Key result
Among 61 blood pressure monitors used in community pharmacies, 13% failed accuracy standards overall, with failure rates significantly higher for devices in service for over 18 months (29% vs 5%, P=0.038).
Why the study?
Are automatic blood pressure monitors used in community pharmacies accurate compared to a reference standard over time?
Cross-Sectional (n=61)
Yes
Are automatic blood pressure monitors used in community pharmacies accurate compared to a reference standard over time?
Absolute Event Rate: 29% vs 5%
p-value: p=0.038
Automated blood pressure monitors used in community pharmacies have a 13% failure rate, predominantly underestimating BP, with accuracy declining significantly after 18 months of use, highlighting the need for annual calibration.
Accuracy checks for pharmacy BP monitors may be prudent; cross-sectional data leaves open effects on readings.
BACKGROUND: Free blood pressure (BP) checks offered by community pharmacies provide a potentially useful opportunity to diagnose and/or manage hypertension, but the accuracy of the sphygmomanometers in use is currently unknown. AIM: To assess the accuracy of validated automatic BP monitors used for BP checks in a UK retail pharmacy chain. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional, observational study in 52 pharmacies from one chain in a range of locations (inner city, suburban, and rural) in central England. METHOD: Monitor accuracy was compared with a calibrated reference device (Omron PA-350), at 50 mmHg intervals across the range 0-300 mmHg (static pressure test), with a difference from the reference monitor of +/- 3 mmHg at any interval considered a failure. The results were analysed by usage rates and length of time in service. RESULTS: Of 61 BP monitors tested, eight (13%) monitors failed (that is, were >3 mmHg from reference), all of which underestimated BP. Monitor failure rate from the reference monitor of +/- 3 mmHg at any testing interval varied by length of time in use (2/38, 5% <18 months; 4/14, 29% >18 months, P = 0.038) and to some extent, but non-significantly, by usage rates (4/22, 18% in monitors used more than once daily; 2/33, 6% in those used less frequently, P = 0.204). CONCLUSION: BP monitors within a pharmacy setting fail at similar rates to those in general practice. Annual calibration checks for blood pressure monitors are needed, even for new monitors, as these data indicate declining performance from 18 months onwards.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hodgkinson et al. (2016) conducted a cross-sectional in Blood pressure monitoring (n=61). Time in service (>18 months) vs. Time in service (<18 months) was evaluated on Monitor failure (difference from reference monitor of +/- 3 mmHg at any testing interval) (p=0.038). Among 61 blood pressure monitors used in community pharmacies, 13% failed accuracy standards overall, with failure rates significantly higher for devices in service for over 18 months (29% vs 5%, P=0.038).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: