Catherine G Derington1,2, Jordan B King3,4, Kelsey B Bryant5, Blake T McGee6, Andrew E Moran5, William S Weintraub7, Brandon K Bellows5, Adam P Bress8. 1. Department of Pharmacy, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA. 2. Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of Colorado Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Aurora, CO, USA. 3. Department of Population Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Utah, 295 Chipeta Way, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA. 4. Institute for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Aurora, CO, 84112, USA. 5. Division of General Medicine, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. 6. Byrdine F. Lewis College of Nursing & Health Professions, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA. 7. MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC, USA. 8. Department of Population Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Utah, 295 Chipeta Way, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA. adam.bress@hsc.utah.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Review the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and implementation challenges of intensive blood pressure (BP) control and team-based care initiatives. RECENT FINDINGS: Intensive BP control is an effective and cost-effective intervention; yet, implementation in routine clinical practice is challenging. Several models of team-based care for hypertension management have been shown to be more effective than usual care to control BP. Additional research is needed to determine the cost-effectiveness of team-based care models relative to one another and as they relate to implementing intensive BP goals. As a focus of healthcare shifts to value (i.e., cost, effectiveness, and patient preferences), formal cost-effectiveness analyses will inform which team-based initiatives hold the highest value in different healthcare settings with different populations and needs. Several challenges, including clinical inertia, financial investment, and billing restrictions for pharmacist-delivered services, will need to be addressed in order to improve public health through intensive BP control and team-based care.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Review the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and implementation challenges of intensive blood pressure (BP) control and team-based care initiatives. RECENT FINDINGS: Intensive BP control is an effective and cost-effective intervention; yet, implementation in routine clinical practice is challenging. Several models of team-based care for hypertension management have been shown to be more effective than usual care to control BP. Additional research is needed to determine the cost-effectiveness of team-based care models relative to one another and as they relate to implementing intensive BP goals. As a focus of healthcare shifts to value (i.e., cost, effectiveness, and patient preferences), formal cost-effectiveness analyses will inform which team-based initiatives hold the highest value in different healthcare settings with different populations and needs. Several challenges, including clinical inertia, financial investment, and billing restrictions for pharmacist-delivered services, will need to be addressed in order to improve public health through intensive BP control and team-based care.
Entities:
Keywords:
Blood pressure; Cost-effectiveness; Hypertension; Nurses; Patient care team; Pharmacists
Authors: L S Phillips; W T Branch; C B Cook; J P Doyle; I M El-Kebbi; D L Gallina; C D Miller; D C Ziemer; C S Barnes Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2001-11-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Scott M Grundy; Neil J Stone; Alison L Bailey; Craig Beam; Kim K Birtcher; Roger S Blumenthal; Lynne T Braun; Sarah de Ferranti; Joseph Faiella-Tommasino; Daniel E Forman; Ronald Goldberg; Paul A Heidenreich; Mark A Hlatky; Daniel W Jones; Donald Lloyd-Jones; Nuria Lopez-Pajares; Chiadi E Ndumele; Carl E Orringer; Carmen A Peralta; Joseph J Saseen; Sidney C Smith; Laurence Sperling; Salim S Virani; Joseph Yeboah Journal: Circulation Date: 2018-11-10 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Dena Ettehad; Connor A Emdin; Amit Kiran; Simon G Anderson; Thomas Callender; Jonathan Emberson; John Chalmers; Anthony Rodgers; Kazem Rahimi Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-12-24 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Linnea A Polgreen; Jayoung Han; Barry L Carter; Gail P Ardery; Christopher S Coffey; Elizabeth A Chrischilles; Paul A James Journal: Hypertension Date: 2015-11-02 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Danielle M van der Laan; Petra J M Elders; Christel C L M Boons; Giel Nijpels; Liset van Dijk; Jacqueline G Hugtenburg Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2018-09-26 Impact factor: 5.810
Authors: Alexander R Zheutlin; Favel L Mondesir; Catherine G Derington; Jordan B King; Chong Zhang; Jordana B Cohen; Dan R Berlowitz; D Edmund Anstey; William C Cushman; Tom H Greene; Olugbenga Ogedegbe; Adam P Bress Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-01-04