Evaluation of the quality of care of a multi-disciplinary Risk Factor Assessment and Management Programme for Hypertension (RAMP-HT)

Esther Yee Tak Yu, Eric Yuk Fai Wan, Karina Hiu Yen Chan, Carlos King Ho Wong, Ruby Lai Ping Kwok, Daniel Yee Tak Fong, Cindy Lo Kuen Lam, Esther Yee Tak Yu, Eric Yuk Fai Wan, Karina Hiu Yen Chan, Carlos King Ho Wong, Ruby Lai Ping Kwok, Daniel Yee Tak Fong, Cindy Lo Kuen Lam

Abstract

Background: There is some evidence to support a risk-stratified, multi-disciplinary approach to manage patients with hypertension in primary care. The aim of this study is to evaluate the quality of care (QOC) of a multi-disciplinary Risk Assessment and Management Programme for Hypertension (RAMP-HT) for hypertensive patients in busy government-funded primary care clinics in Hong Kong. The objectives are to develop an evidence-based, structured and comprehensive evaluation framework on quality of care, to enhance the QOC of the RAMP-HT through an audit spiral of two evaluation cycles and to determine the effectiveness of the programme in reducing cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk.

Method/design: A longitudinal study is conducted using the Action Learning and Audit Spiral methodologies to measure whether pre-set target standards of care intended by the RAMP-HT are achieved. A structured evaluation framework on the quality of structure, process and outcomes of care has been developed based on the programme objectives and literature review in collaboration with the programme workgroup and health service providers. Each participating clinic is invited to complete a structure of care evaluation questionnaire in each evaluation cycle. The data of all patients who have enrolled into the RAMP-HT in the pre-defined evaluation periods are used for the evaluation of the process and outcomes of care in each evaluation cycle. For evaluation of the effectiveness of RAMP-HT, the primary outcomes including blood pressure (both systolic and diastolic), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and estimated 10-year CVD risk of RAMP-HT participants are compared to those of hypertensive patients in usual care without RAMP-HT.

Discussion: The QOC and effectiveness of the RAMP-HT in improving clinical and patient-reported outcomes for patients with hypertension in normal primary care will be determined. Possible areas for quality enhancement and standards of good practice will be established to inform service planning and policy decision making.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
An iterative process and reconciliation between the investigators and the programme providers

References

    1. World Health Organization . A global brief on hypertension: silent killer, global public health crisis: World Health Day 2013. 2013.
    1. Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, Cushman WC, Green LA, Izzo JJ, et al. The seventh report of the Joint National Committee on prevention, detection, evaluation, and treatment of high blood pressure. Hypertension. 2003;42(6):1206–52. doi: 10.1161/01.HYP.0000107251.49515.c2.
    1. Department of Health. Report on Population Health Survey 2003/04. Hong Kong SAR: Department of Health. 2005.
    1. British Cardiac Society. British Hypertension Society. Diabetes UK. HEART UK. Primary Care Cardiovascular Society. Stroke Association JBS 2: Joint British Societies’ guidelines on prevention of cardiovascular disease in clinical practice. Heart. 2005;91(Suppl 5):v1–52.
    1. D’Agostino RB, Vasan RS, Pencina MJ, Wolf PA, Cobain M, Massaro JM, et al. General cardiovascular risk profile for use in primary care: the Framingham Heart Study. Circulation. 2008;117(6):743–53. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.699579.
    1. Padwal RS, Hemmelgarn BR, Khan NA, Grover S, McKay DW, Wilson T, et al. The 2009 Canadian Hypertension Education Program recommendations for the management of hypertension: Part 1–blood pressure measurement, diagnosis and assessment of risk. Can J Cardiol. 2009;25(5):279–86. doi: 10.1016/S0828-282X(09)70491-X.
    1. Campbell NR, So L, Amankwah E, Quan H, Maxwell C. Characteristics of hypertensive Canadians not receiving drug therapy. Can J Cardiol. 2008;24(6):485–90. doi: 10.1016/S0828-282X(08)70623-8.
    1. Hackam DG, Leiter LA, Yan AT, Yan RT, Mendelsohn A, Tan M, et al. Missed opportunities for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in Canada. Can J Cardiol. 2007;23(14):1124–30. doi: 10.1016/S0828-282X(07)70882-6.
    1. McInnis NH, Fodor G, Lum-Kwong MM, Leenen FH. Antihypertensive medication use and blood pressure control: a community-based cross-sectional survey (ON-BP) Am J Hypertens. 2008;21(11):1210–5. doi: 10.1038/ajh.2008.269.
    1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence . Hypertension: clinical management of primary hypertension in adults. 2011.
    1. Walsh JME, McDonald KM, Shojania KG, Sundaram V, Nayak S, Lewis R, et al. Quality improvement strategies for hypertension management: a systematic review. Med Care. 2006;44(7):646–57. doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000220260.30768.32.
    1. Mendis S, Johnston SC, Fan W, Oladapo O, Cameron A, Faramawi MF. Cardiovascular risk management and its impact on hypertension control in primary care in low-resource settings: a cluster-randomized trial. Bull World Health Organ. 2010;88:412–9. doi: 10.2471/BLT.08.062364.
    1. Mattila R, Malmivaara A, Kastarinen M, Kivela SL, Nissinen A. Effectiveness of multidisciplinary lifestyle intervention for hypertension: a randomised controlled trial. J Hum Hypertens. 2003;17(3):199–205. doi: 10.1038/sj.jhh.1001531.
    1. Kaczorowski J, Chambers LW, Dolovich L, Paterson JM, Karwalajtys T, Gierman T, et al. Improving cardiovascular health at population level: 39 community cluster randomised trial of Cardiovascular Health Awareness Program (CHAP). BMJ. 2011;342.
    1. Barrios V, Escobar C, Calderon A, Echarri R, Gonzalez-Pedel V, Ruilope LM. Cardiovascular risk profile and risk stratification of the hypertensive population attended by general practitioners and specialists in Spain. The CONTROLRISK study. J Hum Hypertens. 2007;21(6):479–85.
    1. Revans R, editor. Action learning: new techniques for management. London: Blond & Briggs; 1980.
    1. Fraser RC, Lakhani MK, Baker RH. Evidence-based audit in general practice: from principles to practice. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann; 1998.
    1. Donabedian A. Evaluating the quality of medical care. Milbank Q. 1966;44(3.2):166–203. doi: 10.2307/3348969.
    1. Hintze J. Power Analysis and Sample Size (PASS) 2008. Kaysville, Utah, USA: NCSS, LCC; 2008.
    1. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
    1. Erdfelder E, Faul F. GPOWER: a general power analysis program. 1996.
    1. Lam ET, Lam CL, Fong DY, Huang WW. Is the SF-12 version 2 Health Survey a valid and equivalent substitute for the SF-36 version 2 Health Survey for the Chinese? J Eval Clin Pract. 2013;19(1):200–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2011.01800.x.
    1. Lam CLK, Wong CKH, Lam ETP, Huang WW, Lo YYC. Population norm of Chinese (HK) SF-12 Health Survey Version 2 of Chinese adults in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong Practitioner. 2010;32:77–86.
    1. Howie JGR, Heaney DJ, Maxwell M, Walker JJ. A comparison of a Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI) against two established satisfaction scales as an outcome measure of primary care consultations. Fam Pract. 1998;15(2):165–71. doi: 10.1093/fampra/15.2.165.
    1. Lam CL, Yuen NY, Mercer SW, Wong W. A pilot study on the validity and reliability of the Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI) in a Chinese population. Fam Pract. 2010;27(4):395–403. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmq021.
    1. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10(4):407–15. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(89)90005-6.
    1. Campbell NC, Murray E, Darbyshire J, Emery J, Farmer A, Griffiths F, et al. Designing and evaluating complex interventions to improve health care. BMJ. 2007;334(7591):455. doi: 10.1136/.
    1. Fung C, Chin WY, Dai D, Kwok R, Tsui E, Wan YF, et al. Evaluation of the quality of care of a multi-disciplinary risk factor assessment and management programme (RAMP) for diabetic patients. BMC Fam Pract. 2012;13(1):116. doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-13-116.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir