Cited by 53Blood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesPrimary Care and Health OutcomesClinical practice guidelines implementation

Barriers to accurate blood pressure measurement in the medical office

Open access
Hwang, Kevin O., Aigbe, Aitebureme, Ju, Hsiao-Hui, Jackson, Victoria C., Sedlock, Emily W.·2018·Journal of Primary Care & Community Health

Abstract

Background: Despite the high prevalence of blood pressure (BP) measurement errors in the outpatient setting, little is known about why primary care clinics struggle to achieve consistently accurate BP measurements in routine practice. We investigated barriers affecting measurement of BP for adult patients in primary care. Methods: We conducted a qualitative evaluation in 6 adult primary care clinics. BP measurement was observed during 54 routine patient encounters. Six managers completed semistructured interviews and 18 clinical staff members participated in focus group discussions. We used an inductive, data-driven approach to identify and organize findings into cohesive, overarching themes describing factors affecting BP measurement. Results: Observed errors in BP measurement spanned the entire spectrum of steps required to obtain BP properly. Barriers to proper BP measurement were related to staff knowledge and behavior (inadequate knowledge, training, and feedback); workflow constraints (need to multitask, inadequate time); and equipment issues (BP monitors, seating). Patient characteristics and behavior also affected BP measurement. Conclusions: Correct measurement of BP is affected by a wide range of factors and is challenging to accomplish consistently in primary care. These findings may inform the design of performance improvement programs to maximize the quality of BP measurement in the outpatient setting.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/2150132718816929

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The evidence base for blood pressure targets using ambulatory or home monitoring is uncertain, so their role should be considered complementary to standardized clinic blood pressure measurement unless clinic measurements are unavailable.

    “As such, the evidence base to support BP targets using ABPM or HBPM is uncertain and their role at present should be considered complementary to standardized clinic BP measurements, unless clinic BP measurements are unavailable.23”

    From International Consensus on Standardized Clinic Blood Pressure Measurement – A Call to Action (2023) · cites this paper as [23]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) says office BP measurement remains the de facto method in routine care and that major hypertension trials used office BP to guide treatment. It does not assess whether evidence for ABPM or HBPM targets is uncertain or recommend using those methods only as complements to standardized clinic measurements unless clinic measurements are unavailable. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Standardization of blood pressure measurement is not implemented in most clinical practices, because its importance is underappreciated and the required steps are seen as time-consuming and impractical.

    “Despite these efforts, standardization is not implemented in most clinical practices18 because its importance is often underappreciated, and the necessary steps are considered time-consuming and impractical.23”

    From International Consensus on Standardized Clinic Blood Pressure Measurement – A Call to Action (2023) · cites this paper as [23]

    The Results (Workflow; Staff Knowledge and Behavior, page unavailable) report that staff lacked time for recommended steps and found them difficult to apply in a busy clinic. The paper does not establish that the importance of standardized measurement was underappreciated. The separate claim about most clinical practices is attached to citation 18, not this source. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Standardization is essential because many aspects of blood pressure measurement, including the patient's physical condition, the clinic environment and the equipment, can readily produce inaccurate and unreliable values.

    “Standardization is essential because there are many aspects of BP measurement, including the patient’s physical condition, clinic environment, and equipment that can readily result in inaccurate and unreliable values.23,25,26”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 26 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [2]Yoon SS Fryar CD Carroll MD. Hypertension Prevalence and Control Among Adults: United States, 2011-2014. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2015. 26633197
  2. [16]Tong A Sainsbury P Craig J. Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007; 19: 349- 357. 17872937
  3. [18]Nolan TW. Execution of Strategic Improvement Initiatives to Produce System-Level Results. IHI Innovation Series white paper. Cambridge, MA: Institute for Healthcare Improvement; 2007.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hwang, K. O., Aigbe, A., Ju, H.-H., Jackson, V. C., & Sedlock, E. W.
Affiliations
  • Memorial Hermann (US)
  • The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (US)
Corresponding author
Hwang, Kevin O.
Venue
Journal of Primary Care & Community Health
Published
2018-01
Volume
9
Pages
2150132718816929-2150132718816929
ISSN
  • 2150-1319 (ISSN-L)
  • 2150-1327
OpenAlex
W2902551773
Cited by
53
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7
FWCI
2.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Primary Care & Community Health (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
University of Texas at Houston-Memorial Hermann Center for Healthcare Quality and Safety
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
blood pressure measurement, measurement error, primary health centers, outpatient care, blood pressure monitors, patient behavior, quality improvement
MeSH terms
Blood Pressure Determination, Diagnostic Errors, Humans, Hypertension, Interviews as Topic, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Posture, Primary Health Care, Qualitative Research, Workflow

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