OBJECTIVE: Hypertension affects more than 50 million people in the United States alone. Despite clear evidence regarding the beneficial effects of quality treatment for high blood pressure, many millions of diagnosed and undiagnosed hypertensives are not receiving the optimal standard of care. The difference in patient outcomes achieved with present hypertension treatment methods and those thought to be possible using best practice treatment methods is known as a quality gap, and such gaps are at least partly responsible for the loss of thousands of lives each year. This review was organized to bring a systematic assessment of different quality improvement (QI) strategies and their effects to the process of identifying and managing hypertension. SEARCH STRATEGY AND
INCLUSION CRITERIA: Investigators searched the MEDLINE® database, the Cochrane Collaboration's Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) registry, article bibliographies, and relevant journals for experimental evaluations of QI interventions aimed at improving hypertension screening and management of non-pregnant adults with primary hypertension. The reviewers included randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series in which at least one reported outcome measure included changes in blood pressure, or provider or patient adherence to a recommended process of care.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Relevant data were abstracted independently by two reviewers. Each QI intervention was classified into one or more of the following components: provider education, provider reminders, facilitated relay of clinical information, patient education, promotion of self-management, patient reminders, audit and feedback, organizational change, or financial incentives. Certain categories were further subdivided into major subtypes (e.g., professional meetings for provider education and disease management for organizational change). The researchers also evaluated the impact of clinical information systems as a mediator for interventions of all types. They compared the different QI strategies in terms of the median effects achieved for blood pressure control and for a generalized measure of provider or patient adherence.
MAIN RESULTS: Sixty-three articles reporting a total of 82 comparisons met the inclusion criteria. Studies of hypertension identification were found to be too heterogeneous for quantitative analysis. The majority of screening studies were clinic-based (with a few offered at work sites), and the most common strategies involved patient and/or provider reminders. These generally showed positive results; several studies found that patients were more likely to know their blood pressure or attend clinic visits after receiving reminders. Across all studies with a variety of strategies, the median reductions in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were 4.5 mmHg (interquartile range: 1.5, 11.0) and 2.1 mmHg (interquartile range: -0.2, 5.0), respectively. The median increase in the proportion of patients in the target SBP range and target DBP range was 16.2 percent (interquartile range: 10.3, 32.2), and 6.0 percent (interquartile range: 1.5, 17.5), respectively. Studies that focused on improving provider adherence showed a range of median reduction of 1.3 percent to a median improvement of 3.3 percent across all QI strategies. Overall, patient adherence showed a median improvement of 2.8 percent (interquartile range: 1.9, 3.0).
CONCLUSION: The findings of this review suggest that QI strategies appear, in general, to be associated with the improved identification and control of hypertension. It is not possible to discern with complete confidence which specific QI strategies have the greatest effects, since most of the studies included more than one QI strategy. All of the assessed strategies may be beneficial under some circumstances, and in varying combinations. There may be other useful strategies that have not been studied in trials meeting the inclusion criteria for evidence-based review; it is not possible to draw conclusions about these strategies.

Recent research has identified genetic traits that can be used in a laboratory setting to distinguish among global population groups. In some genetic analyses, the population groups identified resemble groups that are historically categorized as "races." On the basis of these associations, some researchers have argued that a patient's race can be used to predict underlying genetic traits and from these traits, the expected outcomes of treatment. Others have questioned the use of race in this way, arguing that racially defined groups are so heterogeneous that predictions of individual characteristics derived from group averages are bound to be problematic. Practitioners today face the dilemma of translating this scientific debate into clinical decisions made 1 patient at a time. Is it or is it not appropriate to use a patient's self-identified "race" to help decide treatment? In contrast to the global population groups identified by genetic studies, the U.S. population has experienced substantial genetic admixture over time, weakening our ability to distinguish groups on the basis of meaningful genetic differences. Nonetheless, many researchers have suggested that these differences are still sufficient to identify racially specific uses for pharmaceutical and other treatments. A review of recent research on the treatment of hypertension and congestive heart failure finds that race-specific treatments of this type carry a substantial risk for treating patients--black or white--inappropriately, either by withholding a treatment that may be effective or by using a treatment that may be ineffective. Only by moving beyond historical concepts of "race" to examining a patient's individual socioeconomic, cultural, behavioral, and ancestral circumstances can a practitioner select the treatment that is most likely to be effective and in doing so, can best serve that patient's needs.

OBJECTIVE: Late-night salivary cortisol (LNSC) is reportedly highly accurate for the diagnosis of Cushing's syndrome (CS). However, diagnostic thresholds for abnormal results are based on healthy, young populations and limited data are available on its use in elderly populations with chronic medical conditions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate LNSC levels in elderly male veterans with and without diabetes.

DESIGN: Prospective evaluation of LNSC levels in male veterans.

PATIENTS: One hundred and fifty-four participants with type 2 diabetes and 52 participants without diabetes. MEASUREMENTS: Participants underwent outpatient LNSC (2300 h) testing. Participants with elevated LNSC (> or = 4.3 nmol/l) underwent secondary testing, including 24-h urine free cortisol (24UFC, > 60 microg/day) and dexamethasone suppression testing (DST, serum cortisol > 50 nmol/l). Participants with positive secondary testing had a morning ACTH level analysed and either pituitary or adrenal imaging performed.

RESULTS: One hundred and forty-one diabetics and 46 controls (mean age 61 years) returned samples (91% overall). Average LNSC levels (nmol/l) in diabetics were significantly higher than in nondiabetics [median (interquartile range): 2.6 (1.8-4.1) vs. 1.6 (1.0-2.0)] and in those aged > or = 60 compared to 60 [2.7 (2.0-4.3) vs. 1.9 (1.4-2.9)] (P 0.001 for both). Thirty-one participants required secondary testing. Seventy-nine per cent of participants who underwent secondary testing had normal 24UFC and DST. No cases of CS have been diagnosed to date. Increasing age [odds ratio (OR) 2.0 per decade], current diabetes mellitus (OR 4.4), and elevated blood pressure (OR 1.3 per 10 mmHg increase in systolic blood pressure) were associated with abnormal LNSC results (P 0.05 for each).

CONCLUSIONS: LNSC has been shown to be sensitive and specific in diagnosing CS in certain high-risk populations, primarily the young and middle-aged. The development of age- and comorbidity-adjusted thresholds may be warranted for LNSC testing in elderly subjects and in those with significant comorbidity.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether an intervention focusing clinician attention on drug choice for hypertension treatment improves concordance between drug regimens and guidelines.

STUDY DESIGN: Cluster-randomized controlled trial comparing an individualized intervention with a general guideline implementation in geographically diverse primary care clinics of a university-affiliated Department of Veterans Affairs healthcare system.

METHODS: Participants were 36 attending physicians and nurse practitioners (16 in the general group and 20 in the individualized group), with findings based on 4500 hypertensive patients. A general guideline implementation for all clinicians, including education about guideline-based drug recommendations and goals for adequacy of blood pressure control, was compared with addition of a printed individualized advisory sent to clinicians at each patient visit, indicating whether or not the patient's antihypertensive drug regimen was guideline concordant. We measured change from baseline to end point in the proportion of clinicians' patients whose drug therapy was guideline concordant.

RESULTS: The individualized intervention resulted in an improvement in guideline concordance more than twice that observed for the general intervention (10.9% vs 3.8%, t = 2.796, P = .008). Bootstrap analysis showed that being in the individualized group increased the odds of concordance 1.5-fold (P = .025). The proportion of patients with adequate blood pressure control increased within each study group; however, the difference between groups was not significant.

CONCLUSION: An individualized advisory regarding drug therapy for hypertension given to the clinician at each patient visit was more effective in changing clinician prescribing behavior than implementation of a general guideline.

BACKGROUND: Gender differences in health system usage can lead to differences in the incidence of morbidity and mortality. We conducted a pilot screening targeted towards men to evaluate gender differences in cardiovascular disease risk factor detection and time since last clinic visit.

METHODS: Three evening sessions in two communities screened 148 people, mean age 47.7 years. Height, weight, body mass index, blood pressure, blood glucose, and total cholesterol were measured. A questionnaire on past medical history was administered. Participants with elevated measurements were referred to appropriate care.

RESULTS: Men accounted for 60.1% of those screened; 65.5% of the group was overweight, and 22.3% was obese with 42.6% hypertension, 39.2% hypercholesterolemia, and 2.7% high blood glucose. Among men aged 35 to 65, 65.2% were overweight, 20.3% obese, 46.4% hypertensive, 42.0% hypercholesterolemic, and 1.5% with high blood glucose. Within the last 2 years, 53.3% of men and 9.1% of women aged 35 to 65 had not visited a doctor (P = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS: A significant portion of those screened had elevated cardiovascular disease risk factors. Given that men visited doctors significantly less frequently, efforts to involve men in prevention of cardiovascular disease within these communities are warranted.

Quality assurance (QA) processes for new technologies are used to ensure safety. Clinical decision support systems (DSS), identified by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) as an important tool in preventing patient errors, should undergo similar predeployment testing to prevent introduction of new errors. Post-fielding surveillance, akin to post-marketing surveillance for adverse events, may detect rarely occurring problems that appear only in widespread use. To assess the quality of a guideline-based DSS for hypertension, ATHENA DSS, researchers monitored real-time clinician feedback during point-of-care use of the system. Comments (n = 835) were submitted by 44 of the 91 (48.4 percent) study clinicians (median 8.5 comments/ clinician). Twenty-three (2.8 percent) comments identified important, rarely occurring problems. Timely analysis of such feedback revealed omissions of medications, diagnoses, and adverse drug reactions due to rare events in data extraction and conversion from the electronic health record. Analysis of clinician-user feedback facilitated rapid detection and correction of such errors. Based on this experience, new technologies for improving patient safety should include mechanisms for post-fielding quality assurance testing.

Background:

Among the 60 million Americans with hypertension, only approximately 31% have their blood pressure (BP) under control (140/90 mm Hg). Despite the damaging impact of hypertension and the availability of evidence-based target values for BP, interventions to improve BP control have had limited success.

Objectives:

A randomized controlled health services intervention trial with a split-plot design is being conducted to improve BP control. This 4-year trial evaluates both a patient and a provider intervention in a primary care setting among diagnosed hypertensive veterans.

Methods:

In a cluster-randomization, 30 primary care providers in the Durham VAMC Primary Care Clinic were randomly assigned to receive the provider intervention or control. The provider intervention is a patient-specific electronically generated hypertension decision support system (DSS) delivering guideline-based recommendations to the provider at each patient's visit, designed to improve guideline-concordant therapy. For these providers, a sample of their hypertensive patients (n=588) was randomly assigned to receive a telephone-administered patient intervention or usual care. The patient intervention incorporates patients' need assessments and involves tailored behavioral and education modules to promote medication adherence and improve specific health behaviors. All modules are delivered over the telephone bi-monthly for 24 months. In this trial, the primary outcome is the proportion of patients who achieve a BP or =140/90 mm Hg at each outpatient clinic visit over 24 months.

Conclusion:

Despite the known risk of poor BP control, a majority of adults still do not have their BP controlled. This study is an important step in testing the effectiveness of a patient and provider intervention to improve BP control among veterans in the primary care setting.

Objective:

Hypertension affects more than 50 million people in the United States alone. Despite clear evidence regarding the beneficial effects of quality treatment for high blood pressure, many millions of diagnosed and undiagnosed hypertensives are not receiving the optimal standard of care. The difference in patient outcomes achieved with present hypertension treatment methods and those thought to be possible using best practice treatment methods is known as a quality gap, and such gaps are at least partly responsible for the loss of thousands of lives each year. This review was organized to bring a systematic assessment of different quality improvement (QI) strategies and their effects to the process of identifying and managing hypertension.

Search Strategy and Inclusion Criteria:

Investigators searched the MEDLINE® database, the Cochrane Collaboration's Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) registry, article bibliographies, and relevant journals for experimental evaluations of QI interventions aimed at improving hypertension screening and management of non-pregnant adults with primary hypertension. The reviewers included randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials, controlled before/after studies, and interrupted time series in which at least one reported outcome measure included changes in blood pressure, or provider or patient adherence to a recommended process of care.

Data Collection and Analysis:

Relevant data were abstracted independently by two reviewers. Each QI intervention was classified into one or more of the following components: provider education, provider reminders, facilitated relay of clinical information, patient education, promotion of self-management, patient reminders, audit and feedback, organizational change, or financial incentives. Certain categories were further subdivided into major subtypes (e.g., professional meetings for provider education and disease management for organizational change). The researchers also evaluated the impact of clinical information systems as a mediator for interventions of all types. They compared the different QI strategies in terms of the median effects achieved for blood pressure control and for a generalized measure of provider or patient adherence.

Main Results:

Sixty-three articles reporting a total of 82 comparisons met the inclusion criteria. Studies of hypertension identification were found to be too heterogeneous for quantitative analysis. The majority of screening studies were clinic-based (with a few offered at work sites), and the most common strategies involved patient and/or provider reminders. These generally showed positive results; several studies found that patients were more likely to know their blood pressure or attend clinic visits after receiving reminders. Across all studies with a variety of strategies, the median reductions in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were 4.5 mmHg (interquartile range: 1.5, 11.0) and 2.1 mmHg (interquartile range: -0.2, 5.0), respectively. The median increase in the proportion of patients in the target SBP range and target DBP range was 16.2 percent (interquartile range: 10.3, 32.2), and 6.0 percent (interquartile range: 1.5, 17.5), respectively. Studies that focused on improving provider adherence showed a range of median reduction of 1.3 percent to a median improvement of 3.3 percent across all QI strategies. Overall, patient adherence showed a median improvement of 2.8 percent (interquartile

range: 1.9, 3.0).

Conclusion:

The findings of this review suggest that QI strategies appear, in general, to be associated with the improved identification and control of hypertension.