Download PDF
Appl Clin Inform 2024; 15(05): 942-951
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1790554
Research Article

Facilitators and Barriers to Integrating Patient-Generated Blood Pressure Data into Primary Care EHR Workflows

Shannon M. Canfield
1   Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, Missouri, United States
,
Richelle J. Koopman
1   Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, Missouri, United States
› Author Affiliations Funding This project was supported by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Evidence supports using patient-generated blood pressure data for better outcomes in hypertension management. However, obstacles like dealing with home-generated paper data sets and questions of validity slowed the meaningful incorporation of home blood pressure into clinical care. As clinicians value patient data more, reliance on digital health solutions for data collection and shared decision-making grows.

Objectives The purpose of this study is to evaluate the design and early implementation of an electronic health record (EHR)-based data visualization tool and explore the barriers or facilitators to integrating) patients' home blood pressure data into the electronic workflow in the clinical setting. Findings can inform potential next steps for implementation and provide recommendations for leveraging patient-generated health data (PGHD) in hypertension management.

Methods We qualitatively explored pre- and early-implementation factors for integrating PGHD into clinicians' EHR interfaces intended to support shared decision-making using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). We collected data in the form of notes and transcripts from clinician focus groups, administrative leadership feedback sessions, research team observations, and recurring team meetings. This study took place at a midwestern academic health center.

Results We identify implementation facilitating factors, adoption considerations, and next steps across CFIR domains focusing on large-scale implementation. Key recommendations include aligning internal and external priorities, empowering champions to facilitate uptake, using intuitive design, and anticipating and planning for unintended consequences.

Conclusion These findings can guide future efforts to include PGHD in workflows, thus enhancing shared decision-making and laying the groundwork for larger implementations. Understanding the implementation barriers and facilitators to connect PGHD to clinician apps in the EHR workspace can promote their adoption and maintenance.

Keywords

hypertension management - blood pressure control - implementation science - shared decision-making - patient-generated health data - mHealth - data visualization - primary care

Protection of Human Subjects

All participants gave informed consent before participating, and this study was conducted in accordance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. The University of Missouri Institutional Review Board approved this study (#2002623).


Note

The authors have not presented the findings included in this manuscript at a conference.


Disclosure

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 01 April 2024

Accepted: 16 August 2024

Article published online:
13 November 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Uhlig K, Patel K, Ip S, Kitsios GD, Balk EM. Self-measured blood pressure monitoring in the management of hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2013; 159 (03) 185-194
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Bobrie G, Chatellier G, Genes N. et al. Cardiovascular prognosis of “masked hypertension” detected by blood pressure self-measurement in elderly treated hypertensive patients. JAMA 2004; 291 (11) 1342-1349
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 United States Preventive Services Task Force. Final Recommendation Statement: High Blood Pressure in Adults: Screening; 2017
    PubMed
  • 4 Fagard RH, Van Den Broeke C, De Cort P. Prognostic significance of blood pressure measured in the office, at home and during ambulatory monitoring in older patients in general practice. J Hum Hypertens 2005; 19 (10) 801-807
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Crabtree MM, Stuart-Shor E, McAllister M. Home blood pressure monitoring: an integrated review of the literature. J Nurse Pract 2013; 9 (06) 356-361
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Tucker KL, Sheppard JP, Stevens R. et al. Self-monitoring of blood pressure in hypertension: A systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis. PLoS Med 2017; 14 (09) e1002389
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Sega R, Facchetti R, Bombelli M. et al. Prognostic value of ambulatory and home blood pressures compared with office blood pressure in the general population: follow-up results from the Pressioni Arteriose Monitorate e Loro Associazioni (PAMELA) study. Circulation 2005; 111 (14) 1777-1783
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Parati G, Stergiou GS, Asmar R. et al; ESH Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring. European Society of Hypertension guidelines for blood pressure monitoring at home: a summary report of the Second International Consensus Conference on Home Blood Pressure Monitoring. J Hypertens 2008; 26 (08) 1505-1526
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Ohkubo T, Imai Y, Tsuji I. et al. Home blood pressure measurement has a stronger predictive power for mortality than does screening blood pressure measurement: a population-based observation in Ohasama, Japan. J Hypertens 1998; 16 (07) 971-975
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Hamine S, Gerth-Guyette E, Faulx D, Green BB, Ginsburg AS. Impact of mHealth chronic disease management on treatment adherence and patient outcomes: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res 2015; 17 (02) e52
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Shenvi E, Boxwala A, Sittig D. et al. Visualization of patient-generated health data: a scoping review of dashboard designs. Appl Clin Inform 2023; 14 (05) 913-922
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Shimbo D, Artinian NT, Basile JN. et al; American Heart Association and the American Medical Association. Self-measured blood pressure monitoring at home: a joint policy statement from the American Heart Association and American Medical Association. Circulation 2020; 142 (04) e42-e63
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Tiase VL, Hull W, McFarland MM. et al. Patient-generated health data and electronic health record integration: protocol for a scoping review. BMJ Open 2019; 9 (12) e033073
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Sim I. Mobile devices and health. N Engl J Med 2019; 381 (10) 956-968
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 West P, Van Kleek M, Giordano R, Weal MJ, Shadbolt N. Common barriers to the use of patient-generated data across clinical settings. CHI '18: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; 2018: 1-13
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 McCaffery KJ, Dixon A, Hayen A, Jansen J, Smith S, Simpson JM. The influence of graphic display format on the interpretations of quantitative risk information among adults with lower education and literacy: a randomized experimental study. Med Decis Making 2012; 32 (04) 532-544
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Koopman RJ, Canfield SM, Belden JL. et al. Home blood pressure data visualization for the management of hypertension: designing for patient and physician information needs. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2020; 20 (01) 195
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Wegier P, Belden JL, Canfield SM. et al. Home blood pressure data visualization for the management of hypertension: using human factors and design principles. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2021; 21 (01) 235
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Cohen DJ, Wyte-Lake T, Canfield SM. et al. Impact of home blood pressure data visualization on hypertension medical decision making in primary care. Ann Fam Med 2022; 20 (04) 305-311
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Sorum PC, Stein C, Moore DL. “Comprehensive Healthcare for America”: using the insights of behavioral economics to transform the U. S. Healthcare System. J Law Med Ethics 2023; 51 (01) 153-171
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Pickering TG, Miller NH, Ogedegbe G, Krakoff LR, Artinian NT, Goff D. American Heart Association, American Society of Hypertension, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association. Call to action on use and reimbursement for home blood pressure monitoring: a joint scientific statement from the American Heart Association, American Society Of Hypertension, and Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association. Hypertension 2008; 52 (01) 10-29
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Jain A, Popescu M, Keller J. et al. A decision support system for home BP measurements. PervasiveHealth '17: Proceedings of the 11th EAI International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare; 2017: 231-234
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Shaffer VA, Wegier P, Valentine KD. et al. Patient judgments about hypertension control: the role of variability, trends, and outliers in visualized blood pressure data. J Med Internet Res 2019; 21 (03) e11366
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Shaffer VA, Wegier P, Valentine KD. et al. Patient Judgments About Hypertension Control: The Role of Variability, Trends, and Outliers in Visualized Blood Pressure Data. J Med Internet Res 2019; 21 (03) e11366-105
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Belden JL, Wegier P, Patel J. et al. Designing a medication timeline for patients and physicians. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2019; 26 (02) 95-105
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Bowen DJ, Kreuter M, Spring B. et al. How we design feasibility studies. Am J Prev Med 2009; 36 (05) 452-457
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Safaeinili N, Brown-Johnson C, Shaw JG, Mahoney M, Winget M. CFIR simplified: Pragmatic application of and adaptations to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) for evaluation of a patient-centered care transformation within a learning health system. Learn Health Syst 2019; 4 (01) e10201
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Damschroder LJ, Reardon CM, Opra Widerquist MA, Lowery J. Conceptualizing outcomes for use with the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR): the CFIR Outcomes Addendum. Implement Sci 2022; 17 (01) 7
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Lu Y. Using Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to Improve Information Governance (IG) Implementation in Healthcare. Scholar Archive: Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, & Science University. 2018
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 30 King DK, Shoup JA, Raebel MA. et al. Planning for implementation success using RE-AIM and CFIR frameworks: a qualitative study. Front Public Health 2020; 8: 59
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Garfinkel H. Studies in ethnomethodology. In: Social Theory Re-Wired. Routledge; 2023: 58-66
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 32 Creswell JW, Creswell JD. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage Publications; 2017
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 33 Spradley JP. Participant Observation. Waveland Press; 2016
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 34 Koopman RJ, Petroski GF, Canfield SM, Stuppy JA, Mehr DR. Development of the PRE-HIT instrument: patient readiness to engage in health information technology. BMC Fam Pract 2014; 15: 18
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Siu AL. Force USPST, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for high blood pressure in adults: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2015; 163 (10) 778-786
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 American Heart Association. Why High blood pressure is a “Silent Killer”. American Heart Association. Accessed 2024 at: https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fayanetwork.com%2Faya%2Fngolo%2FWhy%2520High%2520Blood%2520Pressure%2520is%2520a%2520_Silent%2520Killer_%2520_%2520American%2520Heart%2520Association.pdf&data=05%7C02%7Ccanfieldsm%40health.missouri.edu%7C901a7c6f21d546ade46108dccc60a4a6%7Ce3fefdbef7e9401ba51a355e01b05a89%7C0%7C0%7C638609962651636903%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=E6Veh2gFZ%2FE9Q2wwzVwGkA8%2FDdXi6DxGjUXC2b1CGC0%3D&reserved=0 " https://ayanetwork.com/aya/ngolo/Why%20High%20Blood%20Pressure%20is%20a%20_Silent%20Killer_%20_%20American%20Heart%20Association.pdf 2016
  • 37 Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA. Helping patients decide: ten steps to better risk communication. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011; 103 (19) 1436-1443
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 Wakefield DS, Mehr D, Keplinger L. et al. Issues and questions to consider in implementing secure electronic patient-provider web portal communications systems. Int J Med Inform 2010; 79 (07) 469-477
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 39 Clarke MA, Steege LM, Moore JL, Belden JL, Koopman RJ, Kim MS. Addressing human computer interaction issues of electronic health record in clinical encounters. Springer; 2013: 381-390
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 40 Clarke MA, Moore JL, Steege LM. et al. Toward a patient-centered ambulatory after-visit summary: identifying primary care patients' information needs. Inform Health Soc Care 2018; 43 (03) 248-263
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 41 Belden J, Patel J, Lowrance N. et al. Inspired EHRs: Designing for clinicians. Curators of the University of Missouri; 2014
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 42 Shaw RJ, Boazak M, Tiase V. et al. Integrating Patient-generated Digital Health Data into Electronic Health Records (EHRs) in Ambulatory Care Settings: EHR Vendor Survey and Interviews. American Medical Informatics Association; 2022: 439
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 43 Persell SD, Petito LC, Anthony L. et al. Prospective cohort study of remote patient monitoring with and without care coordination for hypertension in primary care. Appl Clin Inform 2023; 14 (03) 428-438
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 44 Kooij L, Groen WG, van Harten WH. The effectiveness of information technology-supported shared care for patients with chronic disease: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res 2017; 19 (06) e221
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 45 Naqvi IA, Strobino K, Li H. et al. Improving patient-reported outcomes in stroke care using remote blood pressure monitoring and telehealth. Appl Clin Inform 2023; 14 (05) 883-891
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 46 Ancker JS, Edwards A, Nosal S, Hauser D, Mauer E, Kaushal R. with the HITEC Investigators. Effects of workload, work complexity, and repeated alerts on alert fatigue in a clinical decision support system. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2017; 17 (01) 36
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 47 Embi PJ, Leonard AC. Evaluating alert fatigue over time to EHR-based clinical trial alerts: findings from a randomized controlled study. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2012; 19 (e1): e145-e148
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 48 Gordon WJ, Blood AJ, Chaney K. et al. Workflow automation for a virtual hypertension management program. Appl Clin Inform 2021; 12 (05) 1041-1048
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 49 Adler-Milstein J, Nong P. Early experiences with patient generated health data: health system and patient perspectives. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2019; 26 (10) 952-959
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar