[Blood pressure measurement by primary care physicians: comparison with the standard method].

OBJECT: To examine the usual methods of blood pressure (BP) measurement by primary care physicians and to compare them with the standard methods. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey by self-administered questionnaire. SUBJECTS: Primary care physicians who graduated from Jichi Medical School and were working at clinics. Each standard method for 20 items was defined as the one that was most frequently recommended by 6 guidelines (USA 3, UK 1, Canada 1, Japan 1) and a recent comprehensive review about BP measurement. RESULTS: Of 333 physicians, 190 (58%) responded (median age 33, range 26 to 45 years). Standard methods and percentages of physicians who follow them are: [BP measurement, 17 items] supported arm 96%; measurement to 2 mmHg 91%; sitting position 86%; mercury sphygmomanometer 83%; waiting > or = 1 minute between readings 58%; palpation to assess systolic BP before auscultation 57%; check accuracy of home BP monitor 56%; Korotkoff Phase V for diastolic BP 51%; bilateral measurements on initial visit 44%; small cuff available 41%; > or = 2 readings in patients with atrial fibrillation 38%; > or = 2 readings on one visit 20%; cuff deflation rate of 2 mmHg/pulse 14%; large cuff available 13%; check accuracy of monitor used for home visit 8%; waiting time > or = 5 minute 3%; readings from the arm with the higher BP 1%. [Knowledge about BP monitor, 2 items] appropriate size bladder: length 11%; width 11%. [Check of sphygmomanometer for leakage, inflate to 200 mmHg then close valve for 1 minute] leakage < 2 mmHg 6%; median 10 (range 0-200) mmHg. Average percentage of all 20 items was 39%. Number of methods physicians follow as standard: median 8 (range 4 to 15) and this number did not correlate with any background characteristics of the physicians. Furthermore, we also obtained information on methods not compared with the standard. Fifty-four percentage of physicians used more standard methods in deciding the start or change of treatment than in measuring BP of patients with good control. About 80% of physicians use home BP readings in diagnosis or treatment of hypertension, but about half of physicians with ambulatory BP monitors use their measured readings. CONCLUSION: Primary care physicians used various techniques for routine BP measurement and no physician completely followed the standard. Such measurements may affect the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension, but measuring all BPs solely by the standard is not practical. We need to have a practical and efficient method of BP measurement for routine practice in the primary care setting.