Dataset Information

Assessment of blood pressure skills and belief in clinical readings

ABSTRACT:

Background

Accurate blood pressure (BP) measurement is essential for the diagnosis and management of hypertension. In clinical practice, BP is estimated using noninvasive methods with significant variability of application of guidelines in clinical practice, impacting the accuracy and certainty of BP measurements.

Objective

We sought to assess how BP is measured in clinical practice.

Methods

A survey was administered through professional societies that included predominantly cardiologists. Assessment of adherence to guideline recommendations for BP assessment was measured and compared to the level of confidence in clinic BP measurement.

Results

There were 571 surveys completed. The majority of respondents were cardiologists (61.1%), with 47 preventive cardiologists. BP was routinely checked in both arms by 53% at the initial visit, 48% check BP once each visit, and 64% wait 5 min before initial BP assessment. Automated BP assessment is used by 58% respondents. The majority (83%) trust their BP readings, and those who trust their BP readings are more likely to perform the initial BP assessment themselves, compared to those who do not trust the clinic BP readings (30.2% vs. 13.6%, P = 0.009). Accurate BP measurement is performed by 23% of cardiologists, and more likely performed accurately by a preventive cardiologist (38.3%) compared with other cardiologists (20.0%, P = 0.007). Accurate BP measurement is more likely for those who perform the initial BP themselves rather than any other staff (36.8% vs. 17.9%; P<0.001); and for those who repeat BP manually (80% vs. 54%; P<0.001), compared to those who do not measure BP accurately. Despite the inaccuracy of BP measurement, there is a high level of confidence in the BP readings.

Conclusions

Accurate BP assessment continues to remain suboptimal in clinical practice. Reliability of BP assessment requires education, identifying barriers to implementation of recommendations and engagement of the entire team to improve BP assessment. Graphical abstract Survey of Healthcare Professionals on Blood Pressure Assessment Image, graphical abstract.

SUBMITTER: Gulati M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8546363 | 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:ImportanceClinical practice guidelines recommend selecting an appropriately sized cuff based on mid-arm circumference prior to measuring blood pressure (BP). To our knowledge, the effect of miscuffing on BP measurement when using an automated BP device has not been quantified.ObjectiveTo determine the effect of using a regular BP cuff vs an appropriately sized BP cuff on automated BP readings.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized crossover trial of community-dwelling adults with a wide range of mid-arm circumferences took place between March 16 and October 25, 2021, in Baltimore, Maryland. Participants were recruited via BP screening events at a public food market and a senior housing facility, targeted mailings to prior research participants, placement of study brochures in hypertension clinics at Johns Hopkins University, and referrals from physicians providing hypertension care to adults.InterventionsParticipants underwent 4 sets of triplicate BP measurements, with the initial 3 sets using an appropriate, too-small, or too-large BP cuff in random order; the fourth set of triplicate measurements was always completed with an appropriate BP cuff.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the difference in mean BP when measured with a regular BP cuff compared with an appropriate BP cuff. The secondary outcome was the difference in BP when using too-small or too-large BP cuffs vs an appropriate BP cuff across all cuff sizes. Results were also stratified by systolic BP (≥130 mm Hg vs <130 mm Hg) and body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared; ≥30 vs <30).ResultsA total of 195 adults (mean [SD] age, 54 [16] years; 67 [34%] male; 132 [68%] Black; 100 [51%] with hypertension) were randomized for inclusion. Among individuals requiring a small BP cuff, use of a regular BP cuff resulted in a statistically significant lower BP reading (mean systolic BP difference, -3.6 [95% CI, -5.6 to -1.7] mm Hg). In contrast, among individuals requiring a large or extra-large BP cuff, use of a regular BP cuff resulted in a statistically significant higher BP reading (mean systolic BP difference, 4.8 [95% CI, 3.0-6.6] mm Hg and 19.5 [95% CI, 16.1-22.9] mm Hg, respectively). For the secondary outcome, BP differences with overcuffing and undercuffing by 1 and 2 cuff sizes were greater among those requiring larger BP cuffs. The results were consistent in stratified analyses by systolic BP and body mass index.Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized crossover trial, miscuffing resulted in strikingly inaccurate BP measurements. This is particularly concerning for settings where 1 regular BP cuff size is routinely used in all individuals, regardless of arm size. A renewed emphasis on individualized BP cuff selection is warranted.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04610775.

Project description:ObjectiveSimple forms of blood pressure (BP) telemonitoring require patients to text readings to central servers creating an opportunity for both entry error and manipulation. We wished to determine if there was an apparent preference for particular end digits and entries which were just below target BPs which might suggest evidence of data manipulation.DesignProspective cohort study SETTING: 37 socioeconomically diverse primary care practices from South East Scotland.ParticipantsPatients were recruited with hypertension to a telemonitoring service in which patients submitted home BP readings by manually transcribing the measurements into text messages for transmission ('patient-texted system'). These readings were compared with those from primary care patients with uncontrolled hypertension using a system in which readings were automatically transmitted, eliminating the possibility of manipulation of values ('automatic-transmission system').MethodsA generalised estimating equations method was used to compare BP readings between the patient-texted and automatic-transmission systems, while taking into account clustering of readings within patients.ResultsA total of 44 150 BP readings were analysed on 1068 patients using the patient-texted system compared with 20 705 readings on 199 patients using the automatic-transmission system. Compared with the automatic-transmission data, the patient-texted data showed a significantly higher proportion of occurrences of both systolic and diastolic BP having a zero end digit (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.7 to 2.6) although incidence was <2% of readings. Similarly, there was a preference for systolic 134 and diastolic 84 (the threshold for alerts was 135/85) (134 systolic BP OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.3 to 1.8; 84 diastolic BP OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.3 to 1.9).ConclusionEnd-digit preference for zero numbers and specific-value preference for readings just below the alert threshold exist among patients in self-reporting their BP using telemonitoring. However, the proportion of readings affected is small and unlikely to be clinically important.Trial registration numberISRCTN72614272; Post-results.