Dataset Information

Consensus study to define appropriate inaction and inappropriate inertia in the management of patients with hypertension in primary care.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To elaborate and validate operational definitions for appropriate inaction and for inappropriate inertia in the management of patients with hypertension in primary care.

Design

A two-step approach was used to reach a definition consensus. First, nominal groups provided practice-based information on the two concepts. Second, a Delphi procedure was used to modify and validate the two definitions created from the nominal groups results.

Participants

14 French practicing general practitioners participated in each of the two nominal groups, held in two different areas in France. For the Delphi procedure, 30 academics, international experts in the field, were contacted; 20 agreed to participate and 19 completed the procedure.

Results

Inappropriate inertia was defined as: to not initiate or intensify an antihypertensive treatment for a patient who is not at the blood pressure goals defined for this patient in the guidelines when all following conditions are fulfilled: (1) elevated blood pressure has been confirmed by self-measurement or ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, (2) there is no legitimate doubt on the reliability of the measurements, (3) there is no observance issue regarding pharmacological treatment, (4) there is no specific iatrogenic risk (which alters the risk-benefit balance of treatment for this patient), in particular orthostatic hypotension in the elderly, (5) there is no other medical priority more important and more urgent, and (6) access to treatment is not difficult. Appropriate inaction was defined as the exact mirror, that is, when at least one of the above conditions is not met.

Conclusion

Definitions of appropriate inaction and inappropriate inertia in the management of patients with hypertension have been established from empirical practice-based data and validated by an international panel of academics as useful for practice and research.

SUBMITTER: Lebeau JP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6067345 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Consensus study to define appropriate inaction and inappropriate inertia in the management of patients with hypertension in primary care.

Lebeau Jean-Pierre JP Biogeau Julie J Carré Maxime M Mercier Alain A Aubin-Auger Isabelle I Rusch Emmanuel E Remmen Roy R Vermeire Etienne E Hendrickx Kristin K

BMJ open 20180730 7

<h4>Objectives</h4>To elaborate and validate operational definitions for appropriate inaction and for inappropriate inertia in the management of patients with hypertension in primary care.<h4>Design</h4>A two-step approach was used to reach a definition consensus. First, nominal groups provided practice-based information on the two concepts. Second, a Delphi procedure was used to modify and validate the two definitions created from the nominal groups results.<h4>Participants</h4>14 French practi ...[more]

PMID: 30061435

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: Therapeutic inertia has been defined as the failure of health-care provider to initiate or intensify therapy when therapeutic goals are not reached. It is regarded as a major cause of uncontrolled hypertension. The exploration of its causes and the interventions to reduce it are plagued by unclear conceptualizations and hypothesized mechanisms. We therefore systematically searched the literature for definitions and discussions on the concept of therapeutic inertia in hypertension in primary care, to try and form an operational definition. METHODS: A systematic review of all types of publications related to clinical inertia in hypertension was performed. Medline, EMbase, PsycInfo, the Cochrane library and databases, BDSP, CRD and NGC were searched from the start of their databases to June 2013. Articles were selected independently by two authors on the basis of their conceptual content, without other eligibility criteria or formal quality appraisal. Qualitative data were extracted independently by two teams of authors. Data were analyzed using a constant comparative qualitative method. RESULTS: The final selection included 89 articles. 112 codes were grouped in 4 categories: terms and definitions (semantics), "who" (physician, patient or system), "how and why" (mechanisms and reasons), and "appropriateness". Regarding each of these categories, a number of contradictory assertions were found, most of them relying on little or no empirical data. Overall, the limits of what should be considered as inertia were not clear. A number of authors insisted that what was considered deleterious inertia might in fact be appropriate care, depending on the situation. CONCLUSIONS: Our data analysis revealed a major lack of conceptualization of therapeutic inertia in hypertension and important discrepancies regarding its possible causes, mechanisms and outcomes. The concept should be split in two parts: appropriate inaction and inappropriate inertia. The development of consensual and operational definitions relying on empirical data and the exploration of the intimate mechanisms that underlie these behaviors are now needed.

Project description:BackgroundDespite its high prevalence and impact on health, metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) is inadequately addressed in European primary care (PC), with a large proportion of cases going undiagnosed or diagnosed too late. A multi-country European research consortium led a project to design and evaluate a patient-centered, integrated model for MASLD screening, diagnosis, and linkage to specialty care for European PC settings. Based on the lessons from this project, the latest research evidence, and existing guidelines for the management of MASLD, we sought to develop a set of practice recommendations for screening, referral, and management of MASLD in PC.MethodsThe Rand/UCLA modified Delphi panel method, with two rounds, was used to reach consensus on practice recommendations. The international panel consisted of experts from six countries, representing family medicine, gastroenterology, hepatology, cardiology, and public health. Initially, fifteen statements were drafted based on a synthesis of evidence from the literature and earlier findings from our consortium. Prior to the consensus meeting, the statements were rated by the experts in the first round. Then, in a hybrid meeting, the experts discussed findings from round one, adjusted the statements, and reassessed the updated recommendations in a second round.ResultsIn round one, there was already a high level of consensus on 10 out of 15 statements. After round 2, there were fourteen statements with a high degree of agreement (>90%). One statement was not endorsed. The approved recommendations addressed the following practice areas: risk screening and diagnosis, management of MASLD-lifestyle interventions, pharmacological treatment of MASLD/MASH, pharmacological treatment for co-morbidity, integrated care, surgical management, and other referrals to specialists.ConclusionsThe final set of 14 recommendations focuses on increasing comprehensive care for MASLD in PC. The recommendations provide practical evidence-based guidance tailored to PC practitioners. We expect that these recommendations will contribute to the ongoing discussion on systematic approaches to tackling MASLD and supporting European PC providers by integrating the latest evidence into practice.

Project description:BackgroundOutreach facilitation has been proven successful in improving the adoption of clinical preventive care guidelines in primary care practice. The net costs and savings of delivering such an intensive intervention need to be understood. We wanted to estimate the proportion of a facilitation intervention cost that is offset and the potential for savings by reducing inappropriate screening tests and increasing appropriate screening tests in 22 intervention primary care practices affecting a population of 90,283 patients.MethodsA cost-consequences analysis of one successful outreach facilitation intervention was done, taking into account the estimated cost savings to the health system of reducing five inappropriate tests and increasing seven appropriate tests. Multiple data sources were used to calculate costs and cost savings to the government. The cost of the intervention and costs of performing appropriate testing were calculated. Costs averted were calculated by multiplying the number of tests not performed as a result of the intervention. Further downstream cost savings were determined by calculating the direct costs associated with the number of false positive test follow-ups avoided. Treatment costs averted as a result of increasing appropriate testing were similarly calculated.ResultsThe total cost of the intervention over 12 months was $238,388 and the cost of increasing the delivery of appropriate care was $192,912 for a total cost of $431,300. The savings from reduction in inappropriate testing were $148,568 and from avoiding treatment costs as a result of appropriate testing were $455,464 for a total savings of $604,032. On a yearly basis the net cost saving to the government is $191,733 per year (2003 Can dollars) equating to $3,687 per physician or $63,911 per facilitator, an estimated return on intervention investment and delivery of appropriate preventive care of 40%.ConclusionOutreach facilitation is more expensive but more effective than other attempts to modify primary care practice and all of its costs can be offset through the reduction of inappropriate testing and increasing appropriate testing. Our calculations are based on conservative assumptions. The potential for savings is likely considerably higher.

Project description:BackgroundClinical Inertia is defined as "failure of health care providers to initiate or intensify therapy according to current guidelines". This phenomenon is gaining increasing attention as a major cause of clinicians' failure to adequately manage hypertension, thus leading to an increased incidence of cardiovascular events. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to determine whether interventions aimed at reducing clinical inertia in the pharmacological treatment of hypertension improve blood pressure (BP) control.MethodsMEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from the start of their database until October 3, 2017 for the MESH terms "Hypertension" or "Blood Pressure", their subheadings, and the keywords "Therapeutic Inertia" or "Clinical Inertia". Studies were included if they addressed pharmacologic hypertension management, clinical inertia, were randomized controlled trials, reported an outcome describing prescriber behavior, and were available in English. Data for the included studies was extracted by two independent observers. Quality of studies was analyzed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment. Data was pooled for statistical analysis using both fixed- and random-effects models. The primary study outcome was the percentage of patients achieving blood pressure control as defined by the Joint National Committee guidelines or study authors.ResultsOf 474 citations identified, ten met inclusion criteria comprising a total of 26,871 patients, and eight were selected for meta-analysis. Interventions included Physician Education, Physician Reminders, Patient Education, Patient Reminders, Ambulatory BP Monitoring, Digital Medication Offerings, Physician Peer Visits, and Pharmacist-led Counselling. Pooled event rates revealed more patients with controlled BP in the intervention group versus control (55%, 95% CI 46-63% versus 45%, 95% CI 37-53%) and interventions significantly improved the odds of BP control (OR?=?1.19, 95% CI?=?1.12-1.27, P?<?.001). Heterogeneity in the quantitative analysis was moderate.Conclusions & relevanceAddressing clinical inertia through physician reminders, ambulatory BP monitoring, and educational interventions for primary care providers was associated with an improvement in blood pressure control. Our findings encourage further research to investigate strategies at reducing clinical inertia in the management of hypertension.

Project description:PurposePersonal continuity between patient and physician is a core value of primary care. Although previous studies suggest that personal continuity is associated with fewer potentially inappropriate prescriptions, evidence on continuity and prescribing in primary care is scarce. We aimed to determine the association between personal continuity and potentially inappropriate prescriptions, which encompasses potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs), by family physicians among older patients.MethodsWe conducted an observational cohort study using routine care data from patients enlisted in 48 Dutch family practices from 2013 to 2018. All 25,854 patients aged 65 years and older having at least 5 contacts with their practice in 6 years were included. We calculated personal continuity using 3 established measures: the usual provider of care measure, the Bice-Boxerman Index, and the Herfindahl Index. We used the Screening Tool of Older Person's Prescriptions (STOPP) and the Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment (START) specific to the Netherlands version 2 criteria to calculate the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescriptions. To assess associations, we conducted multilevel negative binomial regression analyses, with and without adjustment for number of chronic conditions, age, and sex.ResultsThe patients' mean (SD) values for the usual provider of care measure, the Bice-Boxerman Continuity of Care Index, and the Herfindahl Index were 0.70 (0.19), 0.55 (0.24), and 0.59 (0.22), respectively. In our population, 72.2% and 74.3% of patients had at least 1 PIM and PPO, respectively; 30.9% and 34.2% had at least 3 PIMs and PPOs, respectively. All 3 measures of personal continuity were positively and significantly associated with fewer potentially inappropriate prescriptions.ConclusionsA higher level of personal continuity is associated with more appropriate prescribing. Increasing personal continuity may improve the quality of prescriptions and reduce harmful consequences.

Project description:BackgroundInappropriate use of antibiotics promotes antibiotic resistance. Little is known about physician characteristics that may be associated with inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. Our objective was to assess whether physician knowledge, time in practice, place of training and practice volume explain the differences in antibiotic prescribing among physicians.MethodsA historical cohort of 852 primary care physicians in Quebec who became certified between 1990 and 1993 was followed for their first 6-9 years of practice (1990-1998). We evaluated whether inappropriate antibiotic prescribing had occurred during the study period (1990-1998) for viral (prescription of antibiotics) and bacterial (prescription of second-or third-line antibiotics given orally) infections. We used logistic regression to estimate the independent contributions of time in practice, practice volume, place of medical training and scores on licensure examinations. Physician sex and visit setting were controlled for, as were patient age, sex, education, income and geographic area of residence.ResultsA total of 104 230 patients who received a diagnosis of a viral infection and 65 304 who received a diagnosis of a bacterial infection were included in our study. International medical graduates were more likely than University of Montréal graduates to prescribe antibiotics for viral respiratory infections (risk ratio [RR] 1.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.30-2.44). Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing increased with time in practice. Physicians with a high practice volume were more likely than those with low practice volume to prescribe antibiotics for viral respiratory infections (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.09-1.48) and to prescribe second-and third-line antibiotics as first-line treatment (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.06-1.37). Physician scores on licensure examinations were not predictive of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing.InterpretationInternational medical graduates, physicians with high-volume practices and those who were in practice longer were more likely to prescribe antibiotics inappropriately. Developing effective interventions will require increased knowledge of the mechanisms that underlie these predictors of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing.

Project description:Improved primary health care is needed in developing countries to effectively manage the growing burden of hypertension. Our objective was to evaluate hypertension management in Zambian rural primary care clinics using process and outcome indicators to assess the screening, monitoring, treatment and control of high blood pressure.Better Health Outcomes through Mentoring and Assessment (BHOMA) is a 5-year, randomized stepped-wedge trial of improved clinical service delivery underway in 46 rural Zambian clinics. Clinical data were collected as part of routine patient care from an electronic medical record system, and reviewed for site performance over time according to hypertension related indicators: screening (blood pressure measurement), management (recorded diagnosis, physical exam or urinalysis), treatment (on medication), and control. Quantitative data was used to develop guides for qualitative in-depth interviews, conducted with health care providers at a proportional sample of half (20) of clinics. Qualitative data was iteratively analyzed for thematic content.From January 2011 to December 2014, 318,380 visits to 46 primary care clinics by adults aged???25 years with blood pressure measurements were included. Blood pressure measurement at vital sign screening was initially high at 89.1% overall (range: 70.1-100%), but decreased to 62.1% (range: 0-100%) by 48 months after intervention start. The majority of hypertensive patients made only one visit to the clinics (57.8%). Out of 9022 patients with at least two visits with an elevated blood pressure, only 49.3% had a chart recorded hypertension diagnosis. Process indicators for monitoring hypertension were <10% and did not improve with time. In in-depth interviews, antihypertensive medication shortages were common, with 15/20 clinics reporting hydrochlorothiazide-amiloride stockouts. Principal challenges in hypertension management included 1) equipment and personnel shortages, 2) provider belief that multiple visits were needed before official management, 3) medication stock-outs, leading to improper prescriptions and 4) poor patient visit attendance.Our findings suggest that numerous barriers stand in the way of hypertension diagnosis and management in Zambian primary health facilities. Future work should focus on performance indicator development and validation in low resource contexts, to facilitate regular and systematic data review to improve patient outcomes.ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier NCT01942278 . Date of Registration: September 2013.

Dataset Information

Consensus study to define appropriate inaction and inappropriate inertia in the management of patients with hypertension in primary care.

Objectives

Design

Participants

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Consensus study to define appropriate inaction and inappropriate inertia in the management of patients with hypertension in primary care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets