Methodological limitations in current studies may underestimate physician adherence to hypertension guidelines, requiring more comprehensive evaluation methods.
Methodological gaps may underestimate adherence; leaves open reliable quantification of physician performance pending validated, outcome-linked measures.
Adherence to practice guidelines is frequently used as a measure of quality of care. Numerous studies have evaluated physician adherence to hypertension guidelines by prescription data, physician survey data, or medical record review. However, most have methodological limitations that might underestimate physician adherence. Accurate and meaningful characterization of adherence rests on evaluation of varied components of hypertension care, use of explicit validated performance measures, incorporation of implicit and explicit review, and linkage of process measures to blood pressure outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Milchak et al. (2004) conducted a review in Hypertension. Accurate characterization of physician adherence to hypertension guidelines requires evaluating varied care components, using validated performance measures, and linking process measures to outcomes.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: