Use of unattended automated office blood pressure in Utah primary care clinics.

Szczegóły
Abstrakt

Tytuł:: Use of unattended automated office blood pressure in Utah primary care clinics.
Autorzy:: Stuligross J; Utah Department of Health.
Hoj TH; Utah Department of Health.
Brown B; Utah Department of Health.
Woolsey S; Utah Department of Health.
Stults B; Department of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Źródło:: Blood pressure monitoring [Blood Press Monit] 2022 Jun 01; Vol. 27 (3), pp. 161-167. Date of Electronic Publication: 2021 Dec 22.
Typ publikacji:: Journal Article
Język:: English
Imprint Name(s):: Publication: <2000->: Hagerstown, MD : Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Original Publication: London ; Philadelphia, PA : Rapid Science Publishers, c1996-
MeSH Terms:: Blood Pressure Determination*/methods
Hypertension*/diagnosis
Blood Pressure/physiology ; Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory/methods ; Humans ; Primary Health Care/methods ; Utah
References:: Muntner P, Shimbo D, Carey RM, Charleston JB, Gaillard T, Misra S, et al. Measurement of blood pressure in humans: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Hypertension. 2019; 73:e35–e66.
Stergiou GS, Palatini P, Parati G, O’Brien E, Januszewicz A, Lurbe E, et al.; European Society of Hypertension Council and the European Society of Hypertension Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring and Cardiovascular Variability. 2021 European Society of Hypertension practice guidelines for office and out-of-office blood pressure measurement. J Hypertens. 2021; 39:1293–1302.
Myers MG. The great myth of office blood pressure measurement. J Hypertens. 2012; 30:1894–1898.
Gorostidi M, Vinyoles E, Banegas JR, de la Sierra A. Prevalence of white-coat and masked hypertension in national and international registries. Hypertens Res. 2015; 38:1–7.
Whelton PK, Carey RM, Aronow WS, 2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA. 2017 guideline for the prevention, detection, evaluation, and management of high blood pressure in adults. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017; 2018:2199–2269.
United States Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for hypertension in adults: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Reaffirmation Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2021; 325:1650–1656.
Rabi DM, McBrien KA, Sapir-Pichhadze R, Nakhla M, Ahmed SB, Dumanski SM, et al. Hypertension Canada’s 2020 comprehensive guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment of hypertension in adults and children. Can J Cardiol. 2020; 36:596–624.
Roerecke M, Kaczorowski J, Myers MG. Comparing automated office blood pressure readings with other methods of blood pressure measurement for identifying patients with possible hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2019; 179:351–362.
Pappaccogli M, DiMonaco S, Perlo E, Burrello J, D'Ascenzo F, Veglio F, et al. Comparison of automated office blood pressure with office and out-of-office measurement techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hypertension. 2019; 73:481–490.
Padwal R, Campbell NRC, Schutte AE, Olsen MH, Delles C, Etyang A, et al. Optimizing observer performance of clinic blood pressure measurement: a position statement from the Lancet Commission on Hypertension Group. J Hypertens. 2019; 37:1737–1745.
Stergiou G, Kollias A, Parati G, O’Brien E. Office blood pressure measurement: the weak cornerstone of hypertension diagnosis. Hypertension. 2018; 71:813–815.
Mancia G, Kjeldsen SE. Adopting Systolic Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT)-like office blood pressure measurements in clinical practice. J Hypertens. 2017; 35:471–472.
Asayama K, Ohkubo T. Unattended automated measurements: office and out-of-office blood pressures affected by medical staff and environment. Hypertension. 2019; 74:1294–1296.
Kaczorowski J, Myers MG, Gelfer M, Dawes M, Mang EJ, Berg A, et al. How do family physicians measure blood pressure in routine clinical practice? National survey of Canadian family physicians. Can Fam Physician. 2017; 63:e193–e199.
Doane J, Buu J, Penrod MJ, Bischoff M, Conroy MB, Stults B. Measuring and managing blood pressure in a primary care setting: a pragmatic implementation study. J Am Board Fam Med. 2018; 31:375–388.
Doane J, Flynn M, Archibald M, Ramirez D, Conroy MB, Stults B. Unattended automated office blood pressure measurement: time efficiency and barriers to implementation/utilization. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2020; 22:598–604.
Million Hearts. About Million Hearts. Available from: https://millionhearts.hhs.gov/about-million-hearts/index.html . [Accessed 30 May 2021].
Handler J, Zhao Y, Egan BM. Impact of the number of BP measurements on blood pressure classification in U.S. adults: NHANES 1999-2008. J Clin Hypertens. 2012; 14:757–759.
Burkard T, Mayr M, Winterhalder C, Leonardi L, Eckstein J, Vischer AS. Reliability of single office blood pressure measurements. Heart. 2018; 104:1173–1179.
Boonyasai RT, McCannon EL, Landavaso JE. Automated office-based blood pressure measurement: an overview and guidance for implementation in primary care. Curr Hypertens Rep. 2019; 21:29.
Salvetti M, Paini A, Aggiusti C, Bertacchini F, Stassaldi D, Capellini S, et al. Unattended versus attended blood pressure measurement. Hypertension. 2019; 73:736–742.
Myers MG. A meta-analysis that helps clarify the use of automated office blood pressure in clinical practice. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2019; 21:460–462.
Myers MG, Valdivieso M. Evaluation of an automated sphygmomanometer for use in the office setting. Blood Press Monit. 2012; 17:116–119.
Moore MN, Schultz MG, Nelson MR, Black JA, Dwyer NB, Hoban E, et al. Identification of the optimal protocol for automated office blood pressure measurement among patients with treated hypertension. Am J Hypertens. 2018; 31:299–304.
Andreadis EA, Geladari CV, Angelopoulos ET. Automated office blood pressure measurements obtained with and without preceding rest are associated with awake ambulatory blood pressure. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2020; 22:32–38.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Crossing the global quality chasm: improving health care worldwide. National Academies Press; 2018.
Doane J, Penrod J, Stults B. [UUHC OD](2017, August 30). Improving the accuracy of blood pressure measurement. [Video file]. www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnLDJDlyOu4 . [Accessed 15 June 2021].
Myers MG, Matangi M, Kaczorowski J. Comparison of awake ambulatory blood pressure and automated office blood pressure using linear regression analysis in untreated patients in routine clinical practice. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2018; 20:1696–1702.
Tobe SW, Dubrofsky L, Nasser DI, Rajasingham R, Myers MG. Randomized controlled trial comparing automated office blood pressure readings after zero or five minutes of rest. Hypertension. 2021; 78:353–359.
Nulty DD. The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what can be done? Assess Eval High Edu. 2008; 33:301–314.
Dobrow MJ, Orchard MC, Golden B, Holowaty E, Paszat L, Brown AD, Sullivan T. Response audit of an Internet survey of health care providers and administrators: implications for determination of response rates. J Med Internet Res. 2008; 10:e30.
Saturno PJ, Palmer RH, Gascón JJ. Physician attitudes, self-estimated performance and actual compliance with locally peer-defined quality evaluation criteria. Int J Qual Health Care. 1999; 11:487–496.
Entry Date(s):: Date Created: 20211226 Date Completed: 20220509 Latest Revision: 20230924
Update Code:: 20240104
DOI:: 10.1097/MBP.0000000000000579
PMID:: 34954715
: Czasopismo naukowe

Aim: Unattended automated office blood pressure (BP) measurement (u-AOBP) improves office BP measurement accuracy and reduces white-coat BP elevation. u-AOBP is recommended as the preferred office BP measurement technique by multiple hypertension guidelines. This study examines utilization, performance, and potential barriers to implementation of u-AOBP in Utah primary care clinics following 5 years of promotional efforts by the Utah Million Hearts Coalition (UMHC).
Methods: An online questionnaire was administered to 285 Utah primary care clinics to evaluate self-reported use of u-AOBP and u-AOBP technique, interpretation of results, and perceived barriers to implementation.
Results: Seventy-nine of 285 clinics (27.7%) completed the full questionnaire. Fifty-nine clinics (74.7%) use u-AOBP. Nearly 65% first learned about u-AOBP through UMHC promotional efforts rather than from the medical literature. One-half of these clinics noted no significant barriers to u-AOBP implementation, and over 80% noted no reduction in medical staff productivity. However, important knowledge deficits concerning correct u-AOBP performance and interpretation of results were apparent from answers to the questionnaire.
Conclusion: After 5 years of UMHC promotional efforts, at least 20% of the 285 Utah primary care clinics invited to take the questionnaire and 75% of the 79 clinics completing the survey have incorporated u-AOBP and found it feasible in a primary care setting. Ongoing promotion of u-AOBP implementation at the local and regional level is required to extend its utilization. Effective, accessible educational materials and local technical assistance from public health and community partners are needed to correct knowledge and performance deficits to optimize u-AOBP utilization in primary care.
(Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Informacja