Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Reasons for Not Intensifying Medications: Differentiating “Clinical Inertia” from Appropriate Care

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. O’Connor PJ. Overcome clinical inertia to control systolic blood pressure. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163(22):2677–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. O’Connor P. Commentary—improving diabetes care by combating clinical inertia. Health Serv Res. 2005;40(6 Pt 1):1854–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Schiffman S, Reynolds M, Young F. Introduction to Multidimensional Scaling. New York: Academic Press; 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Aldenderfer M, Blashfield R. Cluster Analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications; 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kruskall J, Wish M. Multi-Dimensional Scaling. Newbury Park, NJ: Sage Publications; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Speece D. Methodological issues in cluster analysis: how clusters become real. In: Learning disabilities: Theoretical research issues. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1990:210–213.

  16. Joseph F, Hair J, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC. Multivariate Data Analysis. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Pickering TG. White coat hypertension: time for action. Circulation. 1998;98(18):1834–36.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  20. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Safford MM, Allison JJ, Kiefe CI. Patient complexity: more than comorbidity. The vector model of complexity. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22(s9).

  22. 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.

  23. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Monika M. Safford MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0433-8

KEY WORDS

Navigation