Physician assessments of medication adherence and decisions to intensify medications for patients with uncontrolled blood pressure: still no better than a coin toss

Abstract Background Many patients have uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) because they are not taking medications as prescribed. Providers may have difficulty accurately assessing adherence. Providers need to assess medication adherence to decide whether to address uncontrolled BP by improving adherence to the current prescribed regimen or by intensifying the BP treatment regimen by increasing doses or adding more medications. Methods We examined how provider assessments of adherence with antihypertensive medications compared with refill records, and how providers’ assessments were associated with decisions to intensify medications for uncontrolled BP. We studied a cross-sectional cohort of 1169 veterans with diabetes presenting with BP ≥140/90 to 92 primary care providers at 9 Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities from February 2005 to March 2006. Using VA pharmacy records, we utilized a continuous multiple-interval measure of medication gaps (CMG) to assess the proportion of time in prior year that patient did not possess the prescribed medications; CMG ≥20% is considered clinically significant non-adherence. Providers answered post-visit Likert-scale questions regarding their assessment of patient adherence to BP medications. The BP regimen was considered intensified if medication was added or increased without stopping or decreasing another medication. Results 1064 patients were receiving antihypertensive medication regularly from the VA; the mean CMG was 11.3%. Adherence assessments by providers correlated poorly with refill history. 211 (20%) patients did not have BP medication available for ≥ 20% of days; providers characterized 79 (37%) of these 211 patients as having significant non-adherence, and intensified medications for 97 (46%). Providers intensified BP medications for 451 (42%) patients, similarly whether assessed by provider as having significant non-adherence (44%) or not (43%). Conclusions Providers recognized non-adherence for less than half of patients whose pharmacy records indicated significant refill gaps, and often intensified BP medications even when suspected serious non-adherence. Making an objective measure of adherence such as the CMG available during visits may help providers recognize non-adherence to inform prescribing decisions.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/112850/1/12913_2012_Article_2450.pd

Study protocol: The Adherence and Intensification of Medications (AIM) study - a cluster randomized controlled effectiveness study

Abstract Background Many patients with diabetes have poor blood pressure (BP) control. Pharmacological therapy is the cornerstone of effective BP treatment, yet there are high rates both of poor medication adherence and failure to intensify medications. Successful medication management requires an effective partnership between providers who initiate and increase doses of effective medications and patients who adhere to the regimen. Methods In this cluster-randomized controlled effectiveness study, primary care teams within sites were randomized to a program led by a clinical pharmacist trained in motivational interviewing-based behavioral counseling approaches and authorized to make BP medication changes or to usual care. This study involved the collection of data during a 14-month intervention period in three Department of Veterans Affairs facilities and two Kaiser Permanente Northern California facilities. The clinical pharmacist was supported by clinical information systems that enabled proactive identification of, and outreach to, eligible patients identified on the basis of poor BP control and either medication refill gaps or lack of recent medication intensification. The primary outcome is the relative change in systolic blood pressure (SBP) measurements over time. Secondary outcomes are changes in Hemoglobin A1c, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL), medication adherence determined from pharmacy refill data, and medication intensification rates. Discussion Integration of the three intervention elements - proactive identification, adherence counseling and medication intensification - is essential to achieve optimal levels of control for high-risk patients. Testing the effectiveness of this intervention at the team level allows us to study the program as it would typically be implemented within a clinic setting, including how it integrates with other elements of care. Trial Registration The ClinicalTrials.gov registration number is NCT00495794.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78258/1/1745-6215-11-95.xmlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78258/2/1745-6215-11-95.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78258/3/1745-6215-11-95-S1.DOCPeer Reviewe

Outcome Measures for Interventions to Reduce Inappropriate Chronic Drugs: A Narrative Review

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/163374/3/jgs16697-sup-0001-Supinfo.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/163374/2/jgs16697_am.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/163374/1/jgs16697.pd

Engaging family supporters of adult patients with diabetes to improve clinical and patient-centered outcomes: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Abstract Background Most adults with diabetes who are at high risk for complications have family or friends who are involved in their medical and self-care (“family supporters”). These family supporters are an important resource who could be leveraged to improve patients’ engagement in their care and patient health outcomes. However, healthcare teams lack structured and feasible approaches to effectively engage family supporters in patient self-management support. This trial tests a strategy to strengthen the capacity of family supporters to help adults with high-risk diabetes engage in healthcare, successfully enact care plans, and lower risk of diabetes complications. Methods/design We will conduct a randomized trial evaluating the CO-IMPACT (Caring Others Increasing EnageMent in Patient Aligned Care Teams) intervention. Two hunded forty adults with diabetes who are at high risk for diabetes complications due to poor glycemic control or high blood pressure will be randomized, along with a family supporter (living either with the patient or remotely), to CO-IMPACT or enhanced usual primary care for 12 months. CO-IMPACT provides patient-supporter dyads: it provides one coaching session addressing supporter techniques for helping patients with behavior change motivation, action planning, and proactive communication with healthcare providers; biweekly automated phone calls to prompt dyad action on new patient health concerns; phone calls to prompt preparation for patients’ primary care visits; and primary care visit summaries sent to both patient and supporter. Primary outcomes are changes in patient activation, as measured by the Patient Activation Measure-13, and change in 5-year cardiac event risk, as measured by the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study cardiac risk score for people with diabetes. Secondary outcomes include patients’ diabetes self-management behaviors, diabetes distress, and glycemic and blood pressure control. Measures among supporters will include use of effective support techniques, burden, and distress about patient’s diabetes care. Discussion If effective in improving patient activation and diabetes management, CO-IMPACT will provide healthcare teams with evidence-based tools and techniques to engage patients’ available family or friends in supporting patient self-management, even if they live remotely. The core skills addressed by CO-IMPACT can be used by patients and their supporters over time to respond to changing patient health needs and priorities. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02328326 . Registered on 31 December 2014.https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/145179/1/13063_2018_Article_2785.pd

Effects of Guideline and Formulary Changes on Statin Prescribing in the Veterans Affairs

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139955/1/hesr12788-sup-0001-AppendixSA1.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139955/2/hesr12788_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139955/3/hesr12788.pd

Introduction

What are the strategies, modalities and aspirations of island-based, stateless nationalist and regionalist parties in the twenty-first century? Political independence is now easier to achieve, even by the smallest of territories; yet, it is not so likely to be pursued with any vigour by the world's various persisting sub-national (and mainly island) jurisdictions. Theirs is a pursuit of different expressions of sub-national autonomy, stopping short of independence. And yet, a number of independence referenda are scheduled, including one looming in Scotland in autumn 2014

Improving Treatment Intensification to Reduce Cardiovascular Disease Risk: A Cluster Randomized Trial

Background: Blood pressure, lipid, and glycemic control are essential for reducing cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Many health care systems have successfully shifted aspects of chronic disease management, including population-based outreach programs designed to address CVD risk factor control, to non-physicians. The purpose of this study is to evaluate provision of new information to non-physician outreach teams on need for treatment intensification in patients with increased CVD risk. Methods Cluster randomized trial (July 1-December 31, 2008) in Kaiser Permanente Northern California registry of members with diabetes mellitus, prior CVD diagnoses and/or chronic kidney disease who were high-priority for treatment intensification: blood pressure ≥ 140 mmHg systolic, LDL-cholesterol ≥ 130 mg/dl, or hemoglobin A1c ≥ 9%; adherent to current medications; no recent treatment intensification). Randomization units were medical center-based outreach teams (4 intervention; 4 control). For intervention teams, priority flags for intensification were added monthly to the registry database with recommended next pharmacotherapeutic steps for each eligible patient. Control teams used the same database without this information. Outcomes included 3-month rates of treatment intensification and risk factor levels during follow-up. Results: Baseline risk factor control rates were high (82-90%). In eligible patients, the intervention was associated with significantly greater 3-month intensification rates for blood pressure (34.1 vs. 30.6%) and LDL-cholesterol (28.0 vs 22.7%), but not A1c. No effects on risk factors were observed at 3 months or 12 months follow-up. Intervention teams initiated outreach for only 45-47% of high-priority patients, but also for 27-30% of lower-priority patients. Teams reported difficulties adapting prior outreach strategies to incorporate the new information. Conclusions: Information enhancement did not improve risk factor control compared to existing outreach strategies at control centers. Familiarity with prior, relatively successful strategies likely reduced uptake of the innovation and its potential for success at intervention centers. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT0051768

The Quality of Primary Care in a Country with Universal Health Care Coverage

BACKGROUND: Standard indicators of quality of care have been developed in the United States. Limited information exists about quality of care in countries with universal health care coverage. OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of preventive care and care for cardiovascular risk factors in a country with universal health care coverage. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort of a random sample of 1,002 patients aged 50-80years followed for 2years from all Swiss university primary care settings. MAIN MEASURES: We used indicators derived from RAND's Quality Assessment Tools. Each indicator was scored by dividing the number of episodes when recommended care was delivered by the number of times patients were eligible for indicators. Aggregate scores were calculated by taking into account the number of eligible patients for each indicator. KEY RESULTS: Overall, patients (44% women) received 69% of recommended preventive care, but rates differed by indicators. Indicators assessing annual blood pressure and weight measurements (both 95%) were more likely to be met than indicators assessing smoking cessation counseling (72%), breast (40%) and colon cancer screening (35%; all p 75% for hypertension, dyslipidemia and diabetes. However, foot examination was performed only in 50% of patients with diabetes. Prevention indicators were more likely to be met in men (72.2% vs 65.3% in women, p < 0.001) and patients <65years (70.1% vs 68.0% in those ≥65years, p = 0.047). CONCLUSIONS: Using standardized tools, these adults received 69% of recommended preventive care and 83% of care for cardiovascular risk factors in Switzerland, a country with universal coverage. Prevention indicator rates were lower for women and the elderly, and for cancer screening. Our study helps pave the way for targeted quality improvement initiatives and broader assessment of health care in Continental Europ

Improving treatment intensification to reduce cardiovascular disease risk: a cluster randomized trial

Abstract Background Blood pressure, lipid, and glycemic control are essential for reducing cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Many health care systems have successfully shifted aspects of chronic disease management, including population-based outreach programs designed to address CVD risk factor control, to non-physicians. The purpose of this study is to evaluate provision of new information to non-physician outreach teams on need for treatment intensification in patients with increased CVD risk. Methods Cluster randomized trial (July 1-December 31, 2008) in Kaiser Permanente Northern California registry of members with diabetes mellitus, prior CVD diagnoses and/or chronic kidney disease who were high-priority for treatment intensification: blood pressure ≥ 140 mmHg systolic, LDL-cholesterol ≥ 130 mg/dl, or hemoglobin A1c ≥ 9%; adherent to current medications; no recent treatment intensification). Randomization units were medical center-based outreach teams (4 intervention; 4 control). For intervention teams, priority flags for intensification were added monthly to the registry database with recommended next pharmacotherapeutic steps for each eligible patient. Control teams used the same database without this information. Outcomes included 3-month rates of treatment intensification and risk factor levels during follow-up. Results Baseline risk factor control rates were high (82-90%). In eligible patients, the intervention was associated with significantly greater 3-month intensification rates for blood pressure (34.1 vs. 30.6%) and LDL-cholesterol (28.0 vs 22.7%), but not A1c. No effects on risk factors were observed at 3 months or 12 months follow-up. Intervention teams initiated outreach for only 45-47% of high-priority patients, but also for 27-30% of lower-priority patients. Teams reported difficulties adapting prior outreach strategies to incorporate the new information. Conclusions Information enhancement did not improve risk factor control compared to existing outreach strategies at control centers. Familiarity with prior, relatively successful strategies likely reduced uptake of the innovation and its potential for success at intervention centers. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00517686http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/112310/1/12913_2012_Article_2076.pd