JABFM
HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Rapid Responses: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kay, L. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kay, L. E.

The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice, Vol 11, Issue 4 252-258, Copyright © 1998 by American Board of Family Practice

ARTICLES

Accuracy of blood pressure measurement in the family practice center

L. E. Kay
Polyclinic Hospital Family Practice Residency, PinnacleHealth System, Harrisburg, PA 17110, USA.

BACKGROUND: Equipment, physiologic, and technique factors can influence the accuracy of blood pressure measurement. The current study was designed to isolate certain technique factors and then assess the accuracy of nursing personnel measurements of blood pressure in three residency family practice centers. METHODS: An experienced registered nurse was trained in applying the American Heart Association recommendations for determining blood pressure by sphygmomanometry; three 1.5-hour practice sessions demonstrated her accuracy. Nine full days were then spent in the family practice centers rechecking as many staff blood pressure readings as possible while controlling for confounding variables. RESULTS: The following findings were significant: (1) the average absolute differences between control and study nurse systolic and diastolic blood pressure readings were 6.2 mmHg and 4.7 mmHg, respectively; (2) a unidirectional error of 3.8 mmHg in the measurement of diastolic blood pressure was found in one center, possibly because less care was taken with afternoon measurements; (3) variability in systolic blood pressure readings was higher in all three centers (+/- 8.5 mmHg) than attained during the training sessions for the control nurse (+/- 5.8 mmHg); (4) the average errors attributable to technique factors studied that were potentially correctable by training were only 1.8 mmHg for systolic and 0.7 mmHg for diastolic pressures. CONCLUSIONS: The degree of inaccuracy in ambulatory nursing blood pressure readings attributable to errors in technique is quantified by this study. Training can reduce, but not abolish, this inaccuracy. Careful attention to proper blood pressure measurement technique and such variables as equipment calibration is essential for both nursing and physician observers. Taking multiple blood pressure measurements before making clinical decisions can limit the effect of these inaccuracies.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Arch Intern MedHome page
S. A. Yarows, S. Julius, and T. G. Pickering
Home Blood Pressure Monitoring
Arch Intern Med, May 8, 2000; 160(9): 1251 - 1257.
[Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1998 by the American Board of Family Medicine.