Abstract
Background
“Clinical inertia” has been defined as inaction by physicians caring for patients with uncontrolled risk factors such as blood pressure. Some have proposed that it accounts for up to 80% of cardiovascular events, potentially an important quality problem. However, reasons for so-called clinical inertia are poorly understood.
Objective
To derive an empiric conceptual model of clinical inertia as a subset of all clinical inactions from the physician perspective.
Methods
We used Nominal Group panels of practicing physicians to identify reasons why they do not intensify medications when seeing an established patient with uncontrolled blood pressure.
Measurements and Main Results
We stopped at 2 groups (N = 6 and 7, respectively) because of the high degree of agreement on reasons for not intensifying, indicating saturation. A third group of clinicians (N = 9) independently sorted the reasons generated by the Nominal Groups. Using multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis, we translated the sorting results into a cognitive map that represents an empirically derived model of clinical inaction from the physician’s perspective. The model shows that much inaction may in fact be clinically appropriate care.
Conclusions/Recommendations
Many reasons offered by physicians for not intensifying medications suggest that low rates of intensification do not necessarily reflect poor quality of care. The empirically derived model of clinical inaction can be used as a guide to construct performance measures for monitoring clinical inertia that better focus on true quality problems.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Berlowitz DR, Ash AS, Hickey EC, et al. Inadequate management of blood pressure in a hypertensive population. N Engl J Med. 1998;339(27):1957–63.
Borzecki AM, Wong AT, Hickey EC, Ash AS, Berlowitz DR. Hypertension control: how well are we doing? Arch Intern Med. 2003;163(22):2705–11.
Grant RW, Cagliero E, Dubey AK, et al. Clinical inertia in the management of Type 2 diabetes metabolic risk factors. Diabet Med. 2004;21(2):150–55.
National Institutes of Health N. The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/hypertension/jncintro.htm.
O’Connor P, Sperl-Hillen J, Johnson P, Rush W, Biltz G. Clinical inertia and outpatient medical errors. In: Advances in Patient Safety: From Research to Implementation, Volume 2: Concepts and Methodology. Vol 2 (of 4). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2005:293–308.
O’Connor PJ. Overcome clinical inertia to control systolic blood pressure. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163(22):2677–78.
Wright JT, Jr., Dunn JK, Cutler JA, et al. Outcomes in hypertensive black and nonblack patients treated with chlorthalidone, amlodipine, and lisinopril. JAMA. 2005;293(13):1595–608.
Rodondi N, Peng T, Karter AJ, et al. Therapy modifications in response to poorly controlled hypertension, dyslipidemia, and diabetes mellitus. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144(7):475–84.
O’Connor P. Commentary—improving diabetes care by combating clinical inertia. Health Serv Res. 2005;40(6 Pt 1):1854–61.
Shewchuk R, O’Connor SJ. Using cognitive concept mapping to understand what health care means to the elderly: an illustrative approach for planning and marketing. Health Market Q. 2002;20(2):69–88.
Levine DA, Saag KG, Casebeer LL, Colon-Emeric C, Lyles KW, Shewchuk RM. Using a modified nominal group technique to elicit director of nursing input for an osteoporosis intervention. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2006;7(7):420–5.
Schiffman S, Reynolds M, Young F. Introduction to Multidimensional Scaling. New York: Academic Press; 1981.
Aldenderfer M, Blashfield R. Cluster Analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications; 1984.
Kruskall J, Wish M. Multi-Dimensional Scaling. Newbury Park, NJ: Sage Publications; 1990.
Speece D. Methodological issues in cluster analysis: how clusters become real. In: Learning disabilities: Theoretical research issues. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1990:210–213.
Joseph F, Hair J, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC. Multivariate Data Analysis. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.; 1998.
Pickering TG. White coat hypertension: time for action. Circulation. 1998;98(18):1834–36.
Kerr EA, Smith DM, Hogan MM, et al. Building a better quality measure: are some patients with ‘poor quality’ actually getting good care? Med Care. 2003;41(10):1173–82.
Goodwin JS. Embracing complexity: a consideration of hypertension in the very old. J Gerontol Ser A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2003;58(7):653–8.
Boyd CM, Darer J, Boult C, Fried LP, Boult L, Wu AW. Clinical practice guidelines and quality of care for older patients with multiple comorbid diseases: implications for pay for performance. JAMA. 2005;294(6):716–24.
Safford MM, Allison JJ, Kiefe CI. Patient complexity: more than comorbidity. The vector model of complexity. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22(s9).
Bodenheimer T, May JH, Berenson RA, Coughlan J. Can Money Buy Quality? Physician Response to Pay for Performance. Center for Studying Health System Change; 2005. Available at http://www.hschange.org/CONTENT/807/. Accessed August 8, 2007.
Casalino LP, Alexander GC, Jin L, Konetzka RT. General internists’ views on pay-for-performance and public reporting of quality scores: a national survey. Health Aff (Millwood). 2007;26(2):492–9.
Acknowledgment
We thank Nelda Wray, MD, MPH for her helpful comments on an early draft of the manuscript. This work was made possible by support from NIDDK R18DK65001-01A2 (supported all authors, Allison, PI) and VA HSR&D IIR04-266 (supported Safford and Allison, Safford, PI).
Conflict of Interest Disclosure
None disclosed.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Safford, M.M., Shewchuk, R., Qu, H. et al. Reasons for Not Intensifying Medications: Differentiating “Clinical Inertia” from Appropriate Care. J GEN INTERN MED 22, 1648–1655 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0433-8
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0433-8