Effect of social deprivation on blood pressure monitoring and control in England: a survey of data from the quality and outcomes framework
- PMID: 18957697
- PMCID: PMC2590907
- DOI: 10.1136/bmj.a2030
Effect of social deprivation on blood pressure monitoring and control in England: a survey of data from the quality and outcomes framework
Abstract
Objective: To determine levels of blood pressure monitoring and control in primary care and to determine the effect of social deprivation on these levels.
Design: Retrospective longitudinal survey, 2005 to 2007.
Setting: General practices in England.
Participants: Data obtained from 8515 practices (99.3% of all practices) in year 1, 8264 (98.3%) in year 2, and 8192 (97.8%) in year 3.
Main outcome measures: Blood pressure indicators and chronic disease prevalence estimates contained within the UK quality and outcomes framework; social deprivation scores for each practice, ethnicity data obtained from the 2001 national census; general practice characteristics.
Results: In 2005, 82.3% of adults (n=52.8m) had an up to date blood pressure recording; by 2007, this proportion had risen to 88.3% (n=53.2m). Initially, there was a 1.7% gap between mean blood pressure recording levels in practices located in the least deprived fifth of communities compared with the most deprived fifth, but, three years later, this gap had narrowed to 0.2%. Achievement of target blood pressure levels in 2005 for practices located in the least deprived communities ranged from 71.0% (95% CI 70.4% to 71.6%) for diabetes to 85.1% (84.7% to 85.6%) for coronary heart disease; practices in the most deprived communities achieved 68.9% (68.4% to 69.5%) and 81.8 % (81.3% to 82.3%) respectively. Three years later, target achievement in the least deprived practices had risen to 78.6% (78.1% to 79.1%) and 89.4% (89.1% to 89.7%) respectively. Target achievement in the most deprived practices rose similarly, to 79.2% (78.8% to 79.6%) and 88.4% (88.2% to 88.7%) respectively. Similar changes were observed for the achievement of blood pressure targets in hypertension, cerebrovascular disease, and chronic kidney disease.
Conclusions: Since the reporting of performance indicators for primary care and the incorporation of pay for performance in 2004, blood pressure monitoring and control have improved substantially. Improvements in achievement have been accompanied by the near disappearance of the achievement gap between least and most deprived areas.
Conflict of interest statement
Competing interests: None declared.
Comment in
-
The UK quality and outcomes framework.BMJ. 2008 Oct 28;337:a2095. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a2095. BMJ. 2008. PMID: 18957698 No abstract available.
-
Accurate deprivation scores are needed.BMJ. 2008 Dec 10;337:a2926. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a2926. BMJ. 2008. PMID: 19073675 No abstract available.
References
-
- Ezzati M, Lopez A, Rodgers A, Van der Hoon S, Murray C. Selected major risk factors and global and regional burden of disease. Lancet 2002;360:1347-60. - PubMed
-
- Murray CJ, Lauer JA, Hutubessy RC, Niessen L, Tomijima N, Rodgers A, et al. Effectiveness and costs of interventions to lower systolic blood pressure and cholesterol: a global and regional analysis on reduction of cardiovascular-disease risk. Lancet 2003;361:717-25. - PubMed
-
- He FJ, MacGregor GA. Cost of poor blood pressure control in the UK: 62 000 unnecessary deaths per year. J Hum Hypertens 2003;17:455-7. - PubMed
-
- Wolf-Maier K, Cooper RS, Kramer H, Banegas JR, Giampaoli S, Joffres MR, et al. Hypertension treatment and control in five European countries, Canada, and the United States. Hypertension 2004;43:10-7. - PubMed
-
- Primatesta P, Poulter NR. Improvement in hypertension management in England: results from the health survey for England 2003. J Hypertens 2006;24:1187-92. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous