Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Primary Care
Published in: BMC Primary Care 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Study protocol

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

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

Published in: BMC Primary Care | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

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

Method/Design

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

Discussion

The QOC and effectiveness of the RAMP-HT in improving clinical and patient-reported outcomes for patients with hypertension in normal primary care will be determined. Possible areas for quality enhancement and standards of good practice will be established to inform service planning and policy decision making.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
World Health Organization. A global brief on hypertension: silent killer, global public health crisis: World Health Day 2013. 2013.
2.
Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, Cushman WC, Green LA, Izzo JJ, et al. The seventh report of the Joint National Committee on prevention, detection, evaluation, and treatment of high blood pressure. Hypertension. 2003;42(6):1206–52.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Department of Health. Report on Population Health Survey 2003/04. Hong Kong SAR: Department of Health. 2005.
4.
British Cardiac Society, British Hypertension Society, Diabetes UK, HEART UK, Primary Care Cardiovascular Society, Stroke Association. JBS 2: Joint British Societies’ guidelines on prevention of cardiovascular disease in clinical practice. Heart. 2005;91 Suppl 5:v1–52.
5.
D’Agostino RB, Vasan RS, Pencina MJ, Wolf PA, Cobain M, Massaro JM, et al. General cardiovascular risk profile for use in primary care: the Framingham Heart Study. Circulation. 2008;117(6):743–53.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Padwal RS, Hemmelgarn BR, Khan NA, Grover S, McKay DW, Wilson T, et al. The 2009 Canadian Hypertension Education Program recommendations for the management of hypertension: Part 1–blood pressure measurement, diagnosis and assessment of risk. Can J Cardiol. 2009;25(5):279–86.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Campbell NR, So L, Amankwah E, Quan H, Maxwell C. Characteristics of hypertensive Canadians not receiving drug therapy. Can J Cardiol. 2008;24(6):485–90.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Hackam DG, Leiter LA, Yan AT, Yan RT, Mendelsohn A, Tan M, et al. Missed opportunities for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in Canada. Can J Cardiol. 2007;23(14):1124–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
McInnis NH, Fodor G, Lum-Kwong MM, Leenen FH. Antihypertensive medication use and blood pressure control: a community-based cross-sectional survey (ON-BP). Am J Hypertens. 2008;21(11):1210–5.CrossRefPubMed
10.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Hypertension: clinical management of primary hypertension in adults. 2011.
11.
Walsh JME, McDonald KM, Shojania KG, Sundaram V, Nayak S, Lewis R, et al. Quality improvement strategies for hypertension management: a systematic review. Med Care. 2006;44(7):646–57.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Mendis S, Johnston SC, Fan W, Oladapo O, Cameron A, Faramawi MF. Cardiovascular risk management and its impact on hypertension control in primary care in low-resource settings: a cluster-randomized trial. Bull World Health Organ. 2010;88:412–9.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Mattila R, Malmivaara A, Kastarinen M, Kivela SL, Nissinen A. Effectiveness of multidisciplinary lifestyle intervention for hypertension: a randomised controlled trial. J Hum Hypertens. 2003;17(3):199–205.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Kaczorowski J, Chambers LW, Dolovich L, Paterson JM, Karwalajtys T, Gierman T, et al. Improving cardiovascular health at population level: 39 community cluster randomised trial of Cardiovascular Health Awareness Program (CHAP). BMJ. 2011;342.
15.
Barrios V, Escobar C, Calderon A, Echarri R, Gonzalez-Pedel V, Ruilope LM. Cardiovascular risk profile and risk stratification of the hypertensive population attended by general practitioners and specialists in Spain. The CONTROLRISK study. J Hum Hypertens. 2007;21(6):479–85.PubMed
16.
Revans R, editor. Action learning: new techniques for management. London: Blond & Briggs; 1980.
17.
Fraser RC, Lakhani MK, Baker RH. Evidence-based audit in general practice: from principles to practice. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann; 1998.
18.
Donabedian A. Evaluating the quality of medical care. Milbank Q. 1966;44(3.2):166–203.CrossRef
19.
Hintze J. Power Analysis and Sample Size (PASS) 2008. Kaysville, Utah, USA: NCSS, LCC; 2008.
20.
Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
21.
Erdfelder E, Faul F. GPOWER: a general power analysis program. 1996.
22.
Lam ET, Lam CL, Fong DY, Huang WW. Is the SF-12 version 2 Health Survey a valid and equivalent substitute for the SF-36 version 2 Health Survey for the Chinese? J Eval Clin Pract. 2013;19(1):200–8.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Lam CLK, Wong CKH, Lam ETP, Huang WW, Lo YYC. Population norm of Chinese (HK) SF-12 Health Survey Version 2 of Chinese adults in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong Practitioner. 2010;32:77–86.
24.
Howie JGR, Heaney DJ, Maxwell M, Walker JJ. A comparison of a Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI) against two established satisfaction scales as an outcome measure of primary care consultations. Fam Pract. 1998;15(2):165–71.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Lam CL, Yuen NY, Mercer SW, Wong W. A pilot study on the validity and reliability of the Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI) in a Chinese population. Fam Pract. 2010;27(4):395–403.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10(4):407–15.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Campbell NC, Murray E, Darbyshire J, Emery J, Farmer A, Griffiths F, et al. Designing and evaluating complex interventions to improve health care. BMJ. 2007;334(7591):455.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Fung C, Chin WY, Dai D, Kwok R, Tsui E, Wan YF, et al. Evaluation of the quality of care of a multi-disciplinary risk factor assessment and management programme (RAMP) for diabetic patients. BMC Fam Pract. 2012;13(1):116.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Evaluation of the quality of care of a multi-disciplinary Risk Factor Assessment and Management Programme for Hypertension (RAMP-HT)
Authors
Esther Yee Tak Yu
Eric Yuk Fai Wan
Karina Hiu Yen Chan
Carlos King Ho Wong
Ruby Lai Ping Kwok
Daniel Yee Tak Fong
Cindy Lo Kuen Lam
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Primary Care / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 2731-4553
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-015-0291-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

BMC Primary Care 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research article

Experiences of tobacco smoking and quitting in smokers with and without chronic obstructive pulmonary disease-a qualitative analysis

Research article

Reliability and applicability of the Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI) in a Swedish general practice setting

Research article

Living with complexity; marshalling resources: a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis of lived experience of mental and physical multimorbidity

Research article

Developing a computerised search to help UK General Practices identify more patients for palliative care planning: a feasibility study

Research article

Managing depression in people with multimorbidity: a qualitative evaluation of an integrated collaborative care model

Research article

Primary health care teams put to the test a cross-sectional study from Austria within the QUALICOPC project