Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • Other Publications
    • abfm

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
American Board of Family Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • abfm
American Board of Family Medicine

American Board of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • JABFM on Bluesky
  • JABFM On Facebook
  • JABFM On Twitter
  • JABFM On YouTube
Research ArticleOriginal Research

Diagnosing Hypertension in Primary Care Clinics According to Current Guidelines

Sarah Woolsey, Brittany Brown, Brenda Ralls, Michael Friedrichs and Barry Stults
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine March 2017, 30 (2) 170-177; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2017.02.160111
Sarah Woolsey
From HealthInsight Utah, Salt Lake City (SW); the Utah Department of Health (BB, BR, MF); and the Department of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City (BS).
MD, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Brittany Brown
From HealthInsight Utah, Salt Lake City (SW); the Utah Department of Health (BB, BR, MF); and the Department of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City (BS).
MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Brenda Ralls
From HealthInsight Utah, Salt Lake City (SW); the Utah Department of Health (BB, BR, MF); and the Department of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City (BS).
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael Friedrichs
From HealthInsight Utah, Salt Lake City (SW); the Utah Department of Health (BB, BR, MF); and the Department of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City (BS).
MStat
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Barry Stults
From HealthInsight Utah, Salt Lake City (SW); the Utah Department of Health (BB, BR, MF); and the Department of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City (BS).
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Purpose: This descriptive study examines hypertension diagnostic practices in Utah primary care clinics relative to the 2015 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations for the accurate diagnosis of hypertension. We assessed clinic procedures in place to facilitate accurate in-office and out-of-office blood pressure (BP) measurement.

Methods: An online questionnaire was administered to 321 primary care clinics. We compared current clinic BP measurement practices with the USPTF recommendations and assessed the level of adherence to the recommendations by level of clinic integration with a hospital.

Results: Of the 321 primary care clinics that received the assessment, 123 (38.3%) completed the questionnaire. Clinics varied significantly in their ability to provide accurate in-office measurement, ranging from 57.5% to 93.5% of clinics complying with USPSTF recommendations. Only 25.2% of clinics reported having access to ambulatory monitoring and 36.6% had instructional materials for accurate home BP monitoring. Clinics integrated with a hospital were more likely to report adherence to recommendations than solo or independent clinics (36.4% vs 10.5%; P < .01).

Conclusion: This assessment shows that many primary care clinics are not well prepared to implement the USPSTF guidelines for accurate diagnosis of hypertension. Most office practices will benefit from support to develop their capacities.

  • Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring
  • Blood Pressure
  • Hypertension
  • Primary Health Care
  • Surveys and Questionnaires
  • Utah

Inaccurate diagnosis of hypertension in the office setting is a major concern. First, multiple studies demonstrate that office staff most often measure blood pressure (BP) using incorrect technique.1⇓–3 Because most technical errors falsely elevate BP, measurement by usual office staff averages 10/7 mmHg higher than BP measured according to current guidelines.1,2 Second, systematic and narrative reviews conclude that about 30% of patients with elevated BP measured in an office have isolated office (“white-coat”) hypertension but normal BP out of the office.4,5 Considering 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) as the reference standard for an accurate hypertension diagnosis and prediction of future cardiovascular events, a large proportion of people with elevated in-office BP may be normotensive with out-of-office BP monitoring (ranging from 5% to 65% among 24 studies reviewed by Piper et al.4). A false-positive diagnosis of hypertension exposes patients and the health care system to the unnecessary costs of antihypertension medications and office visits, to the potential side effects of these medications, and, albeit with less certainty, to the possible adverse psychological effects from being labeled as “hypertensive.” As a result, to avoid misdiagnosis and overtreatment, new US and international guidelines propose that office BP measurement (OBPM) be used only as a screening test for hypertension.6⇓⇓⇓–10 These guidelines, including a 2015 grade A recommendation from the US Preventive Services Task Force,6 propose that, for most patients, confirmation of a diagnosis of hypertension should be achieved with out-of-office BP monitoring, preferably using 24-hour ABPM.6⇓⇓⇓–10 If ABPM is not available, or not tolerated, standardized home BP monitoring (HBPM) may be a substitute.6⇓⇓⇓–10

Are primary care clinics adequately prepared to implement these recommendations for accurate OBPM and out-of-office BP monitoring for the 70 million patients with hypertension in the United States?11 Effective implementation of these interventions requires the use of OBPM and HBPM devices validated for accuracy by international protocols,12 training and subsequent monitoring of both clinic staff and patients in correct OBPM and HBPM protocols,13,14 convenient access to 24-hour ABPM services,15,16 and, optimally, use of an electronic health record (EHR) or electronic registry that can identify and track hypertension patients and their HBPM values.17

Utah formed the Utah Million Hearts Coalition (UMHC) as part of the national Million Hearts initiative to prevent 1 million heart attacks and strokes by 2017.18 The UMHC is a multistakeholder group of health care and public health entities, including subject matter experts in hypertension care, with a mission to prevent heart attacks and strokes in Utah through improved clinical care and accurate BP measurement and control in health care settings and at home. The objective of this descriptive study, led by the UMHC, was to assess the policies and procedures currently in place in Utah primary care clinics related to in-office and out-of-office BP measurement, and to identify gaps between current practices and the 2015 USPSTF diagnosis guidelines.

Methods

Assessment

A descriptive assessment of primary care clinics in Utah was conducted to determine the extent to which clinics throughout the state have policies and processes in place to ensure appropriate BP measurement and hypertension diagnosis. The UMHC developed a questionnaire to obtain clinic-level information on self-reported OBPM technique, ABPM availability, and HBPM patient instructional materials and processes. Because a broad range of processes are involved in the accurate diagnosis of hypertension, and because no one person in the clinic would likely be able to accurately answer all parts of the questionnaire, the assessment was designed to be completed by a team. Clinics were instructed to include, at a minimum, a medical assistant or registered nurse, a primary care physician, and an office manager or patient services representative. Questions were primarily quantitative and used either a yes/no response or a Likert scale, with responses ranging from “never” to “always” (see online Appendix).

The Utah Department of Health Institutional Review Board determined that the assessment collected information on professional opinions and not patient-specific data. The institutional review board reviewed the study proposal and deemed it to be exempt, in particular because the purpose of the assessment was quality improvement.

The questionnaire was drafted in early 2015 and administered to Utah primary clinics from April through August 2015. The UMHC was aware of the USPSTF draft document that was open for comment in late 2015, during questionnaire development. The assessment was pilot tested by 5 clinics, and questions were modified to improve clarity, as needed. Data from pilot clinics were not included in the final analysis.

A list of all known Utah primary care clinics was compiled. Lists were obtained from the Division of Professional Licensing, HealthInsight (Utah's quality innovation network–quality improvement organization), the Utah Health Information Exchange database, and local health system websites. UMHC partners work closely with most practices in the state and are aware of practice types. Clinics that practice family medicine, general practice, internal medicine, and geriatric medicine were included. A total of 398 primary care clinics were identified for the study. To ensure that clinic eligibility requirements were met, a screening question was included at the start of the assessment: “Does your practice provide primary care and treatment for patients with hypertension?” A summary of the clinic enrollment process is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Figure 1.

Flow of participants in study.

The assessment was conducted electronically using the online survey software Qualtrics, and links were sent to all clinics that provided a valid E-mail address. In total, 321 clinics provided a valid E-mail address and were used as the sample frame for the study. Only completed questionnaires were included in the analysis. A total of 198 clinics either did not begin, or began but did not complete, the questionnaire, whereas 123 clinics (38.3%) completed the questionnaire. Although clinics were instructed to complete the assessment as a physician office team, only 1 in 4 clinics included all the requested team members in completing the questionnaire.

Data Analysis

UMHC assessment was completed on August 30, 2015; the USPSTF officially released its recommendations online on October 3, 2015.6 We reviewed our questionnaire and identified 10 questions from our assessment that were relevant to the USPSTF guidelines. Data were then reviewed to better understand the extent to which the clinics were currently in compliance with the recommendations for OBPM, ABPM, and HBPM. Self-reported adherence to the recommendations was measured as a 2-category variable (adherent to/not adherent to recommendations). Clinics reporting “always” or “most of the time” to the Likert scale questions, or “yes” to the yes/no questions, were considered adherent to the recommendations. Descriptive analyses were used to determine the percentage of clinics that adhered to the recommendations. Recognizing that clinics that are part of a larger health care system with a hospital affiliation may have greater capacity to adhere to the recommendations than those in independent or solo clinics, we considered integration as a potential explanatory factor in recommendation compliance. Integration was measured as a 2-category variable: (1) low = not integrated with a health system affiliated with a hospital, and (2) high = integrated with a health system also affiliated with a hospital. We therefore examined the number of recommendations adhered to for each level of integration. Three categories were used: 0 to 4 (lowest), 5 to 7 (middle), and 8 to 10 (highest). The Fisher's exact test was used to determine the association between the level of integration and adherence to the USPSTF recommendations.

Results

In total, 123 primary care clinics completed the questionnaire (38.3% response rate) and were included in the final analysis. The respondent profile was similar to the descriptive characteristics of the state of Utah with respect to geographic density and practice type, but clinics considered to be highly integrated had a higher response rate than clinics with low integration (Table 1).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Characteristics of Responding Clinics Compared to All Utah Primary Care Clinics

The characteristics of the respondents are outlined in Table 2. The clinics were likely to be urban, family medicine, or groups with >2 providers. More than half of the respondents (53.7%) were classified as highly integrated clinics.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Characteristics of Clinics Responding to Assessment

We examined the extent to which clinics currently complied with the USPSTF recommendations for OBPM, HBPM, and ABPM based on responses to relevant assessment questions. Table 3 displays the USPSTF recommendations, the associated questions from our assessment, and the percentage of clinics that adhered to the recommendations. Recommendations were divided into 2 categories: (1) those that pertained to accurate OBPM techniques and (2) those used to confirm the diagnosis of hypertension with out-of-office BP monitoring. Only 58.5% of clinics self-reported the use of the mean of 2 OBPMs, and 57.7% reported allowing patients to rest at least 5 minutes before measuring BP. Only 25.2% of clinics reported having access to ABPM, and 36.6% had instructional materials to train patients in accurate HBPM.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Percentage of Clinics Adherent to US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations

Associations between the level of clinic integration and the number of USPSTF recommendations adhered to are displayed in Table 4. A statistically significant association exists between integration and the number of recommendations adhered to by clinics. A higher percentage of clinics that were highly integrated adhered to 8 to 10 recommendations compared with clinics with low integration (36.4% and 10.5%, respectively).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4.

Level of Clinic Integration and Number of US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations Adhered to by Clinic

Discussion

The 2015 USPSTF Recommendations for Screening for High BP in Adults6 and other recent international guidelines7⇓⇓–10 aim to improve the accuracy of hypertension diagnosis (1) by using correct OBPM technique to avoid the frequent overestimation and occasional underestimation of office BP resulting from incorrect technique,1⇓–3 and (2) by confirming the diagnosis of hypertension with out-of-office BP measurement using 24-hour ABPM or HBPM to detect isolated office hypertension—known as “white-coat hypertension”—that is present in 30% of patients with elevated office BP.4,5 Unfortunately, our assessment of primary care practices in Utah confirms previous studies demonstrating incorrect OBPM as a widespread phenomenon in clinical practice. Our findings also suggest there likely are major challenges to the effective implementation of out-of-office BP measurement with either ABPM or HBPM.

These gaps identified with Utah practices are not surprising. Use of ABPM in the United States, as assessed by Medicare claims, is indeed very low,19 likely because of a combination of limited availability, inadequate reimbursement by payers,20 and limited clinician knowledge about ABPM as an important diagnostic tool. In fact, 80% of a small sample of 143 primary care physicians in a large urban city (Portland, Oregon) reported access to ABPM, although fewer than half reported using it.21

The accuracy of HBPM performed in real-world settings is of concern. Recent studies indicate that only 10% to 17% of clinicians provide HBPM training that is even minimally adherent to guidelines for accurate measurement,22⇓–24 and fewer than 20% of patients may be sufficiently adherent to the recommended HBPM technique to ensure reliable HBPM.14,25,26 Compared with ABPM, HBPM requires a substantial commitment to training by both clinics and patients, and it may require individual, face-to-face instruction for optimal results.13,14,26 Our assessment of Utah primary care clinics found similar concerns about their current delivery of patient training to facilitate accurate HBPM. Only 27.6% had a written policy for training patients in HBPM, 36.6% distributed written HBPM instructional materials, and just 48.8% had designated a team member to provide individual HBPM instruction.

This study had several limitations. First, UMHC conducted the assessment before the USPSTF hypertension assessment document was finalized, and thus the actual questionnaire was not perfectly aligned with the final wording of the USPSTF guidelines. Second, 198 primary care clinics did not complete the assessment, which could have introduced bias; however, our response rate (38.3%) seems to be within the range for current office practice surveys.27,28 Third, our results show a higher response rate from larger, highly integrated health systems than from smaller practices. This may be the result of greater capacity by staff to complete the assessment at these sites and/or greater organizational interest in the topic. In addition, some clinics did not complete the assessment using all team members requested, which could lead to incomplete descriptions of office practices. Finally, the self-report aspect of the questionnaire may have introduced bias toward overestimating adherence to recommended BP measurement practices as a result of social desirability. Physician self-report and peer report may not accurately reflect actual adherence to best practices in clinical settings.29 In light of these limitations, we believe our estimates of BP measurement practices are likely to overestimate adherence to guideline recommendations.

Our findings point to the low use of both ABPM and HBPM, both of which may be cost-beneficial in diagnosing hypertension from both societal30 and payer31 perspectives by identifying only sustained hypertension in and out of the office and by eliminating subsequent unnecessary treatment, potential adverse events from overtreatment, and unnecessary follow-up costs. The 2015 USPSTF recommendations favor ABPM over HBPM for diagnosing hypertension because of a larger number of supporting studies,4,6 although a recent systematic review found no definitive evidence to prefer 1 over the other.32 ABPM may be more time-efficient for clinics to diagnose hypertension because it does not require intensive patient training in performing HBPM.

This study suggests several ways that physicians can facilitate implementation of the 2015 USPSTF recommendations for hypertension diagnosis. First, OBPM may be improved by the use of automated OBPM (AOBPM) using validated devices that automatically perform and average 3 to 6 measurements at 1-minute intervals while patients are isolated, alone in an examination room or in a quiet corner of the waiting room.33,34 AOBPM eliminates a number of technical errors in manual BP measurement, is a better predictor of cardiovascular outcome than OBPM, and substantially reduces “white-coat hypertension,” thereby reducing the need for out-of-office BP measurement.1,2,33,34 An unobserved AOBPM reading of 135/85 mmHg carries a cardiovascular risk equivalent to that of an observed guideline-quality office BP measurement of 140/90 mmHg.34 Second, ABPM availability must be expanded, and this will require adjustment of third-party payer policies as well as primary care clinic education.20 Third, primary care clinics must be supported to develop HBPM patient training programs. HBPM data collection schemes35⇓⇓⇓–39 and EHR systems that can easily integrate HBPM measurements into clinic workflow will be important.17 Finally, continued support of office practices to use their EHRs to monitor population-wide hypertension control rates and to target the groups at highest risk is imperative. State and local health departments and quality improvement organizations, perhaps under the umbrella of the national Million Hearts campaign, which is sponsored jointly by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, can, we hope, help bring infrastructure to primary care clinics to help implement the 2015 USPSTF guidelines for hypertension diagnosis.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Utah Million Hearts Coalition, sponsored by the Utah Department of Health, and Nicole Bissonette, MPH, MCHES, Program Manager Healthy Living through Environment, Policy and Improved Clinical Care Program (EPICC) for their support of this work.

Notes

  • This article was externally peer reviewed.

  • Funding: Funding was provided in part by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Basic Implementation Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention Program Grant, and the State Public Health Actions to Prevent and Control Diabetes, Heart Disease, Obesity and Associated Risk Factors and Promote School Health Grant.

  • Conflict of interest: none declared.

  • To see this article online, please go to: http://jabfm.org/content/30/2/170.full.

  • Received for publication April 2, 2016.
  • Revision received October 13, 2016.
  • Accepted for publication October 17, 2016.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Myers MG
    . The great myth of office blood pressure measurement. J Hypertens 2012;30:1894–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Myers MG,
    2. Godwin M,
    3. Dawes M,
    4. Kiss A,
    5. Tobe SW,
    6. Kaczorowski J
    . Measurement of blood pressure in the office: recognizing the problem and proposing the solution. Hypertension 2010;55:195–200.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  3. 3.↵
    1. Powers BJ,
    2. Olsen MK,
    3. Smith VA,
    4. Woolson RF,
    5. Bosworth HB,
    6. Oddone EZ
    . Measuring blood pressure for decision-making and quality reporting: where and how many measures? Ann Intern Med 2011;154:781–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Piper MA,
    2. Evans CV,
    3. Burda BU,
    4. Margolis KL,
    5. O'Connor E,
    6. Whitlock EP
    . Diagnostic and predictive accuracy of blood pressure screening methods with consideration of rescreening intervals: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2015;162:192–204.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Gorostidi M,
    2. Vinyoles E,
    3. Banegas JR,
    4. de la Sierra A
    . Prevalence of white-coat and masked hypertension in national and international registries. Hypertens Res 2015;38:1–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Siu AL
    ; U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for high blood pressure in adults: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Ann Intern Med 2015;163:778–86.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Leung AA,
    2. Nerenberg K,
    3. Daskalopoulou SS,
    4. et al
    . Hypertension Canada's 2016 Canadian Hypertension Education Program guidelines for blood pressure measurement, diagnosis, assessment of risk, and treatment of hypertension. Can J Cardiol 2016;32:569–88.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Parati G,
    2. Stergiou G,
    3. O'Brien E,
    4. et al
    . European society of hypertension practice guidelines for ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. J Hypertens 2014;32:1359–66.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Sharman JE,
    2. Howes FS,
    3. Head GA,
    4. et al
    . Home blood pressure monitoring: Australian expert consensus statement. J Hypertens 2015;33:1721–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Krause T,
    2. Lovibond K,
    3. Caulfield M,
    4. McCormack T,
    5. Williams B
    . Management of hypertension: summary of national institute for health and clinical excellence (NICE) guidance. BMJ 2011;343:d4891.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Yoon SS,
    2. Fryar CD,
    3. Carroll MD
    . Hypertension prevalence and control among adults: United States, 2011–2014. NCHS Data Brief 2015;(220):1–8.
  12. 12.↵
    1. Campbell NR,
    2. Berbari AE,
    3. Cloutier L,
    4. et al
    . Policy statement of the World Hypertension League on noninvasive blood pressure measurement devices and blood pressure measurement in the clinical or community setting. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2014;16:320–2.
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.↵
    1. Sendra-Lillo J,
    2. Martinez-Martinez F,
    3. Garcia-Corpas JP,
    4. et al
    . Validity of home blood pressure measurements manually registered by patients after an educational session provided by community pharmacists. Blood Press Monit 2015;20:232–6.
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.↵
    1. Milot JP,
    2. Birnbaum L,
    3. Larochelle P,
    4. et al
    . Unreliability of home blood pressure measurement and the effect of a patient-oriented intervention. Can J Cardiol 2015;31:658–63.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Bloch MJ,
    2. Basile JN
    . Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring–an idea whose time has come. J Am Soc Hypertens 2015;10:89–91.
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    1. Shimbo D,
    2. Abdalla M,
    3. Falzon L,
    4. Townsend RR,
    5. Munther P
    . Role of ambulatory and home blood pressure monitoring in clinical practice: a narrative review. Ann Intern Med 2015;163:691–700.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Goldstein KM,
    2. Zulig LL,
    3. Bosworth HB,
    4. Oddone EZ
    . Consideration of out-of-office blood pressure monitoring in hypertension management. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2016;18:381–2.
    OpenUrl
  18. 18.↵
    Million Hearts. About Million Hearts. Available from: http://millionhearts.hhs.gov/about-million-hearts/index.html. Accessed March 13, 2016.
  19. 19.↵
    1. Shimbo D,
    2. Kent ST,
    3. Diaz KM,
    4. et al
    . The use of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring among Medicare beneficiaries in 2007–2010. J Am Soc Hypertens 2014;8:891–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Kent ST,
    2. Shimbo D,
    3. Huang L,
    4. et al
    . Rates, amounts, and determinants of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring claim reimbursements among Medicare beneficiaries. J Am Soc Hypertens 2014;8:898–908.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Carter BU,
    2. Kaylor MB
    . The use of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring to confirm a diagnosis of high blood pressure by primary care physicians in Oregon. Blood Press Monit 2016;21:95–102.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Boivin J,
    2. Tsou-Gaillet T,
    3. Fay R,
    4. et al
    . Influence of the recommendations on the implementation of home blood pressure measurement by French general practitioners: a 2004–2009 longitudinal survey. J Hypertens 2011;29:2105–15.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Logan AG,
    2. Dwnai A,
    3. McIsaac WJ,
    4. Irvine MJ,
    5. Tisler A
    . Attitudes of primary care physicians and their patients about home blood pressure monitoring in Ontario. J Hypertens 2008;26:446–52.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Obara T,
    2. Ohkubo T,
    3. Fukunaga H,
    4. et al
    . Practice and awareness of physicians regarding home blood pressure measurement in Japan. Hypertens Res 2010;33:428–34.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Flacco ME,
    2. Manzoli L,
    3. Bucci M,
    4. et al
    . Uneven accuracy of home blood pressure measurement: a multi-centric survey. J Clin Hypertens 2015;17:638–43.
    OpenUrl
  26. 26.↵
    1. Levy J,
    2. Gerber LM,
    3. Wu X,
    4. Mann SJ
    . Non-adherence to recommended guidelines for blood pressure measurement. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2016;18:1157–61.
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.↵
    1. Braithwaite D,
    2. Emery J,
    3. De Lusignan S,
    4. Sutton S
    . Using the Internet to conduct surveys of health professionals: a valid alternative? Fam Pract 2003;20:545–51.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. 28.↵
    1. Dobrow MJ,
    2. Orchard MC,
    3. Golden B,
    4. et al
    . Response audit of an Internet survey of health care providers and administrators: implications for determination of response rates. J Med Internet Res 2008;10:e30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Saturno PJ,
    2. Palmer RH,
    3. Gascon JJ
    . Physician attitudes, self-estimated performance and actual compliance with locally peer-defined quality evaluation criteria. Int J Qual Health Care 1999;11:487–96.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. 30.↵
    1. Lovibond K,
    2. Jowett S,
    3. Barton P,
    4. et al
    . Cost-effectiveness of options for the diagnosis of high blood pressure in primary care: a modelling study. Lancet 2011;378:1219–30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Arrieta A,
    2. Woods JR,
    3. Qiao N,
    4. Jay SJ
    . Cost-benefit analysis of home blood pressure monitoring in hypertension diagnosis and treatment: an insurer perspective. Hypertension 2014;64:891–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  32. 32.↵
    1. Shimbo D,
    2. Abdalla M,
    3. Falzon L,
    4. Townsend RR,
    5. Muntron P
    . Studies comparing ambulatory blood-pressure and home blood pressure on cardiovascular disease and mortality outcomes: a systematic review. J Am Soc Hypertens 2016;10:224–34.
    OpenUrl
  33. 33.↵
    1. Myers MG
    . Automated office blood pressure–the preferred method for recording blood pressure. J Am Soc Hypertens 2016;10:194–6.
    OpenUrl
  34. 34.↵
    1. Myers MG,
    2. Kaczorowski J,
    3. Paterson JM,
    4. Dolovich L,
    5. Tu K
    . Thresholds for diagnosing hypertension based on automated office blood pressure measurements and cardiovascular risk. Hypertension 2015;66:489–95.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  35. 35.↵
    1. Sharman JE,
    2. Blizzard L,
    3. Kosmala W,
    4. Nelson MR
    . Pragmatic method using blood pressure diaries to assess blood pressure control. Ann Fam Med 2016;14:63–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. 36.↵
    1. Postel-Vinay N,
    2. Bobrie G,
    3. Ruelland A,
    4. et al
    . Automated integration of home blood pressure assessment (Hy-Result software) versus physician's assessment: a validation study. Blood Press Monit 2016;21:111–7.
    OpenUrl
  37. 37.↵
    1. Pickering TG,
    2. Miller NH,
    3. Ogedegbe G,
    4. et al
    . American Heart Association; American Society of Hypertension; Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association. Call to action on use and reimbursement for home blood pressure monitoring. Hypertension 2008;52:10–29.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  38. 38.↵
    1. Neeley E,
    2. Ayala C,
    3. Rashon L,
    4. et al
    . Where do we stand with home blood pressure monitoring use among adults with hypertension? J Am Soc Hypertens 2014;8(4 Suppl):e64.
    OpenUrl
  39. 39.↵
    1. Ostchega Y,
    2. Berman L,
    3. Hughes JP,
    4. Chet T,
    5. Chiappa MM
    . Home blood pressure monitoring and hypertension status among U.S. adults: the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 2009–2010. Am J Hypertens 2013;26:1086–92.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of the American Board of Family     Medicine: 30 (2)
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Vol. 30, Issue 2
March-April 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Board of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Diagnosing Hypertension in Primary Care Clinics According to Current Guidelines
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Board of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Board of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
4 + 0 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Diagnosing Hypertension in Primary Care Clinics According to Current Guidelines
Sarah Woolsey, Brittany Brown, Brenda Ralls, Michael Friedrichs, Barry Stults
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Mar 2017, 30 (2) 170-177; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2017.02.160111

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Diagnosing Hypertension in Primary Care Clinics According to Current Guidelines
Sarah Woolsey, Brittany Brown, Brenda Ralls, Michael Friedrichs, Barry Stults
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Mar 2017, 30 (2) 170-177; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2017.02.160111
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Notes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Heterogeneity of the Effect of Telemedicine Hypertension Management Approach on Blood Pressure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of US-based Clinical Trials
  • Blood Pressure Checks for Diagnosing Hypertension: Health Professionals' Knowledge, Beliefs, and Practices
  • Measuring and Managing Blood Pressure in a Primary Care Setting: A Pragmatic Implementation Study
  • Content Usage and the Most Frequently Read Articles of 2017
  • Improving Family Medicine with Thoughtful Research
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Evaluating Pragmatism of Lung Cancer Screening Randomized Trials with the PRECIS-2 Tool
  • Perceptions and Preferences for Defining Biosimilar Products in Prescription Drug Promotion
  • Successful Implementation of Integrated Behavioral Health
Show more Original Research

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring
  • Blood Pressure
  • Hypertension
  • Primary Health Care
  • Surveys and Questionnaires
  • Utah

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Authors & Reviewers

  • Info For Authors
  • Info For Reviewers
  • Submit A Manuscript/Review

Other Services

  • Get Email Alerts
  • Classifieds
  • Reprints and Permissions

Other Resources

  • Forms
  • Contact Us
  • ABFM News

© 2025 American Board of Family Medicine

Powered by HighWire