Related Experiment Videos
Evaluating hypertension control in a managed care setting
M Alexander1, I Tekawa, E Hunkeler
1Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program, Northern California Region, Oakland 94611-5714, USA. mxa@dor.kaiser.org
Insights
Assessing blood pressure (BP) control in hypertension patients using the last recorded BP measurement is feasible and comparable to using the mean BP. More aggressive hypertension management is recommended, particularly for systolic BP.
Area of Science:
- Cardiovascular Medicine
- Public Health
- Health Services Research
Background:
- Retrospective cohort study of adult hypertension patients within a health maintenance organization.
- Investigated feasibility of documenting blood pressure control.
- Compared various measures for defining blood pressure control.
Purpose of the Study:
- To assess the feasibility of documenting blood pressure control in a large health maintenance organization.
- To compare different methods for defining blood pressure control among hypertensive patients.
Main Methods:
- Evaluated three blood pressure control criteria: systolic <140 mmHg, diastolic <90 mmHg, and combined.
- Examined four assessment methods: control at 75% of visits, 50% of visits, mean BP, and last recorded BP.
Main Results:
- Control rates were similar using mean BP, last recorded BP, or control at >=50% of visits.
- More stringent criteria (control at >=75% of visits) yielded substantially lower control rates.
- Combined BP control at >=75% of visits was half that of other methods.
Conclusions:
- The last BP measurement is a feasible and comparable method to mean BP for assessing hypertension control.
- Significant room for improvement in blood pressure control exists within health maintenance organizations.
- Clinicians should adopt more aggressive hypertension management, emphasizing systolic blood pressure.
Background:
We conducted a retrospective cohort study on a random sample of adult patients with hypertension in a large health maintenance organization to assess the feasibility of documenting blood pressure (BP) control and to compare different measures for defining BP control.
Methods:
Three criteria for BP control were assessed: systolic BP less than 140 mm Hg; diastolic BP less than 90 mm Hg; and combined BP control, with systolic BP less than 140 mm Hg and diastolic BP less than 90 mm Hg. Four methods of assessing hypertension control by the above criteria were examined: proportion of patients with BP under control at 75% and 50% or more of their office visits; the mean of all pressures during the study period; and the BP from the last visit during the study period.
Results:
The proportion of patients meeting each criterion for control was similar whether we used the mean BP for all visits, the last recorded BP, or control at 50% or more of visits. Control rates were substantially lower when the more stringent assessment, 75% of visits, was used. The proportion of patients with combined BP control at 75% or more of their visits was half that of the other methods.
Conclusions:
In this health maintenance organization population, results with the use of the simplest approach, the last BP measurement recorded, were similar to results with the mean BP. Our findings indicate that evaluation of BP control in a large health maintenance organization will find substantial room for improvement, and clinicians should be encouraged to be more aggressive in their management of hypertension, especially with regard to the systolic BP, which until recent years has been underemphasized.