A meta‐analysis that helps clarify the use of automated office blood pressure in clinical practice

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

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.

Automated office blood pressure measurement by elderly patients in the waiting room

OBJECTIVE

Unattended automated office blood pressure (AOBP) may be a better estimate of true blood pressure (BP) than conventional office BP by physicians or nurses. However, measurement of AOBP is cumbersome in general clinical practice. We compared unattended AOBP by the patients themselves using the rigid cuff in the waiting room with attended AOBP and home BP (HBP) (N = 72).

METHODS

Unattended AOBP by patients was measured in the waiting room using a rigid cuff with the fully automated device (Omron, HEM-907, triple BP readings taken at 1-min intervals after 5 min of rest). Attended AOBP was measured using a soft cuff by a physician in an examination room without specific resting time. HBP was measured for 5 consecutive days.

RESULTS

The mean age was 76.5 ± 8.6 years. The mean systolic unattended AOBP by patients, attended AOBP and HBP were 139.3 ± 16.6, 144.8 ± 17.1 and 139.1 ± 14.4 mmHg, respectively. Unattended AOBP by patients was significantly related to attended AOBP (r = 0.798; P < 0.01) and to HBP (r = 0.404; P < 0.001). It was significantly lower than attended AOBP (difference 5.5 ± 10.7 mmHg; P < 0.001) and comparable with HBP (difference 0.26 ± 17.0 mmHg; P = 0.90) in Bland-Altman plots. However, 22% of patients had a difference of over 20 mmHg between unattended AOBP by patients and HBP. Multivariate regression demonstrated older age (B = -0.73; P = 0.002) to be related to the difference between unattended AOBP by patients and HBP.

CONCLUSION

The mean unattended AOBP by patients was lower than attended AOBP and comparable with HBP, but older age affected the difference between unattended AOBP by patients and HBP.

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

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.