BACKGROUND: Performance measures often fail to account for legitimate reasons why patients do not achieve recommended treatment targets. METHODS: We tested a novel performance measurement system for blood pressure (BP) control that was designed to mimic clinical reasoning. This clinically guided approach focuses on (1) exempting patients for whom tight BP control may not be appropriate or feasible and (2) assessing BP over time. Trained abstractors conducted structured chart reviews of 201 adults with hypertension in 2 VA health care systems. Results were compared with traditional methods of performance measurement. RESULTS: Among 201 veterans, 183 (91%) were male, and the mean age was 71±11 years. Using the clinically guided approach, 61 patients (30%) were exempted from performance measurement. The most common reasons for exemption were inadequate opportunity to manage BP (35 patients, 17%) and the use of 4 or more antihypertensive medications (19 patients, 9%). Among patients eligible for performance measurement, there was little agreement on the presence of controlled versus uncontrolled BP when comparing the most recent BP (the traditional approach) with an integrated assessment of BP control (κ 0.14). After accounting for clinically guided exemptions and methods of BP assessment, only 15 of 72 patients (21%) whose last BP was ≥140/90 mm Hg were classified as problematic by the clinically guided approach. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients have legitimate reasons for not achieving tight BP control, and the methods used for BP assessment have marked effects on whether a patient is classified as having adequate or inadequate BP control.
BACKGROUND: Performance measures often fail to account for legitimate reasons why patients do not achieve recommended treatment targets. METHODS: We tested a novel performance measurement system for blood pressure (BP) control that was designed to mimic clinical reasoning. This clinically guided approach focuses on (1) exempting patients for whom tight BP control may not be appropriate or feasible and (2) assessing BP over time. Trained abstractors conducted structured chart reviews of 201 adults with hypertension in 2 VA health care systems. Results were compared with traditional methods of performance measurement. RESULTS: Among 201 veterans, 183 (91%) were male, and the mean age was 71±11 years. Using the clinically guided approach, 61 patients (30%) were exempted from performance measurement. The most common reasons for exemption were inadequate opportunity to manage BP (35 patients, 17%) and the use of 4 or more antihypertensive medications (19 patients, 9%). Among patients eligible for performance measurement, there was little agreement on the presence of controlled versus uncontrolled BP when comparing the most recent BP (the traditional approach) with an integrated assessment of BP control (κ 0.14). After accounting for clinically guided exemptions and methods of BP assessment, only 15 of 72 patients (21%) whose last BP was ≥140/90 mm Hg were classified as problematic by the clinically guided approach. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients have legitimate reasons for not achieving tight BP control, and the methods used for BP assessment have marked effects on whether a patient is classified as having adequate or inadequate BP control.
Authors: Karen S Kmetik; Michael F O'Toole; Heidi Bossley; Carmen A Brutico; Gary Fischer; Sherry L Grund; Bridget M Gulotta; Mark Hennessey; Stasia Kahn; Karen M Murphy; Ted Pacheco; L Greg Pawlson; John Schaeffer; Patricia A Schwamberger; Sarah H Scholle; Gregory Wozniak Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-02-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Clemens S Hong; Steven J Atlas; Yuchiao Chang; S V Subramanian; Jeffrey M Ashburner; Michael J Barry; Richard W Grant Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-09-08 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Takahiro Higashi; Neil S Wenger; John L Adams; Constance Fung; Martin Roland; Elizabeth A McGlynn; David Reeves; Steven M Asch; Eve A Kerr; Paul G Shekelle Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-06-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Michele Heisler; Mary M Hogan; Timothy P Hofer; Julie A Schmittdiel; Manel Pladevall; Eve A Kerr Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-05-27 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Laura A Petersen; Lechauncy D Woodard; Louise M Henderson; Tracy H Urech; Kenneth Pietz Journal: Circulation Date: 2009-06-01 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Joseph V Selby; Connie S Uratsu; Bruce Fireman; Julie A Schmittdiel; Tiffany Peng; Nicolas Rodondi; Andrew J Karter; Eve A Kerr Journal: Med Care Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Salomeh Keyhani; Paul L Hebert; Joseph S Ross; Alex Federman; Carolyn W Zhu; Albert L Siu Journal: Med Care Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Donna M Zulman; Susana B Martins; Yan Liu; Samson W Tu; Brian B Hoffman; Steven M Asch; Mary K Goldstein Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2015-11-05