Why the study?
Blood pressure measurements in pharmacies are an alternative recording method, but their practical utility has shown contradictory results, prompting an evaluation of the methodology and accuracy of measurements taken by pharmacy employees.
Does a web-based training course improve the methodology and accuracy of blood pressure measurements taken by pharmacy employees compared to measurements taken by physicians in pharmacy customers?
Observational (n=246)
Single-blind
Yes
Does a web-based training course improve the methodology and accuracy of blood pressure measurements taken by pharmacy employees compared to measurements taken by physicians in pharmacy customers?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Pharmacy employee blood pressure readings remained significantly higher than physician readings despite a training course that markedly reduced methodological errors, highlighting the need for a controlled and monitored protocol in pharmacies.
Blood pressure measurements in pharmacies constitute an alternative method for recording blood pressure, although their practical utility has shown contradictory results. The objective of this study was to evaluate the methodology and accuracy of blood pressure measurements taken by pharmacy employees. Design and Methods: the study, conducted in four pharmacies, was divided into three stages. In the first stage, employees took blood pressure readings observed remotely by physicians from our institution. Immediately afterward, the physicians repeated the measurement, out of the employees' view, using the same blood pressure monitor. In the second stage, a course on the correct methodology for blood pressure measurement was provided, and in the third stage, the same method used in the first stage was repeated. Results: a total of 246 subjects were included, 151 (61.4%) of whom were women. The mean age was 50.5 (±17.1) years. In the first stage, the systolic, diastolic, mean arterial pressure, and heart rate values obtained by the employees were significantly higher than those obtained by the physicians (BP: p = 0.003 and HR: 73.8 bpm; p = 0.001). These values did not improve in the third stage, despite the training course. However, regarding the methodology, the employees significantly improved (p = 0.001). Conclusions: the contradictory results obtained reinforce the need for a controlled and monitored protocol for blood pressure measurement in pharmacies. The causes and clinical implications of our results require further analysis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ingaramo et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Blood pressure measurement / Hypertension screening (n=246). Blood pressure measurement by pharmacy employees (before and after methodology training) vs. Blood pressure measurement by cardiologists using the same automated monitor was evaluated on Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) post-training (Stage 3) (MD 4.6 mmHg, p=0.001).
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: