Dataset Information

Development and implementation of blood pressure screening and referral guidelines for German community pharmacists.

ABSTRACT: Involvement of community pharmacists in the detection and control of hypertension improves patient care. However, current European or North-American guidelines do not provide specific guidance how to implement collaboration between pharmacists and physicians, especially when and how to refer patients with undetected or uncontrolled hypertension to a physician. The German Society of Cardiology and the ABDA - Federal Union of German Associations of Pharmacists developed and tested referral recommendations for community pharmacists, embedded in two guideline worksheets. The project included a guideline-directed blood pressure (BP) measurement and recommendations when patients should be referred to their physician. A "red flag" referral within 4 weeks was recommended when SBP was >140 mm Hg or DBP >90 mm Hg (for subjects <80 years), and >160 mm Hg or >90 mm Hg (≥80 years) in undetected individuals, or >130 mm Hg or >80 mm Hg (<65 years) and >140 mm Hg or >80 mm Hg (≥65 years) in treated patients. BP was measured in 187 individuals (86 with known hypertension, mean [±SD] age 62 ± 15 years, 64% female, and 101 without known hypertension, 47 ± 16 years, 75% female) from 17 community pharmacies. In patients with hypertension, poorly controlled BP was detected in 55% (n = 47) and were referred. A total of 16/101 subjects without a history of hypertension were referred to their physician because of uncontrolled BP. Structured BP testing in pharmacies identified a significant number of subjects with undetected/undiagnosed hypertension and patients with poorly controlled BP. Community pharmacists could play a significant role in collaboration with physicians to improve the management of hypertension.

SUBMITTER: Schulz M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8029717 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Evidence is needed about how to effectively support health care providers in implementing screening for social risks (adverse social determinants of health) and providing related referrals meant to address identified social risks. This need is greatest in underresourced care settings. The authors tested whether an implementation support intervention (6 months of technical assistance and coaching study clinics through a five-step implementation process) improved adoption of social risk activities in community health centers (CHCs). Thirty-one CHC clinics were block-randomized to six wedges that occurred sequentially. Over the 45-month study period from March 2018 to December 2021, data were collected for 6 or more months preintervention, the 6-month intervention period, and 6 or more months postintervention. The authors calculated clinic-level monthly rates of social risk screening results that were entered at in-person encounters and rates of social risk-related referrals. Secondary analyses measured impacts on diabetes-related outcomes. Intervention impact was assessed by comparing clinic performance based on whether they had versus had not yet received the intervention in the preintervention period compared with the intervention and postintervention periods. In assessing the results, the authors note that five clinics withdrew from the study for various bandwidth-related reasons. Of the remaining 26, a total of 19 fully or partially completed all 5 implementation steps, and 7 fully or partially completed at least the first 3 steps. Social risk screening was 2.45 times (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.32-4.39) higher during the intervention period compared with the preintervention period; this impact was not sustained postintervention (rate ratio, 2.16; 95% CI, 0.64-7.27). No significant difference was seen in social risk referral rates during the intervention or postintervention periods. The intervention was associated with greater blood pressure control among patients with diabetes and lower rates of diabetes biomarker screening postintervention. All results must be interpreted considering that the Covid-19 pandemic began midway through the trial, which affected care delivery generally and patients at CHCs particularly. Finally, the study results show that adaptive implementation support was effective at temporarily increasing social risk screening. It is possible that the intervention did not adequately address barriers to sustained implementation or that 6 months was not long enough to cement this change. Underresourced clinics may struggle to participate in support activities over longer periods without adequate resources, even if lengthier support is needed. As policies start requiring documentation of social risk activities, safety-net clinics may be unable to meet these requirements without adequate financial and coaching/technical support.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Although the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends screening for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) for all young children, disparities in ASD diagnosis and intervention in minority children persist. One potential contributor to disparities could be whether physicians take different actions after an initial positive screen based on patient demographics. This study estimated factors associated with physicians completing the follow-up interview for the Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers with Follow-up (M-CHAT-F), and referring children to diagnostic services, audiology, and Early Intervention (EI) immediately after a positive screen. METHODS:Children seen in a large primary care network that has implemented universal ASD screening were included if they screened positive on the M-CHAT parent questionnaire during a 16-30 month well child visit (N = 2882). Demographics, screening results, and referrals were extracted from the electronic health record. RESULTS:Children from lower-income families or on public insurance were more likely to have been administered the follow-up interview. Among children who screened positive, 26% were already in EI, 31% were newly referred to EI, 11% were referred each to audiology and for comprehensive ASD evaluation. 40.2% received at least one recommended referral; 3.7% received all recommended referrals. In adjusted multivariable models, male sex, white versus black race, living in an English-speaking household, and having public insurance were associated with new EI referral. Male sex, black versus white race, and lower household income were associated with referral to audiology. Being from an English-speaking family, white versus Asian race, and lower household income were associated with referral for ASD evaluation. A concurrent positive screen for general developmental concerns was associated with each referral. CONCLUSIONS:We found low rates of follow-up interview completion and referral after positive ASD screen, with variations in referral by sex, language, socio-economic status, and race. Understanding pediatrician decision-making about ASD screening is critical to improving care and reducing disparities.

Dataset Information

Development and implementation of blood pressure screening and referral guidelines for German community pharmacists.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets