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

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q2 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE American Journal of Hypertension Pub Date : 2024-12-11 DOI:10.1093/ajh/hpae153
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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
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.
期刊最新文献
Systolic blood pressure modifies the effect of endovascular thrombectomy in acute ischemic stroke: a mediation analysis. Central vs. Brachial Blood Pressure and Pulse Pressure Amplification for Mortality Risk Prediction in Patients Undergoing Coronary Angiography. Current Status and Future Perspective of Onco-Hypertension. Dialysate Sodium Levels, Ambulatory Aortic Blood Pressure, and Arterial Stiffness in Hemodialysis Patients. Dialysate Sodium Levels, Ambulatory Aortic Blood Pressure, and Arterial Stiffness in Hemodialysis Patients.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1