Recognition of elevated blood pressure in an outpatient pediatric tertiary care setting.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence of elevated blood pressure (BP) and its identification among outpatients at a pediatric tertiary care hospital and to assess clinician attitudes towards BP management. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective review was undertaken of electronic medical record data of visits over the course of 1 year to 10 subspecialty divisions and 3 primary care services at an urban tertiary care hospital. Interviews of division/service representatives and a clinician survey on perceived role on BP care, practices, and protocols related to BP management were conducted. Elevated BP was defined as ≥90th percentile (using US references); identification of elevated BP was defined as the presence of appropriate codes in the problem list or visit diagnoses. RESULTS: Among 29,000 patients (ages 2-17 years), 70% (those with ≥1 BP measurement) were analyzed. Patients were as follows: 50% male; 42% white, 31% Hispanic, 16% black, 5% Asian, and 5% other/missing; 52% had Medicaid insurance. A total of 64% had normal BPs, 33% had 1-2 elevated BP measurements, and 3% had ≥3 elevated BP measurements. Among those with ≥3 elevated BP measurements, the median frequency of identification by division/service was 17%; the greatest identification was for Kidney Diseases (67%), Wellness & Weight Management (60%), and Cardiology (33%). Among patients with ≥3 elevated BP measurements, 21% were identified vs 7% identified among those with 1-2 increased measurements (P<.001). All clinician survey respondents perceived self-responsibility for identification of elevated BP, but opinions varied for their role in the management of elevated BP. CONCLUSIONS: The identification of patients with elevated BP measurements was low. Strategies to increase the identification of elevated BPs in outpatient tertiary care settings are needed.

Physicians' Lack of Adherence to National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Guidelines for Pediatric Lipid Screening.

OBJECTIVES: To determine adherence to the 2011 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute lipid screening guidelines and identify patient factors promoting screening. METHODS: Records of children who received well-child care at age 11 years and turned 12 in 2013 were reviewed. Subjects were stratified by guideline-defined dyslipidemia risk based on documented medical or family history risk factors. We defined adherence as the order of a lipid profile when age 11 years or completed lipid screening at 9 to 10 years. RESULTS: Of 298 subjects, 42% were assigned to the dyslipidemia high-risk subgroup. Records of 27.2% demonstrated adherence. Fifty-six percent of high-risk subjects versus 6% of their non-high-risk counterparts received lipid screening by age 12 (P < .001). Among screened subjects, history of obesity and parental history of dyslipidemia were significantly associated with lipid testing. CONCLUSIONS: Lipid screening rates were low. Strategies to increase lipid screening in the primary care setting are needed.

The role of herd immunity in parents' decision to vaccinate children: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Herd immunity is an important benefit of childhood immunization, but it is unknown if the concept of benefit to others influences parents' decisions to immunize their children. Our objective was to determine if the concept of "benefit to others" has been found in the literature to influence parents' motivation for childhood immunization. METHODS: We systematically searched Medline through October 2010 for articles on parental/guardian decision-making regarding child immunization. Studies were included if they presented original work, elicited responses from parents/guardians of children <18 years old, and addressed vaccinating children for the benefit of others. RESULTS: The search yielded 5876 titles; 91 articles were identified for full review. Twenty-nine studies met inclusion criteria. Seventeen studies identified benefit to others as 1 among several motivating factors for immunization by using interviews or focus groups. Nine studies included the concept of benefit to others in surveys but did not rank its relative importance. In 3 studies, the importance of benefit to others was ranked relative to other motivating factors. One to six percent of parents ranked benefit to others as their primary reason to vaccinate their children, and 37% of parents ranked benefit to others as their second most important factor in decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be some parental willingness to immunize children for the benefit of others, but its relative importance as a motivator is largely unknown. Further work is needed to explore this concept as a possible motivational tool for increasing childhood immunization uptake.