Skip to main content

Blood pressure monitoring and control by cardiovascular disease status in UK primary care

Cardiovascular diseases remain the main cause of morbidity and mortality in the UK. Strategies to reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease UK, such as the Quality & Outcomes Framework for general practitioners, have often emphasized improved management of high-risk individuals, rather than more population-based approaches to prevention. A recent study published in the Journal of Public Health Medicine by Anthony Laverty and colleagues from Imperial College London examined blood pressure monitoring and control among patients with and without cardiovascular disease in general practices in Wandsworth, London between 1998 and 2007. Logistic regression was used to assess associations among age, gender, ethnicity, deprivation and blood pressure control.

Laverty and colleagues found that the percentage of patients with elevated blood pressure (>140/90 mm Hg) decreased at a significantly slower rate in patients without cardiovascular disease (from 31.0 to 25.3%) compared with those with cardiovascular (from 56.8 to 36.0%). Mean systolic blood pressure decreased from 146.1 to 136.4 mm Hg in patients with cardiovascular disease and from 133.7 to 130.1 in patients without cardiovascular disease. Mean diastolic blood pressure decreased from 84.2 to 78.4 mm Hg in patients with cardiovascular disease; and from 80.5 to 79.0 in patients without cardiovascular disease. They also found that inequalities in blood pressure control decreased among age, ethnic and deprivation groups.

Laverty and colleagues concluded that measurement and control of blood pressure among those people with cardiovascular disease has improved much more rapidly compared with those without cardiovascular disease. This may have been a result of the guidance and incentives given to general practitioners to improve blood pressure control in people with cardiovascular disease.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between primordial prevention and primary prevention?

Primordial prevention and primary prevention are both crucial strategies for promoting health, but they operate at different levels. Primordial prevention aims to address the root causes of health problems and improve the wider determinants of health. It focuses on preventing the emergence of risk factors in the first place by tackling the underlying social, economic, and environmental determinants of health. This involves broad, population-wide interventions such as: Policies that promote healthy food choices: Think about initiatives like taxing sugary drinks to discourage unhealthy consumption, or providing subsidies for fruits and vegetables to make them more accessible. Urban planning that prioritises well-being: This could include creating walkable neighborhoods with safe cycling routes, ensuring access to green spaces for recreation and relaxation, and designing communities that foster social connections. Social programs that address inequality: Initiatives aimed at reducing pov...
Post a Comment
Read more

MPH Student Presentations on the NHS Care.Data Programme

As part of a session on primary care data in the Health Informatics module on the Imperial Master of Public Health Programme, I asked students to work in two groups to present arguments for and against the NHS Care.Data programme. Care.Data is an NHS programme that will extract data from the medical records held by general practitioners (GPs) in England. The Care.Data programme takes advantage of the very high level of use of electronic medical records by GPs in England. After extraction, data will be uploaded to the NHS Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC). The data will then be used for functions such as health care planning, monitoring disease patterns and research. The programme has been controversial with proponents arguing that the programme will bring many benefits for the NHS and the population of England; and opponents arguing it is a major breach of privacy. You can view the two presentations to help inform you further about these arguments: Arguments fo...
5 comments
Read more

What makes a good doctor – and who gets to decide?

What Makes a Good Doctor? This is the question that Waseem Jerjes and I explore in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine . It is a key question that underpins the architecture of medical education, clinical practice, regulation, and professional identity. It cannot be answered by regulators, educators, or employers in isolation. It must be answered together – by doctors and patients – revisited throughout a career, and adapted as society and the profession change. Without that shared reflection, the danger is not simply disillusionment, but the erosion of the moral foundations of clinical work. As we enter an era when diagnosis will increasingly involve artificial intelligence and when performance metrics reward volume over value, reclaiming this question as a professional one is imperative. The integrity of our institutions – and of the practitioners within them – depends on reimagining excellence in inclusive, relational terms. A good doctor is not a flawless technician or a f...
Post a Comment
Read more