AIM: To determine if the management of a hypothetical case of essential hypertension by general practitioners conforms with the Report to the National Advisory Committee on Core Health and Disability Services guidelines on the Management of Raised Blood Pressure in New Zealand (Core Services Report on Hypertension) sent to all general practitioners in November 1992. METHOD: A cross-sectional survey of a random sample of 100 Auckland general practitioners using a standard case of a 60 year old man with essential hypertension. Seventy interviews were conducted by a face-to-face interview and 30 by telephone interview. The main outcome measures were. Initial choice of medication and levels at which blood pressure would require treatment. RESULTS: Forty one percent of the interviewed doctors had read the Core Services report on hypertension. Fifty percent of the doctors indicated they would use the recommended first line antihypertensive medication (ie, diuretic or beta blocker). Doctors who prescribed beta blockers had been graduated a significantly longer time than those who did not. The majority of doctors indicated that they would initiate pharmacological treatment at lower blood pressures in younger patients than older patients contrary to the recommendation of the report. CONCLUSIONS: Current reported practice is only partially consistent with that suggested by the Core Services report on hypertension. Approximately half of the doctors interviewed were prescribing the recommended first line medication. Treatment was more likely to be initiated at lower levels in younger patients than in older patients in spite of the higher absolute risk and potential absolute benefit in the latter group. Adherence to the guidelines could see a shift from overtreatment of younger patients to an increase in treatment for older patients who are at higher risk of blood pressure related disease. More specific graduate educational measures will be needed if the Core Services report on hypertension are to be implemented.
AIM: To determine if the management of a hypothetical case of essential hypertension by general practitioners conforms with the Report to the National Advisory Committee on Core Health and Disability Services guidelines on the Management of Raised Blood Pressure in New Zealand (Core Services Report on Hypertension) sent to all general practitioners in November 1992. METHOD: A cross-sectional survey of a random sample of 100 Auckland general practitioners using a standard case of a 60 year old man with essential hypertension. Seventy interviews were conducted by a face-to-face interview and 30 by telephone interview. The main outcome measures were. Initial choice of medication and levels at which blood pressure would require treatment. RESULTS: Forty one percent of the interviewed doctors had read the Core Services report on hypertension. Fifty percent of the doctors indicated they would use the recommended first line antihypertensive medication (ie, diuretic or beta blocker). Doctors who prescribed beta blockers had been graduated a significantly longer time than those who did not. The majority of doctors indicated that they would initiate pharmacological treatment at lower blood pressures in younger patients than older patients contrary to the recommendation of the report. CONCLUSIONS: Current reported practice is only partially consistent with that suggested by the Core Services report on hypertension. Approximately half of the doctors interviewed were prescribing the recommended first line medication. Treatment was more likely to be initiated at lower levels in younger patients than in older patients in spite of the higher absolute risk and potential absolute benefit in the latter group. Adherence to the guidelines could see a shift from overtreatment of younger patients to an increase in treatment for older patients who are at higher risk of blood pressure related disease. More specific graduate educational measures will be needed if the Core Services report on hypertension are to be implemented.
Authors: Tom Marshall; Michael Caley; Karla Hemming; Paramjit Gill; Nicola Gale; Kate Jolly Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-10-26 Impact factor: 3.295