Detecting hypertension: screening versus case finding in Norway.

OBJECTIVE--Evaluation of detection of hypertension in adults in the county of Nord-Trøndelag, Norway. DESIGN--Cross sectional survey with clinical follow up examinations. SETTING--Health survey by screening teams from the national health screening service, and examinations by all 106 general practitioners in the county. SUBJECTS--During 1984-6, 74,977 persons (88.1% of those aged 20 years and over) participated in the health survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Hypertension (when assessed by standardised recording and by questionnaires on drug treatment for hypertension) according to the blood pressure thresholds used in the Norwegian treatment programme. Subjects positive on screening were grouped after clinical examination into treatment groups. RESULTS--In all, 2399 subjects were positive for hypertension. Before screening 6210 (8.3%) patients reported taking antihypertensive drugs and another 3849 (5.1%) had their blood pressure monitored regularly. All who screened positive were referred to their general practitioner and evaluated according to a standard programme. As a result, drug treatment was started in 406 (0.5%) participants screened and blood pressure monitoring in another 1007 (1.3%). Of all patients taking antihypertensive drugs after the screening, 6399 (94.0%) had been diagnosed before screening, and of those whose blood pressure was monitored after the screening, 79.3% had been diagnosed before screening. CONCLUSIONS--At the blood pressure screening thresholds used, and when hypertension is defined by an overall clinical diagnosis, the results indicate that general practitioners can find and diagnose hypertensive patients with the case finding strategy.     

General practitioners' management of hypertension in elderly patients.

OBJECTIVE--To assess general practitioners'' attitudes to the diagnosis and management of hypertension in elderly patients. DESIGN--Postal questionnaire to all general practitioners in Leicestershire. RESULTS--360 of 451 general practitioners (80%) responded. 81% (292) reported rechecking an initially high blood pressure on two or three occasions before starting treatment, 56% (202) measured sitting blood pressure only, and just 28% (100) took sitting and standing levels. 36% (128) had no upper age limit for starting anti-hypertensive treatment; of the 58% (206) who did, the median was 80 (range 70-99) years. Blood pressure levels reported for starting treatment in patients aged 70-79 years were 180 (150-240)/106 (90-120) mm Hg. 34% of general practitioners (121) would not treat isolated systolic hypertension. The most popular first line treatment for an elderly hypertensive patient was a thiazide diuretic; only 17% of general practitioners (61) initially tried non-pharmacological methods. 34% (122) would continue anti-hypertensive treatment unchanged in the period immediately after stroke. CONCLUSIONS--The variation among general practitioners in the criteria for the measurement, diagnosis, and treatment of hypertension in elderly patients emphasises the need for clear management guidelines in this age group.     

Community care compared with hospital outpatient care for hypertensive patients.

Three hundred and seventy-six patients with treated diastolic blood pressures of less than 105 mm Hg and no history of accelerated hypertension or renal failure were selected from among those attending the Hammersmith Hospital hypertension clinic. Their average lying treated blood pressure was 146 mm Hg systolic and 90 mm Hg diastolic and average age 56 years; 18% were black, 6% Asian, and 76% white. The patients were mostly having multiple treatment, 90% receiving a diuretic, 35% methyldopa, 33% propranolol, 18% atenolol, 9% hydrallazine, and 7% bethanidine. They were randomly allocated to either two years of further hospital outpatient care or referred back to their general practitioners. During the two years 19 (10%) of the 187 patients followed up in hospital defaulted and three had their treatment discontinued. Twelve (6%) of the 189 followed up by their general practitioners defaulted from follow-up and nine had their treatment discontinued. At the end of the trial the average lying blood pressure was 148 mm Hg systolic and 88 mm Hg diastolic in the hospital group and 149 mm Hg systolic and 90 mm Hg diastolic in the general practice group. The change in blood pressure was calculated for each individual and showed an average fall of 1.6 mm Hg in standing diastolic pressure in the hospital group and a rise of 1.4 mm Hg in the general practice group (p less than 0.05). The 90% confidence limits for a difference in standing diastolic pressure between the groups were 1 and 5 mm Hg with the pressure lower in the hospital group. General practice care was not quite as effective in controlling blood pressure as continued specialist supervision over two years in this selected group of treated outpatients with mild or moderate hypertension, but these results show that the discharge back to general practitioners of patients who are well controlled after hospital treatment is a sensible policy.     

Quality of care in managing hypertension by case finding in north west London.

The records of patients who were registered with general practice in inner London and outer London (both training and non-training practices) were examined for details of blood pressure recordings. A blood pressure recording was found in the past five years in only 22% of the notes of inner London practices but in 43% of notes in outer London practices, there being no difference between training and non-training practices. In 31% of the notes with a blood pressure recording the blood pressure had been raised (greater than or equal to 160/90) at some time: in 62% of these notes for patients aged 65 or more and in 52% of these notes for patients aged under 65 treatment had been given at some time. Thirty eight per cent of patients in the older group and 33% in the younger group were being treated at the time of the survey, thiazides being the most commonly used drugs. Thirty four per cent of all those with a raised blood pressure at some time had a latest recording of under 90 mm Hg diastolic. There seems to be a continuing need for general practitioners to detect and treat hypertension, and it is suggested that general practitioners should consider using systematic case finding for hypertension in their practices.     

Can general practitioners use training in relaxation and management of stress to reduce mild hypertension?

To see whether general practitioners could effectively carry out training in relaxation and management of stress to reduce mild hypertension a study was carried out with a subsample of phase 2 of the Medical Research Council''s treatment of mild hypertension trial.¹ In the main mild hypertension trial patients had been receiving either an active drug or placebo for six years. In phase 2 a subsample of these patients were randomly allocated either to continue or to stop receiving the active drug or placebo. In a further subsample patients were again randomised to receive or not to receive relaxation therapy. This factorial design presented an additional opportunity to assess whether patients controlled with active drugs might have their blood pressure maintained by this behavioural therapy once drug treatment was stopped and to assess whether blood pressure might be further reduced by this therapy in patients who had been under regular medical supervision for as long as six years and who had already received non-pharmacological advice. The therapy was conducted by general practitioners in group sessions once a week for eight weeks. The training in relaxation was accompanied by galvanic skin resistance biofeedback. At one year follow up blood pressure in the relaxation subgroups was either maintained (in the group who had stopped receiving drugs) or reduced further (in the group who had continued receiving drugs and in both placebo groups), while in the control group it had increased in all the subgroups, but particularly in those who had stopped receiving drugs. Differences in changes in blood pressure between the relaxation and control groups were significant. There were five new cardiovascular events, including evidence of myocardial ischaemia in blindly coded electrocardiograms in the control group, compared with one in the treatment group.General practitioners, if motivated, can successfully apply this technique of training those with mild hypertension in relaxation and management of stress.     

Randomised controlled trial of computer assisted management of hypertension in primary care.

The hypothesis that general practitioners would obtain better outcomes for patients with hypertension using a computer than doctors not using a computer was tested. Sixty family physicians were randomised to two treatment strategies. "Test" physicians completed a data collection form after each visit from a patient with hypertension and mailed the forms to the test centre for processing. Computer feedback on management was mailed to the doctors. This encouraged doctors to apply the "stepped care" protocol, supplied charts of diastolic blood pressure v time, and ranked patients'' diastolic blood pressures by percentile. Letters were mailed to patients to remind them of appointments. "Control" doctors filled out the same data collection forms as test physicians, but neither doctors nor patients received computer feedback. Physicians who used the computer saw more patients per practice than control doctors (test 50 patients, control 40). For all patients the length of follow up was significantly longer in test practices (test 199 days, control 167), and a smaller percentage dropped out of active treatment in test practices (test 37.5%, control 42.1%). For patients with "moderate" hypertension of a baseline diastolic pressure of greater than 104 mm Hg the mean score of the last recorded pressure was below the goal of 90 mm Hg in test practices (88.5 mm Hg), but it failed to reach this goal in control practices (93.3 mm Hg). A greater average reduction of diastolic pressure was achieved in test practices (test 21.7 mm Hg, control 16.7 mm Hg). Though patients with "moderate" hypertension were better controlled in test practices than in control practices, the patients in test practices visited their doctors less often (test 13.3 visits per patient-year, control 17.4 visits). Among patients with newly detected hypertension test practices achieved a greater reduction in diastolic pressure than control practices (test 15.1 mm Hg v control 11.3 mm Hg) and more sustained control of hypertension (test 323 days per patient-year with a diastolic pressure of 90 mm Hg or less v control 259 days).     

Divergent views of hospital staff on detecting and managing hypertension.

A questionnaire about detecting and managing hypertension was answered by 76 out of 110 (69%) doctors and 116 out of 195 (63%) qualified nurses in a large hospital. There was no general agreement on the method of taking diastolic blood pressures or on the level of hypertension requiring treatment. Most of the clinicians treated mild hypertension, although no proof exists that such treatment is beneficial. Almost everyone questioned agreed that measuring blood pressure in all patients attending hospital is important. Agreement should be reached, however, on which phase of diastolic blood pressure should be used.     

Individual variation between general practitioners in labelling of hypertension.

Variation in labelling of hypertension by individual general practitioners was studied during a continuous opportunistic screening programme for hypertension in a single general practice with 12 principals. All the general practitioners agreed to label as hypertensive patients with systolic pressures of greater than or equal to 200 mm Hg or diastolic pressures of greater than or equal to 110 mm Hg on three consecutive readings. The overall number of patients labelled hypertensive at the beginning of the screening programme was 505 and this rose to 801 after five years. There was a large variation in the numbers of patients recorded as hypertensive at the start of the screening period, with numbers ranging from eight to 112 for individual practitioners. The variation persisted during the screening period, with the numbers of patients detected by individual general practitioners ranging from four to 46. The average systolic and diastolic pressures recorded among these patients also varied between doctors, and only 24 out of 187 patients had their high pressures recorded on three occasions and so fully met the criteria for diagnosing hypertension. Clearly, general practitioners are following their own individual criteria in defining hypertension and taking into account factors other than just the measured blood pressure.     

Detection and management of hypertension in general practices in north west London.

An examination of the practice notes and attached correspondence of 900 patients aged 30 to 65 years in a random sample of 18 general practice in north west London showed that 340 (47%) of 716 patients consulting in a 10 year period had no blood pressure readings in their records. The blood pressure was equal to or above 160 mm Hg systolic or 95 mm Hg diastolic, or both, in 115 (31%) of those whose blood pressures were recorded; 18 (16%) of these were not followed up. Seventy four patients were being treated for hypertension. Diuretics were the most commonly prescribed drugs. Treatment was started after one blood pressure reading in 34 (46%). Nine of those who had an initial raised blood pressure reading were normotensive on follow up. A further 14 patients had subsequent raised blood pressure readings but were not treated. Sixty one (69%) of the 88 patients with hypertension did not have a blood pressure recording after diagnosis for one or more periods exceeding 12 months. Of 84 hypertensive patients with complete records, 62 (74%) apparently had had no physical examination performed by the general practitioner and 61 (72%) did not seem to have had any investigations initiated by the general practitioners. Fifteen (35%) of 43 patients taking oral contraceptive pills apparently had no blood pressure recordings during the time they were taking these. The results of this study suggest that there are still deficiencies in the detection and management of hypertension in general practice.     

Implementation of shared decision making by physician training to optimise hypertension treatment. Study protocol of a cluster-RCT

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Hypertension is one of the key factors causing cardiovascular diseases which make up the most frequent cause of death in industrialised nations. However about 60% of hypertensive patients in Germany treated with antihypertensives do not reach the recommended target blood pressure. The involvement of patients in medical decision making fulfils not only an ethical imperative but, furthermore, has the potential of higher treatment success. One concept to enhance the active role of patients is shared decision making. Until now there exists little information on the effects of shared decision making trainings for general practitioners on patient participation and on lowering blood pressure in hypertensive patients. METHODS: In a cluster-randomised controlled trial 1800 patients receiving antihypertensives will be screened with 24 h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in their general practitioners' practices. Only patients who have not reached their blood pressure target (approximately 1200) will remain in the study (T1 -- T3). General practitioners of the intervention group will take part in a shared decision making-training after baseline assessment (T0). General practitioners of the control group will treat their patients as usual. Primary endpoints are change of systolic blood pressure and change of patients' perceived participation. Secondary endpoints are changes of diastolic blood pressure, knowledge, medical adherence and cardiovascular risk. Data analysis will be performed with mixed effects models. DISCUSSION: The hypothesis underlying this study is that shared decision making, realised by a shared decision making training for general practitioners, activates patients, facilitates patients' empowerment and contributes to a better hypertension control. This study is the first one that tests this hypothesis with a (cluster-) randomised trial and a large sample size.Trial registrationWHO International Clinical Trials: http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/Trial.aspx?TrialID=DRKS00000125.     

Persistence of divergent views of hospital staff in detecting and managing hypertension.

A questionnaire concerning views of hospital clinical staff was completed by 408 out of 542 staff (75%), comprising 214 medical staff of all clinical specialties, 106 first year clinical medical students, and 88 third year student nurses. On average 386 of 407 (95%) thought that blood pressure should be measured routinely in all inpatients but only 294 of 404 (73%) thought that this was appropriate for outpatients. Although 251 of 390 (64%) were taught to use the muffling of sounds (phase IV) as the diastolic blood pressure, only 219 of 406 (54%) actually used this phase alone. There were appreciable differences between the grades of staff in this respect, a small majority of most grades using phase IV. Roughly half (50 out of 102) of the medical student respondents were taught to use phase IV, but only 38 of 106 (36%) were actually using this phase. While only three out of 16 general practitioners were using phase IV diastolic blood pressure alone, the figure was 66 out of 88 (75%) for student nurses. The level of diastolic blood pressure at which clinicians would begin to treat a 50 year old asymptomatic man ranged from 90 to 121 mm Hg. When these figures were corrected to phase V values, assuming a 5 mm Hg difference between phases IV and V, the range was 85 to 116 mm Hg. Despite the general agreement among physicians interested in hypertension that the disappearance of sounds (phase V) should be used to denote diastolic blood pressure there is still considerable divergence of opinion among hospital medical staff.     

Relaxation therapy and continuous ambulatory blood pressure in mild hypertension: a controlled study.

OBJECTIVE--To determine the long term effects of relaxation therapy on 24 hour ambulatory intra-arterial blood pressure in patients with mild untreated and uncomplicated hypertension. DESIGN--Four week screening period followed by randomisation to receive either relaxation therapy or non-specific counselling for one year. Ambulatory intra-arterial blood pressure was measured before and after treatment. SETTING--Outpatient clinic in Amsterdam''s university hospital. SUBJECTS--35 Subjects aged 20-60 who were being treated by general practitioners for hypertension but were referred to take part in the study. At three consecutive screening visits all subjects had a diastolic blood pressure without treatment of 95-110 mm Hg. Subjects were excluded if they had damaged target organs, secondary hypertension, diabetes mellitus, a cholesterol concentration greater than 8 mmol/l, or a history of malignant hypertension. INTERVENTIONS--The group allocated to relaxation therapy was trained for eight weeks (one hour a week) in muscle relaxation, yoga exercises, and stress management and continued exercising twice daily for one year with monthly visits to the clinic. The control group had the same attendance schedule but had no training and were requested just to sit and relax twice a day. All subjects were asked not to change their diet or physical activity. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE--Changes in ambulatory intra-arterial blood pressure after one year of relaxation therapy or non-specific counselling. RESULTS--Mean urinary sodium excretion, serum concentration of cholesterol, and body weight did not change in either group. Diastolic pressures measured by sphygmomanometry were 2 and 3 mm Hg lower in subjects in the relaxation group and control group respectively at the one year follow up compared with initial readings. The mean diastolic ambulatory intra-arterial pressure during the daytime had not changed after one year in either group, but small treatment effects could not be excluded: the mean change for the relaxation group was -1 mm Hg (95% confidence interval -6 to 3.9 mm Hg) and for the control group -0.4 mm Hg (-5.3 to 4.6 mm Hg). Mean ambulatory pressure in the evening also had not changed over the year, and in both groups nighttime pressure was 5 mm Hg higher. The variability in blood pressure was the same at both measurements. CONCLUSIONS--Relaxation therapy was an ineffective method of lowering 24 hour blood pressure, being no more beneficial than non-specific advice, support, and reassurance--themselves ineffective as a treatment for hypertension.     

Effects of treatment for hypertension on cerebral haemorrhage and infarction.

One hundred and sixty nine patients admitted to hospital for stroke over 30 months were examined to see whether treating hypertension had influenced the incidence of cerebral haemorrhage and infarction. Seventy eight (46%) of them had normal blood pressure, 47 (28%) previously diagnosed hypertension for which they were receiving treatment, and 44 (26%) previously undiagnosed and untreated hypertension. Haemorrhagic stroke was commoner among patients with untreated hypertension, whereas infarction was commoner in patients with treated hypertension. Infarction and haemorrhage were equally prevalent in patients with normal blood pressure. Effective treatment in this population seemed to have had a substantially different impact on vascular disease, giving rise to cerebral haemorrhage as opposed to infarction. This is consistent with evidence from other studies that treatment for hypertension has little or no effect on the progression of atheroma.     

Predictors of normotension on withdrawal of antihypertensive drugs in elderly patients: prospective study in second Australian national blood pressure study cohort

ObjectivesTo identify simple long term predictors of maintenance of normotension after withdrawal of antihypertensive drugs in elderly patients in general practice.DesignProspective cohort study.Setting169 general practices in Victoria, Australia.Participants503 patients aged 65-84 with treated hypertension who were withdrawn from all antihypertensive drugs and remained drug free and normotensive for an initial two week period; all were followed for a further 12 months.ResultsThe likelihood of remaining normotensive at 12 months was greater among younger patients (65-74 years), patients with lower “on-treatment” systolic blood pressure, patients on single agent treatment, and patients with a greater waist:hip ratio. The likelihood of return to hypertension was greatest for patients with higher “on-treatment” systolic blood pressure.ConclusionsAge, blood pressure control, and the number of antihypertensive drugs are important factors in the clinical decision to withdraw drug treatment. Because of consistent rates of return to antihypertensive treatment, all patients from whom such treatment is withdrawn should be monitored indefinitely to detect a recurrence of hypertension.

What is already known on this topic

Systematic reviews have identified predictors of success of withdrawal of antihypertensive medicationThe reviewed studies have mainly been in a hospital or specialist clinic setting, and their recommendations may not be practical in general practice

What this paper adds

This study has identified simple predictors of success that are readily available to general practitionersOn-treatment systolic blood pressure, the number of blood pressure lowering drugs, and the age of the patient are reliable indicators of who may successfully stop taking their drugsGeneral practitioner practitioners should not be dissuaded from offering drug withdrawal to patients with greater waist:hip ratios     

Evaluation of screening for hypertension in general practice with an automatic machine.

An automatic device for measuring blood pressure was used to screen all patients aged 30 to 65 years registered at a health centre. Of those who were eligible, 55% attended. Patients with previously recognised hypertension were more common among the attenders than among the non-attenders. High readings obtained on the automatic device possibly deterred some patients from reattending for follow up measurements of blood pressure. Although the device is quick and easy to use, the logistic challenge of formal blood pressure screening is considerable. Hypertension was discovered in 52 patients (mean diastolic pressure greater than 100 mm Hg). Retrospective analysis of their medical records showed that a third had had an abnormal blood pressure reading noted during the past 10 years and no further action had been taken, and almost three quarters had attended their practitioner during the previous year without having a blood pressure measurement recorded. One year after the screening procedure two fifths of the newly discovered hypertensive patients had defaulted from follow up and treatment. Automatic devices are not a short cut to the discovery of occult hypertension. Case finding by routine measurement of blood pressure at surgery visits is more efficient.     

Verapamil versus hydrochlorothiazide in the treatment of hypertension: results of long term double blind comparative trial. Verapamil versus Diuretic (VERDI) Trial Research Group.

OBJECTIVE--To compare the efficacy and tolerability of hydrochlorothiazide, sustained release verapamil, and their combination in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. DESIGN--Randomised multicentre trial of 48 weeks'' duration with a double blind comparison of hydrochlorothiazide and verapamil followed by an open trial of combined treatment for patients not achieving the target diastolic blood pressure (less than 90 mm Hg) during treatment with a single drug. SETTING--Outpatient departments in 10 clinics and 10 private practices of general practitioners or internists. PATIENTS--369 Hypertensive patients with a diastolic blood pressure of 95-120 mm Hg during a placebo run in period of two weeks. INTERVENTIONS--Initial treatment consisted of 12.5 mg hydrochlorothiazide (n = 187) or 120 mg sustained release verapamil (n = 182) once daily (regimen I). If the target diastolic blood pressure of less than 90 mm Hg was not achieved within four weeks doses were increased to 25 mg hydrochlorothiazide or 240 mg verapamil once (regimen II) and twice daily (regimen III). Patients not achieving target blood pressure were given the combination of hydrochlorothiazide and verapamil--that is, 25 and 240 mg once (regimen IV) and twice daily (regimen V). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE--Blood pressure determined with a device permitting automatic repeated measurements with printouts. RESULTS--After eight weeks of treatment with a single drug 76 out of 178 (43%) and 101 out of 175 (58%) patients achieved the target blood pressure with hydrochlorothiazide and verapamil, respectively. During follow up until 48 weeks patients treated with verapamil reached the target blood pressure more often and at lower doses and were less likely to switch to combination treatment than patients randomised to hydrochlorothiazide treatment. Adding verapamil to hydrochlorothiazide was more effective than the addition of hydrochlorothiazide to verapamil. At the end of the study 42 out of 169 (25%) and 73 out of 163 (45%) patients initially randomised to hydrochlorothiazide and verapamil, respectively, were at target blood pressure without combination treatment. After adding verapamil to hydrochlorothiazide or hydrochlorothiazide to verapamil an additional 58 (34%) and 29 (18%) patients reached the target blood pressure, respectively. Altogether 92 out of 332 (28%) patients failed to achieve target blood pressure with regimen V. There were four, 10, seven, and seven withdrawals due to possible adverse effects to treatment with hydrochlorothiazide, verapamil, combining verapamil with hydrochlorothiazide, and combining hydrochlorothiazide with verapamil, respectively. CONCLUSIONS--In doses currently used in antihypertensive treatment verapamil was more effective than hydrochlorothiazide as a single agent and in combination in mild to moderate hypertension, whereas withdrawal rates caused by side effects possibly related to treatment were similar.     

Factors predictive of attendance at clinic and blood pressure control in hypertensive patients.

Poor compliance with appointments and drug treatment is one of the recognised factors preventing effective management of hypertension. Factors predictive of poor attendance and inadequate blood pressure control in patients attending a hypertension clinic were therefore determined using univariate analyses and a multivariate logistic model. Out of 1346 patients with blood pressure exceeding 160/95 mm Hg followed up for three years, 209 (15.5%) dropped out during the first year. Variables that were significantly related to increased drop out rates were male sex, young age, obesity at entry, cigarette smoking, direct referral to the clinic as a result of screening instead of referral by a general practitioner, absence of pre-existing antihypertensive treatment at the first visit, moderate hypertension, and low socioeconomic category. Variables at entry that were significantly related to poor blood pressure control at one year were old age, evidence of coronary heart disease, severe hypertension, and raised blood glucose concentrations. Early detection of patients at high risk of drop out or poor blood pressure control might improve treatment of hypertension and allow management to be more individually adapted to each patient.     

Malignant hypertension in women of childbearing age and its relation to the contraceptive pill.

Eleven of 34 women aged 15-44 with malignant phase hypertension were taking oral contraceptives at presentation. All had had normal blood pressure before starting to take the pill. In four the interval between the start of oral contraception and the diagnosis of malignant hypertension was less than four months, and in eight no other cause for the hypertension was found. Underlying renal disease and renal failure were less common among pill users than among non-users with malignant hypertension who were of similar age. No pill user became normotensive after withdrawal of the pill, but blood pressure was well controlled (diastolic less than 90 mm Hg) in three patients taking only one drug. By contrast, all 23 non-users needed two or more antihypertensive drugs to control blood pressure. Ten year survival was 90% among pill users and 50% among non-users. These results suggest that oral contraceptives may be a common cause of malignant hypertension in women of child-bearing age. If the pill is stopped and underlying renal disease excluded the long term prognosis for such patients is excellent.     

Survival of patients treated with intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation at a tertiary care center in Pakistan – patient characteristics and predictors of in-hospital mortality

Background

In most western countries 20% of adults have hypertension. Reports in the literature suggest that from 31 to 86% of treated patients are not at recommended target levels. However it is important to consider how we are determining whether targets are unmet and the degree to which they are unmet. Our underlying hypothesis is that white coat effect is partially responsible for the reported low rates of control of hypertension by primary care practitioners.

Methods

The study population consists of 1142 patients who are being assessed for enrolment in two community-based randomized controlled trials. Patients must have essential hypertension, be on antihypertensive medication, and must not have met their blood pressure targets. We are reporting on the proportion of patients who have not achieved target, and the degree to which they have not achieved their target. We also report on the mean daytime blood pressures on 24 hour ABPM and compare these to mean blood pressures found on the patients' charts.

Results

We identified 3284 patient charts of patients with hypertension. Of these, 1142 were determined to be "out of control" (did not achieve target) and 436 agreed to undergo 24 hour ABPM for final determination of eligibility. Overwhelmingly (95.8% of the time) it was the systolic blood pressure that was not under control. However, most of the patients who had not achieved target according to our criteria were within 10 mmHg of the recommended targets. Isolated systolic blood pressure was the best predictor of elevated mean daytime blood pressure on 24 hour ABPM.

Conclusions

At least 35% of patients had not achieved target blood pressure levels and this is primarily due to lack of control of systolic blood pressure. The best predictor of continuing hypertension on 24 hour ABPM was the mean systolic blood pressure on the patients chart. However, only 69% of patients who were uncontrolled according blood pressures recorded in the chart were uncontrolled according to 24 hour ABPM criteria. This suggests that the white coat effect makes blood pressure measurements in the doctor's offices, at least as currently done, not sufficiently accurate for determining treatment endpoint.     

Patients' and general practitioners' satisfaction with information given on discharge from hospital: audit of a new information card.

OBJECTIVE--To determine the attitudes of patients discharged from hospital and their general practitioners to a new information card giving details about admission, diagnosis, and treatment and to assess the completeness of the information on the card. DESIGN--Consecutive patients discharged from the care of three consultant physicians over 16 weeks. SETTING--One general medical ward in a large teaching hospital. PATIENTS--A total of 275 consecutive discharges of 258 patients were studied. The mean age of patients was 60 years and mean duration of admission five days. INTERVENTION--At discharge from the ward all study patients received an information card and a copy of the card in the form of an interim discharge letter to be delivered to their general practitioner. Patients and general practitioners were asked to complete a questionnaire giving their views on the legibility, helpfulness, quality, and quantity of the information they received. Copies of all the information cards were scrutinised for completeness. MAIN RESULTS--The results were based on 208 (76%) forms returned by patients and 214 (78%) forms returned by general practitioners. Information was considered very helpful or quite helpful according to 170 (83%) forms from patients and 197 (92%) forms from general practitioners; sufficient information was provided according to 160 and 182 forms. Most patients and nearly all general practitioners thought it was a good idea to provide this information for patients at discharge. According to 125 forms from patients and 188 from general practitioners the information card was very easy or quite easy to read; 155 patients had read it at least twice and 149 were likely to refer to it again. OTHER RESULTS--The written information about the patient, the diagnosis, and what the patient had been told was generally well completed, although the date of discharge was omitted from 42 (15%) cards. Details of drugs prescribed at discharge were generally thorough. CONCLUSIONS--Giving an information card to all patients at discharge was feasible and favoured by most patients and their general practitioners. Having made minor changes in design, we think that we have produced an information card that is a convenient size and will improve communication between patients, their general practitioners, and hospital doctors. We now issue this card routinely to all patients discharged from our ward and hope that it might be widely adopted.