The Impact of Hospital Health Network Affiliation on Discharge Communication Preferences of Primary Care Providers.

Primary care physicians (PCPs) experience differential postdischarge access to electronic health records, depending upon affiliation with the discharging hospital's health network. To better understand whether this affiliation impacts discharge communication preferences, we surveyed a convenience sample of PCPs in and out of our hospital's health network. We also surveyed hospitalists and compared PCPs' and hospitalists' responses. We found that PCP discharge communication preferences differed by hospital health network affiliation. In addition, PCPs and hospitalists reported different expectations of responsibility for pending laboratory test follow-up. More inclusive communication strategies and standardization of responsibility for pending laboratory results may improve discharge communication quality.

Diabetes Quality of Care Before and After Implementation of a Resident Clinic Practice Partnership System.

Deficiencies in resident diabetes care quality may relate to continuity clinic design. This retrospective analysis compared diabetes care processes and outcomes within a traditional resident continuity clinic structure (2005) and after the implementation of a practice partnership system (PPS; 2009). Under PPS, patients were more likely to receive annual foot examinations (odds ratio [OR] = 11.6; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 7.2, 18.5), microalbumin screening (OR = 2.4; 95% CI = 1.6, 3.4), and aspirin use counseling (OR = 3.8; 95% CI = 2.5, 6.0) and were less likely to receive eye examinations (OR = 0.54; 95% CI = 0.36, 0.82). Hemoglobin A1c and lipid testing were similar between periods, and there was no difference in achievement of diabetes and blood pressure goals. Patients were less likely to achieve cholesterol goals under PPS (OR = 0.62; 95% CI = 0.39, 0.98). Resident practice partnerships may improve processes of diabetes care but may not affect intermediate outcomes.

Prescriber continuity and medication adherence for complex patients.

BACKGROUND: Medication adherence is a critical aspect of managing cardiometabolic conditions, including diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and heart failure. Patients who have multiple cardiometabolic conditions and multiple prescribers may be at increased risk for nonadherence. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between number of prescribers, number of conditions, and refill adherence to oral medications to treat cardiometabolic conditions. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, 7933 veterans were identified with 1 to 4 cardiometabolic conditions. Refill adherence to oral medications for diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia was measured using an administrative claims-based continuous multiple-interval gap (CMG) that estimates the percentage of days a patient did not possess medication. We dichotomized refill adherence for each condition as a CMG ≤20% for each year of analysis. Condition-specific logistic regression models estimated the relationship between refill adherence and number of cardiometabolic conditions and number of prescribers, controlling for demographic characteristics, other comorbidities, and a count of cardiometabolic drug classes used. RESULTS: Compared with patients with 1 prescriber, antihypertensive refill adherence was lower in patients seeing ≥4 prescribers (odds ratio [OR] = 0.69; 95% CI = 0.59-0.80), but the number of cardiometabolic conditions was not a significant predictor. Antidyslipidemia refill adherence was lower in patients seeing 3 prescribers (OR = 0.80; 95% CI = 0.70-0.92) or ≥4 prescribers (OR = 0.77; 95% CI = 0.64-0.91). Conversely, antidyslipidemia refill adherence improved with the number of cardiometabolic conditions, but differences were only statistically significant for ≥3 conditions (OR = 1.31; 95% CI = 1.09-1.57). In multivariate regression models, the number of conditions and number of prescribers were not significant predictors of refill adherence in the group of patients with diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Effective management of care and medication regimens for complex patients remains an unresolved challenge, but these results suggest that medication refill adherence might be improved by minimizing the number of prescribers involved in a patient's care, at least for hypertension and dyslipidemia.

Scheduled telephone visits in the veterans health administration patient-centered medical home.

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) patient-centered medical home model, Patient Aligned Care Teams (PACT), includes telephone visits to improve care access and efficiency. Scheduled telephone visits can replace in-person care for some focused issues, and more information is needed to understand how this mode can best work for primary care. We conducted a study at the beginning of PACT implementation to elicit stakeholder views on this mode of healthcare delivery, including potential facilitators and barriers. METHODS: We conducted focus groups with primary care patients (n = 3 groups), providers (n = 2 groups) and staff (n = 2 groups). Questions were informed by Donabedian's framework to evaluate and improve healthcare quality. Content analysis and theme matrix techniques were used to explore themes. Content was assigned a positive or negative valuation to indicate whether it was a facilitator or barrier. PACT principles were used as an organizing framework to present stakeholder responses within the context of the VHA patient-centered medical home program. RESULTS: Scheduled telephone visits could potentially improve care quality and efficiency, but stakeholders were cautious. Themes were identified relating to the following PACT principles: comprehensiveness, patient-centeredness, and continuity of care. In sum, scheduled telephone visits were viewed as potentially beneficial for routine care not requiring physical examination, and patients and providers suggested using them to evaluate need for in-person care; however, visits would need to be individualized, with patients able to discontinue if not satisfied. Patients and staff asserted that providers would need to be kept in the loop for continuity of care. Additionally, providers and staff emphasized needing protected time for these calls. CONCLUSION: These findings inform development of scheduled telephone visits as part of patient-centered medical homes by providing evidence about areas that may be leveraged to most effectively implement this mode of care. Presenting this service as enhanced care, with ability to triage need for in-person clinic visits and consequently provide more frequent contact, may most adequately meet different stakeholder expectations. In this way, scheduled telephone visits may serve as both a substitute for in-person care for certain situations and a supplement to in-person interaction.

Do the benefits of participation in a hypertension self-management trial persist after patients resume usual care?

BACKGROUND: Hypertension self-management has been shown to improve systolic blood pressure (BP) control, but longer-term economic and clinical impacts are unknown. The purpose of this article is to examine clinical and economic outcomes 18 months after completion of a hypertension self-management trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study is a follow-up analysis of an 18-month, 4-arm, hypertension self-management trial of 591 veterans with hypertension who were randomized to usual care or 1 of 3 interventions. Clinic-derived systolic blood pressure obtained before, during, and after the trial were estimated using linear mixed models. Inpatient admissions, outpatient expenditures, and total expenditures were estimated using generalized estimating equations. The 3 telephone-based interventions were nurse-administered health behavior promotion, provider-administered medication adjustments based on hypertension treatment guidelines, or a combination of both. Intervention calls were triggered by home BP values transmitted via telemonitoring devices. Clinical and economic outcomes were examined 12 months before, 18 months during, and 18 months after trial completion. Compared with usual care, patients randomized to the combined arm had greater improvement in proportion of BP control during and after the 18-month trial and estimated proportion of BP control improved 18 months after trial completion for patients in the behavioral and medication management arms. Among the patients with inadequate baseline BP control, estimated mean systolic BP was significantly lower in the combined arm as compared with usual care during and after the 18-month trial. Utilization and expenditure trends were similar for patients in all 4 arms. CONCLUSIONS: Behavioral and medication management can generate systolic BP improvements that are sustained 18 months after trial completion. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00237692.

The intersection of patient complexity, prescriber continuity and acute care utilization.

BACKGROUND: Care continuity is considered a critical characteristic of high-performing health systems. Few studies have examined the continuity of medication management of complex patients, who often have multiple providers and complex medication regimens. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to characterize patient factors associated with having more prescribers and the association between number of prescribers and acute care utilization. DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of 7,933 Veterans with one to four cardiometabolic conditions (diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia or congestive heart failure) and prescribed medications for these conditions in 2008. MAIN MEASURES: The association between number of cardiometabolic conditions and prescribers was modeled using Poisson regression. The number of cardiometabolic conditions and number of prescribers were modeled to predict probability of inpatient admission, probability of emergency room (ER) visits, and number of ER visits among ER users. Demographic characteristics, number of cardiometabolic medications and comorbidities were included as covariates in all models. KEY RESULTS: Patients had more prescribers if they had more cardiometabolic conditions (p < 0.001). The adjusted odds of an ER visit increased with the number of prescribers (two prescribers, Odds Ratio (OR) = 1.16; three prescribers, OR = 1.21; 4+ prescribers, OR = 1.39), but not with the number of conditions. Among ER users, the number of ER visits was neither associated with the number of prescribers nor the number of conditions. The adjusted odds of an inpatient admission increased with the number of prescribers (two prescribers, OR = 1.27; three prescribers, OR = 1.30; 4+ prescribers, OR = 1.34), but not with the number of conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Having more prescribers was associated with greater healthcare utilization for complex patients, despite adjustment for the number of conditions and medications. The number of prescribers may be an appropriate target for reducing acute care utilization by complex patients.

The Cholesterol, Hypertension, And Glucose Education (CHANGE) study: results from a randomized controlled trial in African Americans with diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) and diabetes account for one-third of the mortality difference between African American and white patients. We evaluated the effect of a CVD risk reduction intervention in African Americans with diabetes. METHODS: We randomized 359 African Americans with type 2 diabetes to receive usual care or a nurse telephone intervention. The 12-month intervention provided monthly self-management support and quarterly medication management facilitation. Coprimary outcomes were changes in systolic blood pressure (SBP), hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) over 12 months. We estimated between-intervention group differences over time using linear mixed-effects models. The secondary outcome was self-reported medication adherence. RESULTS: The sample was 72% female; 49% had low health literacy, and 37% had annual income <$10,000. Model-based estimates for mean baseline SBP, HbA1c, and LDL-C were 136.8 mm Hg (95% CI 135.0-138.6), 8.0% (95% CI 7.8-8.2), and 99.1 mg/dL (95% CI 94.7-103.5), respectively. Intervention patients received 9.9 (SD 3.0) intervention calls on average. Primary providers replied to 76% of nurse medication management facilitation contacts, 18% of these resulted in medication changes. There were no between-group differences over time for SBP (P = .11), HbA1c (P = .66), or LDL-C (P = .79). Intervention patients were more likely than those receiving usual care to report improved medication adherence (odds ratio 4.4, 95% CI 1.8-10.6, P = .0008), but adherent patients did not exhibit relative improvement in primary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This intervention improved self-reported medication adherence but not CVD risk factor control among African Americans with diabetes. Further research is needed to determine how to maximally impact CVD risk factors in African American patients.

The patient centered medical home. A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) describes mechanisms for organizing primary care to provide high quality care across the full range of individuals' health care needs.It is being widely implemented by provider organizations and third party payers. PURPOSE: To describe approaches for PCMH implementation and summarize evidence for effects on patient and staff experiences,process of care, and clinical and economic outcomes. DATA SOURCES: PubMed (through 6 December 2011), Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through 29 June 2012). STUDY SELECTION: English-language trials and longitudinal observational studies that met criteria for the PCMH, as defined by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and included populations with multiple conditions. DATA EXTRACTION: Information on study design, populations, interventions,comparators, financial models, implementation methods,outcomes, and risk of bias were abstracted by 1 investigator and verified by another. DATA SYNTHESIS: In 19 comparative studies, PCMH interventions had a small positive effect on patient experiences and small to moderate positive effects on the delivery of preventive care services(moderate strength of evidence). Staff experiences were also improved by a small to moderate degree (low strength of evidence).Evidence suggested a reduction in emergency department visits(risk ratio [RR], 0.81 [95% CI, 0.67 to 0.98]) but not in hospital admissions (RR, 0.96 [CI, 0.84 to 1.10]) in older adults (low strength of evidence). There was no evidence for overall cost savings. LIMITATION: Systematic review is challenging because of a lack of consistent definitions and nomenclature for PCMH. CONCLUSION: The PCMH holds promise for improving the experiences of patients and staff and potentially for improving care processes,but current evidence is insufficient to determine effects on clinical and most economic outcomes

Racial differences in the effect of a telephone-delivered hypertension disease management program.

BACKGROUND: African Americans are significantly more likely than whites to have uncontrolled hypertension, contributing to significant disparities in cardiovascular disease and events. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to examine whether there were differences in change in blood pressure (BP) for African American and non-Hispanic white patients in response to a medication management and tailored nurse-delivered telephone behavioral program. PARTICIPANTS: Five hundred and seventy-three patients (284 African American and 289 non-Hispanic white) primary care patients who participated in the Hypertension Intervention Nurse Telemedicine Study (HINTS) clinical trial. INTERVENTIONS: Study arms included: 1) nurse-administered, physician-directed medication management intervention, utilizing a validated clinical decision support system; 2) nurse-administered, behavioral management intervention; 3) combined behavioral management and medication management intervention; and 4) usual care. All interventions were activated based on poorly controlled home BP values. MAIN MEASURES: Post-hoc analysis of change in systolic and diastolic blood pressure. General linear models (PROC MIXED in SAS, version 9.2) were used to estimate predicted means at 6-month, 12-month, and 18-month time points, by intervention arm and race subgroups (separate models for systolic and diastolic blood pressure). KEY RESULTS: Improvement in mean systolic blood pressure post-baseline was greater for African American patients in the combined intervention, compared to African American patients in usual care, at 12 months (6.6 mmHg; 95 % CI: -12.5, -0.7; p=0.03) and at 18 months (9.7 mmHg; -16.0, -3.4; p=0.003). At 18 months, mean diastolic BP was 4.8 mmHg lower (95 % CI: -8.5, -1.0; p=0.01) among African American patients in the combined intervention arm, compared to African American patients in usual care. There were no analogous differences for non-Hispanic white patients. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of home BP monitoring, remote medication management, and telephone tailored behavioral self-management appears to be particularly effective for improving BP among African Americans. The effect was not seen among non-Hispanic white patients.

Economic evaluation of telephone self-management interventions for blood pressure control.

BACKGROUND: Half of patients with hypertension have poor blood pressure (BP) control. Recent models for treating hypertension have integrated disease monitoring and telephone-based interventions delivered in patients' homes. This study evaluated the costs of the Hypertension Intervention Nurse Telemedicine Study (HINTS), aimed to improve BP control in veterans. METHODS: Eligible veterans were randomized to either usual care or 1 of 3 telephone-based intervention groups using home BP telemonitoring: (1) behavioral management, (2) medication management, or (3) combined. Intervention costs were derived from information collected during the trial. Direct medical costs (inpatient, outpatient, and outpatient pharmacy, including hypertension-specific pharmacy) at 18 months by group were calculated using Veterans Affairs (VA) Decision Support System data. Bootstrapped CIs were computed to compare intervention and medical costs between intervention groups and usual care. RESULTS: Patients receiving behavior or medication management showed significant gains in BP control at 12 months; there were no differences in BP control at 18 months. In subgroup analysis, patients with poor baseline BP control receiving combined intervention significantly improved BP at 12 and 18 months. In overall and subgroup samples, average intervention costs were similar in the 3 study arms, and at 18 months, there were no statistically significant differences in direct VA medical costs or total VA costs between treatment arms and usual care. CONCLUSIONS: To optimize investment in telephone-based home interventions such as the HINTS, it is important to identify groups of patients who are most likely to benefit from more intensive home BP management.

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers for treatment of ischemic heart disease: Future research needs prioritization.

BACKGROUND: A recent review evaluated the comparative effectiveness of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-Is) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in patients with or at high risk for stable ischemic heart disease (IHD). The prioritization of future research needs has customarily been an informal process that is not responsive to the needs of all relevant stakeholders. METHODS: As part of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Effective Healthcare Program, the Duke Evidence-Based Practice Center engaged a diverse stakeholder group in 3 exercises designed to prioritize future research needs pertaining to the comparative effectiveness of ACE-I/ARB in patients with stable IHD. RESULTS: Our stakeholders prioritized the following areas of research pertaining to the comparative effectiveness of ACE-I/ARB in stable IHD: (1) strategies to enhance greater evidence-based use, (2) impact of adherence on effectiveness or harms, (3) impact of comorbidities on effectiveness or harms, (4) medication impact on patient quality of life, (5) impact of demographic differences on effectiveness or harms, and (6) medication impact on incidence of new diagnoses. This project also yielded suggestions regarding potential study designs to address these future research needs. CONCLUSIONS: Our stakeholders prioritized research designed to facilitate (1) tailored ACE-I/ARB treatment based on individual patient characteristics and (2) implementation of ACE-I/ARB use among patients most likely to benefit. With respect to suggested study designs, it was felt that analysis of existing data would sufficiently address many of the top-tier future research needs (FRNs).

Updated report on comparative effectiveness of ACE inhibitors, ARBs, and direct renin inhibitors for patients with essential hypertension: much more data, little new information.

OBJECTIVES: A 2007 systematic review compared angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in patients with hypertension. Direct renin inhibitors (DRIs) have since been introduced, and significant new research has been published. We sought to update and expand the 2007 review. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE (through December 2010) and selected other sources for relevant English-language trials. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTERVENTIONS: We included studies that directly compared ACE inhibitors, ARBs, and/or DRIs in at least 20 total adults with essential hypertension; had at least 12 weeks of follow-up; and reported at least one outcome of interest. Ninety-seven (97) studies (36 new since 2007) directly comparing ACE inhibitors versus ARBs and three studies directly comparing DRIs to ACE inhibitor inhibitors or ARBs were included. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: A standard protocol was used to extract data on study design, interventions, population characteristics, and outcomes; evaluate study quality; and summarize the evidence. RESULTS: In spite of substantial new evidence, none of the conclusions from the 2007 review changed. The level of evidence remains high for equivalence between ACE inhibitors and ARBs for blood pressure lowering and use as single antihypertensive agents, as well as for superiority of ARBs for short-term adverse events (primarily cough). However, the new evidence was insufficient on long-term cardiovascular outcomes, quality of life, progression of renal disease, medication adherence or persistence, rates of angioedema, and differences in key patient subgroups. LIMITATIONS: Included studies were limited by follow-up duration, protocol heterogeneity, and infrequent reporting on patient subgroups. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: Evidence does not support a meaningful difference between ACE inhibitors and ARBs for any outcome except medication side effects. Few, if any, of the questions that were not answered in the 2007 report have been addressed by the 36 new studies. Future research in this area should consider areas of uncertainty and be prioritized accordingly.

Closing the quality gap: revisiting the state of the science (vol. 2: the patient-centered medical home).

OBJECTIVES: As part of the Closing the Quality Gap: Revisiting the State of the Science series of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), this systematic review sought to identify completed and ongoing evaluations of the comprehensive patient-centered medical home (PCMH), summarize current evidence for this model, and identify evidence gaps. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed®, CINAHL®, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for published English-language studies, and a wide variety of databases and Web resources to identify ongoing or recently completed studies. REVIEW METHODS: Two investigators per study screened abstracts and full-text articles for inclusion, abstracted data, and performed quality ratings and evidence grading. Our functional definition of PCMH was based on the definition used by AHRQ. We included studies that explicitly claimed to be evaluating PCMH and those that did not but which met our functional definition. RESULTS: Seventeen studies with comparison groups evaluated the effects of PCMH (Key Question [KQ] 1). Older adults in the United States were the most commonly studied population (8 of 17 studies). PCMH interventions had a small positive impact on patient experiences (including patient-perceived care coordination) and small to moderate positive effects on preventive care services (moderate strength of evidence [SOE]). Staff experiences were also improved by a small to moderate degree (low SOE). There were too few studies to estimate effects on clinical or most economic outcomes. Twenty-one of 27 studies reported approaches that addressed all 7 major PCMH components (KQ 2), including team-based care, sustained partnership, reorganized care or structural changes to care, enhanced access, coordinated care, comprehensive care, and a systems-based approach to quality. A total of 51 strategies were used to address the 7 major PCMH components. Twenty-two of 27 studies reported information on financial systems used to implement PCMH, implementation strategies, and/or organizational learning strategies for implementing PCMH (KQ 3). The 31 studies identified in the horizon scan of ongoing PCMH studies (KQ 4) were broadly representative of the U.S. health care system, both in geography and in the complexity of private and public health care payers and delivery networks. CONCLUSIONS: Published studies of PCMH interventions often have similar broad elements, but precise components of care varied widely. The PCMH holds promise for improving the experiences of patients and staff, and potentially for improving care processes. However, current evidence is insufficient to determine effects on clinical and most economic outcomes. Ongoing studies identified through the horizon scan have potential to greatly expand the evidence base relating to PCMH.

Treatment intensification in a hypertension telemanagement trial: clinical inertia or good clinical judgment?

Clinical inertia represents a barrier to hypertension management. As part of a hypertension telemanagement trial designed to overcome clinical inertia, we evaluated study physician reactions to elevated home blood pressures. We studied 296 patients from the Hypertension Intervention Nurse Telemedicine Study who received telemonitoring and study physician medication management. When a patient's 2-week mean home blood pressure was elevated, an "intervention alert" prompted study physicians to consider treatment intensification. We examined treatment intensification rates and subsequent blood pressure control. Patients generated 1216 intervention alerts during the 18-month intervention. Of 922 eligible intervention alerts, study physicians intensified treatment in 374 (40.6%). Study physician perception that home blood pressure was acceptable was the most common rationale for nonintensification (53.7%). When "blood pressure acceptable" was the reason for not intensifying treatment, the mean blood pressure was lower than for intervention alerts where treatment intensification occurred (135.3/76.7 versus 143.2/80.6 mm Hg; P<0.0001). Blood pressure acceptable intervention alerts were associated with the lowest incidence of repeat alerts (hazard ratio: 0.69 [95% CI: 0.58 to 0.83]), meaning that the patient home blood pressure was less likely to subsequently rise above goal, despite apparent clinical inertia. This telemedicine intervention targeting clinical inertia did not guarantee treatment intensification in response to elevated home blood pressures. However, when physicians did not intensify treatment, it was because blood pressure was closer to an acceptable threshold, and repeat blood pressure elevations occurred less frequently. Failure to intensify treatment when home blood pressure is elevated may, at times, represent good clinical judgment, not clinical inertia.

Home blood pressure management and improved blood pressure control: results from a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: To determine which of 3 interventions was most effective in improving blood pressure (BP) control, we performed a 4-arm randomized trial with 18-month follow-up at the primary care clinics at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center. METHODS: Eligible patients were randomized to either usual care or 1 of 3 telephone-based intervention groups: (1) nurse-administered behavioral management, (2) nurse- and physician-administered medication management, or (3) a combination of both. Of the 1551 eligible patients, 593 individuals were randomized; 48% were African American. The intervention telephone calls were triggered based on home BP values transmitted via telemonitoring devices. Behavioral management involved promotion of health behaviors. Medication management involved adjustment of medications by a study physician and nurse based on hypertension treatment guidelines. RESULTS: The primary outcome was change in BP control measured at 6-month intervals over 18 months. Both the behavioral management and medication management alone showed significant improvements at 12 months-12.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6%-24.1%) and 12.5% (95% CI, 1.3%-23.6%), respectively-but not at 18 months. In subgroup analyses, among those with poor baseline BP control, systolic BP decreased in the combined intervention group by 14.8 mm Hg (95% CI, -21.8 to -7.8 mm Hg) at 12 months and 8.0 mm Hg (95% CI, -15.5 to -0.5 mm Hg) at 18 months, relative to usual care. CONCLUSIONS: Overall intervention effects were moderate, but among individuals with poor BP control at baseline, the effects were larger. This study indicates the importance of identifying individuals most likely to benefit from potentially resource intensive programs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00237692.

Measuring blood pressure for decision making and quality reporting: where and how many measures?

BACKGROUND: The optimal setting and number of blood pressure (BP) measurements that should be used for clinical decision making and quality reporting are uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To compare strategies for home or clinic BP measurement and their effect on classifying patients as having BP that was in or out of control. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a randomized, controlled trial of strategies to improve hypertension management. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00237692) SETTING: Primary care clinics affiliated with the Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center. PATIENTS: 444 veterans with hypertension followed for 18 months. MEASUREMENTS: Blood pressure was measured repeatedly by using 3 methods: standardized research BP measurements at 6-month intervals; clinic BP measurements obtained during outpatient visits; and home BP measurements using a monitor that transmitted measurements electronically. RESULTS: Patients provided 111,181 systolic BP (SBP) measurements (3218 research, 7121 clinic, and 100,842 home measurements) over 18 months. Systolic BP control rates at baseline (mean SBP<140 mm Hg for clinic or research measurement; <135 mm Hg for home measurement) varied substantially, with 28% classified as in control by clinic measurement, 47% by home measurement, and 68% by research measurement. Short-term variability was large and similar across all 3 methods of measurement, with a mean within-patient coefficient of variation of 10% (range, 1% to 24%). Patients could not be classified as having BP that was in or out of control with 80% certainty on the basis of a single clinic SBP measurement from 120 mm Hg to 157 mm Hg. The effect of within-patient variability could be greatly reduced by averaging several measurements, with most benefit accrued at 5 to 6 measurements. LIMITATION: The sample was mostly men with a long-standing history of hypertension and was selected on the basis of previous poor BP control. CONCLUSION: Physicians who want to have 80% or more certainty that they are correctly classifying patients' BP control should use the average of several measurements. Hypertension quality metrics based on a single clinic measurement potentially misclassify a large proportion of patients. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Service.

Racial differences in two self-management hypertension interventions.

BACKGROUND: Only one half of Americans have their blood pressure controlled, and there are significant racial differences in blood pressure control. The goal of this study was to examine the effectiveness of 2 patient-directed interventions designed to improve blood pressure control within white and non-white subgroups (African Americans, 49%). METHODS: Post hoc analysis of a 2 by 2 randomized trial with 2-year follow-up in 2 university-affiliated primary care clinics was performed. Within white and non-white patients (n=634), 4 groups were examined: 1) usual care; 2) home blood pressure monitoring (3 times per week); 3) tailored behavioral self-management intervention administered via telephone by a nurse every other month; and 4) a combination of the 2 interventions. RESULTS: The overall race by time by treatment group effect suggested differential intervention effects on blood pressure over time for whites and non-whites (systolic blood pressure, P=. 08; diastolic blood pressure, P=.01). Estimated trajectories indicated that among the 308 whites, there was no significant effect on blood pressure at 12 or 24 months for any intervention compared with the control group. At 12 months, the non-whites (n=328) in all 3 intervention groups had systolic blood pressure decreases of 5.3 to 5.7 mm Hg compared with usual care (P <.05). At 24 months, in the combined intervention, non-whites had sustained lower systolic blood pressure compared with usual care (7.5 mm Hg; P <.02). A similar pattern was observed for diastolic blood pressure. CONCLUSION: Combined home blood pressure monitoring and a tailored behavioral phone intervention seem to be particularly effective for improving blood pressure in non-white patients.

The effectiveness of personalized coronary heart disease and stroke risk communication.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend global risk assessment to guide vascular risk factor management; however, most provider-patient communication focuses on individual risk factors in isolation. We sought to evaluate the impact of personalized coronary heart disease and stroke risk communication on patients' knowledge, beliefs, and health behavior. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial testing personalized risk communication based on Framingham stroke and coronary heart disease risk scores compared with a standard risk factor education. A total of 89 patients were recruited from primary care clinics and followed up for 3 months. Outcomes included the following: risk perception and worry, risk factor knowledge, risk reduction preferences and decision conflict, medication adherence, health behaviors, and blood pressure. RESULTS: Participants had a very low understanding of numeric information, high perceived risk for stroke or myocardial infarction, and high proportion of medication nonadherence. Patients' ability to identify vascular risk factors increased with personalized risk communication (mean 1.8 additional risk factors, 95% CI 1.3-2.2) and standard risk factor education (mean 1.6 additional risk factors, 95% CI 1.1-2.1) immediately after the intervention but was not sustained at 3 months. Patients in the personalized group had less decision conflict than the standard risk factor education group over intended risk reduction strategies (5.9 vs 10.1, P = .003). There was no appreciable impact of either communication strategy on medication adherence, exercise, smoking cessation, or blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: Personalized risk communication was preferred by patients and had a small impact on risk reduction preferences and decision conflict but had no impact on patient beliefs or behavior compared with standard risk factor education.

Patient self-management support: novel strategies in hypertension and heart disease.

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) have become the leading cause of death and disability in most countries in the world. This article addresses how patient self-management is a crucial component of effective high-quality health care for hypertension and CVD. The patient must be a collaborator in this process, and methods of improving patients' ability and confidence for self-management are needed. Successful self-management programs have often supplemented the traditional patient-physician encounter by using nonphysician providers, remote patient encounters (telephone or Internet), group settings, and peer support for promoting self-management. Several factors need to be considered in self-management. Given the health care system's inability to achieve several quality indicators using traditional office-based physician visits, further consideration is needed to determine the degree to which these interventions and programs can be integrated into primary care, their effectiveness in different groups, and their sustainability for improving chronic disease care.

The implementation of a translational study involving a primary care based behavioral program to improve blood pressure control: The HTN-IMPROVE study protocol (01295).

BACKGROUND: Despite the impact of hypertension and widely accepted target values for blood pressure (BP), interventions to improve BP control have had limited success. OBJECTIVES: We describe the design of a 'translational' study that examines the implementation, impact, sustainability, and cost of an evidence-based nurse-delivered tailored behavioral self-management intervention to improve BP control as it moves from a research context to healthcare delivery. The study addresses four specific aims: assess the implementation of an evidence-based behavioral self-management intervention to improve BP levels; evaluate the clinical impact of the intervention as it is implemented; assess organizational factors associated with the sustainability of the intervention; and assess the cost of implementing and sustaining the intervention. METHODS: The project involves three geographically diverse VA intervention facilities and nine control sites. We first conduct an evaluation of barriers and facilitators for implementing the intervention at intervention sites. We examine the impact of the intervention by comparing 12-month pre/post changes in BP control between patients in intervention sites versus patients in the matched control sites. Next, we examine the sustainability of the intervention and organizational factors facilitating or hindering the sustained implementation. Finally, we examine the costs of intervention implementation. Key outcomes are acceptability and costs of the program, as well as changes in BP. Outcomes will be assessed using mixed methods (e.g., qualitative analyses--pattern matching; quantitative methods--linear mixed models). DISCUSSION: The study results will provide information about the challenges and costs to implement and sustain the intervention, and what clinical impact can be expected.