Unreliability of Home Blood Pressure Measurement and the Effect of a Patient-Oriented Intervention

Abstract

BackgroundHome blood pressure (BP) measurement (HBPM) is recommended for the diagnosis and follow-up of high BP. It is unclear how this aspect of BP monitoring has evolved over the years and whether interventions could influence patient adherence to HBPM guidelines. MethodsAfter a questionnaire-based cross-sectional study performed in 2010, a passive, multimodal intervention, focused on improving adherence to HBPM guidelines, was implemented. A second study was conducted in 2014 to measure its effect. ResultsIn 2010 and 2014, 1010 and 1005 patients, respectively, completed the questionnaire. In 2010 and 2014, 82% and 84% of patients, respectively, self-measured their BP. Reporting of HBPM and adherence to recommended procedures was suboptimal. Only 34.0% of patients in 2010 and 31.7% in 2014 brought > 80% of their measurements to their doctor. Only 49.6% in 2010 and 52.9% in 2014 prepared > 80% of the time for HBPM. Only 48.1% in 2010 and 52.1% in 2014 rested for 5 minutes > 80% of the time before HBPM. Only 15% of patients in 2010 and 18% in 2014 were defined as sufficiently compliant with all HBPM procedures. Paired analysis of a subset of 535 patients who participated in the 2010 and 2014 studies showed no clinically significant differences in reliability between the 2 surveys. ConclusionsAdherence to HBPM guidelines was suboptimal in 2010 and still is in 2014 despite a passive, multimodal intervention. Active training in HBPM procedures should be studied. Greater automation could improve HBPM reliability.