Dataset Information

Clinical Implementation of Self-Measured Blood Pressure Monitoring, 2015-2016.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Self-measured blood pressure monitoring (SMBP) plus additional clinical support is an evidence-based strategy that improves blood pressure control. Despite national recommendations for SMBP use and potential cost savings, insurance coverage for implementation is limited in the U.S. and little is known regarding clinical implementation. METHODS:In 2017, using 2015 and 2016 DocStyles survey data from 1,590 primary care physicians and nurse practitioners in U.S. outpatient facilities, SMBP-related clinical practices and provider roles were assessed. RESULTS:Almost all (97%) respondents reported using SMBP. Among 1,539 who used SMBP, more than half (60%) used SMBP for a combination of diagnostic and treatment purposes, whereas 24% used SMBP for diagnosis only and 16% used SMBP for treatment only. The most common methods for patients to share SMBP results with clinical staff were paper log (68%); during appointments (66%); by telephone (37%); by secure website (22%); or by secure e-mail (19%). Nearly all (98%) respondents reported that medication adjustments were provided to patients based on SMBP readings. About 15% did not counsel patients regarding cuff size, and 8% did not validate patient devices. Only 13% of respondents reported having monitor loaner programs, and availability did not vary by the financial status of the patient population (p=0.59). CONCLUSIONS:SMBP is used widely in outpatient facilities as reported in the survey, although provider roles and SMBP-related practices vary, and gaps exist regarding patient counseling, device validation, and loaner program availability. As part of efforts to improve hypertension control, healthcare professionals can promote increased use of best practices for SMBP, whereas insurers can implement standardization and support of SMBP.

SUBMITTER: Jackson SL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6485411 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clinical Implementation of Self-Measured Blood Pressure Monitoring, 2015-2016.

Jackson Sandra L SL Ayala Carma C Tong Xin X Wall Hilary K HK

American journal of preventive medicine 20181015 1

<h4>Introduction</h4>Self-measured blood pressure monitoring (SMBP) plus additional clinical support is an evidence-based strategy that improves blood pressure control. Despite national recommendations for SMBP use and potential cost savings, insurance coverage for implementation is limited in the U.S. and little is known regarding clinical implementation.<h4>Methods</h4>In 2017, using 2015 and 2016 DocStyles survey data from 1,590 primary care physicians and nurse practitioners in U.S. outpatie ...[more]

PMID: 30337237

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAutomated measurement of blood pressure (BP) in designated BP kiosks have in recent years been introduced in primary care. If kiosk blood pressure (BP) monitoring provides results equivalent to in-office BP or daytime ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), follow-up of adult patients could be managed primarily by self-checks. We therefore designed a comparative trial and evaluated the diagnostic performance of kiosk- and office-based BP (nurse- versus physician-measured) compared with daytime ABPM.MethodsA trial of automated BP monitoring in three settings: a designated BP kiosk, by nurses and physicians in clinic, and by ABPM. The primary outcome was systolic and diastolic BP, with respective diagnostic thresholds of ≥135 mmHg and/or ≥ 85 mmHg for daytime ABPM and kiosk BP and ≥ 140 mmHg and/or ≥ 90 mmHg for office BP (nurse- and physician-measured).ResultsCompared with daytime ABPM, mean systolic kiosk BP was higher by 6.2 mmHg (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.8-8.6) and diastolic by 7.9 mmHg (95% CI 6.2-9.6; p < 0.001). Mean systolic BP taken by nurses was similar to daytime ABPM values (+ 2.0 mmHg; 95% CI - 0.2-4.2; p = 0.071), but nurse-measured diastolic values were higher, by 7.2 mmHg (95% CI 5.9-9.6; p < 0.001). Mean systolic and diastolic physician-measured BPs were higher compared with daytime ABPM (systolic, by 7.6 mmHg [95% CI 4.5-10.2] and diastolic by 5.8 mmHg [95% CI 4.1-7.6]; p < 0.001). Receiver operating characteristic curves of BP monitoring across pairs of systolic/diastolic cut-off levels among the three settings, with daytime ABPM as reference, demonstrated overall similar diagnostic performance between kiosk and nurse-measured values and over the curve performance for physician-measured BP. Accuracy with nurse-measured BP was 69.2% (95% CI 60.0-77.4%), compared with 65.8% (95% CI 56.5-74.3%) for kiosk BP.ConclusionsIn this study kiosk BP monitoring was not comparable to daytime ABPM but could be an alternative to in-office BP monitoring by trained nurses. The diagnostic performance of kiosk and nurse-measured BP monitoring was similar and better than that of physician-measured BP.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04488289) 27/07/2020.

Project description:BackgroundThe Global Burden of Diseases Study 2010 reported that hypertension is worldwide the leading risk factor for cardiovascular disease, causing 9.4 million deaths annually. We examined to what extent self-measurement of home blood pressure (HBP) refines risk stratification across increasing categories of conventional blood pressure (CBP).Methods and findingsThis meta-analysis included 5,008 individuals randomly recruited from five populations (56.6% women; mean age, 57.1 y). All were not treated with antihypertensive drugs. In multivariable analyses, hazard ratios (HRs) associated with 10-mm Hg increases in systolic HBP were computed across CBP categories, using the following systolic/diastolic CBP thresholds (in mm Hg): optimal, <120/<80; normal, 120-129/80-84; high-normal, 130-139/85-89; mild hypertension, 140-159/90-99; and severe hypertension, ?160/?100. Over 8.3 y, 522 participants died, and 414, 225, and 194 had cardiovascular, cardiac, and cerebrovascular events, respectively. In participants with optimal or normal CBP, HRs for a composite cardiovascular end point associated with a 10-mm Hg higher systolic HBP were 1.28 (1.01-1.62) and 1.22 (1.00-1.49), respectively. At high-normal CBP and in mild hypertension, the HRs were 1.24 (1.03-1.49) and 1.20 (1.06-1.37), respectively, for all cardiovascular events and 1.33 (1.07-1.65) and 1.30 (1.09-1.56), respectively, for stroke. In severe hypertension, the HRs were not significant (p?0.20). Among people with optimal, normal, and high-normal CBP, 67 (5.0%), 187 (18.4%), and 315 (30.3%), respectively, had masked hypertension (HBP?130 mm Hg systolic or ?85 mm Hg diastolic). Compared to true optimal CBP, masked hypertension was associated with a 2.3-fold (1.5-3.5) higher cardiovascular risk. A limitation was few data from low- and middle-income countries.ConclusionsHBP substantially refines risk stratification at CBP levels assumed to carry no or only mildly increased risk, in particular in the presence of masked hypertension. Randomized trials could help determine the best use of CBP vs. HBP in guiding BP management. Our study identified a novel indication for HBP, which, in view of its low cost and the increased availability of electronic communication, might be globally applicable, even in remote areas or in low-resource settings.

Dataset Information

Clinical Implementation of Self-Measured Blood Pressure Monitoring, 2015-2016.

Publications

Clinical Implementation of Self-Measured Blood Pressure Monitoring, 2015-2016.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets