家庭医学门诊连续血压与单次重复血压的比较。

Innovations in pharmacy Pub Date : 2025-04-23 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.24926/iip.v16i1.6438
Ann M Philbrick, Caroline S Carlin, Christopher Fallert
{"title":"家庭医学门诊连续血压与单次重复血压的比较。","authors":"Ann M Philbrick, Caroline S Carlin, Christopher Fallert","doi":"10.24926/iip.v16i1.6438","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><i>Purpose</i>. The best method to measure blood pressure (BP) in a clinic setting is debatable. This study was conducted to compare serial BPs to a single repeat BP after an initial elevated reading. <i>Methods</i>. For this quality improvement process, instead of obtaining a second BP measurement after an initially elevated BP, medical assistants (MA) obtained serial BP readings two minutes apart. Rooming BP was compared to the first serial BP reading (current process), and to the average of the last two BP readings. <i>Results</i>. Seventy-eight patients were included. The average rooming BP was 155.5 ± 15.3 mmHg systolic (mean ± standard deviation) and 88.7 ± 11.8 mmHg diastolic, which decreased to 146.05 ± 18.2 mmHg systolic and 85.7 ± 11.8 mmHg diastolic for the first BP and 147.5 ± 16.2 mmHg systolic and 86.9 ± 12.1 mmHg diastolic for the average BP. Compared to the rooming BP, both readings were significantly decreased (first BP: p<0.001 SBP, p=0.006 DBP; average BP: p<0.001 SBP, p=0.011 DBP), but results were not significant when first BP was compared to average BP (p=0.756 SBP, p=0.278 DBP). A total of 26.9% and 23.1% of patients reached a BP goal of <140/90 mmHg with the first BP (p<0.001), and average BP (p<0.001), respectively. <i>Conclusion</i>. In patients presenting to an outpatient clinic with an initial elevated BP reading, simply repeating a single BP measurement shortly after completing the rooming process resulted in significantly reduced BP readings, and was equal to obtaining serial readings. In a busy clinic or pharmacy setting, healthcare providers can be reasonably confident that a single repeat blood pressure is an accurate reflection of a patient's true BP.</p>","PeriodicalId":501014,"journal":{"name":"Innovations in pharmacy","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12509717/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Serial Blood Pressures Versus a Single Repeat Blood Pressure in a Family Medicine Clinic.\",\"authors\":\"Ann M Philbrick, Caroline S Carlin, Christopher Fallert\",\"doi\":\"10.24926/iip.v16i1.6438\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><i>Purpose</i>. The best method to measure blood pressure (BP) in a clinic setting is debatable. This study was conducted to compare serial BPs to a single repeat BP after an initial elevated reading. <i>Methods</i>. For this quality improvement process, instead of obtaining a second BP measurement after an initially elevated BP, medical assistants (MA) obtained serial BP readings two minutes apart. Rooming BP was compared to the first serial BP reading (current process), and to the average of the last two BP readings. <i>Results</i>. Seventy-eight patients were included. The average rooming BP was 155.5 ± 15.3 mmHg systolic (mean ± standard deviation) and 88.7 ± 11.8 mmHg diastolic, which decreased to 146.05 ± 18.2 mmHg systolic and 85.7 ± 11.8 mmHg diastolic for the first BP and 147.5 ± 16.2 mmHg systolic and 86.9 ± 12.1 mmHg diastolic for the average BP. Compared to the rooming BP, both readings were significantly decreased (first BP: p<0.001 SBP, p=0.006 DBP; average BP: p<0.001 SBP, p=0.011 DBP), but results were not significant when first BP was compared to average BP (p=0.756 SBP, p=0.278 DBP). A total of 26.9% and 23.1% of patients reached a BP goal of <140/90 mmHg with the first BP (p<0.001), and average BP (p<0.001), respectively. <i>Conclusion</i>. In patients presenting to an outpatient clinic with an initial elevated BP reading, simply repeating a single BP measurement shortly after completing the rooming process resulted in significantly reduced BP readings, and was equal to obtaining serial readings. In a busy clinic or pharmacy setting, healthcare providers can be reasonably confident that a single repeat blood pressure is an accurate reflection of a patient's true BP.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":501014,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Innovations in pharmacy\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12509717/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Innovations in pharmacy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.24926/iip.v16i1.6438\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Innovations in pharmacy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24926/iip.v16i1.6438","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的。在临床上测量血压(BP)的最佳方法是有争议的。本研究比较了初始血压升高后的连续血压和单次重复血压。方法。在这个质量改进过程中,医疗助理(MA)在最初的血压升高后获得第二次血压测量,而不是间隔两分钟获得连续的血压读数。将房间血压与第一次连续血压读数(当前过程)进行比较,并与最后两次血压读数的平均值进行比较。结果。78名患者被纳入研究。平均收缩压为155.5±15.3 mmHg(平均值±标准差),舒张压为88.7±11.8 mmHg,首次血压降至146.05±18.2 mmHg,舒张压为85.7±11.8 mmHg,平均血压降至147.5±16.2 mmHg,舒张压为86.9±12.1 mmHg。与房间血压相比,两个读数都显著降低(第一个血压:p)。在首次血压读数升高到门诊就诊的患者中,在完成客房入住过程后不久,简单地重复一次血压测量会导致血压读数显着降低,相当于获得连续读数。在繁忙的诊所或药房环境中,医疗保健提供者可以合理地相信,单次重复血压是患者真实血压的准确反映。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Serial Blood Pressures Versus a Single Repeat Blood Pressure in a Family Medicine Clinic.

Purpose. The best method to measure blood pressure (BP) in a clinic setting is debatable. This study was conducted to compare serial BPs to a single repeat BP after an initial elevated reading. Methods. For this quality improvement process, instead of obtaining a second BP measurement after an initially elevated BP, medical assistants (MA) obtained serial BP readings two minutes apart. Rooming BP was compared to the first serial BP reading (current process), and to the average of the last two BP readings. Results. Seventy-eight patients were included. The average rooming BP was 155.5 ± 15.3 mmHg systolic (mean ± standard deviation) and 88.7 ± 11.8 mmHg diastolic, which decreased to 146.05 ± 18.2 mmHg systolic and 85.7 ± 11.8 mmHg diastolic for the first BP and 147.5 ± 16.2 mmHg systolic and 86.9 ± 12.1 mmHg diastolic for the average BP. Compared to the rooming BP, both readings were significantly decreased (first BP: p<0.001 SBP, p=0.006 DBP; average BP: p<0.001 SBP, p=0.011 DBP), but results were not significant when first BP was compared to average BP (p=0.756 SBP, p=0.278 DBP). A total of 26.9% and 23.1% of patients reached a BP goal of <140/90 mmHg with the first BP (p<0.001), and average BP (p<0.001), respectively. Conclusion. In patients presenting to an outpatient clinic with an initial elevated BP reading, simply repeating a single BP measurement shortly after completing the rooming process resulted in significantly reduced BP readings, and was equal to obtaining serial readings. In a busy clinic or pharmacy setting, healthcare providers can be reasonably confident that a single repeat blood pressure is an accurate reflection of a patient's true BP.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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