OBJECTIVE: This study examines guideline-based high blood pressure (HBP) and hypertension recommendations and evaluates the suitability and adequacy of the data and logic required for a Fast Healthcare Interoperable Resources (FHIR)-based, patient-facing clinical decision support (CDS) HBP application. HBP is a major predictor of adverse health events, including stroke, myocardial infarction, and kidney disease. Multiple guidelines recommend interventions to lower blood pressure, but implementation requires patient-centered approaches, including patient-facing CDS tools. METHODS: We defined concept sets needed to measure adherence to 71 recommendations drawn from eight HBP guidelines. We measured data quality for these concepts for two cohorts (HBP screening and HBP diagnosed) from electronic health record (EHR) data, including four use cases (screening, nonpharmacologic interventions, pharmacologic interventions, and adverse events) for CDS. RESULTS: We identified 102,443 people with diagnosed and 58,990 with undiagnosed HBP. We found that 21/35 (60%) of required concept sets were unused or inaccurate, with only 259 (25.3%) of 1,101 codes used. Use cases showed high inclusion (0.9-11.2%), low exclusion (0-0.1%), and missing patient-specific context (up to 65.6%), leading to data in 2/4 use cases being insufficient for accurate alerting. DISCUSSION: Data quality from the EHR required to implement recommendations for HBP is highly inconsistent, reflecting a fragmented health care system and incomplete implementation of standard terminologies and workflows. Although imperfect, data were deemed adequate for two test use cases. CONCLUSION: Current data quality allows for further development of patient-facing FHIR HBP tools, but extensive validation and testing is required to assure precision and avoid unintended consequences. Thieme. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVE: This study examines guideline-based high blood pressure (HBP) and hypertension recommendations and evaluates the suitability and adequacy of the data and logic required for a Fast Healthcare Interoperable Resources (FHIR)-based, patient-facing clinical decision support (CDS) HBP application. HBP is a major predictor of adverse health events, including stroke, myocardial infarction, and kidney disease. Multiple guidelines recommend interventions to lower blood pressure, but implementation requires patient-centered approaches, including patient-facing CDS tools. METHODS: We defined concept sets needed to measure adherence to 71 recommendations drawn from eight HBP guidelines. We measured data quality for these concepts for two cohorts (HBP screening and HBP diagnosed) from electronic health record (EHR) data, including four use cases (screening, nonpharmacologic interventions, pharmacologic interventions, and adverse events) for CDS. RESULTS: We identified 102,443 people with diagnosed and 58,990 with undiagnosed HBP. We found that 21/35 (60%) of required concept sets were unused or inaccurate, with only 259 (25.3%) of 1,101 codes used. Use cases showed high inclusion (0.9-11.2%), low exclusion (0-0.1%), and missing patient-specific context (up to 65.6%), leading to data in 2/4 use cases being insufficient for accurate alerting. DISCUSSION: Data quality from the EHR required to implement recommendations for HBP is highly inconsistent, reflecting a fragmented health care system and incomplete implementation of standard terminologies and workflows. Although imperfect, data were deemed adequate for two test use cases. CONCLUSION: Current data quality allows for further development of patient-facing FHIR HBP tools, but extensive validation and testing is required to assure precision and avoid unintended consequences. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Authors: Gary E Weissman; Kuldeep N Yadav; Vanessa Madden; Katherine R Courtright; Joanna L Hart; David A Asch; Marilyn M Schapira; Scott D Halpern Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2018-08-29 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Robert M Carey; David A Calhoun; George L Bakris; Robert D Brook; Stacie L Daugherty; Cheryl R Dennison-Himmelfarb; Brent M Egan; John M Flack; Samuel S Gidding; Eric Judd; Daniel T Lackland; Cheryl L Laffer; Christopher Newton-Cheh; Steven M Smith; Sandra J Taler; Stephen C Textor; Tanya N Turan; William B White Journal: Hypertension Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Hayden B Bosworth; Maren K Olsen; Felicia McCant; Mikeal Harrelson; Pamela Gentry; Cynthia Rose; Mary K Goldstein; Brian B Hoffman; Benjamin Powers; Eugene Z Oddone Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Liam Glynn; Monica Casey; Jane Walsh; Patrick S Hayes; Richard P Harte; David Heaney Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2015-09-09 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Raghupathy Anchala; Stephen Kaptoge; Hira Pant; Emanuele Di Angelantonio; Oscar H Franco; D Prabhakaran Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2015-01-05 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Benjamin R Fletcher; Lisa Hinton; Jamie Hartmann-Boyce; Nia W Roberts; Niklas Bobrovitz; Richard J McManus Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2015-08-28
Authors: Manisha Nair; Mohammed K Ali; Vamadevan S Ajay; Roopa Shivashankar; Viswanathan Mohan; Rajendra Pradeepa; Mohan Deepa; Hassan M Khan; Muhammad M Kadir; Zafar A Fatmi; K Srinath Reddy; Nikhil Tandon; K M Venkat Narayan; Dorairaj Prabhakaran Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-08-28 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Michael G Kahn; Tiffany J Callahan; Juliana Barnard; Alan E Bauck; Jeff Brown; Bruce N Davidson; Hossein Estiri; Carsten Goerg; Erin Holve; Steven G Johnson; Siaw-Teng Liaw; Marianne Hamilton-Lopez; Daniella Meeker; Toan C Ong; Patrick Ryan; Ning Shang; Nicole G Weiskopf; Chunhua Weng; Meredith N Zozus; Lisa Schilling Journal: EGEMS (Wash DC) Date: 2016-09-11
Authors: Katie S Allen; Elizabeth C Danielson; Sarah M Downs; Olena Mazurenko; Julie Diiulio; Ramzi G Salloum; Burke W Mamlin; Christopher A Harle Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2022-06-01 Impact factor: 2.762