Comparing mean and single automated office blood pressure measurement in a US ambulatory care setting
Intended for healthcare professionals
Evidence and practice    

Comparing mean and single automated office blood pressure measurement in a US ambulatory care setting

Tammy Buettner Nurse manager, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, US
Amanda Bertram Research associate, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, US
Olivia Floyd Nurse practitioner, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, US
Caitlin Dowd-Green Ambulatory pharmacist, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, US
Rosalyn Stewart @TheRosStewart Professor, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, US

Accurate blood pressure measurement is essential to appropriately diagnose and treat hypertension. Blood pressure is usually measured by taking a single automated office blood pressure (AOBP) reading, but there are newer, fully automated devices that calculate the mean of several blood pressure readings.

A quality improvement initiative was conducted in a US ambulatory care setting to determine whether there were differences in the accuracy of blood pressure measurement when measuring mean AOBP versus single AOBP. A population of 126 patients attending a transitional care clinic at an urban hospital were randomly assigned to receive mean AOBP measurement at the beginning of their appointment, at the end of their appointment, or not at all. This randomised prospective evaluation did not find conclusive evidence regarding the use of mean AOBP measurement versus single AOBP measurement. However, using a fully automated device that calculates mean AOBP may be useful in busy clinical settings, allowing nurses to spend more time on other aspects of their role such as patient education and care coordination.

Primary Health Care. 32, 1, 28-33. doi: 10.7748/phc.2021.e1695

Correspondence

rstewart@jhmi.edu

Peer review

This article has been subject to external double-blind peer review and has been checked for plagiarism using automated software

Conflict of interest

This project did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors

Permission

To reuse this article or for information about reprints and permissions, please contact permissions@rcni.com

Write for us

For information about writing for RCNi journals, contact writeforus@rcni.com

For author guidelines, go to rcni.com/writeforus

RCNi Learning

For related learning modules, go to rcnilearning.com

Want to read more?

RCNi-Plus
Already have access? Log in

or

3-month trial offer for £5.25/month

Subscribe today and save 50% on your first three months
RCNi Plus users have full access to the following benefits:
  • Unlimited access to all 10 RCNi Journals
  • RCNi Learning featuring over 175 modules to easily earn CPD time
  • NMC-compliant RCNi Revalidation Portfolio to stay on track with your progress
  • Personalised newsletters tailored to your interests
  • A customisable dashboard with over 200 topics
Subscribe

Alternatively, you can purchase access to this article for the next seven days. Buy now


Are you a student? Our student subscription has content especially for you.
Find out more