Quality of cardiovascular care in an internal medicine resident clinic

Compliance with the Prescription of Antihypertensive Medications and Blood Pressure Control in Primary Care

Background

Hypertension is the most prevalent risk factor for cardiovascular disease, and its proper control can prevent the high morbidity and mortality associated with this disease.

Objective

To assess the degree of compliance of antihypertensive prescriptions with the VI Brazilian Guidelines on Hypertension and the blood pressure control rate in primary care.

Methods

Cross-sectional study conducted between August 2011 and November 2012, including 332 adults ≥ 45 years registered in the Family Doctor Program in Niteroi and selected randomly. The analysis included the prescribed antihypertensive classes, doses, and frequencies, as well as the blood pressure (BP) of the individuals.

Results

The rate of prescription compliance was 80%. Diuretics were the most prescribed medications, and dual therapy was the most used treatment. The most common non-compliances were underdosing and underfrequencies. The BP goal in all cases was < 140/90 mmHg, except for diabetic patients, in whom the goal was set at < 130/80 mmHg. Control rates according to these goals were 44.9% and 38.6%, respectively. There was no correlation between prescription compliance and BP control.

Conclusions

The degree of compliance was considered satisfactory. The achievement of the targets was consistent with national and international studies, suggesting that the family health model is effective in BP management, although it still needs improvement.

Diabetes Quality of Care Before and After Implementation of a Resident Clinic Practice Partnership System

Deficiencies in resident diabetes care quality may relate to continuity clinic design. This retrospective analysis compared diabetes care processes and outcomes within a traditional resident continuity clinic structure (2005) and after the implementation of a practice partnership system (PPS; 2009). Under PPS, patients were more likely to receive annual foot examinations (odds ratio [OR] = 11.6; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 7.2, 18.5), microalbumin screening (OR = 2.4; 95% CI = 1.6, 3.4), and aspirin use counseling (OR = 3.8; 95% CI = 2.5, 6.0) and were less likely to receive eye examinations (OR = 0.54; 95% CI = 0.36, 0.82). Hemoglobin A1c and lipid testing were similar between periods, and there was no difference in achievement of diabetes and blood pressure goals. Patients were less likely to achieve cholesterol goals under PPS (OR = 0.62; 95% CI = 0.39, 0.98). Resident practice partnerships may improve processes of diabetes care but may not affect intermediate outcomes.

Documentation and treatment of hypertension: quality of care and missed opportunities in a family medicine resident clinic

BACKGROUND

In the USA, uncontrolled hypertension contributes to 1000 deaths a day. However, little is known about the quality of hypertension management in family medicine resident clinics.

OBJECTIVES

To examine rates of documentation and treatment of elevated blood pressure, and to identify missed opportunities to address hypertension. Study design A cross-sectional chart review of 1011 adult patient visits between 2 January and 4 February 2013 was performed in a resident-run federally qualified health centre. For patients with elevated blood pressure at time of visit, we noted whether or not the residents had documented a diagnosis or discussion of hypertension and the presence or absence of a treatment plan. We compared these rates with those from a national sample of primary care physicians.

RESULTS

262/1011 (26%) of adult patients had elevated blood pressure at time of visit. Of those, 115/262 (44%) had documentation and a plan for treatment, 79/262 (30%) had documentation but no plan, and 68/262 (26%) had neither documentation nor plan. Nationally, 45% of patients are diagnosed and treated compared with 44% of study visits with documentation and treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Fewer than half of visits of patients with elevated blood pressure resulted in both documentation and a treatment plan. Nevertheless, these rates are comparable to national providers. Elevated blood pressure was more likely to be missed during acute visits and in patients with less elevated blood pressure.

Improving care in a resident practice for patients with diabetes

BACKGROUND

Curricular redesign and introduction of the Chronic Care Model in our residency clinic during 2005-2007 achieved limited success in glycemic (glycated hemoglobin level [A(1c)]), lipid (low-density lipoprotein fraction [LDL]), and blood pressure (BP) control for patients with diabetes.

INTERVENTION

Beginning in January 2008, ancillary staff performed previsit, protocol-driven reviews of medical records of patients with diabetes to identify those not at A(1c), LDL, and BP goals; inserted electronic prompts into the records regarding deficiencies; and obtained samples for A(1c) or lipid panel when needed. Faculty feedback regarding resident-specific panel reviews was added in May 2008, and point-of-care A(1c) testing was implemented in February 2009.

METHODS

We conducted a 2-year retrospective study of all patients at our facility with diabetes mellitus, who had at least 1 visit during January to June 2008 (baseline) and 1 visit during July to December 2009 (follow-up). Measures included the most current A(1c), LDL, and BP results. Paired outcome results were compared using the McNemar χ(2) test.

RESULTS

A total of 522 patients with diabetes mellitus were seen during the baseline and follow-up periods, and 456 patients (87.4%) had paired A(1c) results, with A(1c) < 7.0% for 138 of 456 patients (30.3%) at baseline and 166 of 456 patients (36.4%) at follow-up (P  =  .011). For LDL, 460 patients (88.1%) had paired results, with LDL < 100 mg/dL for 225 of 460 patients (48.9%) at baseline and 262 of 460 patients (57.0%) at follow-up (P  =  .004). A total of 513 patients (98.3%) had paired BP results in which the BP < 130/80 mm Hg for 124 of 513 patients (24.2%) at baseline and for 188 of 513 patients (36.6%) at follow-up (P < .001). There were 421 patients (80.7%) with paired results for all 3 measures, with 17 of 421 patients (4.0%) at goal at baseline and 41 of 421 patients (9.7%) at goal at follow-up (P  =  .001).

CONCLUSION

The interventions resulted in statistically significant improvements in the proportion of patients with diabetes who attained goal for A(1c), LDL, and BP levels. Our redesign elements may be useful in enhancing resident education and in improving patient care.