Hypertension outcomes through blood pressure monitoring and evaluation by pharmacists (HOME study)


Related Publications

Suter E, Misfeldt R, Mallinson S, Wilhelm A, Boakye O, Marchildon G, et al. Comparative Review of the Policy Landscape of Team-based Primary Health Care Service Delivery in Western Canada. Alberta Health Services; 2014.
Laberge M, Pang J, Walker K, Wong ST, Hogg W, Wodchis WP. QUALICOPC (Quality and Costs of Primary Care) Canada: A focus on the aspects of primary care most highly rated by current patients of primary care practices. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement; 2014.
McGregor MJ, Abu-Laban RB, Ronald L, McGrail KM, Andrusiek D, Baumbusch J, et al. Nursing Home Characteristics Associated with Resident Transfers to Emergency Department. Canadian Journal on Aging. 2012;33(1):38-48.
Koehoorn M, McLeod CB, Fan JK, McGrail KM, Barer ML, Cote P, et al. Do private clinics or expedited fees improve wait- or return-to-work times for injured workers following knee surgery? Healthcare Policy. 2011;5(3):17-26.
Sutherland JM, Barer ML, Evans RG, Crump RT. Will paying the piper change the tune? Healthcare Policy. 2011;6(4):16-24.

Publication Topics

Hypertension outcomes through blood pressure monitoring and evaluation by pharmacists (HOME study)

Publication TypeJournal Article
Year of Publication2005
AuthorsZillich AJ, Sutherland JM, Kumbera PA, Carter BL
JournalJournal of general internal medicineJ.Gen.Intern.Med.
Pages1091 - 1096
Date Published2005
KeywordsAged, Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory, Community Health Services/methods, Female, Humans, Hypertension/therapy, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Education as Topic, Pharmacists, Risk Reduction Behavior, Treatment Outcome
AbstractOBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a community pharmacist-based home blood pressure (BP) monitoring program. DESIGN: Trial of a high-intensity (HI) versus low-intensity (LI) intervention randomized in 12 community pharmacies. The HI intervention comprised 4 face-to-face visits with a trained pharmacist. Pharmacists provided patient-specific education about hypertension. Following the first and third visits, patients were provided with a home BP monitoring device and instructed to measure their BP at least once daily for the next month. Home BP readings were used by the pharmacists to develop treatment recommendations for the patient's physician. Recommendations were discussed with the physician and, if approved, implemented by the pharmacist. In the LI intervention, pharmacists measured patients BP in the pharmacy and referred them to their physician for evaluation. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with uncontrolled BP at baseline. MEASUREMENTS: The main outcomes were the differences in systolic and diastolic BP (SBP and DBP) from baseline to follow-up between the HI and LI patients. RESULTS: The study enrolled 125 patients, 64 in the HI and 61 in the LI group. From baseline, SBP declined 13.4 mmHg in the HI group and 9.0 mmHg in the LI group. At the final visit, the difference in SBP/DBP change between the HI and LI group was -4.5/-3.2 mmHg (P=.12 for SBP and P=.03 for DBP). CONCLUSIONS: The HI intervention achieved a lower DBP and this model could be a strategy for patients with hypertension.
Citation Key512