Human Errors in Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurement: Still Room for Improvement
Open accessAbstract
In this review of the literature and commentary, we examine the literature on automated blood pressure (BP) measurements in the office and clinic. Our purpose is to revisit issues as to the pros and cons of automated BP measurement published in Hypertension in June 2020 and to identify areas needing additional research. Despite initial reservations about automated BP, it is here to stay. A number of experts suggest that human error will be reduced when we move from the more complex skills required by aneroid sphygmomanometer measurement to the fewer skills and steps required by automated BP measurement. Our review indicates there is still need for reduction in errors in automated BP assessment, for example, retraining programs and monitoring of assessment procedures. We need more research on the following questions: (1) which classes of health care providers are least likely to measure BP accurately, usually by ignoring necessary steps; (2) how accurate is BP assessment by affiliated health care providers for example the dental office, the optometrist; and (3) why do some dedicated and well-informed health care professionals fail to follow simple directions for automated BP measurement? We offer additional solutions for improving automated BP assessment in the office and clinic.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Studies have shown that addressing the barriers to standardized blood pressure measurement can dramatically improve the quality of clinic blood pressure measurements.
“However, studies have also shown that addressing these barriers can dramatically improve the quality of clinic BP measurements.32–36”
From International Consensus on Standardized Clinic Blood Pressure Measurement – A Call to Action (2023) · cites this paper as [36]
The Bundling section (pp. 6–7) describes a clinic program that addressed measurement barriers through workflow redesign and reports improved adherence to proper BP protocol. But the Conclusions (p. 9) characterize multidimensional approaches as having shown only “some success,” so the source does not substantiate the claim that improvement was dramatic. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 56 · Cited by 31
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [22]22. Stergiou GS, O'Brien E, Myers M, Palatini P, Parati G, Kollias A, Birmpas D, Kyriakoulis K, Bountzona I, Stambolliu E, et al. The STRIDE BP scientific advisory board. J Clin Hypertens . 2019;21:1616-1622.
- [34]34. American Medical Association. Measure Accurately: Best practices in blood pressure measurement. 2018. https://www.ama-assn.org/system/ files/2019-01/measure-accurately-best-practices.pdf. Accessed April 22, 2020.
- Authors
- Elias, M. F., & Goodell, A. L.
- Affiliations
- University of Maine (US)
- Venue
- Hypertension
- Published
- 2021-01
- Volume
- 77
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 6-15
- ISSN
- 0194-911X (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4563
- OpenAlex
- W3112870294
- Cited by
- 31
- References
- 56
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 0.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Hypertension (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DigitalCommons (California Polytechnic State University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
- Keywords
- automated blood pressure measurement, office blood pressure measurement, human error, measurement accuracy, sphygmomanometer, health professions education, hypertension screening
- MeSH terms
- Automation, Blood Pressure Determination, Diagnostic Errors, Health Personnel, Humans
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review