Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Development of explicit criteria to measure adherence to hypertension guidelines

Journal of Human Hypertension volume 20, pages 426–433 (2006)Cite this article

Abstract

Measures of adherence to hypertension guidelines have historically been based on prescription data or physician survey data regarding treatment practices. These methods have limitations that decrease their accuracy. As part of a randomized controlled study testing the effects of pharmacist/physician collaboration on adherence to hypertension guidelines, the investigators and an expert panel developed a JNC 7 measurement tool. The final guideline adherence measurement tool includes 22 explicit criteria in four domains of care. An exploratory factor analysis, conducted to assess the structure of the tool, suggests three underlying treatment dimensions in hypertension care. The adherence measurement tool will allow researchers to link specific elements of care to improved blood pressure control. In addition, use of the tool will provide clinicians with a taxonomy for evaluating practice and describing the effect of improved patient care on patient outcomes.

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ashton CM, Kuykendall DH, Johnson ML, Wun CC, Wray NP, Carr MJ et al. A method of developing and weighting explicit process of care criteria for quality assessment. Med Care 1994; 32 (8): 755–770.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Brook RH, McGlynn EA, Cleary PD . Quality of health care. Part 2: measuring quality of care. N Engl J Med 1996; 335 (13): 966–970.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Lohr KN, Donaldson MS, Harris-Wehling J . Medicare: a strategy for quality assurance, V: quality of care in a changing health care environment. QRB Qual Rev Bull 1992; 18 (4): 120–126.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Becher EC, Chassin MR . Improving the quality of health care: who will lead? Health Affair (Millwood) 2001; 20 (5): 164–179.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Milchak JL, Carter BL, James PA, Ardery G . Measuring adherence to practice guidelines for the management of hypertension: an evaluation of the literature. Hypertension 2004; 44 (5): 602–608.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Nelson CR, Knapp DA . Trends in antihypertensive drug therapy of ambulatory patients by US office-based physicians. Hypertension 2000; 36 (4): 600–603.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Siegel D, Lopez J . Trends in antihypertensive drug use in the United States: do the JNC V recommendations affect prescribing? Fifth Joint National Commission on the Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. JAMA 1997; 278 (21): 1745–1748.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Clause SL, Hamilton RA . Medicaid prescriber compliance with Joint National Committee VI Hypertension Treatment Guidelines. Ann Pharmacother 2002; 36 (10): 1505–1511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Carter BL, Malone DC, Ellis SL, Dombrowski RC . Antihypertensive drug utilization in hypertensive veterans with complex medication profiles. J Clin Hypertens 2000; 2 (3): 172–180.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Monane M, Glynn RJ, Gurwitz JH, Bohn RL, Levin R, Avorn J . Trends in medication choices for hypertension in the elderly. The decline of the thiazides. Hypertension 1995; 25 (5): 1045–1051.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Asch SM, Kerr EA, Lapuerta P, Law A, McGlynn EA . A new approach for measuring quality of care for women with hypertension. Arch Intern Med 2001; 161 (10): 1329–1335.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Cuspidi C, Michev I, Lonati L, Vaccarella A, Cristofari M, Garavelli G et al. Compliance to hypertension guidelines in clinical practice: a multicentre pilot study in Italy. J Hum Hypertens 2002; 16 (10): 699–703.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. McAlister FA, Teo KK, Lewanczuk RZ, Wells G, Montague TJ . Contemporary practice patterns in the management of newly diagnosed hypertension. CMAJ 1997; 157 (1): 23–30.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Mehta SS, Wilcox CS, Schulman KA . Treatment of hypertension in patients with comorbidities: results from the study of hypertensive prescribing practices (SHyPP). Am J Hypertens 1999; 12 (4 Part 1): 333–340.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, Cushman WC, Green LA, Izzo Jr JL et al. Seventh report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Hypertension 2003; 42 (6): 1206–1252.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Lohr KN . Medicare: A Strategy for Quality Assurance. National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fink A, Kosecoff J, Chassin M, Brook RH . Consensus methods: characteristics and guidelines for use. Am J Public Health 1984; 74 (9): 979–983.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Mates S, Sidel VW . Quality assessment by process and outcome methods: evaluation of emergency room care of asthmatic adults. Am J Public Health 1981; 71 (7): 687–693.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Advani A, Goldstein M, Musen MA . A framework for evidence-adaptive quality assessment that unifies guideline-based and performance-indicator approaches. Proc AMIA Symp 2002, 2–6.

  20. Rubenstein L, Mates S, Sidel VW . Quality-of-care assessment by process and outcome scoring. Use of weighted algorithmic assessment criteria for evaluation of emergency room care of women with symptoms of urinary tract infection. Ann Intern Med 1977; 86 (5): 617–625.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Advani A, Shahar Y, Musen MA . Medical quality assessment by scoring adherence to guideline intentions. Proc AMIA Symp 2001, 2–6.

  22. Kim J, Mueller CW . Introduction to Factor Analysis: What It is and How to Do It. Sage Publications: Beverly Hills and London, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Nunnally JC . Psychometric Theory, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill: New York, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Cattell RB . The scree test for the number of factors. Multivar Behav Res 1966; 1: 245–276.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Tufo HM, Speidel JJ . Problems with medical records. Med Care 1971; 9 (6): 509–517.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Romm FJ, Putnam SM . The validity of the medical record. Med Care 1981; 19 (3): 310–315.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Bentsen BG . The accuracy of recording patient problems in family practice. J Med Educ 1976; 51 (4): 311–316.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Lyons TF, Payne BC . The relationship of physicians' medical recording performance to their medical care performance. Med Care 1974; 12 (8): 714–720.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Zuckerman ZE, Starfield B, Hochreiter C, Kovasznay B . Validating the content of pediatric outpatient medical records by means of tape-recording doctor–patient encounters. Pediatrics 1975; 56 (3): 407–411.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This manuscript is supported in part by a grant from the National Institutes of Health R01 HL070740. We thank Carrie Franciscus for her skilled programming efforts.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Clinical and Administrative Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

    J L Milchak, B L Carter & G Ardery

  2. Department of Family Medicine, Roy J and Lucille A Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

    B L Carter & C D Kreiter

  3. Department of Preventative Medicine, RUSH Medical College, Chicago, IL, USA

    H R Black & G L Bakris

  4. Center for Excellence in Cardiovascular Renal Research, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS, USA

    D W Jones

  5. Office of Consultation and Research in Medical Education, Roy J and Lucille A Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

    C D Kreiter

Authors
  1. J L Milchak
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. B L Carter
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. G Ardery
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. H R Black
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. G L Bakris
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. D W Jones
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  7. C D Kreiter
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B L Carter.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Milchak, J., Carter, B., Ardery, G. et al. Development of explicit criteria to measure adherence to hypertension guidelines. J Hum Hypertens 20, 426–433 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jhh.1002005

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jhh.1002005

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links