PURPOSE: Conventional clinic blood pressure (BP) measurements are routinely used for hypertension management and physician performance measures. We aimed to check home BP measurements after elevated conventional clinic BP measurements for which physicians did not intensify treatment, to differentiate therapeutic inertia from appropriate inaction. METHODS: We conducted a pre and post study of home BP monitoring for patients with uncontrolled hypertension as determined by conventional clinic BP measurements for which physicians did not intensify hypertension management. Physicians were notified of average home BP 2-4 weeks after the initial clinic visit. Outcome measures were the proportion of patients with controlled hypertension using average home BP measurements, changes in hypertension management by physicians, changes in physicians' hypertension metrics, and factors associated with home-clinic BP differences. RESULTS: Of 90 recruited patients who had elevated conventional clinic BP recordings, 65.6% had average home BP measurements that were <140/90 mm Hg. Physicians changed treatment plans for 61% of patients with average home BP readings of ≥140/90 mm Hg, whereas decisions to not change treatment for the remaining patients were based on contextual factors. Substituting average home BP for conventional clinic BP for 4% of patients from 2 physicians' hypertension registries improved the physicians' hypertension control rates by 3% to 5%. Greater body mass index and increased number of BP medications were associated with home BP measurement ≥140/90 mm Hg. Clinic BP levels did not estimate normal home BP levels. CONCLUSIONS: Documented home BP in cases of clinical uncertainty helped differentiate therapeutic inertia from appropriate inaction and improved physicians' hypertension metrics.
PURPOSE: Conventional clinic blood pressure (BP) measurements are routinely used for hypertension management and physician performance measures. We aimed to check home BP measurements after elevated conventional clinic BP measurements for which physicians did not intensify treatment, to differentiate therapeutic inertia from appropriate inaction. METHODS: We conducted a pre and post study of home BP monitoring for patients with uncontrolled hypertension as determined by conventional clinic BP measurements for which physicians did not intensify hypertension management. Physicians were notified of average home BP 2-4 weeks after the initial clinic visit. Outcome measures were the proportion of patients with controlled hypertension using average home BP measurements, changes in hypertension management by physicians, changes in physicians' hypertension metrics, and factors associated with home-clinic BP differences. RESULTS: Of 90 recruited patients who had elevated conventional clinic BP recordings, 65.6% had average home BP measurements that were <140/90 mm Hg. Physicians changed treatment plans for 61% of patients with average home BP readings of ≥140/90 mm Hg, whereas decisions to not change treatment for the remaining patients were based on contextual factors. Substituting average home BP for conventional clinic BP for 4% of patients from 2 physicians' hypertension registries improved the physicians' hypertension control rates by 3% to 5%. Greater body mass index and increased number of BP medications were associated with home BP measurement ≥140/90 mm Hg. Clinic BP levels did not estimate normal home BP levels. CONCLUSIONS: Documented home BP in cases of clinical uncertainty helped differentiate therapeutic inertia from appropriate inaction and improved physicians' hypertension metrics.
Authors: Stewart Babbott; Linda Baier Manwell; Roger Brown; Enid Montague; Eric Williams; Mark Schwartz; Erik Hess; Mark Linzer Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-09-04 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Martin G Myers; Marshall Godwin; Martin Dawes; Alexander Kiss; Sheldon W Tobe; Janusz Kaczorowski Journal: Hypertension Date: 2009-12-28 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Paul A James; Suzanne Oparil; Barry L Carter; William C Cushman; Cheryl Dennison-Himmelfarb; Joel Handler; Daniel T Lackland; Michael L LeFevre; Thomas D MacKenzie; Olugbenga Ogedegbe; Sidney C Smith; Laura P Svetkey; Sandra J Taler; Raymond R Townsend; Jackson T Wright; Andrew S Narva; Eduardo Ortiz Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-02-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Thomas G Pickering; Nancy Houston Miller; Gbenga Ogedegbe; Lawrence R Krakoff; Nancy T Artinian; David Goff Journal: J Cardiovasc Nurs Date: 2008 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.083
Authors: Kunal N Karmali; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Joep van der Leeuw; David C Goff; Salim Yusuf; Alberto Zanchetti; Paul Glasziou; Rodney Jackson; Mark Woodward; Anthony Rodgers; Bruce C Neal; Eivind Berge; Koon Teo; Barry R Davis; John Chalmers; Carl Pepine; Kazem Rahimi; Johan Sundström Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2018-03-20 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Deborah J Cohen; Tamar Wyte-Lake; Shannon M Canfield; Jennifer D Hall; Linsey Steege; Nuha K Wareg; Richelle J Koopman Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2022 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.707
Authors: Lorraine R Buis; Dana N Roberson; Reema Kadri; Nicole G Rockey; Melissa A Plegue; Shivang U Danak; Timothy C Guetterman; Melanie G Johnson; Hae Mi Choe; Caroline R Richardson Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-08-11 Impact factor: 5.428