Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Observational Study
. 2013 Nov-Dec;26(6):658-68.
doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2013.06.130017.

Risk-adjusted comparison of blood pressure and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) noncontrol in primary care offices

Affiliations
Observational Study

Risk-adjusted comparison of blood pressure and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) noncontrol in primary care offices

Karl Hammermeister et al. J Am Board Fam Med. 2013 Nov-Dec.

Abstract

Objectives: Population-level control of modifiable cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors is suboptimal. The objectives of this study were (1) to demonstrate the use of electronically downloaded electronic health record (EHR) data to assess guideline concordance in a large cohort of primary care patients, (2) to provide a contemporary assessment of blood pressure (BP) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) noncontrol in primary care, and (3) to demonstrate the effect of risk adjustment of rates of noncontrol of BP and LDL for differences in patient mix on these clinic-level performance measures.

Methods: This was an observational comparative effectiveness study that included 232,172 adult patients ≥18 years old with ≥1 visit within 2 years in 33 primary care clinics with EHRs. The main measures were rates of BP and LDL noncontrol based on current guidelines and were calculated from electronically downloaded EHR data. Rates of noncontrol were risk-adjusted using multivariable models of patient-level variables.

Results: Overall, 16.0% of the 227,122 patients with known BP and 14.9% of the 136,771 patients with known LDL were uncontrolled. Clinic-level, risk-adjusted BP noncontrol ranged from 7.7% to 26.5%, whereas that for LDL ranged from 5.8% to 23.6%. Rates of noncontrol exceeded an achievable benchmark for 85% (n = 28) and 79% (n = 26) of the 33 clinics for BP and LDL, respectively. Risk adjustment significantly influences clinic rank order for rate of noncontrol.

Conclusions: We demonstrated that the use of electronic collection of data from a large cohort of patients from fee-for-service primary care clinics is feasible for the audit of and feedback on BP and LDL noncontrol. Rates of noncontrol for most clinics are substantially higher than those achievable. Risk adjustment of noncontrol rates results in a rank-order of clinics very different from that achieved with nonadjusted data.

Keywords: Blood Pressure; Cholesterol; Clinical Practice Guideline; Electronic Health Records; Feedback; Health Information Management.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest: Dr. Pace has a COI statement on file; other authors report no COI.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow Diagram Illustrating Both JNC7 Criteria for BP Control and Number and Percent of Patients at Each Step.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Flow Diagram Illustrating NCEP Criteria for LDL Control and Number and Percent of Patients at Each Step.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Risk-Adjusted Percent of Patients with Blood Pressure Not Controlled by Clinic.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Comparison of Rank-Order of Clinics by Unadjusted and Risk-Adjusted Blood Pressure Control.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Risk-Adjusted Percent of Patients with LDL-Cholesterol Not Controlled by Clinic.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Comparison of Rank-Order of Clinics by Unadjusted and Risk-Adjusted LDL-Cholesterol Control.
Appendix Figure 1
Appendix Figure 1
Risk-Adjusted Percent of Patients with Blood Pressure Not Controlled by Clinic.
Appendix Figure 2
Appendix Figure 2
Risk-Adjusted Percent of Patients with LDL-Cholesterol Not Controlled by Clinic.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Roger VL, Go AS, Lloyd-Jones DM, et al. Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics--2012 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2012;125:e2–e220. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Heidenreich PA, Trogdon JG, Khavjou OA, et al. Forecasting the Future of Cardiovascular Disease in the United States: A Policy Statement From the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2011;123:933–944. - PubMed
    1. Hozawa A, Folsom AR, Sharrett AR, Chambless LE. Absolute and attributable risks of cardiovascular disease incidence in relation to optimal and borderline risk factors: comparison of African American with white subjects--Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:573–579. - PubMed
    1. Law MR, Morris JK, Wald NJ. Use of blood pressure lowering drugs in the prevention of cardiovascular disease: meta-analysis of 147 randomised trials in the context of expectations from prospective epidemiological studies. BMJ. 2009;338:b1665. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Baigent C, Keech A, Kearney PM, et al. Efficacy and safety of cholesterol-lowering treatment: prospective meta-analysis of data from 90,056 participants in 14 randomised trials of statins. Lancet. 2005;366:1267–1278. - PubMed

Publication types

Substances