Department of Family and Community Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, 3701 Kirby Drive, Houston, TX 77098, USA
J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Apr;27(4):413-9. doi: 10.1007/s11606-011-1888-1. Epub 2011 Oct 27.
Clinical inertia, provider failure to appropriately intensify treatment, is a major contributor to uncontrolled blood pressure (BP). Some clinical inertia may result from physician uncertainty over the patient's usual BP, adherence, or value of continuing efforts to control BP through lifestyle changes.
To test the hypothesis that providing physicians with uncertainty reduction tools, including 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring, electronic bottle cap monitoring, and lifestyle assessment and counseling, will lead to improved BP control.
Cluster randomized trial with five intervention clinics (IC) and five usual care clinics (UCC).
Six public and 4 private primary care clinics.
A total of 665 patients (63 percent African American) with uncontrolled hypertension (BP ≥140 mmHg/90 mmHg or ≥130/80 mmHg if diabetic).
An order form for uncertainty reduction tools was placed in the IC participants' charts before each visit and results fed back to the provider.
Percent with controlled BP at last visit. Secondary outcome was BP changes from baseline.
Median follow-up time was 24 months. IC physicians intensified treatment in 81% of IC patients compared to 67% in UCC (p < 0.001); 35.0% of IC patients and 31.9% of UCC patients achieved control at the last recorded visit (p > 0.05). Multi-level mixed effects longitudinal regression modeling of SBP and DBP indicated a significant, non-linear slope difference favoring IC (p (time × group interaction) = 0.048 for SBP and p = 0.001 for DBP). The model-predicted difference attributable to intervention was -2.8 mmHg for both SBP and DBP by month 24, and -6.5 mmHg for both SBP and DBP by month 36.
The uncertainty reduction intervention did not achieve the pre-specified dichotomous outcome, but led to lower measured BP in IC patients.
临床惯性,即医生未能适当加强治疗,是导致血压(BP)控制不佳的主要原因之一。由于医生对患者的日常血压、依从性或通过生活方式改变控制血压的持续努力的价值存在不确定性,可能会导致部分临床惯性。
检验提供医生减少不确定性工具(包括 24 小时动态血压监测、电子瓶盖监测以及生活方式评估和咨询)可改善血压控制的假设。
以五个干预诊所(IC)和五个常规护理诊所(UCC)为单位的聚类随机试验。
六个公共和四个私人初级保健诊所。
共有 665 名(63%为非裔美国人)血压控制不佳(BP≥140mmHg/90mmHg 或如果患有糖尿病则≥130/80mmHg)的高血压患者。
在每次就诊前,IC 参与者的病历中都会放置一份减少不确定性工具的订单,并将结果反馈给医生。
最后一次就诊时血压控制的百分比。次要结果是从基线开始的血压变化。
中位随访时间为 24 个月。IC 医生对 81%的 IC 患者加强了治疗,而 UCC 为 67%(p<0.001);最后一次记录就诊时,IC 患者中有 35.0%和 UCC 患者中有 31.9%的患者血压得到控制(p>0.05)。SBP 和 DBP 的多级混合效应纵向回归模型显示,IC 具有显著的、非线性的斜率差异优势(p(时间×组交互)=0.048 用于 SBP,p=0.001 用于 DBP)。通过第 24 个月,干预归因于模型预测的 SBP 和 DBP 差值分别为-2.8mmHg 和-6.5mmHg;通过第 36 个月,差值分别为-6.5mmHg 和-11.4mmHg。
减少不确定性的干预措施没有达到预先指定的二分结果,但导致 IC 患者的测量血压降低。