Understanding Measurement of Postural Hypotension (UMPH): a nationwide survey of general practice in England.

IF 5.3 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Sinead McDonagh, Rosina Cross, Jane Masoli, Judit Konya, Gary Abel, James Sheppard, Bethany Jakubowski, Cini Bhanu, Jayne Fordham, Katrina Turner, Sarah E Lamb, Rupert A Payne, Richard McManus, John Campbell, Christopher Elles Clark
{"title":"Understanding Measurement of Postural Hypotension (UMPH): a nationwide survey of general practice in England.","authors":"Sinead McDonagh, Rosina Cross, Jane Masoli, Judit Konya, Gary Abel, James Sheppard, Bethany Jakubowski, Cini Bhanu, Jayne Fordham, Katrina Turner, Sarah E Lamb, Rupert A Payne, Richard McManus, John Campbell, Christopher Elles Clark","doi":"10.3399/BJGP.2025.0025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Background Postural hypotension (PH) is associated with excess mortality, falls and cognitive decline. PH is poorly recorded in routine general practice (practice) records. Few practice studies have explored measurement and diagnosis of PH. Aim To understand how PH is measured, diagnosed and managed in practice. Design and setting Online survey of practice staff in England. Method Clinical Research Networks distributed the survey to practices, seeking individual responses from any clinical staff involved in routine blood pressure (BP) measurement. Responses were analysed according to role and demographic data using descriptive statistics. Multivariable modelling of undertaking postural BP measurements was performed. Results 703 responses were received from 243 practices (mean practice-level response rate 17%). Half (362; 51%) of respondents were doctors, 196 (28%) practice nurses and 77 (11%) healthcare assistants (HCAs). Eight percent did not routinely check for PH, usually citing time constraints. For the remaining 92%, postural symptoms were the predominant reason for checking (97% respondents); only 24% cited any other guideline indication for PH testing. 77% used sit-to-stand BP measurements; only 25% measured standing BP for more than one minute. On regression modelling, other professionals tested less for PH than doctors (Odds ratios: nurses 0.323 (95% confidence interval 0.117 to 0.894), HCAs 0.102 (0.032 to 0.325), pharmacists 0.986 (0.024 to 0.412)). Conclusion Awareness of reasons, besides symptoms, and adherence to guidelines for PH testing, are low. Time is the key barrier to improved testing for PH. Clarity on pragmatic methods of measuring PH in practice would also facilitate measurement uptake.</p>","PeriodicalId":55320,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of General Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of General Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2025.0025","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background Postural hypotension (PH) is associated with excess mortality, falls and cognitive decline. PH is poorly recorded in routine general practice (practice) records. Few practice studies have explored measurement and diagnosis of PH. Aim To understand how PH is measured, diagnosed and managed in practice. Design and setting Online survey of practice staff in England. Method Clinical Research Networks distributed the survey to practices, seeking individual responses from any clinical staff involved in routine blood pressure (BP) measurement. Responses were analysed according to role and demographic data using descriptive statistics. Multivariable modelling of undertaking postural BP measurements was performed. Results 703 responses were received from 243 practices (mean practice-level response rate 17%). Half (362; 51%) of respondents were doctors, 196 (28%) practice nurses and 77 (11%) healthcare assistants (HCAs). Eight percent did not routinely check for PH, usually citing time constraints. For the remaining 92%, postural symptoms were the predominant reason for checking (97% respondents); only 24% cited any other guideline indication for PH testing. 77% used sit-to-stand BP measurements; only 25% measured standing BP for more than one minute. On regression modelling, other professionals tested less for PH than doctors (Odds ratios: nurses 0.323 (95% confidence interval 0.117 to 0.894), HCAs 0.102 (0.032 to 0.325), pharmacists 0.986 (0.024 to 0.412)). Conclusion Awareness of reasons, besides symptoms, and adherence to guidelines for PH testing, are low. Time is the key barrier to improved testing for PH. Clarity on pragmatic methods of measuring PH in practice would also facilitate measurement uptake.

了解体位性低血压(UMPH)的测量:一项英国全国范围的一般实践调查。
背景:体位性低血压(PH)与高死亡率、跌倒和认知能力下降有关。PH值在常规全科实践(实践)记录中记录不佳。探讨PH的测量和诊断的实践研究很少。目的了解在实践中如何测量、诊断和管理PH。英国实习人员在线调查的设计与设置。方法临床研究网络将调查分发到实践中,从任何参与常规血压测量的临床工作人员中寻求个人反馈。根据角色和人口统计数据,使用描述性统计分析回应。进行了体位血压测量的多变量建模。结果243个执业单位共收到703份回复,平均执业水平回复率为17%。一半(362;51%的受访者是医生,196人(28%)是执业护士,77人(11%)是保健助理。8%的人没有定期检查PH值,通常是因为时间限制。在剩下的92%中,体位症状是检查的主要原因(97%的受访者);只有24%的人引用了PH测试的其他指南适应症。77%采用坐立血压测量;只有25%的人测量血压超过一分钟。在回归模型中,其他专业人员的PH检测低于医生(优势比:护士0.323(95%可信区间0.117至0.894),HCAs 0.102(0.032至0.325),药剂师0.986(0.024至0.412))。结论除症状外,对PH检测原因的认识和对指南的遵守程度较低。时间是改进PH检测的关键障碍。在实践中明确实用的PH测量方法也将促进测量的接受。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
British Journal of General Practice
British Journal of General Practice 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
10.20%
发文量
681
期刊介绍: The British Journal of General Practice is an international journal publishing research, editorials, debate and analysis, and clinical guidance for family practitioners and primary care researchers worldwide. BJGP began in 1953 as the ‘College of General Practitioners’ Research Newsletter’, with the ‘Journal of the College of General Practitioners’ first appearing in 1960. Following the change in status of the College, the ‘Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners’ was launched in 1967. Three editors later, in 1990, the title was changed to the ‘British Journal of General Practice’. The journal is commonly referred to as the ''BJGP'', and is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信