Literature DB >> 18490685

The role of clinical uncertainty in treatment decisions for diabetic patients with uncontrolled blood pressure.

Eve A Kerr1, Brian J Zikmund-Fisher, Mandi L Klamerus, Usha Subramanian, Mary M Hogan, Timothy P Hofer.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Factors underlying failure to intensify therapy in response to elevated blood pressure have not been systematically studied.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the process of care for diabetic patients with elevated triage blood pressure (> or =140/90 mm Hg) during routine primary care visits to assess whether a treatment change occurred and to what degree specific patient and provider factors correlated with the likelihood of treatment change.
DESIGN: Prospective cohort study.
SETTING: 9 Veterans Affairs facilities in 3 midwestern states. PARTICIPANTS: 1169 diabetic patients with scheduled visits to 92 primary care providers from February 2005 to March 2006. MEASUREMENTS: Proportion of patients who had a change in a blood pressure treatment (medication intensification or planned follow-up within 4 weeks). Predicted probability of treatment change was calculated from a multilevel logistic model that included variables assessing clinical uncertainty, competing demands and prioritization, and medication-related factors (controlling for blood pressure).
RESULTS: Overall, 573 (49%) patients had a blood pressure treatment change at the visit. The following factors made treatment change less likely: repeated blood pressure by provider recorded as less than 140/90 mm Hg versus 140/90 mm Hg or greater or no recorded repeated blood pressure (13% vs. 61%; P < 0.001); home blood pressure reported by patients as less than 140/90 mm Hg versus 140/90 mm Hg or greater or no recorded home blood pressure (18% vs. 52%; P < 0.001); provider systolic blood pressure goal greater than 130 mm Hg versus 130 mm Hg or less (33% vs. 52%; P = 0.002); discussion of conditions unrelated to hypertension and diabetes versus no discussion (44% vs. 55%; P = 0.008); and discussion of medication issues versus no discussion (23% vs. 52%; P < 0.001). LIMITATION: Providers knew that the study pertained to diabetes and hypertension, and treatment change was assessed for 1 visit per patient.
CONCLUSION: Approximately 50% of diabetic patients presenting with a substantially elevated triage blood pressure received treatment change at the visit. Clinical uncertainty about the true blood pressure value was a prominent reason that providers did not intensify therapy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18490685     DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-148-10-200805200-00004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  95 in total

1.  A STITCH saves time and lowers blood pressure.

Authors:  Suzanne Oparil
Journal:  Curr Hypertens Rep       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 5.369

2.  Is patient-perceived severity of a geriatric condition related to better quality of care?

Authors:  Lillian C Min; David B Reuben; Emmett Keeler; David A Ganz; Constance H Fung; Paul Shekelle; Carol P Roth; Neil S Wenger
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 2.983

3.  Level of blood pressure above goal and clinical inertia in a Medicaid population.

Authors:  Anthony J Viera; Dorothee Schmid; Susan Bostrom; Angie Yow; William Lawrence; C Annette DuBard
Journal:  J Am Soc Hypertens       Date:  2010-08-21

4.  Monitoring performance for blood pressure management among patients with diabetes mellitus: too much of a good thing?

Authors:  Eve A Kerr; Michelle A Lucatorto; Rob Holleman; Mary M Hogan; Mandi L Klamerus; Timothy P Hofer
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2012-06-25

5.  The RICH LIFE Project: A cluster randomized pragmatic trial comparing the effectiveness of health system only vs. health system Plus a collaborative/stepped care intervention to reduce hypertension disparities.

Authors:  Lisa A Cooper; Jill A Marsteller; Kathryn A Carson; Katherine B Dietz; Romsai T Boonyasai; Carmen Alvarez; Chidinma A Ibe; Deidra C Crews; Hsin-Chieh Yeh; Edgar R Miller; Cheryl R Dennison-Himmelfarb; Lisa H Lubomski; Tanjala S Purnell; Felicia Hill-Briggs; Nae-Yuh Wang
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2020-05-08       Impact factor: 4.749

6.  Reducing clinical inertia in hypertension treatment: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Amy G Huebschmann; Trina Mizrahi; Alyssa Soenksen; Brenda L Beaty; Thomas D Denberg
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2012-03-16       Impact factor: 3.738

7.  Are two commonly used self-report questionnaires useful for identifying antihypertensive medication nonadherence?

Authors:  Benjamin D Gallagher; Paul Muntner; Nathalie Moise; Jenny J Lin; Ian M Kronish
Journal:  J Hypertens       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 4.844

8.  Treatment decisions for complex patients: differences between primary care physicians and midlevel providers.

Authors:  Usha Subramanian; Eve A Kerr; Mandi L Klamerus; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Robert G Holleman; Timothy P Hofer
Journal:  Am J Manag Care       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 2.229

Review 9.  Research Needs to Improve Hypertension Treatment and Control in African Americans.

Authors:  Paul K Whelton; Paula T Einhorn; Paul Muntner; Lawrence J Appel; William C Cushman; Ana V Diez Roux; Keith C Ferdinand; Mahboob Rahman; Herman A Taylor; Jamy Ard; Donna K Arnett; Barry L Carter; Barry R Davis; Barry I Freedman; Lisa A Cooper; Richard Cooper; Patrice Desvigne-Nickens; Nara Gavini; Alan S Go; David J Hyman; Paul L Kimmel; Karen L Margolis; Edgar R Miller; Katherine T Mills; George A Mensah; Ann M Navar; Gbenga Ogedegbe; Michael K Rakotz; George Thomas; Jonathan N Tobin; Jackson T Wright; Sung Sug Sarah Yoon; Jeffrey A Cutler
Journal:  Hypertension       Date:  2016-09-12       Impact factor: 10.190

10.  Diabetes and poor disease control: is comorbid depression associated with poor medication adherence or lack of treatment intensification?

Authors:  Wayne Katon; Joan Russo; Elizabeth H B Lin; Susan R Heckbert; Andy J Karter; Lisa H Williams; Paul Ciechanowski; Evette Ludman; Michael Von Korff
Journal:  Psychosom Med       Date:  2009-10-15       Impact factor: 4.312

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.