Download PDF
Appl Clin Inform 2022; 13(05): 1131-1140
DOI: 10.1055/a-1926-0199
Research Article

Provider Perspectives on Patient- and Provider-Facing High Blood Pressure Clinical Decision Support

David A. Dorr
1   Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States
,
Joshua E. Richardson
2   Center for Health Informatics and Evidence Synthesis, RTI International, Chicago, Illinois, United States
,
Michelle Bobo
1   Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States
,
Christopher D'Autremont
1   Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States
,
Robert Rope
3   Department of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States
,
MJ Dunne
1   Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States
,
Steven Z. Kassakian
1   Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States
3   Department of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States
,
Lipika Samal
4   Division of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
5   Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
› Author Affiliations Funding This work was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (grant no.: U18 HS26849-01). The project was also supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), National Institutes of Health, through grant award number of UL1TR002369.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Hypertension, persistent high blood pressures (HBP) leading to chronic physiologic changes, is a common condition that is a major predictor of heart attacks, strokes, and other conditions. Despite strong evidence, care teams and patients are inconsistently adherent to HBP guideline recommendations. Patient-facing clinical decision support (CDS) could help improve recommendation adherence but must also be acceptable to clinicians and patients.

Objective This study aimed to partly address the challenge of developing a patient-facing CDS application, we sought to understand provider variations and rationales related to HBP guideline recommendations and perceptions regarding patient role and use of digital tools.

Methods We engaged hypertension experts and primary care respondents to iteratively develop and implement a pilot survey and a final survey which presented five clinical cases that queried clinicians' attitudes related to actions; variations; prioritization; patient input; importance; and barriers for HBP diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment. Analysis of Likert's scale scores was descriptive with content analysis for free-text answers.

Results Fifteen hypertension experts and 14 providers took the pilot and final version of the surveys, respectively. The majority (>80%) of providers felt the recommendations were important, yet found them difficult to follow-up to 90% of the time. Perceptions of relative amounts of patient input and patient work for effective HBP management ranged from 22 to 100%. Stated reasons for variation included adverse effects of treatment, patient comorbidities, shared decision-making, and health care cost and access issues. Providers were generally positive toward patient use of electronic CDS applications but worried about access to health care, nuance of recommendations, and patient understanding of the tools.

Conclusion At baseline, provider management of HBP is heterogeneous. Providers were accepting of patient-facing CDS but reported preferences for that CDS to capture the complexity and nuance of guideline recommendations.

Keywords

hypertension - decision support systems - clinical - surveys and questionnaires - practice guideline - fast healthcare interoperable resources

Protection of Human and Animal Subjects

This research was performed in compliance with current standards for human subjects research and was reviewed by the Oregon Health & Science University Institutional Review Board.

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health or Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 27 December 2021

Accepted: 11 August 2022

Accepted Manuscript online:
17 August 2022

Article published online:
30 November 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Fryar CD, Ostchega Y, Hales CM, Zhang G, Kruszon-Moran D. Hypertension prevalence and control among adults: United States, 2015-2016. NCHS Data Brief 2017; (289) 1-8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Qaseem A, Wilt TJ, Rich R. et al; Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians and the Commission on Health of the Public and Science of the American Academy of Family Physicians. Pharmacologic treatment of hypertension in adults aged 60 years or older to higher versus lower blood pressure targets: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Academy of Family Physicians. Ann Intern Med 2017; 166 (06) 430-437
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Wright Jr. JT, Williamson JD, Whelton PK. et al; SPRINT Research Group. A randomized trial of intensive versus standard blood-pressure control. N Engl J Med 2015; 373 (22) 2103-2116
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 O'Connor EA, Evans CV, Rushkin MC, Redmond N, Lin JS. Behavioral counseling to promote a healthy diet and physical activity for cardiovascular disease prevention in adults with cardiovascular risk factors: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA 2020; 324 (20) 2076-2094
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Alper BS, Price A, van Zuuren EJ. et al. Consistency of recommendations for evaluation and management of hypertension. JAMA Netw Open 2019; 2 (11) e1915975
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Lewis CE, Fine LJ, Beddhu S. et al; SPRINT Research Group. Final report of a trial of intensive versus standard blood-pressure control. N Engl J Med 2021; 384 (20) 1921-1930
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 United States Preventive Services Task Force. High blood pressure in adults: screening. Accessed September 10, 2022 at: https://health.gov/healthypeople/tools-action/browse-evidence-based-resources/high-blood-pressure-adults-screening
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Ash JS, Sittig DF, Campbell EM, Guappone KP, Dykstra RH. Some unintended consequences of clinical decision support systems. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2007; 26-30
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Hicks LS, Sequist TD, Ayanian JZ. et al. Impact of computerized decision support on blood pressure management and control: a randomized controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med 2008; 23 (04) 429-441
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Persson M, Mjörndal T, Carlberg B, Bohlin J, Lindholm LH. Evaluation of a computer-based decision support system for treatment of hypertension with drugs: retrospective, nonintervention testing of cost and guideline adherence. J Intern Med 2000; 247 (01) 87-93
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Roumie CL, Elasy TA, Greevy R. et al. Improving blood pressure control through provider education, provider alerts, and patient education: a cluster randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2006; 145 (03) 165-175
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Anchala R, Kaptoge S, Pant H, Di Angelantonio E, Franco OH, Prabhakaran D. Evaluation of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a clinical decision support system in managing hypertension in resource constrained primary health care settings: results from a cluster randomized trial. J Am Heart Assoc 2015; 4 (01) e001213
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Rinfret S, Lussier MT, Peirce A. et al; LOYAL Study Investigators. The impact of a multidisciplinary information technology-supported program on blood pressure control in primary care. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2009; 2 (03) 170-177
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Go AS, Bauman MA, Coleman King SM. et al; American Heart Association; American College of Cardiology; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. An effective approach to high blood pressure control: a science advisory from the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Hypertension 2014; 63 (04) 878-885
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Middleton B, Sittig DF, Wright A. Clinical Decision Support: a 25 Year Retrospective and a 25 Year Vision. Yearb Med Inform 2016; ;(suppl 1): S103-S116
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Semenov I, Osenev R, Gerasimov S, Kopanitsa G, Denisov D, Andreychuk Y. Experience in developing an fhir medical data management platform to provide clinical decision support. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019; 17 (01) E73
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 International HLS. FHIR Accessed September 10, 2022 at: http://hl7.org/fhir/
    PubMed
  • 18 Services UDoHH. Pharmacist eCare plan. Accessed September 10, 2022 at: https://www.healthit.gov/techlab/ipg/node/4/submission/1376
    PubMed
  • 19 FHIR clinical guidelines. Accessed September 10, 2022 at: http://hl7.org/fhir/uv/cpg/2019Sep/index.html#home
    PubMed
  • 20 Dorr DA, D'Autremont C, Pizzimenti C. et al. Assessing data adequacy for high blood pressure clinical decision support: a quantitative analysis. Appl Clin Inform 2021; 12 (04) 710-720
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Dorr D, Storer M. Content Implementation Guide, High Blood Pressure. Accessed September 10, 2022 at: https://build.fhir.org/ig/OHSUCMP/htnu18ig/index.html
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Osheroff JA, Teich JM, Levick D. et al. Improving Outcomes with Clinical Decision Support: An Implementer's Guide. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2012
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Bright TJ, Wong A, Dhurjati R. et al. Effect of clinical decision-support systems: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2012; 157 (01) 29-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Oliveria SA, Lapuerta P, McCarthy BD, L'Italien GJ, Berlowitz DR, Asch SM. Physician-related barriers to the effective management of uncontrolled hypertension. Arch Intern Med 2002; 162 (04) 413-420
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Oliveria SA, Chen RS, McCarthy BD, Davis CC, Hill MN. Hypertension knowledge, awareness, and attitudes in a hypertensive population. J Gen Intern Med 2005; 20 (03) 219-225
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Koopman RJ, Canfield SM, Belden JL. et al. Home blood pressure data visualization for the management of hypertension: designing for patient and physician information needs. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2020; 20 (01) 195
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Kerr EA, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Klamerus ML, Subramanian U, Hogan MM, Hofer TP. The role of clinical uncertainty in treatment decisions for diabetic patients with uncontrolled blood pressure. Ann Intern Med 2008; 148 (10) 717-727
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Kim MT, Song HJ, Han HR. et al. Development and validation of the high blood pressure-focused health literacy scale. Patient Educ Couns 2012; 87 (02) 165-170
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Turer CB, Doney A, Bowen ME. et al. Determining pediatric hypertension criteria: concordance between observed physician methods and guideline-recommended methods. J Hypertens 2021; 39 (09) 1893-1900
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Moise N, Phillips E, Carter E. et al. Design and study protocol for a cluster randomized trial of a multi-faceted implementation strategy to increase the uptake of the USPSTF hypertension screening recommendations: the EMBRACE study. Implement Sci 2020; 15 (01) 63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Smith JD, Mohanty N, Davis MM. et al. Optimizing the implementation of a population panel management intervention in safety-net clinics for pediatric hypertension (The OpTIMISe-Pediatric Hypertension Study). Implement Sci Commun 2020; 1 (01) 57
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Silveira DV, Marcolino MS, Machado EL. et al. Development and evaluation of a mobile decision support system for hypertension management in the primary care setting in Brazil: mixed-methods field study on usability, feasibility, and utility. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2019; 7 (03) e9869
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Gordon WJ, Blood AJ, Chaney K. et al. Workflow automation for a virtual hypertension management program. Appl Clin Inform 2021; 12 (05) 1041-1048
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Duhm J, Fleischmann R, Schmidt S, Hupperts H, Brandt SA. Mobile electronic medical records promote workflow: physicians' perspective from a survey. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2016; 4 (02) e70
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 James PA, Oparil S, Carter BL. et al. 2014 evidence-based guideline for the management of high blood pressure in adults: report from the panel members appointed to the Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8). JAMA 2014; 311 (05) 507-520
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Whelton PK, Carey RM, Aronow WS. et al. 2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Hypertension 2018; 71 (06) e13-e115
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Tschanz CMP, Cushman WC, Harrell CTE, Berlowitz DR, Sall JL. Synopsis of the 2020 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs/U.S. Department of Defense Clinical Practice Guideline: The Diagnosis and Management of Hypertension in the Primary Care Setting. Ann Intern Med 2020; 173 (11) 904-913
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Specialist CH. (CHS) – American Hypertension Specialist Certification Program. Accessed September 10, 2022 at: http://www.ahscp.org/certified-hypertension-specialist/
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Oregon Health Authority. Patient-centered primary care home program: patient-centered primary care home program. Accessed September 10, 2022 at: https://www.oregon.gov/oha/hpa/dsi-pcpch/Pages/index.aspx
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Dorr DA, D'Autremont C, Pizzimenti C. et al. Assessing data adequacy for high blood pressure clinical decision support: a quantitative analysis. Appl Clin Inform 2021; 12 (04) 710-720
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Blaum CS, Rosen J, Naik AD. et al. Feasibility of implementing patient priorities care for older adults with multiple chronic conditions. J Am Geriatr Soc 2018; 66 (10) 2009-2016
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Boyd C, Smith CD, Masoudi FA. et al. Decision making for older adults with multiple chronic conditions: executive summary for the American Geriatrics Society Guiding Principles on the care of older adults with multimorbidity. J Am Geriatr Soc 2019; 67 (04) 665-673
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Shaffer VA. Nudges for health policy: effectiveness and limitations. Miss Law Rev 2017; 82: 727
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Shaffer VA, Wegier P, Valentine KD. et al. Patient judgments about hypertension control: the role of variability, trends, and outliers in visualized blood pressure data. J Med Internet Res 2019; 21 (03) e11366
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Chokshi SK, Belli HM, Troxel AB. et al. Designing for implementation: user-centered development and pilot testing of a behavioral economic-inspired electronic health record clinical decision support module. Pilot Feasibility Stud 2019; 5: 28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Chokshi SK, Mann DM. Innovating from within: a process model for user-centered digital development in academic medical centers. JMIR Human Factors 2018; 5 (04) e11048
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Mann D, Hess R, McGinn T. et al. Adaptive design of a clinical decision support tool: What the impact on utilization rates means for future CDS research. Digit Health 2019; 5: 2055207619827716
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Shaffer VA, Wegier P, Valentine KD. et al. Use of Enhanced Data Visualization to Improve Patient Judgments about Hypertension Control. Med Decis Making 2020; 40 (06) 785-796
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Nielsen J, Landauer TK. A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems. Proceedings of the INTERACT '93 and CHI '93 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Association for Computing Machinery; 1993: 206-213
    PubMedGoogle Scholar