Kerr Eve A, Zikmund-Fisher Brian J, Klamerus Mandi L, Subramanian Usha, Hogan Mary M, Hofer Timothy P
Center for Clinical Management Research, Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System and the University of Michigan Department of Internal Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48113-0170, USA.
Ann Intern Med. 2008 May 20;148(10):717-27. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-148-10-200805200-00004.
Factors underlying failure to intensify therapy in response to elevated blood pressure have not been systematically studied.
To examine the process of care for diabetic patients with elevated triage blood pressure (> or =140/90 mm Hg) during routine primary care visits to assess whether a treatment change occurred and to what degree specific patient and provider factors correlated with the likelihood of treatment change.
Prospective cohort study.
9 Veterans Affairs facilities in 3 midwestern states.
1169 diabetic patients with scheduled visits to 92 primary care providers from February 2005 to March 2006.
Proportion of patients who had a change in a blood pressure treatment (medication intensification or planned follow-up within 4 weeks). Predicted probability of treatment change was calculated from a multilevel logistic model that included variables assessing clinical uncertainty, competing demands and prioritization, and medication-related factors (controlling for blood pressure).
Overall, 573 (49%) patients had a blood pressure treatment change at the visit. The following factors made treatment change less likely: repeated blood pressure by provider recorded as less than 140/90 mm Hg versus 140/90 mm Hg or greater or no recorded repeated blood pressure (13% vs. 61%; P < 0.001); home blood pressure reported by patients as less than 140/90 mm Hg versus 140/90 mm Hg or greater or no recorded home blood pressure (18% vs. 52%; P < 0.001); provider systolic blood pressure goal greater than 130 mm Hg versus 130 mm Hg or less (33% vs. 52%; P = 0.002); discussion of conditions unrelated to hypertension and diabetes versus no discussion (44% vs. 55%; P = 0.008); and discussion of medication issues versus no discussion (23% vs. 52%; P < 0.001).
Providers knew that the study pertained to diabetes and hypertension, and treatment change was assessed for 1 visit per patient.
Approximately 50% of diabetic patients presenting with a substantially elevated triage blood pressure received treatment change at the visit. Clinical uncertainty about the true blood pressure value was a prominent reason that providers did not intensify therapy.
针对血压升高却未能加强治疗的潜在因素尚未进行系统研究。
在常规初级保健就诊期间,检查分诊血压升高(≥140/90 mmHg)的糖尿病患者的护理过程,以评估是否发生了治疗变化,以及特定患者和提供者因素与治疗变化可能性的相关程度。
前瞻性队列研究。
中西部三个州的9家退伍军人事务机构。
2005年2月至2006年3月期间计划就诊于92名初级保健提供者的1169名糖尿病患者。
血压治疗发生变化(药物强化或4周内计划随访)的患者比例。治疗变化的预测概率通过多水平逻辑模型计算得出,该模型纳入了评估临床不确定性、相互竞争的需求和优先级以及药物相关因素(控制血压)的变量。
总体而言,573名(49%)患者在就诊时血压治疗发生了变化。以下因素使治疗变化的可能性降低:提供者记录的重复血压低于140/90 mmHg与140/90 mmHg或更高或未记录重复血压相比(13%对61%;P<0.001);患者报告的家庭血压低于140/90 mmHg与140/90 mmHg或更高或未记录家庭血压相比(18%对52%;P<0.001);提供者的收缩压目标大于130 mmHg与130 mmHg或更低相比(33%对52%;P = 0.002);讨论与高血压和糖尿病无关的病情与未讨论相比(44%对55%;P = 0.008);讨论药物问题与未讨论相比(23%对52%;P<0.001)。
提供者知道该研究与糖尿病和高血压有关,且每位患者仅评估一次就诊时的治疗变化。
约50%分诊血压大幅升高的糖尿病患者在就诊时接受了治疗变化。提供者未加强治疗的一个突出原因是对真实血压值存在临床不确定性。