Patient perceptions of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring testing, tolerability, accessibility, and expense.

Use of 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring is strongly endorsed by contemporary hypertension guidelines. The objective of this study was to assess patient perceptions of ambulatory blood pressure testing, tolerability, accessibility, and expense. A convenience sample of 50, consenting patients undergoing ambulatory blood pressure monitoring at the University of Alberta Hypertension Clinic in Edmonton, Canada was studied. A 16-item structured questionnaire was administered in person or electronically. Questions regarding the tolerability of ambulatory monitoring were evaluated using a 5-point Likert scale and wait times, expenditures, and willingness to pay were evaluated by direct questioning. Mean age was 53.1 ± 15.4 years, 32 (64%) were female, and 23 (46%) were employed. Mean 24-hour ambulatory BP was 134 ± 12/79 ± 8 mmHg. Ambulatory monitoring caused discomfort in 40 (80%) patients and disturbed sleep in 39 (78%). Forty-one (82%) patients perceived that the home (vs pharmacy, primary care clinic, and speciality care clinic) would be the easiest venue to access future testing. On average, patients waited 27.3 ± 23.7 days for testing; they felt that a wait time of 21.3 ± 12.3 days was appropriate. Mean time taken off work was 8.6 ± 10.8 hours. Twelve (24%) patients indicated that they would be willing to pay out-of-pocket to undergo testing sooner, at a mean expenditure of $120 ± 69. Nineteen (62%) patients were willing to buy a monitor and felt that a mean purchase cost of $125 ± 89 was appropriate. These findings extend current knowledge of patient perceptions of ambulatory monitoring and may help to refine and optimize future delivery of this essential test.

Review of a rheumatology triage system: simple, accurate, and effective.

Rheumatology triage systems exist to expedite care for those with inflammatory arthritis (IA). This study presents the first 22-month experience of a simple and unique Canadian university-based triage system. Triage accuracy is analyzed as is the effect on access to care for patients with IA. The triage rheumatologist screens all incoming referral letters to attempt to identify possible diagnoses and, consequently, assigns urgency of assessment. The wait time for patients with IA after introduction of the triage system was compared to a random sample of IA patients from the year preceding the triage system. All newly referred IA patients who were incorrectly triaged as a non-inflammatory process were identified, with a subsequent chart review examining for features that may have influenced the triage status. Three thousand four hundred seventy-six new referrals were seen, with 344 patients receiving a final diagnosis of IA. The median wait time for all patients was 57.0 days, 37.5 days for IA patients, and 25.0 days for IA patients assigned a soon urgency status. Compared to the preceding year, this latter group with inflammatory arthritis was seen 25.0 days sooner (p < 0.0001). Thirty-one patients with inflammatory arthritis were incorrectly screened as a non-inflammatory process, 10 of whom had features in the referral letter or investigations suggestive of IA. This triage system correctly identifies patients with IA with an accuracy of 91.0 % and effectively reduces their wait time when assigned an appropriate urgency status. Utilization of this triage system may be universally applicable, accurate, and a cost-effective way to optimize rheumatology patients' access to care.