Search

BACKGROUND: 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. OBJECTIVE: 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. DESIGN: Cluster randomized trial with five intervention clinics (IC) and five usual care clinics (UCC). SETTING: Six public and 4 private primary care clinics. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 665 patients (63 percent African American) with uncontrolled hypertension (BP ≥140 mmHg/90 mmHg or ≥130/80 mmHg if diabetic). INTERVENTIONS: An order form for uncertainty reduction tools was placed in the IC participants' charts before each visit and results fed back to the provider. OUTCOME MEASURES: Percent with controlled BP at last visit. Secondary outcome was BP changes from baseline. RESULTS: 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 = 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. CONCLUSIONS: The uncertainty reduction intervention did not achieve the pre-specified dichotomous outcome, but led to lower measured BP in IC patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hypertension affects nearly one third of the US population overall, and the prevalence rises sharply with age. In spite of public educational campaigns and professional education programs to encourage blood pressure measurement and control of both systolic and diastolic control to <140/90 mm Hg (or 130/80 mm Hg if diabetic), 43% of treated hypertensives do not achieve the recommended Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure target. Among blacks, 48% are uncontrolled on treatment. The majority of persons classified as poorly controlled hypertensives have mild systolic blood pressure elevation (in the range of 140 to 160 mm Hg). We hypothesized that physician uncertainty regarding the patient's usual blood pressure, as well as uncertainty regarding the extent of medication nonadherence, represent an important barrier to further reductions in the proportion of uncontrolled hypertensives in the United States. Using cluster randomization, 10 primary care clinics (6 from a public health care system and 4 from a private clinic system) were randomized to either the uncertainty reduction intervention condition or to usual care. An average of 68 patients per clinic were recruited to serve as units of observation. Physicians in the 5 intervention clinics were provided with a specially designed study form that included a graph of recent blood pressure measurements in their study patients, a check box to indicate their assessment of the adequacy of the patient's blood pressure control, and a menu of services they could order to aid in patient management. These menu options included 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring; electronic bottle cap assessment of medication adherence, followed by medication adherence counseling in patients found to be nonadherent; and lifestyle assessment and counseling followed by 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Physicians in the 5 usual practice clinics did not have access to these services but were informed of which patients had been enrolled in the study. Substudies carried out to further characterize the study population and interpret intervention results included ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and electronic bottle cap monitoring in a random subsample of patients at baseline, and audio recording of patient-physician encounters after intervention implementation. The primary study end point was defined as the proportion of patients with controlled blood pressure (<140/90 mm Hg or <130/80 mm Hg if diabetic). Secondary end points include actual measured clinic systolic and diastolic blood pressure, patient physician communication patterns, physician prescribing patient self-reported lifestyle and medication adherence, physician knowledge, attitude and beliefs regarding the utility of intervention tools to achieve blood pressure control, and the cost-effectiveness of the intervention. Six-hundred eighty patients have been randomized, and 675 remain in active follow-up after 1.5 years. Patient closeout will be complete in March 2009. Analyses of the baseline data are in progress. Office-based blood pressure measurement error and bias, as well as physician and patient beliefs about the need for treatment intensification, may be important factors that limit further progress in blood pressure control. This trial will provide data on the extent to which available technologies not widely used in primary care will change physician prescribing behavior and patient adherence to prescribed treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We evaluated the effect of a disease management (DM) program on adherence with recommended laboratory tests, health outcomes, and health care expenditures for patients with type 2 diabetes. The study was a natural experiment in a primary care setting in which the intervention was available to 1 group and then compared to the experience of a matched control group. Univariate analysis and difference in differences analysis were used to test for any significant differences between the 2 groups following a 12-month intervention period. A payer perspective was used to estimate the health care cost consequences based on hospital and physician utilization weighted by Medicare prices. The results were nonsignificant at the .10 level, except for compliance with recommended tests, which showed significant results in the univariate analysis. The intervention increased compliance with testing for HbA1c, microalbuminuria, and lipids, and decreased HbA1c value and the percent of patients with HbA1c ≥9.5%. The point estimates showed small reductions in health care cost; only reductions in costs for office visits were significant at the .10 level. We concluded that while there were signs of improvement in adherence to testing, the low effectiveness may be attributed to existing diabetes management activities in this primary care setting, high compliance rates for testing at the beginning of the study, and a steep learning curve for this complex, information-technology-based DM system. The study raises questions about the incremental gains from complex systems approaches to DM and illustrates a rigorous method to assess DM programs under “real-world” conditions, with control for possible selection bias. ( Disease Management. 2008;11:79–94) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Purpose: To determine the current level of awareness and understanding about colorectal cancer (CRC) and colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) among primary care patients in order to develop interventions to educate patients about options for CRCS, help them identify CRCS preferences and make informed choices about CRCS options. Methods: During the spring of 2001 and 2003, two sets of focus groups with primary care patients were conducted at a large multi-specialty group practice in Houston, Texas. Results: Participants (n=42) in both sets of focus groups had low knowledge about CRC and expressed fear and embarrassment about CRC and CRCS. Attitudes towards the fecal occult blood test (FOBT) were mixed, with some participants considering it difficult to finish and others preferring the privacy it afforded. Some participants initially failed to recognize the difference between sigmoidoscopy (SIG) and colonoscopy (COL), and several endoscopy-specific barriers were identified such as fear of pain, embarrassment/humiliation, and dislike or fear of test preparation. Some participants felt that endoscopy was likely to be more effective than FOBT, and others clearly preferred COL to SIG. System-specific barriers to endoscopy (e.g. difficulty scheduling appointments and insurance coverage) were also identified. We found little change in the barriers reported by primary care patients, despite a two-year difference between focus groups. Participants also provided suggestions for improving CRCS including telephone, letters and/or email reminders from the clinic, videotapes and websites. Conclusions: Future interventions focused on improving informed decision-making by educating primary care patients about the risks and benefits of specific test options and about the importance of early detection of CRC could prove to be effective for increasing CRCS. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Scant evidence exists that examines the impact of participation in primary care diabetes managementprograms and their educational components on the risk of subsequent significantpatient morbidity. This study examined the association between participation in a diabetesmanagement program in a primary care setting and the risk of subsequent hospitalization.Ten thousand nine hundred eighty patients with diabetes mellitus receiving some type oftreatment in a large primary care clinic network in Houston, TX were examined for incidenceof hospitalization in the year 2002. Information from the year preceding the hospitalizationwas obtained on several demographic, clinical, and diabetes care management participationrelated variables. Multivariate logistic regressions were used to examine the relationship betweenprimary care diabetes management participation as well as individual educational componentsand the likelihood of subsequent-year hospitalization. Patients participating in sometype of primary care diabetes management were 16% less likely to have an incidence of hospitalization(= 0.05). When individual educational components of the diabetes care managementprogram were examined, diabetes education sessions were more beneficial than certifieddiabetes educator visits in reducing the incidence of hospitalization. Patients withcontrolled blood glucose levels and a diabetes education session seemed to have the most significantreduction in hospitalization risk (odds ratio [OR] = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.40, 0.95). Thereseem to be beneficial effects associated with participation in primary care diabetes managementprograms in terms of reduced hospitalization risk. Attendance at diabetes educationalsessions in primary care settings coupled with maintenance of blood glucose control seem tobe associated with greatest risk reduction. (Disease Management 2004:325–332) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]