Routine provider blood pressure measurements showed average systolic/diastolic discrepancies of 10.2/7.5 mmHg compared to a standard, leading to different treatment indicators in 22-26% of cases.
Observational
Sí
Does training improve the accuracy of blood pressure measurements by primary care providers compared to a standard method?
Inaccurate blood pressure measurement procedures by clinic staff can lead to different treatment decisions in 22-26% of cases, highlighting the need for standardized measurement techniques.
Three studies of blood pressure measurement were conducted in two primary care clinics. In study I, procedures for taking blood pressure were observed for seven nurses, and their readings were compared with readings taken in a standard manner. The results show that the nurses' procedure needed improvement; the systolic/diastolic discrepancies with the standard averaged 10.2/7.5 mmHg. In study II, the nurses were trained to improve their procedure, and readings were again compared. The results show improvement for moderate, but not for large, discrepancies in diastolic readings. In study III, two physicians' procedure for taking blood pressure indicated that their procedures could also be improved. Overall, there was little correlation between potential biases in providers' procedures and discrepancies with the standard. The discrepancies between the nurse and physician readings led to different treatment indicators in 22-26 per cent of the observations.
Scherwitz et al. (Thu,) conducted a observational in Blood pressure measurement. Routine provider blood pressure measurement vs. Standardized blood pressure measurement was evaluated on Discrepancies in systolic and diastolic blood pressure readings compared to a standard. Routine provider blood pressure measurements showed average systolic/diastolic discrepancies of 10.2/7.5 mmHg compared to a standard, leading to different treatment indicators in 22-26% of cases.