Skip to main content

Differences in BP control using NICE guidelines and QOF targets


High blood pressure is the main risk factor for cardiovascular disease. As cardiovascular risk is directly associated with blood pressure levels, the aim of interventions is to lower blood pressure. This aim results in a definition of the control of blood pressure which is currently understood as an achievement of specific blood pressure levels or targets. These targets have been established in different guidelines based on the consensus views of experts. In a study published in JRSM Short Reports, Lena Barrera and colleagues compared differences in the classification of hypertensive controlled patients between the quality indicator established in QOF guidance and the clinical target recommended in NICE guidelines using data from general practices in London.

They found that 80% of patients were classified as controlled by the QOF target and 1% by the NICE target. 93% and 14% of practices had more than 70% of patients classified as controlled using the QOF and NICE targets respectively. Using the QOF target, men aged 45–64 years and 65 years and over had significantly higher probability of being classified as controlled compared to those aged 17–44 years. Lena Barrera and colleagues concluded that better achievement of blood pressure control targets is present when the less stringent QOF target is used and that greater consistency is needed between the clinical targets in QOF and NICE guidance.

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