Observational studyCJEM2022
Trajectory of patients consulting the emergency department for high blood pressure values.
Observational study in CJEM, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Outcomes of Discharged Patients With High Blood Pressure in the Emergency Department.Cureus · 2024Article
- The Patient-Provider Gap: A Cross-sectional Survey to Understand Barriers and Motivating Factors for Home Blood Pressure Monitoring in a CKD Cohort.Canadian journal of kidney health and disease · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesEmergency department (ED) visits for high blood pressure are increasing in frequency. We aimed to map those patients' trajectory, from referral sources to the type of care received at the ED to anticipated actions for future high blood pressure concerns, and to better understand their reasons for consulting the ED for high blood pressure values.
methodsBetween 2018 and 2020, patients who presented to the Montreal Heart Institute's ED for elevated blood pressure were recruited in a prospective observational study including a post hoc structured telephone interview and medical chart review. Five possible referral sources were predetermined. We provided proportions and 95% confidence intervals.
resultsA total of 100 patients were recruited (female: 59%, mean age: 69 ± 12). A majority (93%, 95% CI 88-98%) possessed a home blood pressure device, among which 46% (95% CI 36-56%) remembered receiving advice for its use. The main referral sources for high blood pressure to the ED were self-reference (53%, 95% CI 43-63%), advice of a lay person (19%, 95% CI 11-27%) or a nurse (13%, 95% CI 6-20%). Mainly, patients reported being concerned by concomitant symptoms or experiencing acute medical consequences (44%, 95% CI 34-54%), having followed the recommendation of a third party (33%, 95% CI 24-42%), or having concerns about their medication (6%, 95% CI 1-11%). Two weeks following their ED visits, consulting ED remained the main choice for future concerns about high blood pressure for 27% of participants. When specifically asked if they would return to the ED for elevated blood pressure, 73% (95% CI 64-83%) said yes.
conclusionsMost patients who consulted the ED for elevated blood pressure values were self-referred. More can be done to promote blood pressure education, effective use of personal blood pressure devices, and recommendations for patients and health professionals when confronted with high blood pressure results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.