- Browse by Author
Browsing by Author "Roumie, Christianne L."
Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Comparison of Risk Factor Control in the Year After Discharge for Ischemic Stroke Versus Acute Myocardial Infarction(American Heart Association, 2018-02) Bravata, Dawn M.; Daggy, Joanne; Brosch, Jared; Sico, Jason J.; Baye, Fitsum; Myers, Laura J.; Roumie, Christianne L.; Cheng, Eric; Coffing, Jessica; Arling, Greg; Medicine, School of MedicineBACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Veterans Health Administration has engaged in quality improvement to improve vascular risk factor control. We sought to examine blood pressure (<140/90 mm Hg), lipid (LDL [low-density lipoprotein] cholesterol <100 mg/dL), and glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c <9%), in the year post-hospitalization for acute ischemic stroke or acute myocardial infarction (AMI). METHODS: We identified patients who were hospitalized (fiscal year 2011) with ischemic stroke, AMI, congestive heart failure, transient ischemic attack, or pneumonia/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The primary analysis compared risk factor control after incident ischemic stroke versus AMI. Facilities were included if they cared for ≥25 ischemic stroke and ≥25 AMI patients. A generalized linear mixed model including patient- and facility-level covariates compared risk factor control across diagnoses. RESULTS: Forty thousand two hundred thirty patients were hospitalized (n=75 facilities): 2127 with incident ischemic stroke and 4169 with incident AMI. Fewer stroke patients achieved blood pressure control than AMI patients (64%; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.67 versus 77%; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.78; P<0.0001). After adjusting for patient and facility covariates, the odds of blood pressure control were still higher for AMI than ischemic stroke patients (odds ratio, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-1.51). There were no statistical differences for AMI versus stroke patients in hyperlipidemia (P=0.534). Among patients with diabetes mellitus, the odds of glycemic control were lower for AMI than ischemic stroke patients (odds ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-0.96). CONCLUSIONS: Given that hypertension control is a cornerstone of stroke prevention, interventions to improve poststroke hypertension management are neededItem Hypertension treatment intensification among stroke survivors with uncontrolled blood pressure(Elsevier, 2015-05) Roumie, Christianne L.; Zillich, Alan J.; Bravata, Dawn M.; Jaynes, Heather A.; Myers, Laura J.; Yoder, Joseph; Cheng, Eric M.; Department of Medicine, IU School of MedicineObjective The study objective was to evaluate a pharmacist hypertension care management program within the patient-centered medical home. Methods This was a retrospective case-control study. Cases included all patients with hypertension who were referred to the care management program, and controls included patients with hypertension who were not referred to the program during the same 1-year period. Each case was matched to a maximum of 3 controls on the basis of primary care physician, age ±5 years, gender, diagnoses of diabetes and kidney disease, baseline systolic blood pressure ±10 mm Hg, and number of unique antihypertensive medications. Pharmacists provided a hypertension care management program under an approved scope of practice that allowed pharmacists to meet individually with patients, adjust medications, and provide patient education. Primary outcomes were systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure at 6 and 12 months. Multivariate regression models compared each blood pressure end point between cases and controls adjusting for age, comorbidities, baseline blood pressure, and baseline number of blood pressure medications. Results A total of 573 patients were referred to the hypertension program; 86% (465/543) had at least 1 matched control and were included as cases in the analyses; 3:1 matching was achieved in 90% (418/465) of cases. At baseline, cases and controls did not differ with respect to age, gender, race, or comorbidity; baseline blood pressure was higher (139.9/80.0 mm Hg vs 136.7/78.2 mm Hg, P ≤ .0002) in the cases compared with controls. Multivariate regression modeling identified significantly lower systolic blood pressure for the cases compared with controls at both 6 and 12 months (6-month risk ratio [RR], 9.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.7-35.3; 12-month RR, 20.3; 95% CI, 4.1-99.2; P < .01 for both comparisons). Diastolic blood pressure was significantly lower at 12 months (RR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.2-7.1; P < .01) but not at 6 months (RR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.31-3.4; P = .9) for the cases compared with controls. Conclusions Patients who were referred to the pharmacist hypertension care management program had a significant improvement in most blood pressure outcomes. This program may be an effective method of improving blood pressure control among patients in a medical home model of primary care.Item The implementation of a translational study involving a primary care based behavioral program to improve blood pressure control: The HTN-IMPROVE study protocol (01295)(BMC, 2010-07-16) Bosworth, Hayden B.; Almirall, Daniel; Weiner, Bryan J.; Maciejewski, Mathew; Kaufman, Miriam A.; Powers, Benjamin J.; Oddone, Eugene Z.; Lee, Shoou-Yih D.; Damush, Teresa M.; Smith, Valerie; Olsen, Maren K.; Anderson, Daren; Roumie, Christianne L.; Rakley, Susan; Del Monte, Pamela S.; Bowen, Michael E.; Kravetz, Jeffrey D.; Jackson, George L.; Medicine, School of MedicineBackground Despite the impact of hypertension and widely accepted target values for blood pressure (BP), interventions to improve BP control have had limited success. Objectives We describe the design of a 'translational' study that examines the implementation, impact, sustainability, and cost of an evidence-based nurse-delivered tailored behavioral self-management intervention to improve BP control as it moves from a research context to healthcare delivery. The study addresses four specific aims: assess the implementation of an evidence-based behavioral self-management intervention to improve BP levels; evaluate the clinical impact of the intervention as it is implemented; assess organizational factors associated with the sustainability of the intervention; and assess the cost of implementing and sustaining the intervention. Methods The project involves three geographically diverse VA intervention facilities and nine control sites. We first conduct an evaluation of barriers and facilitators for implementing the intervention at intervention sites. We examine the impact of the intervention by comparing 12-month pre/post changes in BP control between patients in intervention sites versus patients in the matched control sites. Next, we examine the sustainability of the intervention and organizational factors facilitating or hindering the sustained implementation. Finally, we examine the costs of intervention implementation. Key outcomes are acceptability and costs of the program, as well as changes in BP. Outcomes will be assessed using mixed methods (e.g., qualitative analyses--pattern matching; quantitative methods--linear mixed models). Discussion The study results will provide information about the challenges and costs to implement and sustain the intervention, and what clinical impact can be expected.Item Training the next generation of learning health system scientists(Wiley, 2022-09-10) Lozano, Paula M.; Lane-Fall, Meghan; Franklin, Patricia D.; Rothman, Russell L.; Gonzales, Ralph; Ong, Michael K.; Gould, Michael K.; Beebe, Timothy J.; Roumie, Christianne L.; Guise, Jeanne-Marie; Enders, Felicity T.; Forrest, Christopher B.; Mendonca, Eneida A.; Starrels, Joanna L.; Sarkar, Urmimala; Savitz, Lucy A.; Moon, JeanHee; Linzer, Mark; Ralston, James D.; Chelsey, Francis D., Jr.; Pediatrics, School of MedicineIntroduction: The learning health system (LHS) aligns science, informatics, incentives, stakeholders, and culture for continuous improvement and innovation. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute designed a K12 initiative to grow the number of LHS scientists. We describe approaches developed by 11 funded centers of excellence (COEs) to promote partnerships between scholars and health system leaders and to provide mentored research training. Methods: Since 2018, the COEs have enlisted faculty, secured institutional resources, partnered with health systems, developed and implemented curricula, recruited scholars, and provided mentored training. Program directors for each COE provided descriptive data on program context, scholar characteristics, stakeholder engagement, scholar experiences with health system partnerships, roles following program completion, and key training challenges. Results: To date, the 11 COEs have partnered with health systems to train 110 scholars. Nine (82%) programs partner with a Veterans Affairs health system and 9 (82%) partner with safety net providers. Clinically trained scholars (n = 87; 79%) include 70 physicians and 17 scholars in other clinical disciplines. Non-clinicians (n = 29; 26%) represent diverse fields, dominated by population health sciences. Stakeholder engagement helps scholars understand health system and patient/family needs and priorities, enabling opportunities to conduct embedded research, improve outcomes, and grow skills in translating research methods and findings into practice. Challenges include supporting scholars through roadblocks that threaten to derail projects during their limited program time, ranging from delays in access to data to COVID-19-related impediments and shifts in organizational priorities. Conclusions: Four years into this novel training program, there is evidence of scholars' accomplishments, both in traditional academic terms and in terms of moving along career trajectories that hold the potential to lead and accelerate transformational health system change. Future LHS training efforts should focus on sustainability, including organizational support for scholar activities.