Abstract 12684: Development and Implementation of Blood Pressure Screening and Referral Guidelines for Community Pharmacists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Involvement of community pharmacists in the detection and control of hypertension improves patient care. However, current guidelines do not provide recommendations on collaboration between pharmacists and physicians, especially when and how to refer patients with undetected or uncontrolled hypertension to a physician. Methods: The German Society of Cardiology (DGK) and the ABDA - Federal Union of German Associations of Pharmacists developed and tested a structured referral guideline for community pharmacists. The project included a guideline-directed blood pressure measurement and recommendations when patients should be referred to their physician. A “red flag” referral within 4 weeks was recommended when SBP was >140 mmHg or DBP >90 mmHg (for subjects <80 years), and >160 mmHg or >90 mmHg (≥80 years) in undetected individuals, or >130 mmHg or >80 mmHg (<65 years) and >140 mmHg or >80 mmHg (≥65 years) in treated patients (Figure). Results: Blood pressure was measured in 187 individuals (86 with known hypertension) from 17 community pharmacies. In patients with hypertension, poorly controlled blood pressure was detected in 55% (n=47) and were referred. A total of 16/101 subjects without a history of hypertension were referred to their physician because of uncontrolled blood pressure. Conclusion: Structured blood pressure testing in community pharmacies identified a significant number of subjects with undetected/undiagnosed hypertension and patients with poorly controlled blood pressure. Community pharmacists could play a significant role in collaboration with physicians to improve the management of hypertension.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.052 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".