BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Student-Run Free Clinics (SRFCs) play a significant role in medical education yet there is minimal information about patient outcomes over time in this setting. The purpose of this study was to assess longitudinal outcomes of hypertension management during routine care at four SRFC sites, while comparing control rates with national standards, and examining for characteristics independently associated with uncontrolled hypertension. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective medical record review of visits from January 2004 through April 2016 with an initial visit for hypertension and a follow-up visit 9 to 15 months later. Hypertension control was analyzed using descriptive statistics, paired t tests, logistic regression, and a longitudinal linear mixed-effects model. RESULTS: This study included 496 patients and 4,798 visits. The mean age was 50.9 (SD 10.8) years old, 71.2% (346) were Latinos, 63.3% (314) were Spanish speaking, and 15.5% (72) were homeless. Mean blood pressure was reduced from 141.6 (SD 21.8)/85.1 (SD 13.2) to 132.1 (SD 17.3)/79.4 (SD10.8), a decrease of 9.5 (CI 7.4, 11.5)/5.7 (CI 4.4, 7.0) mmHg. Blood pressure was significantly reduced within the first month of treatment, and this reduction was sustained throughout the follow-up period. Using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) definition (<140/<90), blood pressure was controlled in 59.7% (296/496) of patients. No significant differences in control were noted based on gender, ethnicity, language, housing status, or clinic site. CONCLUSIONS: SRFCs can provide effective long-term hypertension management and achieve rates of control that exceed national averages despite serving those least likely to be controlled.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Student-Run Free Clinics (SRFCs) play a significant role in medical education yet there is minimal information about patient outcomes over time in this setting. The purpose of this study was to assess longitudinal outcomes of hypertension management during routine care at four SRFC sites, while comparing control rates with national standards, and examining for characteristics independently associated with uncontrolled hypertension. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective medical record review of visits from January 2004 through April 2016 with an initial visit for hypertension and a follow-up visit 9 to 15 months later. Hypertension control was analyzed using descriptive statistics, paired t tests, logistic regression, and a longitudinal linear mixed-effects model. RESULTS: This study included 496 patients and 4,798 visits. The mean age was 50.9 (SD 10.8) years old, 71.2% (346) were Latinos, 63.3% (314) were Spanish speaking, and 15.5% (72) were homeless. Mean blood pressure was reduced from 141.6 (SD 21.8)/85.1 (SD 13.2) to 132.1 (SD 17.3)/79.4 (SD10.8), a decrease of 9.5 (CI 7.4, 11.5)/5.7 (CI 4.4, 7.0) mmHg. Blood pressure was significantly reduced within the first month of treatment, and this reduction was sustained throughout the follow-up period. Using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) definition (<140/<90), blood pressure was controlled in 59.7% (296/496) of patients. No significant differences in control were noted based on gender, ethnicity, language, housing status, or clinic site. CONCLUSIONS: SRFCs can provide effective long-term hypertension management and achieve rates of control that exceed national averages despite serving those least likely to be controlled.
Authors: Paul A Heidenreich; Justin G Trogdon; Olga A Khavjou; Javed Butler; Kathleen Dracup; Michael D Ezekowitz; Eric Andrew Finkelstein; Yuling Hong; S Claiborne Johnston; Amit Khera; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Sue A Nelson; Graham Nichol; Diane Orenstein; Peter W F Wilson; Y Joseph Woo Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-01-24 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Aram V Chobanian; George L Bakris; Henry R Black; William C Cushman; Lee A Green; Joseph L Izzo; Daniel W Jones; Barry J Materson; Suzanne Oparil; Jackson T Wright; Edward J Roccella Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-05-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: S MacMahon; R Peto; J Cutler; R Collins; P Sorlie; J Neaton; R Abbott; J Godwin; A Dyer; J Stamler Journal: Lancet Date: 1990-03-31 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Chad T Holmes; Katherine A Holmes; Andrew MacDonald; Frank R Lonergan; Joel J Hunt; Sajid Shaikh; Radhika Cheeti; James P D'Etienne; Nestor R Zenarosa; Hao Wang Journal: J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open Date: 2020-04-15
Authors: Patrick Broman; Ema Tokolahi; Oliver W A Wilson; Marrin Haggie; Patrea Andersen; Sharon Brownie Journal: J Multidiscip Healthc Date: 2022-03-30
Authors: Jenni Suen; Stacie Attrill; Jolene M Thomas; Matilda Smale; Christopher L Delaney; Michelle D Miller Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord Date: 2020-07-11 Impact factor: 2.298