Dataset Information

Unattended automated office blood pressure measurement: Time efficiency and barriers to implementation/utilization.

ABSTRACT: Unattended automated office blood pressure (BP) measurement (u-AOBP) improves office BP measurement accuracy and reduces white-coat BP elevation, but there are reservations about its time efficiency in primary care. We used time-stamp methodology to measure u-AOBP procedure times performed without a rest period in 130 patients during routine clinic visits to three primary care clinics with 2.5-4.9 years u-AOBP experience. We documented the clinical activities of 30 medical assistants during the u-AOBP procedures. We also assessed MA and clinician satisfaction and knowledge about u-AOBP performance and interpretation. Median u-AOBP procedure time was <5 minutes, and MAs engaged in productive clinical activities during 83% of the procedures. Ninety-three percent of MAs and 100% of clinicians in the clinics agreed that u-AOBP is an efficient method to improve hypertension management. Barriers to effective u-AOBP implementation and ongoing utilization included initial difficulty incorporating u-AOBP into clinic workflow and medical staff knowledge deficiencies concerning correct u-AOBP performance and interpretation despite prior training and experience with the procedure. Intensive u-AOBP education and training programs are needed to facilitate effective u-AOBP implementation into primary care. The time required to perform u-AOBP can be utilized productively by staff.

SUBMITTER: Doane J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8030085 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAutomated office blood pressure (AOBP) measurement involves recording several blood pressure (BP) readings using a fully automated oscillometric sphygmomanometer with the patient resting alone in a quiet place. Although several studies have shown AOBP measurement to be more accurate than routine office BP measurement and not subject to a "white coat effect," the cumulative evidence has not yet been systematically reviewed.ObjectiveTo perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the association between AOBP and office BP readings measured in routine clinical practice and in research studies, and ambulatory BP recorded during awake hours, as the latter is a standard for predicting future cardiovascular events.Data sourcesThe MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched from 2003 to April 25, 2018.Study selectionStudies on systolic and diastolic BP measurement by AOBP in comparison with awake ambulatory BP, routine office BP, and research BP measurements were included if they contained 30 patients or more.Data extraction and synthesisStudy characteristics were abstracted independently and random effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions were conducted.Main outcomes and measuresPooled mean differences (95% CI) of systolic and diastolic BP between types of BP measurement.ResultsData were compiled from 31 articles comprising 9279 participants (4736 men and 4543 women). In samples with systolic AOBP of 130 mm Hg or more, routine office and research systolic BP readings were substantially higher than AOBP readings, with a pooled mean difference of 14.5 mm Hg (95% CI, 11.8-17.2 mm Hg; n = 9; I2 = 94.3%; P < .001) for routine office systolic BP readings and 7.0 mm Hg (95% CI, 4.9-9.1 mm Hg; n = 9; I2 = 85.7%; P < .001) for research systolic BP readings. Systolic awake ambulatory BP and AOBP readings were similar, with a pooled mean difference of 0.3 mm Hg (95% CI, -1.1 to 1.7 mm Hg; n = 19; I2 = 90%; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceAutomated office blood pressure readings, only when recorded properly with the patient sitting alone in a quiet place, are more accurate than office BP readings in routine clinical practice and are similar to awake ambulatory BP readings, with mean AOBP being devoid of any white coat effect. There has been some reluctance among physicians to adopt this technique because of uncertainty about its advantages compared with more traditional methods of recording BP during an office visit. Based on the evidence, AOBP should now be the preferred method for recording BP in routine clinical practice.

Project description:BackgroundWHO introduced the STEPwise approach to surveillance (STEPS) to monitor trends in non-communicable diseases. For arterial hypertension, the STEPS protocol takes the average of the last two out of three standard blood pressure measurements (SBPM). This study assesses the diagnostic accuracy of SBPM, same-day and next-day unattended automated measurement (uABP), with 24 h ambulatory measurement (24 h-ABPM) as reference.MethodsThis diagnostic accuracy study was done within a population-based household survey on cardiovascular risk factors in two districts in Northern Lesotho. Adults (aged ≥ 18 years) with elevated SBPM (defined as ≥140/90 mmHg), and 2:1 age- and sex-matched participants with normal SBPM during the survey were recruited. Following SBPM, first uABP readings were obtained on survey day. Afterwards, participants received a 24 h-ABPM device. Second uABP readings were taken 24 h later, after retrieval of the 24 h-ABPM. The main outcome was overall diagnostic accuracy of all screening measurements (SBPM, first uABP, and second uABP), determined using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), with 24 h-ABPM as a reference.FindingsBetween November 2, 2021 and August 31, 2022, 275 participants (mean age 58 years (SD: 16 years), 163 (59%) female) were enrolled, 183 of whom had elevated and 92 had normal SBPM. Mean difference between systolic daytime 24 h-ABPM and screening measurements was highest for SBPM (mean difference: -13 mmHg; 95% CI: -14 to -11). Mean difference between diastolic daytime 24 h-ABPM and diastolic SBPM was -2 mmHg (95% CI: -4 to -1), whereas no difference was found for mean diastolic first uABP (mean difference: -1 mmHg; 95% CI: -2.0 to 0.3); and mean diastolic second uABP (mean difference: 1.0 mmHg; 95% CI: -0.4 to 2.3). White coat hypertension was highest with SBPM (55 [20%]), followed by first uABP (27 [9.8%]), and second uABP (18 [6.5%]). Using systolic daytime 24 h-ABPM as a reference, the uABPs had higher AUROC (first uABP: 87% [95% CI: 83-91]; second uABP: 88% [95% CI: 84-92]); SBPM: (79% [95% CI: 74-85]). This difference was significant between first uABP and SBPM (P = 0.0024), and between second uABP and SBPM (P = 0.0017).InterpretationuABP had better diagnostic performance than SBPM. Integration of uABP into STEPS protocol should be considered.FundingSwiss Agency for Development and Cooperation under the ComBaCaL project, and the World Diabetes Foundation.

Dataset Information

Unattended automated office blood pressure measurement: Time efficiency and barriers to implementation/utilization.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets