0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Review Article |

The Potency of Team-Based Care Interventions for Hypertension:  A Meta-analysis FREE

Barry L. Carter, PharmD; Meaghan Rogers, PharmD; Jeanette Daly, RN, PhD; Shimin Zheng, PhD; Paul A. James, MD
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Department of Pharmacy Practice and Science, College of Pharmacy (Drs Carter and Rogers), and Department of Family Medicine, Roy J. and Lucille A. Carver College of Medicine (Drs Carter, Daly, Zheng, and James), The University of Iowa, Iowa City.


Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(19):1748-1755. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2009.316.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Background  Team-based care is the strategy that has had the greatest effect on improving blood pressure (BP). The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the potency of interventions for BP involving nurses or pharmacists.

Methods  A MEDLINE search for controlled clinical trials that involved a nurse or pharmacist intervention was conducted. Mean reductions in systolic (S) and diastolic (D) BP were determined by 2 reviewers who independently abstracted data and classified the different intervention components.

Results  Thirty-seven articles met the inclusion criteria. Education about BP medications was significantly associated with a reduction in mean BP (−8.75/−3.60 mm Hg). Other strategies that had large effect sizes on SBP include pharmacist treatment recommendations (−9.30 mm Hg), intervention by nurses (−4.80 mm Hg), and use of a treatment algorithm (−4.00 mm Hg). The odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) for controlled BP were: nurses, 1.69 (1.48-1.93); pharmacists within primary care clinics, 2.17 (1.75-2.68); and community pharmacists, 2.89 (1.83-4.55). Mean (SD) reductions in SBP were: nursing studies, 5.84 (8.05) mm Hg; pharmacists in clinics, 7.76 (7.81) mm Hg; and community pharmacists, 9.31 (5.00) mm Hg. There were no significant differences between the nursing and pharmacy studies (P ≥ .19).

Conclusions  Team-based care was associated with improved BP control, and individual components of the intervention appeared to predict potency. Implementation of new hypertension guidelines should consider changes in health care organizational structure to include important components of team-based care.

Figures in this Article

Blood pressure (BP) is poorly controlled in the United States.15 The 8th Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC-8) is currently considering strategies to improve the implementation of the guidelines and achieve higher BP control rates. Investigators from the Stanford University/University of California, San Francisco, Evidence-Based Practice Center conducted an analysis of controlled clinical trials examining quality improvement strategies and found that the only strategy that significantly improved BP involved interdisciplinary, team-based care.6 Most of the quality improvement interventions included multiple components. These different strategies or the potency of the intervention may explain the apparent differences in effect sizes.7

One strategy to improve guideline adherence is to use team-based care involving pharmacists or nurses.813 The purpose of the present study was to conduct a systematic review of the research literature and to evaluate the potency of team-based care involving pharmacists or nurses. We theorized that the effect size would be greater for nurses or pharmacists working in a physician's office or more independently by protocol than with more distant interventions, such as recommendations from a community pharmacist.

We followed the same process as Walsh et al6 by including quasi-randomized trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time-series studies, patient-randomized trials, and cluster-randomized trials. Quasi-randomized trials were defined as those that included at least 2 patient cohorts identified prospectively using an arbitrary but nonrandom allocation procedure.6 Controlled before-after studies were defined as those with contemporaneous observation of cohorts that differed primarily with respect to exposure to the intervention.6 Interrupted time series required that the study report outcomes from at least 3 time points in the preintervention and postintervention periods.6

SEARCH STRATEGY

Walsh et al6 performed their search of the MEDLINE database from January 1, 1980, through July 31, 2003, and we extended the search to include articles published from January 1, 1970, through February 5, 2009. The search was conducted by a research librarian. Titles and abstracts were then screened to determine whether the article included team-based care of hypertension involving pharmacists or nurses. Next, we searched the reference list of included papers and the reviews by Walsh et al6 to identify additional citations. Once the full-text articles were selected, 2 reviewers (1 clinical pharmacist with a PharmD [doctor of pharmacy] degree [M.R.] and 1 nurse with a PhD [doctor of philosophy] degree [J.D.]) independently determined whether each paper met the study criteria. If so, the reviewers independently abstracted critical information including study design, setting, type of intervention, components of the intervention, and degree of SBP and DBP change. The intervention components included supplying free medications, education about BP medications, counseling about lifestyle modifications, assessing medication compliance, algorithms for treatment, home visits, prescribing medications by intervention health care providers (nurses or pharmacists), laboratory tests ordered by intervention health care providers, length of the study, completion of a drug profile and/or medication history, physical examination, nurse-provided intervention, pharmacist-provided intervention, and/or whether medication recommendations were made to a physician vs independent changes. Because every study included different combinations of these components, the reviewers independently assigned a potency score representing the predicted potency of the combination of interventions for affecting outcomes; scores ranged from 0 (brings about no result) to 10 (brings about the best result). Disagreements between the reviewers were resolved by an open dialogue to develop consensus. Confirmation of the reviewers' findings was adjudicated by a biostatistician (S.Z.).

INTERVENTION EFFECT SIZE

We calculated effect size by determining the change in SBP or DBP attributable to the intervention for each study defined as6:

Net Δ in BP = (Postintervention BP – Preintervention BP)study group – (Postintervention BP – Preintervention BP)control group

Blood pressure control was defined as a BP lower than 140/90 mm Hg for patients with uncomplicated BP and lower than 130/80 mm Hg for those with diabetes mellitus or chronic kidney disease.14 The net change in BP control rates attributable to the intervention for each study was defined as:

Net Δ in BP Control = (Postintervention BP Control − Preintervention BP Control)study group − (Postintervention BP Control − Preintervention BP Control)control group

The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for controlled BP was calculated (22 studies) and weighted by the sample size of the study.8,1535 For 15 studies, ORs could not be calculated.3650 We divided the studies into 3 groups to evaluate intervention potency: nursing interventions, pharmacist interventions delivered in community pharmacies, and interventions by clinical pharmacists working within a primary care office. We performed sensitivity analyses to determine the effect of assigning studies to different categories when they had multiple strategies (eg, involved both community pharmacists and nurses).

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Stepwise regression analyses and nonparametric analyses were performed using the Mann-Whitney test to evaluate the postintervention difference between the intervention and control groups for mean SBP and DBP while controlling for study sample size. Analyses were performed using SPSS statistical software, version 17.0.0 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, Illinois).

One study had a large number of informed dropouts and found no significant difference between nurse vs physician management.15 A stepwise regression analysis was conducted without this study (n = 36) to predict the effect of individual intervention components on BP.

Unadjusted ORs for controlled BP were calculated so studies could be compared. The ORs were compared using a simple logistics regression model with 1 variable, unadjusted for any other item. We created a funnel plot of the log of the OR plotted against the standard error for each study to assess the possibility that publication bias might exist.

The literature review identified 583 citations and 37 articles that met the inclusion criteria (Figure 1). Interrater reliability for the 2 reviewers was good (Pearson product moment correlation r = 0.74; P < .001).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Flow diagram depicting reasons trials were excluded.

Graphic Jump Location

Each study specified unique health care provider qualifications and training. For instance, studies involving community pharmacists may have included pharmacists with BS (bachelor of science) degrees8,22,51 or those with PharmD degrees.20,21 Nearly all studies that involved pharmacists in clinics included clinical pharmacists with PharmD or MS (master of science) degrees who had completed postdoctoral residency training in primary care and whose duties involved direct patient management,24,26,28,30,34,36,48 although several studies did not provide these details.25,27,35,46 Most of the studies involving nurses did not specify their qualifications,17,19,33,3841,44,45,47 but some noted that health care providers were registered nurses (RNs)42,49 or nurse practitioners.16,18 Training of the intervention nurses or pharmacists typically involved sessions on hypertension guidelines given by an expert,8,17,1925,30,32,33,35,41,42,47,49 but again, many did not specify the training program.16,18,2629,34,3640,4446,48,50 Only a few studies described patient empowerment or strategies such as home BP monitoring to assist with the intervention.23,34,35,40 In nearly all studies involving nurses or pharmacists in clinics, consistent and dedicated case management activities were provided that were distinct from traditional nursing or pharmacist duties. However, pharmacists in community pharmacies usually had to incorporate the intervention with traditional medication dispensing functions.

Stepwise regression was used to compare studies that included a given intervention strategy with studies that did not. Several individual components of the interventions were associated with significant reductions in mean SBP including pharmacist recommended medication to physician (−27.21 mm Hg; P = .002), counseling about lifestyle modification (−12.63 mm Hg; P = .03), pharmacist performed the intervention (−11.70 mm Hg; P = .03), use of a treatment algorithm (−8.46 mm Hg; P < .001), completion of a drug profile and/or medication history (−8.28 mm Hg; P = .001), and the overall intervention potency score assigned by the study reviewers (P < .001) (Table 1). For example, the regression coefficient for use of an algorithm was significant (9.37; P < .001), which indicated that, given all other factors in the model, the mean reduction in SBP for the 9 studies using a treatment algorithm was 9.37 less than the change in SBP for the 27 studies not using an algorithm. Assuming that a study used an algorithm and no other intervention, the predicted reduction in SBP was 8.46 mm Hg (Table 1).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Stepwise Regression Analysis of the Intervention Effect on BPa

The factors associated with a reduction in DBP were: referral was made to a specialist (−19.61 mm Hg; P = .04), providing patient education about BP medications (−17.60 mm Hg; P = .003), completion of a drug profile and/or medication history (−7.27 mm Hg; P = .006), pharmacist performed the intervention (−4.03 mm Hg; P = .04), or nurse performed the intervention (−3.94 mm Hg; P = .04).

Next, a nonparametric analysis was performed because the data were not normally distributed. The only individual component associated with a significant reduction in BP was education about BP medications (−8.75/−3.60 mm Hg). However, several other intervention components had a large effect size for SBP (−11.0 to −4.8 mm Hg) including: free medications (−10.80 mm Hg), pharmacist made treatment recommendations to the physician (−9.30 mm Hg), pharmacist performed the intervention (−8.44 mm Hg), a drug profile and/or medication history was completed (−8.19 mm Hg), medication compliance was assessed (−7.90 mm Hg), counseling about lifestyle modification was performed (−7.59 mm Hg), intervention provider could order laboratory tests (−7.00), and a nurse performed the intervention (−4.80 mm Hg) (Table 2).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Effect of Quality Improvement Strategies on BP Outcomes

The estimated ORs (95% CIs) for controlled BP were 1.69 (1.48-1.93) for nursing studies (Figure 2A), 2.89 (1.83-4.55) for community pharmacists (Figure 2B), and 2.17 (1.75-2.68) for pharmacists within primary care clinics (Figure 2C).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

The odds ratio (OR) (confidence interval [CI]) that systolic blood pressure is controlled in the intervention group compared with the control group. A higher OR indicates a more effective intervention. A, Eight studies involving nurses. B, Five studies conducted in community pharmacies. C, Nine studies involving pharmacists in primary care clinics.

Graphic Jump Location

In the nonparametric analyses of the 36 studies, the mean (SD) reduction in SBP was 5.84 (8.05) mm Hg for nursing studies (n = 16) compared with 7.76 (7.81) mm Hg in the studies involving pharmacists in clinics (n = 7) and 9.31 (5.00) mm Hg for studies involving community pharmacists (n = 13). Reductions in DBP were 3.46 (4.15) mm Hg for nursing studies, 4.18 (4.25) mm Hg for pharmacists in clinics, and 4.59 (4.64) mm Hg for community pharmacists (SBP and DBP were not significantly different among any groups).

We constructed a funnel plot to evaluate whether there may have been publication bias (Figure 3). Three of 4 studies with the largest log ORs had moderate to low standard errors, suggesting the absence of publication bias. However, publication bias cannot be ruled out because few studies had high log ORs and low standard errors.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 3.

Funnel plot for all studies included in Figure 2. OR indicates odds ratio.

Graphic Jump Location

This study found that interventions involving pharmacists or nurses were associated with significantly improved BP control. These results extended those of the previous report6 that found involving pharmacists or nurses was the most potent quality improvement strategy to improve BP control. We also wanted to determine whether specific aspects of team care were more potent. Our analysis found that studies involving pharmacists resulted in not only lower BP but also a greater OR of achieving BP control compared with studies involving nurses. However, the reductions in SBP and CIs for controlled BP overlap for the different health care providers (Figure 2).

We had hypothesized that studies involving community pharmacists would be less potent than those involving nurses or pharmacists within primary care clinics. Of interest, studies involving community pharmacists had the highest OR (2.89). These findings may be based on how the reviewers categorized the studies. First, one study conducted in community pharmacies in Portugal had an extremely high OR (29.71).22 Another study in a community pharmacy had an OR of 4.29, but this pharmacist worked closely with 2 physicians and reviewed medical records of study participants in the physicians' office.20 We could also have classified this study as “pharmacist in the clinic,” which would have reduced the OR for community pharmacy studies and increased the OR for studies involving pharmacists in clinics. Second, we classified one study as a nursing intervention for the OR calculations, but the intervention involved both a nurse and a community pharmacist (OR, 1.79).19 Excluding the first 2 studies and adding the third study to the analysis of community pharmacy studies would have resulted in an OR closer to 1.8 for the community pharmacy group.

Finally, one large study was conducted within a managed care organization that involved education by a pharmacist via the Internet.35 We classified this study as one within primary care, but the effect was not as great (OR, 1.88) compared with studies in which the pharmacist adjusted therapy either alone or in collaboration with physicians (ORs, 7.38-9.98). Without that study, the OR would have been 3.27 for pharmacists in clinics.

It may be possible to explain our findings based on the dose, duration, and potency of the intervention. For instance, Carter et al8,21,23 conducted 3 studies in community pharmacies, where the pharmacists had no prior established relationship with the physicians and the interventions were only 4 and 5 months in length. These studies had modest ORs for controlled BP (1.56, 1.74, and 2.46). Carter et al52 recently completed a randomized, controlled effectiveness (ie, pragmatic) study of a 6-month pharmacist intervention among 402 patients from 6 family medicine clinics that was not included in this systematic review because it had not been published at the time of our evaluation. In that study, SBP was reduced by 12.0 mm Hg more in the intervention group than the control group, and the OR for controlled BP was 3.2 (95% CI, 2.0-5.1). Finally, these investigators conducted an efficacy study in which BP was controlled in 54% of patients in the control group and 89% in the intervention group (OR, 7.38; 95% CI, 3.43-15.91).30 The main reason for high BP control in this latter study was attributed to assertive and frequent medication intensification recommended by the pharmacist. Therefore, the ORs for the 5 studies by these investigators were: community pharmacy studies (BS-trained pharmacists), between 1.56 and 2.46; the pragmatic trial of clinical pharmacists (PharmD with residency or fellowship), 3.20; and the efficacy trial (ideal intervention delivery) with clinical pharmacists (PharmD with residency), 7.38.

Therefore, when the literature involving team care is evaluated, it is critical to assess the duration of the intervention, the type of organization in which the intervention is performed (home, work site, community pharmacy, or primary care clinic), and whether the study is an efficacy or effectiveness trial. These factors, as well as the intervention procedures, predict the potency of the intervention.

Studies involving community pharmacists largely involved making recommendations to physicians by telephone or facsimile. Studies involving pharmacists in clinics typically involved pharmacists employed in the clinic who worked collaboratively with physician colleagues and/or provided more autonomous care. Pharmacists within primary care clinics work closely with physicians, and the expected levels of trust and cooperation might be higher than with community pharmacists, for whom interaction is usually not in person and occurs from distant locations.23,51,53 In fact, recommendations to change BP medications were accepted 95% of the time from pharmacists within the same clinic30 but only 45% to 50% when recommendations were made by community pharmacists.8,21,23 Therefore, lower acceptance for community pharmacists' recommendations could be owing to lower levels of trust and cooperation by physicians.51,53

Many of the nursing studies did not describe the types of nurses, their educational background, or training, but 4 studies used either RNs or nurse practitioners.16,18,42,49 Nursing interventions seemed more likely to involve home visits, use of a treatment algorithm, and patient engagement than pharmacy studies. It is likely that many of the interventions involving nurses or pharmacists increased patient empowerment, but few studies specifically provided such descriptions. Only 5 nursing studies described a patient-led process17,47,49 or home BP monitoring,41,42 and 3 pharmacy studies used home BP monitoring.23,34,35 We suspect that nurse practitioners would have more autonomy than RNs, and, in some cases, nurse practitioners can prescribe medications. We could not detect whether nursing degree or training influenced the results. However, using a treatment algorithm or making a home visit both had a predicted reduction in SBP of 4 mm Hg.

Each intervention or combination of intervention components is unique. It is not possible to state that either nurses or pharmacists can improve BP control without first determining the patient population, the organizational structure involved, and the amount of autonomy the interventionist has to alter therapy. Strategies that provided medication education were the most effective, but this strategy is impossible to evaluate alone because it was usually provided with additional strategies by the nurse or pharmacist who may have recommended therapy changes or personally changed therapy within a primary care office. Any incremental addition of components from Table 2 that a physician office or health system can implement should improve BP control rates, but this requires additional research. We believe that nurses possess unique skills in patient management and nonmedication counseling techniques that pharmacists usually do not. Likewise, pharmacists receive 4 years of concentrated education in medication pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, therapeutics, and chronic disease drug-therapy guidelines. Including both nurses and pharmacists in an integrated hypertension management program should be even more effective, and more cost-effective, than including either group alone. Consistent with our findings, the pharmacists could adjust medications until BP is controlled, while the nurse provides continuity and counseling about lifestyle and social support.9,10 The nurse would continue to serve as a case manager between physician visits when BP is controlled. The pharmacist would then only be involved if BP is no longer controlled. Such an approach cannot only improve BP control rates but markedly improve the efficiency and productivity of the physician.54,55 Including many of the components of these interventions in hypertension management programs could improve the implementation of the JNC-8 or other chronic disease guidelines.

The vast majority of the studies (32 of 37 [86%]) were randomized, controlled trials (eTablehttp://www.archinternmed.com). The quality of the studies supports the findings that these interventions are likely to be effective. There were, however, large differences in the duration of the intervention (4-24 months), sample size (26-1534), and participant dropout rate (2%-62%). Nearly all of the studies adequately described the most important characteristics of the patients, but many did not adequately describe the number, educational background, and training of the intervention pharmacists or nurses. Our analysis could not determine if there is a preferred level of qualifications, such as a PharmD degree with residency or an MS nurse practitioner degree. Likewise, many studies did not describe the intervention training, but those that did typically noted one-half– to 2-day training programs on the hypertension guidelines and BP measurement. It is possible that RNs or pharmacists with BS degrees may have required more intense or longer training than nurse practitioners or pharmacists with PharmD degrees with residencies, but this could not be determined from these studies. Future interventional studies of this type should specify the educational background, postgraduate training, and specific training programs used to implement the intervention.

Only 1 study performed a cost-effectiveness analysis.48 Clinic visit costs were significantly higher in the pharmacist-managed clinic ($131 per patient) than the physician clinic ($74) (P < .001), but the costs for emergency department visits were significantly lower in the pharmacist-managed clinic than in the physician clinic ($0 vs $10.84 per patient; P < .04). The cost of decreasing SBP was $27 per millimeter of mercury for the pharmacist-managed clinic and $193 for the physician clinic. The cost of decreasing DBP was $48 per millimeter of mercury in the pharmacist-managed clinic and $151 in the physician clinic.

Twelve studies (9 nursing, 2 in community pharmacies, and 1 pharmacist in clinics) were conducted in countries other than the United States.16,17,19,22,3133,39,4345,47 It is not known what effects the unique characteristics of the health care system in these countries might have had on the interventions. Likewise, some studies were conducted in integrated managed care settings29,35 or the Department of Defense or Veterans Administration.28,50 Future research should clarify the functional components of a team and how best to utilize the strengths of team members as they fit into the chronic care model.56,57 Also, the larger impact of the health care delivery system on the potency of these interventions should be assessed, specifically whether incentives might be aligned to optimize performance. Finally, we cannot rule out publication bias in our analyses because only 3 studies had high ORs and low standard error.

This evaluation of team-based care for hypertension found that interventions involving nurses or pharmacists are effective strategies to improve BP control. Several individual components were associated with improvements in BP. Research involving team-based care must be carefully designed, reported, and interpreted to include the organizational structure in which the intervention is performed, the educational level and training of the intervention providers, and the individual components of the intervention so that similar interventions can be implemented within a given health system.

Correspondence: Barry L. Carter, PharmD, Department of Pharmacy Practice and Science, Room 527, College of Pharmacy, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242 (barry-carter@uiowa.edu).

Accepted for Publication: June 26, 2009.

Author Contributions: All authors had full access to all the data and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: Carter and James. Acquisition of data: Carter, Rogers, and Daly. Analysis and interpretation of data: Carter, Rogers, and Zheng. Drafting of the manuscript: Carter. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Carter, Rogers, Daly, Zheng, and James. Statistical analysis: Zheng.Obtained funding: Carter. Administrative, technical, and material support: Rogers, Daly, Zheng, and James. Study supervision: Carter.

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

Funding/Support: This study was supported in part by grant HL070740 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; cooperative agreement 5U18HSO16094 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Centers for Education and Research on Therapeutics; and grant HFP 04-149 from the Center for Research in Implementation in Innovative Strategies in Practice, Veterans Health Administration Health Services Research and Development Service, US Department of Veterans Affairs (Dr Carter).

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Garg  JPElliott  WJFolker  AIzhar  MBlack  HRRUSH University Hypertension Service, Resistant hypertension revisited: a comparison of two university-based cohorts. Am J Hypertens 2005;18 (5, pt 1) 619- 626
PubMed
Berlowitz  DRAsh  ASHickey  EC  et al.  Inadequate management of blood pressure in a hypertensive population. N Engl J Med 1998;339 (27) 1957- 1963
PubMed
Oliveria  SALapuerta  P McCarthy  BDL’Italien  GJBerlowitz  DRAsch  SM Physician-related barriers to the effective management of uncontrolled hypertension. Arch Intern Med 2002;162 (4) 413- 420
PubMed
Hyman  DJPavlik  VN Characteristics of patients with uncontrolled hypertension in the United States. N Engl J Med 2001;345 (7) 479- 486
PubMed
Ong  KLCheung  BMMan  YBLau  CPLam  KS Prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension among United States adults 1999-2004. Hypertension 2007;49 (1) 69- 75
PubMed
Walsh  JM McDonald  KMShojania  KG  et al.  Quality improvement strategies for hypertension management: a systematic review. Med Care 2006;44 (7) 646- 657
PubMed
Weinberger  MOddone  EZHenderson  WG  et al.  Multisite randomized controlled trials in health services research: scientific challenges and operational issues. Med Care 2001;39 (6) 627- 634
PubMed
Carter  BLBarnette  DJChrischilles  EMazzotti  GJAsali  ZJ Evaluation of hypertensive patients after care provided by community pharmacists in a rural setting. Pharmacotherapy 1997;17 (6) 1274- 1285
PubMed
Carter  BL Hypertension Disease Management Services. Black  HRElliott  WJHypertension a Companion to Braunwald's Heart Disease. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier2007;527- 534
Carter  BL Nonphysician providers and the management of hypertension. Izzo  JLSica  DABlack  HRHypertension Primer. 4th ed. Dallas, TX American Heart Association2008;424- 427
Bosworth  HBOlsen  MKDudley  T  et al.  The Take Control of Your Blood pressure (TCYB) study: study design and methodology. Contemp Clin Trials 2007;28 (1) 33- 47
PubMed
Bosworth  HBOlsen  MKGentry  P  et al.  Nurse-administered telephone intervention for blood pressure control: a patient-tailored multifactorial intervention. Patient Educ Couns 2005;57 (1) 5- 14
PubMed
Bosworth  HBOlsen  MKGoldstein  MK  et al.  The veterans' study to improve the control of hypertension (V-STITCH): design and methodology. Contemp Clin Trials 2005;26 (2) 155- 168
PubMed
Chobanian  AVBakris  GLBlack  HR  et al. Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National High Blood Pressure Education Program Coordinating Committee, Seventh report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Hypertension 2003;42 (6) 1206- 1252
PubMed
McClellan  WMCraxton  LC Improved follow-up care of hypertensive patients by a nurse practitioner in a rural clinic. J Rural Health 1985;1 (2) 34- 41
PubMed
Curzio  JLRubin  PCKennedy  SSReid  JL A comparison of the management of hypertensive patients by nurse practitioners compared with conventional hospital care. J Hum Hypertens 1990;4 (6) 665- 670
PubMed
Garcia-Peña  CThorogood  MArmstrong  BReyes-Frausto  SMunoz  O Pragmatic randomized trial of home visits by a nurse to elderly people with hypertension in Mexico. Int J Epidemiol 2001;30 (6) 1485- 1491
PubMed
Hill  MNHan  HRDennison  CR  et al.  Hypertension care and control in underserved urban African American men: behavioral and physiologic outcomes at 36 months. Am J Hypertens 2003;16 (11, pt 1) 906- 913
PubMed
McLean  DL McAlister  FAJohnson  JA  et al. SCRIP-HTN Investigators, A randomized trial of the effect of community pharmacist and nurse care on improving blood pressure management in patients with diabetes mellitus: study of cardiovascular risk intervention by pharmacists-hypertension (SCRIP-HTN). Arch Intern Med 2008;168 (21) 2355- 2361
PubMed
McKenney  JMSlining  JMHenderson  HRDevins  DBarr  M The effect of clinical pharmacy services on patients with essential hypertension. Circulation 1973;48 (5) 1104- 1111
PubMed
Park  JJKelly  PCarter  BLBurgess  PP Comprehensive pharmaceutical care in the chain (pharmacy) setting. J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash) 1996;NS36 (7) 443- 451
PubMed
Garcao  JACabrita  J Evaluation of a pharmaceutical care program for hypertensive patients in rural Portugal. J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash) 2002;42 (6) 858- 864
PubMed
Zillich  AJSutherland  JMKumbera  PACarter  BL Hypertension outcomes through blood pressure monitoring and evaluation by pharmacists (HOME study). J Gen Intern Med 2005;20 (12) 1091- 1096
PubMed
Schneider  PJLarrimer  JNVisconti  JAMiller  WA Role effectiveness of a pharmacist in the maintenance of patients with hypertension and congestive heart failure. Contemp Pharm Pract 1982;5 (2) 74- 79
PubMed
McGhan  WFStimmel  GLHall  TGGilman  TM A comparison of pharmacists and physicians on the quality of prescribing for ambulatory hypertensive patients. Med Care 1983;21 (4) 435- 444
PubMed
Erickson  SRSlaughter  RHalapy  H Pharmacists' ability to influence outcomes of hypertension therapy. Pharmacotherapy 1997;17 (1) 140- 147
PubMed
Bogden  PEAbbott  RDWilliamson  POnopa  JKKoontz  LM Comparing standard care with a physician and pharmacist team approach for uncontrolled hypertension. J Gen Intern Med 1998;13 (11) 740- 745
PubMed
Vivian  EM Improving blood pressure control in a pharmacist-managed hypertension clinic. Pharmacotherapy 2002;22 (12) 1533- 1540
PubMed
Borenstein  JEGraber  GSaltiel  E  et al.  Physician-pharmacist comanagement of hypertension: a randomized, comparative trial. Pharmacotherapy 2003;23 (2) 209- 216
PubMed
Carter  BLBergus  GRDawson  JD  et al.  A cluster randomized trial to evaluate physician/pharmacist collaboration to improve blood pressure control. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2008;10 (4) 260- 271
PubMed
Woollard  JBurke  VBeilin  LJ Effects of general practice-based nurse-counselling on ambulatory blood pressure and antihypertensive drug prescription in patients at increased risk of cardiovascular disease. J Hum Hypertens 2003;17 (10) 689- 695
PubMed
New  JPMason  JMFreemantle  N  et al.  Specialist nurse-led intervention to treat and control hypertension and hyperlipidemia in diabetes (SPLINT): a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care 2003;26 (8) 2250- 2255
PubMed
Bebb  CKendrick  DCoupland  C  et al.  A cluster randomised controlled trial of the effect of a treatment algorithm for hypertension in patients with type 2 diabetes. Br J Gen Pract 2007;57 (535) 136- 143
PubMed
Mehos  BMSaseen  JJMacLaughlin  EJ Effect of pharmacist intervention and initiation of home blood pressure monitoring in patients with uncontrolled hypertension. Pharmacotherapy 2000;20 (11) 1384- 1389
PubMed
Green  BBCook  AJRalston  JD  et al.  Effectiveness of home blood pressure monitoring, Web communication, and pharmacist care on hypertension control: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2008;299 (24) 2857- 2867
PubMed
Hawkins  DWFiedler  FPDouglas  HLEschbach  RC Evaluation of a clinical pharmacist in caring for hypertensive and diabetic patients. Am J Hosp Pharm 1979;36 (10) 1321- 1325
PubMed
Solomon  DKPortner  TSBass  GE  et al.  Clinical and economic outcomes in the hypertension and COPD arms of a multicenter outcomes study. J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash) 1998;38 (5) 574- 585
PubMed
Hill  MNBone  LRHilton  SCRoary  MCKelen  GDLevine  DM A clinical trial to improve high blood pressure care in young urban black men: recruitment, follow-up, and outcomes. Am J Hypertens 1999;12 (6) 548- 554
PubMed
Guerra-Riccio  GMArtigas Giorgi  DMConsolin-Colombo  FM  et al.  Frequent nurse visits decrease white coat effect in stage III hypertension. Am J Hypertens 2004;17 (6) 523- 528
PubMed
Rudd  PMiller  NHKaufman  J  et al.  Nurse management for hypertension: a systems approach. Am J Hypertens 2004;17 (10) 921- 927
PubMed
Artinian  NTFlack  JMNordstrom  CK  et al.  Effects of nurse-managed telemonitoring on blood pressure at 12-month follow-up among urban African Americans. Nurs Res 2007;56 (5) 312- 322
PubMed
Artinian  NTWashington  OGTemplin  TN Effects of home telemonitoring and community-based monitoring on blood pressure control in urban African Americans: a pilot study. Heart Lung 2001;30 (3) 191- 199
PubMed
de Castro  MSFuchs  FDSantos  MC  et al.  Pharmaceutical care program for patients with uncontrolled hypertension: report of a double-blind clinical trial with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Am J Hypertens 2006;19 (5) 528- 533
PubMed
Tobe  SWPylypchuk  GWentworth  J  et al.  Effect of nurse-directed hypertension treatment among First Nations people with existing hypertension and diabetes mellitus: the Diabetes Risk Evaluation and Microalbuminuria (DREAM 3) randomized controlled trial. CMAJ 2006;174 (9) 1267- 1271
PubMed
Tonstad  SAlm  CSSandvik  E Effect of nurse counselling on metabolic risk factors in patients with mild hypertension: a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2007;6 (2) 160- 164
PubMed
Murray  MDHarris  LEOverhage  JM  et al.  Failure of computerized treatment suggestions to improve health outcomes of outpatients with uncomplicated hypertension: results of a randomized controlled trial. Pharmacotherapy 2004;24 (3) 324- 337
PubMed
Schroeder  KFahey  THollinghurst  SPeters  TJ Nurse-led adherence support in hypertension: a randomized controlled trial. Fam Pract 2005;22 (2) 144- 151
PubMed
Okamoto  MPNakahiro  RK Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of a pharmacist-managed hypertension clinic. Pharmacotherapy 2001;21 (11) 1337- 1344
PubMed
Gabbay  RALendel  ISaleem  TM  et al.  Nurse case management improves blood pressure, emotional distress and diabetes complication screening. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2006;71 (1) 28- 35
PubMed
Lee  JKGrace  KATaylor  AJ Effect of a pharmacy care program on medication adherence and persistence, blood pressure, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2006;296 (21) 2563- 2571
PubMed
Zillich  AJDoucette  WRCarter  BLKreiter  CD Development and initial validation of an instrument to measure physician-pharmacist collaboration from the physician perspective. Value Health 2005;8 (1) 59- 66
PubMed
Carter  BLArdery  GDawson  JD  et al.  A randomized-controlled effectiveness trial of physician/pharmacist collaboration to improve blood pressure control. Arch Intern Med In press
Zillich  AJ McDonough  RPCarter  BLDoucette  WR Influential characteristics of physician/pharmacist collaborative relationships. Ann Pharmacother 2004;38 (5) 764- 770
PubMed
Conrad  DFishman  PGrembowski  D  et al.  Access intervention in an integrated, prepaid group practice: effects on primary care physician productivity. Health Serv Res 2008;43 (5, pt 2) 1888- 1905
PubMed
Dorr  DAWilcox  A McConnell  KJBurns  LBrunker  CP Productivity enhancement for primary care providers using multicondition care management. Am J Manag Care 2007;13 (1) 22- 28
PubMed
Wagner  EH Chronic disease management: what will it take to improve care for chronic illness? Eff Clin Pract 1998;1 (1) 2- 4
PubMed
Wagner  EH The role of patient care teams in chronic disease management. BMJ 2000;320 (7234) 569- 572
PubMed
Gourley  DRGourley  GASolomon  DK  et al.  Development, implementation, and evaluation of a multicenter pharmaceutical care outcomes study. J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash) 1998;38 (5) 567- 573
PubMed

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Flow diagram depicting reasons trials were excluded.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

The odds ratio (OR) (confidence interval [CI]) that systolic blood pressure is controlled in the intervention group compared with the control group. A higher OR indicates a more effective intervention. A, Eight studies involving nurses. B, Five studies conducted in community pharmacies. C, Nine studies involving pharmacists in primary care clinics.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 3.

Funnel plot for all studies included in Figure 2. OR indicates odds ratio.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Stepwise Regression Analysis of the Intervention Effect on BPa
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Effect of Quality Improvement Strategies on BP Outcomes

References

Garg  JPElliott  WJFolker  AIzhar  MBlack  HRRUSH University Hypertension Service, Resistant hypertension revisited: a comparison of two university-based cohorts. Am J Hypertens 2005;18 (5, pt 1) 619- 626
PubMed
Berlowitz  DRAsh  ASHickey  EC  et al.  Inadequate management of blood pressure in a hypertensive population. N Engl J Med 1998;339 (27) 1957- 1963
PubMed
Oliveria  SALapuerta  P McCarthy  BDL’Italien  GJBerlowitz  DRAsch  SM Physician-related barriers to the effective management of uncontrolled hypertension. Arch Intern Med 2002;162 (4) 413- 420
PubMed
Hyman  DJPavlik  VN Characteristics of patients with uncontrolled hypertension in the United States. N Engl J Med 2001;345 (7) 479- 486
PubMed
Ong  KLCheung  BMMan  YBLau  CPLam  KS Prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension among United States adults 1999-2004. Hypertension 2007;49 (1) 69- 75
PubMed
Walsh  JM McDonald  KMShojania  KG  et al.  Quality improvement strategies for hypertension management: a systematic review. Med Care 2006;44 (7) 646- 657
PubMed
Weinberger  MOddone  EZHenderson  WG  et al.  Multisite randomized controlled trials in health services research: scientific challenges and operational issues. Med Care 2001;39 (6) 627- 634
PubMed
Carter  BLBarnette  DJChrischilles  EMazzotti  GJAsali  ZJ Evaluation of hypertensive patients after care provided by community pharmacists in a rural setting. Pharmacotherapy 1997;17 (6) 1274- 1285
PubMed
Carter  BL Hypertension Disease Management Services. Black  HRElliott  WJHypertension a Companion to Braunwald's Heart Disease. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier2007;527- 534
Carter  BL Nonphysician providers and the management of hypertension. Izzo  JLSica  DABlack  HRHypertension Primer. 4th ed. Dallas, TX American Heart Association2008;424- 427
Bosworth  HBOlsen  MKDudley  T  et al.  The Take Control of Your Blood pressure (TCYB) study: study design and methodology. Contemp Clin Trials 2007;28 (1) 33- 47
PubMed
Bosworth  HBOlsen  MKGentry  P  et al.  Nurse-administered telephone intervention for blood pressure control: a patient-tailored multifactorial intervention. Patient Educ Couns 2005;57 (1) 5- 14
PubMed
Bosworth  HBOlsen  MKGoldstein  MK  et al.  The veterans' study to improve the control of hypertension (V-STITCH): design and methodology. Contemp Clin Trials 2005;26 (2) 155- 168
PubMed
Chobanian  AVBakris  GLBlack  HR  et al. Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National High Blood Pressure Education Program Coordinating Committee, Seventh report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Hypertension 2003;42 (6) 1206- 1252
PubMed
McClellan  WMCraxton  LC Improved follow-up care of hypertensive patients by a nurse practitioner in a rural clinic. J Rural Health 1985;1 (2) 34- 41
PubMed
Curzio  JLRubin  PCKennedy  SSReid  JL A comparison of the management of hypertensive patients by nurse practitioners compared with conventional hospital care. J Hum Hypertens 1990;4 (6) 665- 670
PubMed
Garcia-Peña  CThorogood  MArmstrong  BReyes-Frausto  SMunoz  O Pragmatic randomized trial of home visits by a nurse to elderly people with hypertension in Mexico. Int J Epidemiol 2001;30 (6) 1485- 1491
PubMed
Hill  MNHan  HRDennison  CR  et al.  Hypertension care and control in underserved urban African American men: behavioral and physiologic outcomes at 36 months. Am J Hypertens 2003;16 (11, pt 1) 906- 913
PubMed
McLean  DL McAlister  FAJohnson  JA  et al. SCRIP-HTN Investigators, A randomized trial of the effect of community pharmacist and nurse care on improving blood pressure management in patients with diabetes mellitus: study of cardiovascular risk intervention by pharmacists-hypertension (SCRIP-HTN). Arch Intern Med 2008;168 (21) 2355- 2361
PubMed
McKenney  JMSlining  JMHenderson  HRDevins  DBarr  M The effect of clinical pharmacy services on patients with essential hypertension. Circulation 1973;48 (5) 1104- 1111
PubMed
Park  JJKelly  PCarter  BLBurgess  PP Comprehensive pharmaceutical care in the chain (pharmacy) setting. J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash) 1996;NS36 (7) 443- 451
PubMed
Garcao  JACabrita  J Evaluation of a pharmaceutical care program for hypertensive patients in rural Portugal. J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash) 2002;42 (6) 858- 864
PubMed
Zillich  AJSutherland  JMKumbera  PACarter  BL Hypertension outcomes through blood pressure monitoring and evaluation by pharmacists (HOME study). J Gen Intern Med 2005;20 (12) 1091- 1096
PubMed
Schneider  PJLarrimer  JNVisconti  JAMiller  WA Role effectiveness of a pharmacist in the maintenance of patients with hypertension and congestive heart failure. Contemp Pharm Pract 1982;5 (2) 74- 79
PubMed
McGhan  WFStimmel  GLHall  TGGilman  TM A comparison of pharmacists and physicians on the quality of prescribing for ambulatory hypertensive patients. Med Care 1983;21 (4) 435- 444
PubMed
Erickson  SRSlaughter  RHalapy  H Pharmacists' ability to influence outcomes of hypertension therapy. Pharmacotherapy 1997;17 (1) 140- 147
PubMed
Bogden  PEAbbott  RDWilliamson  POnopa  JKKoontz  LM Comparing standard care with a physician and pharmacist team approach for uncontrolled hypertension. J Gen Intern Med 1998;13 (11) 740- 745
PubMed
Vivian  EM Improving blood pressure control in a pharmacist-managed hypertension clinic. Pharmacotherapy 2002;22 (12) 1533- 1540
PubMed
Borenstein  JEGraber  GSaltiel  E  et al.  Physician-pharmacist comanagement of hypertension: a randomized, comparative trial. Pharmacotherapy 2003;23 (2) 209- 216
PubMed
Carter  BLBergus  GRDawson  JD  et al.  A cluster randomized trial to evaluate physician/pharmacist collaboration to improve blood pressure control. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2008;10 (4) 260- 271
PubMed
Woollard  JBurke  VBeilin  LJ Effects of general practice-based nurse-counselling on ambulatory blood pressure and antihypertensive drug prescription in patients at increased risk of cardiovascular disease. J Hum Hypertens 2003;17 (10) 689- 695
PubMed
New  JPMason  JMFreemantle  N  et al.  Specialist nurse-led intervention to treat and control hypertension and hyperlipidemia in diabetes (SPLINT): a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care 2003;26 (8) 2250- 2255
PubMed
Bebb  CKendrick  DCoupland  C  et al.  A cluster randomised controlled trial of the effect of a treatment algorithm for hypertension in patients with type 2 diabetes. Br J Gen Pract 2007;57 (535) 136- 143
PubMed
Mehos  BMSaseen  JJMacLaughlin  EJ Effect of pharmacist intervention and initiation of home blood pressure monitoring in patients with uncontrolled hypertension. Pharmacotherapy 2000;20 (11) 1384- 1389
PubMed
Green  BBCook  AJRalston  JD  et al.  Effectiveness of home blood pressure monitoring, Web communication, and pharmacist care on hypertension control: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2008;299 (24) 2857- 2867
PubMed
Hawkins  DWFiedler  FPDouglas  HLEschbach  RC Evaluation of a clinical pharmacist in caring for hypertensive and diabetic patients. Am J Hosp Pharm 1979;36 (10) 1321- 1325
PubMed
Solomon  DKPortner  TSBass  GE  et al.  Clinical and economic outcomes in the hypertension and COPD arms of a multicenter outcomes study. J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash) 1998;38 (5) 574- 585
PubMed
Hill  MNBone  LRHilton  SCRoary  MCKelen  GDLevine  DM A clinical trial to improve high blood pressure care in young urban black men: recruitment, follow-up, and outcomes. Am J Hypertens 1999;12 (6) 548- 554
PubMed
Guerra-Riccio  GMArtigas Giorgi  DMConsolin-Colombo  FM  et al.  Frequent nurse visits decrease white coat effect in stage III hypertension. Am J Hypertens 2004;17 (6) 523- 528
PubMed
Rudd  PMiller  NHKaufman  J  et al.  Nurse management for hypertension: a systems approach. Am J Hypertens 2004;17 (10) 921- 927
PubMed
Artinian  NTFlack  JMNordstrom  CK  et al.  Effects of nurse-managed telemonitoring on blood pressure at 12-month follow-up among urban African Americans. Nurs Res 2007;56 (5) 312- 322
PubMed
Artinian  NTWashington  OGTemplin  TN Effects of home telemonitoring and community-based monitoring on blood pressure control in urban African Americans: a pilot study. Heart Lung 2001;30 (3) 191- 199
PubMed
de Castro  MSFuchs  FDSantos  MC  et al.  Pharmaceutical care program for patients with uncontrolled hypertension: report of a double-blind clinical trial with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Am J Hypertens 2006;19 (5) 528- 533
PubMed
Tobe  SWPylypchuk  GWentworth  J  et al.  Effect of nurse-directed hypertension treatment among First Nations people with existing hypertension and diabetes mellitus: the Diabetes Risk Evaluation and Microalbuminuria (DREAM 3) randomized controlled trial. CMAJ 2006;174 (9) 1267- 1271
PubMed
Tonstad  SAlm  CSSandvik  E Effect of nurse counselling on metabolic risk factors in patients with mild hypertension: a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2007;6 (2) 160- 164
PubMed
Murray  MDHarris  LEOverhage  JM  et al.  Failure of computerized treatment suggestions to improve health outcomes of outpatients with uncomplicated hypertension: results of a randomized controlled trial. Pharmacotherapy 2004;24 (3) 324- 337
PubMed
Schroeder  KFahey  THollinghurst  SPeters  TJ Nurse-led adherence support in hypertension: a randomized controlled trial. Fam Pract 2005;22 (2) 144- 151
PubMed
Okamoto  MPNakahiro  RK Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of a pharmacist-managed hypertension clinic. Pharmacotherapy 2001;21 (11) 1337- 1344
PubMed
Gabbay  RALendel  ISaleem  TM  et al.  Nurse case management improves blood pressure, emotional distress and diabetes complication screening. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2006;71 (1) 28- 35
PubMed
Lee  JKGrace  KATaylor  AJ Effect of a pharmacy care program on medication adherence and persistence, blood pressure, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2006;296 (21) 2563- 2571
PubMed
Zillich  AJDoucette  WRCarter  BLKreiter  CD Development and initial validation of an instrument to measure physician-pharmacist collaboration from the physician perspective. Value Health 2005;8 (1) 59- 66
PubMed
Carter  BLArdery  GDawson  JD  et al.  A randomized-controlled effectiveness trial of physician/pharmacist collaboration to improve blood pressure control. Arch Intern Med In press
Zillich  AJ McDonough  RPCarter  BLDoucette  WR Influential characteristics of physician/pharmacist collaborative relationships. Ann Pharmacother 2004;38 (5) 764- 770
PubMed
Conrad  DFishman  PGrembowski  D  et al.  Access intervention in an integrated, prepaid group practice: effects on primary care physician productivity. Health Serv Res 2008;43 (5, pt 2) 1888- 1905
PubMed
Dorr  DAWilcox  A McConnell  KJBurns  LBrunker  CP Productivity enhancement for primary care providers using multicondition care management. Am J Manag Care 2007;13 (1) 22- 28
PubMed
Wagner  EH Chronic disease management: what will it take to improve care for chronic illness? Eff Clin Pract 1998;1 (1) 2- 4
PubMed
Wagner  EH The role of patient care teams in chronic disease management. BMJ 2000;320 (7234) 569- 572
PubMed
Gourley  DRGourley  GASolomon  DK  et al.  Development, implementation, and evaluation of a multicenter pharmaceutical care outcomes study. J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash) 1998;38 (5) 567- 573
PubMed

Correspondence

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 72

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Topics
PubMed Articles
JAMAevidence.com

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
Clinical Scenario

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
Example 1: Diabetes and Target Blood Pressure