Factors associated with discussing high blood pressure readings in clinical notes.

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q2 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
Cole G Chapman, Philip M Polgreen, Manish Suneja, Barry L Carter, Linnea A Polgreen
{"title":"Factors associated with discussing high blood pressure readings in clinical notes.","authors":"Cole G Chapman, Philip M Polgreen, Manish Suneja, Barry L Carter, Linnea A Polgreen","doi":"10.1093/ajh/hpae153","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Blood pressure (BP) is routinely measured and recorded at healthcare visits, but high BP (HBP) measurements are not always discussed in clinical notes. Our objective was to identify patient- and visit-level factors associated with discussion of HBP measurements in clinical notes, among patients without prior diagnosis of hypertension.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from 2016-2022 for all patients with any BP record of 140/90 mmHg or greater were obtained from University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics electronic medical records. Patients with any prior hypertension diagnosis were excluded. We used a multi-level regression model to evaluate differences in the rates of discussing HBP. The model included varying intercepts for visit specialty and non-varying slopes and intercepts for patient- and visit-level features.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The final sample included 278,766 outpatient visits for 27,423 patients, of which 61,739 visits had HBP. Only 31% of visits with HBP had associated clinical notes with discussion of HBP. Even in primary-care-related clinics, HBP measurements were discussed in only 70% of visits. Factors associated with decreased odds of HBP being discussed in clinical notes included fever (OR: 0.46; 95%CI: 0.24-0.86) or external injury or pain (0.84; 0.79-0.90), and larger number of comorbidities (6+: 0.27; 0.22-0.32). Discussion of HBP in clinical notes was more likely among visits of patients with prior visits where HBP was discussed in clinical notes (12.36; 11.75-13.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We found that discussion of HBP is relatively uncommon. Increasing discussion of hypertension in clinical notes could decrease hypertension-related diagnostic inertia.</p>","PeriodicalId":7578,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Hypertension","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Hypertension","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajh/hpae153","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Blood pressure (BP) is routinely measured and recorded at healthcare visits, but high BP (HBP) measurements are not always discussed in clinical notes. Our objective was to identify patient- and visit-level factors associated with discussion of HBP measurements in clinical notes, among patients without prior diagnosis of hypertension.

Methods: Data from 2016-2022 for all patients with any BP record of 140/90 mmHg or greater were obtained from University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics electronic medical records. Patients with any prior hypertension diagnosis were excluded. We used a multi-level regression model to evaluate differences in the rates of discussing HBP. The model included varying intercepts for visit specialty and non-varying slopes and intercepts for patient- and visit-level features.

Results: The final sample included 278,766 outpatient visits for 27,423 patients, of which 61,739 visits had HBP. Only 31% of visits with HBP had associated clinical notes with discussion of HBP. Even in primary-care-related clinics, HBP measurements were discussed in only 70% of visits. Factors associated with decreased odds of HBP being discussed in clinical notes included fever (OR: 0.46; 95%CI: 0.24-0.86) or external injury or pain (0.84; 0.79-0.90), and larger number of comorbidities (6+: 0.27; 0.22-0.32). Discussion of HBP in clinical notes was more likely among visits of patients with prior visits where HBP was discussed in clinical notes (12.36; 11.75-13.01).

Conclusions: We found that discussion of HBP is relatively uncommon. Increasing discussion of hypertension in clinical notes could decrease hypertension-related diagnostic inertia.

在临床记录中讨论高血压读数的相关因素。
背景:血压(BP)是常规测量和记录在医疗保健访问,但高血压(HBP)的测量并不总是在临床记录中讨论。我们的目的是在没有先前诊断为高血压的患者中,确定与临床记录中HBP测量讨论相关的患者和访视水平因素。方法:从爱荷华大学医院和诊所的电子病历中获取2016-2022年所有血压记录为140/90 mmHg或更高的患者的数据。排除既往有高血压诊断的患者。我们使用多层次回归模型来评估讨论HBP率的差异。该模型包括访问专业的不同截距和非变化的斜坡和截距,用于患者和访问级别特征。结果:最终样本包括27,423例患者的278,766次门诊就诊,其中61,739例就诊患者患有高血压。只有31%的HBP患者有与HBP相关的临床记录。即使在初级保健相关的诊所,只有70%的就诊讨论了血压测量。临床记录中讨论的与HBP发生率降低相关的因素包括发烧(OR: 0.46;95%CI: 0.24-0.86)或外伤或疼痛(0.84;0.79-0.90),以及更多的合并症(6+:0.27;0.22 - -0.32)。在临床记录中讨论过HBP的患者中,临床记录中讨论HBP的可能性更大(12.36;11.75 - -13.01)。结论:我们发现关于高血压的讨论相对少见。在临床记录中增加对高血压的讨论可以减少高血压相关的诊断惯性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
American Journal of Hypertension
American Journal of Hypertension 医学-外周血管病
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
6.20%
发文量
144
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Hypertension is a monthly, peer-reviewed journal that provides a forum for scientific inquiry of the highest standards in the field of hypertension and related cardiovascular disease. The journal publishes high-quality original research and review articles on basic sciences, molecular biology, clinical and experimental hypertension, cardiology, epidemiology, pediatric hypertension, endocrinology, neurophysiology, and nephrology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信