Team-based care approaches are effective at improving hypertension control and have been used in clinical practice to improve hypertension outcomes. This study implemented and evaluated the Hypertension Management Program (HMP), which was originally developed in a high-resource health setting, in a health system with fewer resources and a patient population disproportionately affected by hypertension. Our objectives were to describe how a health system could adapt HMP to meet their needs and calculate total program costs. HMP uses a team-based, patient-centered approach involving clinical pharmacists who contribute to managing patients who have hypertension and ultimately preventing premature death due to uncontrolled hypertension. HMP has 10 components (e.g., EHR patient registries and outreach lists, no copayment walk-in blood pressure checks). Our project involved implementing the key components of HMP in a federally qualified health center (FQHC) in South Carolina. Adaptations from the key components of HMP were made to fit the participants' settings. A mixed-methods evaluation assessed implementation processes, program costs, and implementation facilitators and barriers. From September 2018 to December 2019, clinical pharmacists conducted 758 hypertension management visits (HMVs) with 316 patients with hypertension. Total program costs for HMP were $325,532 overall and $16,277 per month. Monthly cost per patient was $3.62. The high engagement among clinical pharmacists, along with provider engagements, followed up by the subsequent referral of patients to HMP, facilitated the implementation process. Staff members observed improvements in hypertension control, which increased participation buy-in. Barriers included staff turnover, the perception among some providers that HMP took too much time, as well as perception of HMP as a pharmacy-specific initiative. A team-based, patient-centered approach to hypertension management can be adapted for FQHCs or similar settings that serve patient populations disproportionately affected by hypertension.

The objective of this study was to examine effectiveness of a Hypertension Management Program (HMP) in a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC). From September 2018 through December 2019, we implemented HMP in seven clinics of an FQHC in rural South Carolina. A pre/post evaluation design estimated the association of HMP with hypertension control rates and systolic blood pressure using electronic health record data among 3,941 patients. A chi-square test estimated change in mean control rates in pre- and intervention periods. A multilevel multivariable logistic regression model estimated the incremental impact of HMP on odds of hypertension control. Results showed that 53.4% of patients had controlled hypertension pre-intervention (September 2016-September 2018); 57.3% had controlled hypertension at the end of the observed implementation period (September 2018-December 2019) (p < 0.01). Statistically significant increases in hypertension control rates were observed in six of seven clinics (p < 0.05). Odds of controlled hypertension were 1.21 times higher during the intervention period compared to pre-intervention (p < 0.0001). Findings can inform the replication of HMP in FQHCs and similar health care settings, which play a pivotal role in caring for patients with health and socioeconomic disparities.

Evidence, particularly practice-based evidence, is needed to guide public health practice. With the goal of contributing to practice-based evidence, the Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention combined and streamlined aspects of an evaluability assessment and an effectiveness evaluation to create the Enhanced Evaluability Assessment (EEA). This approach offers a viable and less costly alternative to evaluators and practitioners by quickly identifying and evaluating models with evidence of effectiveness that can be replicated and expanded. The EEA can be applied to a range of public health topics, not just cardiovascular health. This article provides a step-by-step description of the EEA.

Practice-based evidence arises from programs implemented in real-world settings. Program success may be judged on the basis of experience; however, formal evaluation studies of methodological rigor can provide a high level of credible evidence to inform public health practice. Such studies can be lengthy and expensive. Furthermore, even well-designed studies may not reach conclusive findings, for example, when a program lacks full implementation, when data systems do not have capacity to collect evaluation data, or when program implementation has not attained stability. An evaluability assessment is used to determine the capacity and readiness of a program for full-scale effectiveness evaluation. Evaluators at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention use evaluability assessment as a preevaluation consisting of brief, focused, criteria-based assessments, document review, and a site visit. Evaluability assessment is used to guide investments in subsequent rigorously designed evaluations that yield conclusive findings to build strong and credible practice-based evidence.