Quality of Care for Hypertension in Primary Health Care in South Africa: Cross-Sectional Feasibility Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Little is known about the quality of care for patients with hypertension in primary health care (PHC) facilities in South Africa, where most people receive care. Objectives: To test 46 quality indicators, developed previously, to assess and improve care; to assess the indicators’ clinimetric properties; and to recommend improvement strategies. Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional clinical audit in a purposive sample of 12 South African PHC clinics involving a retrospective review of 295 patient medical records. Results: A total of 45 of the 46 indicators were tested in the main sample (n = 295), of which 9 indicators could not be applied. Of the 36 applicable indicators, 22 could be applied and measured for ≥75% of the sample, while 14 were applicable to ≤50% of the sample. Only five indicators showed a quality of care score for ≥75% of patients. Overall, 82% and 92% of the sample had their blood pressure (BP) recorded in the last 12 months or in the previous 5 years for those aged >40, respectively, and 53.2% had a controlled BP. In the last 12 months, 30% of patients had a cholesterol record, 30% had their BMI recorded, 17% had a hypertension review with a medical practitioner, and 12% had received lifestyle advice. Only 38% received all clinically indicated antihypertensive medicines at their last visit. Conclusion: There were gaps in the quality of care for patients with hypertension, demonstrating the need for greater adherence to evidence-based guidelines, better data quality, and the use of electronic health information systems. Twenty-two indicators are recommended to address these gaps and improve the quality of care, patient outcomes, and the health care system.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".