Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

The impact of implementing national hypertension guidelines on prevalence and workload in primary care: a population-based survey of older people

Journal of Human Hypertension volume 19, pages 683–689 (2005)Cite this article

Abstract

Recently revised UK and US hypertension guidelines have reduced thresholds for both diagnosis and treatment and differ in their recommendations. We have used data from a random, stratified community-based sample of 4784 people aged 65 years and over to compare the prevalence of treatable hypertension and the potential impact on patients and primary care from using current guidelines. BHS, NICE and JNC7 guidelines were applied to blood pressures obtained from primary care medical records (94%) or measured at a screening clinic (6%). Risk factors were obtained by questionnaire and from medical records, supplemented by epidemiological data. Workload was estimated for a representative practice population of 10 000 patients. Blood pressures were obtained on 4514 patients (94%). Prevalence of treatable hypertension was over 67%. Compared to BHS4, prevalence estimates using NICE guidelines were comparable for men but significantly lower for women (P<0.05). They were significantly higher using JNC7 compared with BHS4 and NICE guidance (P<0.05). A general practice of 10 000 patients could expect 1287 older hypertensive patients using BHS4 guidelines and 1231 patients using NICE guidelines. Under BHS4, an extra 94 patients will require annual, rather than 5-yearly review compared with that using the previous guideline. In conclusion, implementation of BHS4 guidelines, with their revised thresholds for diagnosis, will not add materially to the prevalence of treatable hypertension compared to previous BHS3 guidelines but will have a major impact on practice workload. Use of NICE guidelines in preference to BHS4 will result in GPs treating fewer patients and reviewing untreated patients less often.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ramsay LE, Wallis EJ, Yeo W, Jackson PR . The rationale for different national recommendations for the treatment of hypertension. Am J Hypertens 1998; 11: 79S–88S.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Jackson PR et al. Management of raised blood pressure in New Zealand: a discussion document. BMJ 1993; 307: 107–110.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Ramsay LE et al. Guidelines for management of hypertension: report of the third working party of the British Hypertension Society. J Hum Hupertens 1999; 13: 569–592.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Williams B et al. Guidelines for management of hypertension: report of the fourth working party of the British Hypertension society, 2004-BHS IV. J Hum Hypertens 2004; 18: 139–185.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Clinical Guideline 18. Management Of Hypertension in Adults in Primary Care. National Institute for Clinical Excellence: London, 2004.

  6. Department of Health. National service framework for older people. Department of Health: London, 2001.

  7. Department of Health. National Service Framework For Coronary Heart Disease. Department of Health: London, 2000.

  8. Department of Health. National Service Framework For Diabetes. Department of Health: London, 2001.

  9. Richardson G, Godfrey L, Gravelle H, Watt I . Cost-effectiveness of implementing new guidelines for treatment of hypertension in general practice. Br J Gen Pract 2004; 54: 765–771.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Hobbs FD . The new British Hypertension Society guidelines: a view from primary care. J Hum Hypertens 2000; 14: 223–225.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Green PN . Life in the real world may not allow recommendations to be implemented. BMJ 2004; 329: 569.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Duerden MG . BHS is set to bankrupt NHS. BMJ 2004; 329: 569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chobanian AV et al. The seventh report of the Joint National Committee on prevention, detection, evaluation and treatment of high blood pressure. Hypertension 2003; 42: 1206–1252.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Sudlow M et al. Prevalence of atrial fibrillation and eligibility for anticoagulants in the community. Lancet 1998; 352: 1167–1171.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Duggan S, Aylett MJ, Eccles M, Ford GA . Defining hypertension in older people from primary care case notes review. J Hum Hypertens 1997; 11: 193–199.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Petrie J, O'Brien E, Littler W, de Swiet M . Recommendations on blood pressure measurement. BMJ 1986; 293: 611–615.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Aylett M et al. The introduction of local hypertension guidelines. Coronary Health Care 1997; 1: 90–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. NICE Inherited Guideline H (October 2002). Management of Type 2 Diabetes–Management of Blood Pressure And Blood Lipids. National Institute for Clinical Excellence: London, 2002.

  19. NICE Inherited Guideline A (April 2001). Prophylaxis for Patients who have Experienced a Myocardial Infarction: Drug Treatment, Cardiac Rehabilitation and Dietary Manipulation. National Institute for Clinical Excellence: London, 2001.

  20. Anderson KM, Odell PM, Wilson PWF, Kannel WB . Cardiovascular disease risk profiles. Am Heart J 1990; 121: 293–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Department of Health. Health Survey for England, 1998. www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/doh/survey98/hse-00.htm. Accessed 9th August 2004.

  22. Jones CA et al. Serum creatinine levels in the US population: Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Am J Kidney Dis 1998; 32: 992–999 Erratum: Am J Kidney Dis 2000; 35: 178.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Health Survey for England, 2003. Risk Factors for Cardiovascular Disease. Department of Health. The Stationery Office: London, 2004.

  24. Duggan S et al. Management of older patients with hypertension in primary care: improvement on the rule of halves. Age Ageing 2001; 30: 73–76.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Aylett M et al. Blood pressure control of drug treated hypertension in 18 general practices. J Hum Hypertens 1996; 10: 547–550.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lusignan S, Belsey J, Hague N, Dzregah B . End-digit preference in blood pressure recordings of patients with ischaemic heart disease in primary care. J Hum Hypertens 2004; 18: 261–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Campbell NC, Murchie P . Treating hypertension with guidelines in general practice. BMJ 2004; 329: 523–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T . Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model. Social Sci Med 1999; 49: 651–661.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Thomson R, Bowling A, Moss F . Engaging patients in decisions: a challenge to health care delivery and public health. Quality Health Care 2001; 10(Suppl 1): i1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the Stroke Association, Medical Research Council (UK), Northern Regional Health Authority, Northumberland Health Authority and the Northumbria Health Care NHS Trust for funding for various aspects of this work. We thank all the general practitioners who participated. Particular thanks are due to Dawn Winpenny, Judy Murdy, Emma Hutchinson, Tina Davies and Mark Sudlow.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Population and Health Sciences (Epidemiology and Public Health) Medical School, Framlington Place, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

    R Thomson, J Greenaway, D J Chinn & R Wood

  2. School of Clinical Medical Sciences, Medical School, Framlington Place, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

    H Rodgers

Authors
  1. R Thomson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J Greenaway
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D J Chinn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R Wood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. H Rodgers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R Thomson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Thomson, R., Greenaway, J., Chinn, D. et al. The impact of implementing national hypertension guidelines on prevalence and workload in primary care: a population-based survey of older people. J Hum Hypertens 19, 683–689 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jhh.1001896

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jhh.1001896

Keywords

Search

Advanced search

Quick links