Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38422101›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Investigating barriers & facilitators for the successful implementation of the BP@home initiative in London: Primary care perspectives.

Eva Riboli-Sasco, Austen El-Osta, Marie Line El Asmar, Manisha Karki, Gabriele Kerr, Ganesh Sathaymoorthy, Azeem Majeed

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Eva Riboli-SascoSelf-Care Academic Research Unit (SCARU), Department of Primary Care & Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kindgom.ORCID 0000-0002-9922-9125
Austen El-OstaSelf-Care Academic Research Unit (SCARU), Department of Primary Care & Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kindgom.ORCID 0000-0002-8772-4938
Marie Line El AsmarSelf-Care Academic Research Unit (SCARU), Department of Primary Care & Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kindgom.
Manisha KarkiSelf-Care Academic Research Unit (SCARU), Department of Primary Care & Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kindgom.
Gabriele KerrNIHR ARC North West London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3170-3211
Ganesh SathaymoorthyNIHR ARC North West London, London, United Kingdom.
Azeem MajeedSelf-Care Academic Research Unit (SCARU), Department of Primary Care & Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kindgom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic led to the implementation of a national policy of shielding to safeguard clinically vulnerable patients. To ensure consistent care for high-risk patients with hypertension, NHS England introduced the BP@home initiative to enable patients to self-monitor their blood pressure by providing them with blood pressure monitors. This study aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the initiative based on the experience and perspectives of programme managers and healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved in its implementation in London. METHODS AND

findingsWe conducted five semi-structured focus groups and one individual interview with a total of 20 healthcare professionals involved at different levels and stages in the BP@home initiative across four of the five London Integrated Care Systems (ICSs). All focus groups and interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically following the Framework Method. Respondents reported being challenged by the lack of adequate IT, human and financial resources to support the substantial additional workload associated with the programme. These issues resulted in and reinforced the differential engagement capacities of PCNs, practices and patients, thus raising equity concerns among respondents. However respondents also identified several facilitators, including the integration of the eligibility criteria into the electronic health record (EHR), especially when combined with the adoption of practice-specific, pragmatic and opportunistic approaches to the onboarding of patients. Respondents also recommended the provision of blood pressure monitors (BPMs) on prescription, additional funding and training based on needs assessment, the incorporation of BP@home into daily practice and simplification of IT tools, and finally the adoption of a person-centred care approach. Contextualised using the second iteration of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), these findings support key evidence-based recommendations to help streamline the implementation of the BP@home initiative in London's primary care setting.

conclusionsPrograms such as BP@Home are likely to become more common in primary care. To successfully support HCPs' aim to care for their hypertensive patients, their implementation must be accompanied by additional financial, human and training resources, as well as supported task-shifting for capacity building. Future studies should explore the perspectives of HCPs based in other parts of the UK as well as patients' experiences with remote monitoring of blood pressure.

Indexed as

HypertensionPandemicsDriveEnglandHumansLondonPatient-Centered Care

Identifiers

PMID38422101
PMCPMC10903909

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.