patients admitted to a community hospital with an AECOPD were randomly assigned to a control group (standard care) or intervention group (standard care + brief education). The intervention group received two 30-min education sessions in hospital or at home within 2 weeks of hospital admission. Feasibility measures included the number of eligible patients, compliance with the sessions, and number of follow-up measures completed. Disease-specific knowledge and informational needs were measured using the Bristol COPD Knowledge Questionnaire (BCKQ) and the Lung Information Needs Questionnaire (LINQ), respectively, before and after the intervention period. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients (mean age, 72 ± 10 years) with an AECOPD participated in the study. Of 102 approached patients, 75 consented to screening (73.5%) and 67 (66%) were eligible for the study. Thirty-four patients declined participation. All intervention patients (n = 15) completed the educational sessions and follow-up measures. Three patients (control group) did not complete the follow-up measures. The mean changes and SDs for the BCKQ in the intervention and control groups were 8 ± 5.14 and 3.4 ± 4.9, respectively (P = .02). No difference between groups was found for the LINQ (P = .80). CONCLUSIONS: A brief educational program delivered at the time of hospitalization for an AECOPD was feasible for a subset of patients, resulted in improved disease-specific knowledge, and may be a bridge to more active approaches. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT02321215; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Rate of, and barriers and enablers to, pulmonary rehabilitation referral in COPD: A systematic scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Despite pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) being an evidence-based treatment recommended for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), referral to PR seems to be low. Collating the evidence on referral rates and perceived barriers and enablers may help provide knowledge needed to increase referral. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this scoping review was to determine 1) the rate of referral of patients with COPD to PR by healthcare professionals (HCPs) and 2) the barriers and enablers to referral perceived by HCPs. METHODS: The JBI scoping review manual was used. Ovid Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses were searched from inception until July 28, 2017. 245 non-duplicate articles were screened. Included articles reported referral rates and/or HCP perceived barriers and/or enablers to PR referral. RESULTS: Forty-two studies were included. Twenty-eight observational studies reported referral rates ranging from 0% to 85%. Seven studies looking at the effects of different interventions to improve COPD care reported a range of 2%-56% referral pre-intervention, and 8%-71% post-intervention. Nine studies reported HCP perceived barriers to referral. The two most common barriers were low knowledge of what PR is and its benefits and low knowledge of the referral process. Six studies reported HCP perceived enablers to referral. The most common enabler was training/experience in PR. CONCLUSION: The rate of referral to PR is suboptimal, but there are commonly reported barriers and enablers that may help with the creation of actionable changes. HCPs need more knowledge of PR and the benefits it provides.

Efficacy of self-monitored blood pressure, with or without telemonitoring, for titration of antihypertensive medication (TASMINH4): an unmasked randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Studies evaluating titration of antihypertensive medication using self-monitoring give contradictory findings and the precise place of telemonitoring over self-monitoring alone is unclear. The TASMINH4 trial aimed to assess the efficacy of self-monitored blood pressure, with or without telemonitoring, for antihypertensive titration in primary care, compared with usual care. METHODS: This study was a parallel randomised controlled trial done in 142 general practices in the UK, and included hypertensive patients older than 35 years, with blood pressure higher than 140/90 mm Hg, who were willing to self-monitor their blood pressure. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to self-monitoring blood pressure (self-montoring group), to self-monitoring blood pressure with telemonitoring (telemonitoring group), or to usual care (clinic blood pressure; usual care group). Randomisation was by a secure web-based system. Neither participants nor investigators were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was clinic measured systolic blood pressure at 12 months from randomisation. Primary analysis was of available cases. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN 83571366. FINDINGS: 1182 participants were randomly assigned to the self-monitoring group (n=395), the telemonitoring group (n=393), or the usual care group (n=394), of whom 1003 (85%) were included in the primary analysis. After 12 months, systolic blood pressure was lower in both intervention groups compared with usual care (self-monitoring, 137·0 [SD 16·7] mm Hg and telemonitoring, 136·0 [16·1] mm Hg vs usual care, 140·4 [16·5]; adjusted mean differences vs usual care: self-monitoring alone, -3·5 mm Hg [95% CI -5·8 to -1·2]; telemonitoring, -4·7 mm Hg [-7·0 to -2·4]). No difference between the self-monitoring and telemonitoring groups was recorded (adjusted mean difference -1·2 mm Hg [95% CI -3·5 to 1·2]). Results were similar in sensitivity analyses including multiple imputation. Adverse events were similar between all three groups. INTERPRETATION: Self-monitoring, with or without telemonitoring, when used by general practitioners to titrate antihypertensive medication in individuals with poorly controlled blood pressure, leads to significantly lower blood pressure than titration guided by clinic readings. With most general practitioners and many patients using self-monitoring, it could become the cornerstone of hypertension management in primary care. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research via Programme Grant for Applied Health Research (RP-PG-1209-10051), Professorship to RJM (NIHR-RP-R2-12-015), Oxford Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care, and Omron Healthcare UK.

Telemonitoring and/or self-monitoring of blood pressure in hypertension (TASMINH4): protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Self-monitoring of hypertension is associated with lower systolic blood pressure (SBP). However, evidence for the use of self-monitoring to titrate antihypertensive medication by physicians is equivocal. Furthermore, there is some evidence for the efficacy of telemonitoring in the management of hypertension but it is not clear what this adds over and above self-monitoring. This trial aims to evaluate whether GP led antihypertensive titration using self-monitoring results in lower SBP compared to usual care and whether telemonitoring adds anything to self-monitoring alone. METHODS/DESIGN: This will be a pragmatic primary care based, unblinded, randomised controlled trial of self-monitoring of BP with or without telemonitoring compared to usual care. Eligible patients will have poorly controlled hypertension (>140/90 mmHg) and will be recruited from primary care. Participants will be individually randomised to either usual care, self-monitoring alone, or self-monitoring with telemonitoring. The primary outcome of the trial will be difference in clinic SBP between intervention and control groups at 12 months adjusted for baseline SBP, gender, BP target and practice. At least 1110 patients will be sufficient to detect a difference in SBP between self-monitoring with or without telemonitoring and usual care of 5 mmHg with 90% power with an adjusted alpha of 0.017 (2-sided) to adjust for all three pairwise comparisons. Other outcomes will include adherence of anti-hypertensive medication, lifestyle behaviours, health-related quality of life, and adverse events. An economic analysis will consider both within trial costs and a model extrapolating the results thereafter. A qualitative sub study will gain insights into the views, experiences and decision making processes of patients and health care professionals focusing on the acceptability of self-monitoring and telemonitoring in the routine management of hypertension. DISCUSSION: The results of the trial will be directly applicable to primary care in the UK. If successful, self-monitoring of BP in people with hypertension would be applicable to hundreds of thousands of individuals in the UK. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 83571366 . Registered 17 July 2014.

Patients' and clinicians' views on the optimum schedules for self-monitoring of blood pressure: a qualitative focus group and interview study.

BACKGROUND: Self-monitoring of blood pressure is common but guidance on how it should be carried out varies and it is currently unclear how such guidance is viewed. AIM: To explore patients' and healthcare professionals' (HCPs) views and experiences of the use of different self-monitoring regimens to determine what is acceptable and feasible, and to inform future recommendations. DESIGN AND SETTING: Thirteen focus groups and four HCP interviews were held, with a total of 66 participants (41 patients and 25 HCPs) from primary and secondary care with and without experience of self-monitoring. METHOD: Standard and shortened self-monitoring protocols were both considered. Focus groups and interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using the constant comparative method. RESULTS: Patients generally supported structured schedules but with sufficient flexibility to allow adaptation to individual routine. They preferred a shorter (3-day) schedule to longer (7-day) regimens. Although HCPs could describe benefits for patients of using a schedule, they were reluctant to recommend a specific schedule. Concerns surrounded the use of different schedules for diagnosis and subsequent monitoring. Appropriate education was seen as vital by all participants to enable a self-monitoring schedule to be followed at home. CONCLUSION: There is not a 'one size fits all approach' to developing the optimum protocol from the perspective of users and those implementing it. An approach whereby patients are asked to complete the minimum number of readings required for accurate blood pressure estimation in a flexible manner seems most likely to succeed. Informative advice and guidance should incorporate such flexibility for patients and professionals alike.

Varying uses of the ABCD2 scoring system in primary and secondary care: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the usage of the ABCD2 risk stratification score by general practitioners (GPs) and hospital staff during the referral of patients with suspected transient ischaemic attack (TIA) or minor stroke. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semistructured interviews. SETTING: Nine general practices and two hospital sites in England (Birmingham and Cambridge). PARTICIPANTS: Nine GPs and nine hospital staff (two consultants, four nurses, two ultrasonographers and one administrator). RESULTS: In both sites, clinicians used a referral proforma based around the ABCD2 scoring system for a range of purposes including self-education, to assist emphasising urgency to the patient, as a referral pathway facilitator and as a diagnostic tool. Negative views of its role included potential medicolegal threats, that it was a barrier to appropriate care, and led to misdiagnoses. Despite having differing uses by different clinicians, the ABCD2 proforma was the central means of interprofessional communication in TIA referrals across both sites. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding how prediction rules are used in practice is key to determining their impact on processes of care and clinical outcomes. In practice, GPs and their colleagues use the ABCD2 score in subtly different ways and it functions as a 'boundary object' by both accommodating these multiple purposes, yet still successfully aiding communication between them.