Unfortunately, standardized auscultatory measurement is not performed commonly in clinical practice [12,21]. It is also rarely performed by medical trainees [11,22]. Instead, ‘casual’ measurement, in which standardized methodology is not followed, is common. Casual measurement typically leads to higher variability, overestimation of SBP by 5–10 mmHg, and poorer correlation with hypertension related end-organ damage [10,11,15,23].
Multiple causes of inaccuracy exist and can be categorized into patient-related, procedure-related, equipment-related, or observer-related (Table 3) . Poorly performed auscultation is responsible for much of the error [10,15]. Major barriers to standardized BP measurement include insufficient attention paid to optimal technique, lack of observer education, competing demands and observer time constraints, and use of inaccurate equipment [8,14,25]. Common observer-related errors in the clinical setting include failure to include a 5-min rest period, talking during the measurement procedure, using an incorrect cuff size, and failure to take multiple or bilateral measurements [12,23]. Time constraints are a particularly common reason for casual measurements, as a casual reading takes about 2 min to perform versus 8 min for a standardized measurement [12,26]. Physician readings are higher than nurse readings, which has been attributed to incremental white-coat effect . Ultimately, the observer is responsible for performing a proper measurement and ensuring to the greatest extent possible that all of the potential causes of inaccuracy are avoided.
Use of automated BP measurement is also supported by many foundational prognostic and therapeutic studies in the field of hypertension [17–19]. Its major advantage is that it reduces observer error by automating the BP measurement process. Accordingly, less observer expertise is needed, auscultatory training is not required, and the observer can focus on mastering a smaller number of essential aspects of BP measurement . Automated BP could improve BP measurement technique even further if devices programmed to take BP in a guideline-concordant fashion were available. Examples include electronically displayed step-by-step instructions to remind observers of proper technique and auto-controlled initiation sequences that require a timed rest period before the first reading is performed.
An additional, and critically important advantage of automated BP, although beyond the immediate focus of this position paper, is that it enables many measurements to be taken in the out-of-clinic setting in the usual environment of each individual. Out-of-clinic measurement includes 24-h ambulatory monitoring and home BP monitoring and leads to much better assessment of usual BP because, in addition to eliminating observer error, it eliminates white-coat (high clinic but normal out-of-office BP) and detects masked hypertension (normal clinic but high out-of-office BP) phenomena. Indeed because of the existence of white-coat, and masked hypertension effect, which affect 9–24 and 9–17% of untreated and treated individuals, respectively, even meticulously performed standardized office BP may not be representative of usual BP . Contemporary guidelines recommend confirming the diagnosis of hypertension with out-of-office BP measurements and treating masked, but not white-coat, hypertension .
Twenty-four-hour ambulatory and home BP monitoring are far superior to clinic measurements in terms of their ability to predict cardiovascular events [31,32]. 24-h BP monitoring is the gold standard for diagnosing hypertension and home BP monitoring is ideal for performing long-term follow-up monitoring of treated hypertensive patients, especially when coupled with nurse or pharmacist case management [33–36]. If resources allow, use of both of these measurement methods is highly recommended [30,35,37,38]. Both out-of-clinic measurement modalities require proper technique, and healthcare professionals must understand that home BP monitoring requires patient training in order to be effective in improving clinical decisions [33,36,39].
As mentioned above, AOBP offers the ability to perform three to five unattended, sequential BP measurements and auto-calculate the mean . AOBP is a subtype of fully automated BP measurement; the critical distinction is that sequential readings are automated. Practically, this means the observer is required to initiate only the first reading of the sequence; she or he can then leave and return when the entire sequence is finished (as opposed to remaining in the room to initiate each sequential measurement). Use of AOBP, particularly when performed when the patient is alone in the room, facilitates a more standardized measurement process (e.g. no talking, multiple automated measurements taken sequentially). Consequently, the AOBP technique is associated with reduced white-coat effect [40,41,42–44]. AOBP requires additional space and time and the cost of AOBP devices is also 5-fold to 10-fold higher than regular automated (home) devices, which also limits use in the LMIC setting. However, if these barriers are not present, use of AOBP should be considered to enable greater standardization of in-clinic BP measurements.
Some automated devices have been specifically designed for use in the LMIC setting [45–47].
An important issue with automated devices is that many have not been clinically validated for measurement accuracy . Clinical validation involves demonstrating that the device meets the accuracy requirements of international BP measurement standards . This process involves performing a protocol-based comparison using multiple measurements against a blinded, two-observer auscultatory reference standard. To maximize accuracy, only validated devices should be used in clinical practice .
In some individuals, even validated devices may produce BP measurements that differ substantially from auscultation; this may result from variations in algorithm performance and/or arterial wall properties [51,52]. For this reason, it is desirable to ensure that a specific device is performing well in a specific patient. Unfortunately, there is no consensus on how to do this in an efficient and feasible manner that is applicable in clinical practice. This issue is discussed in further detail elsewhere [53,54].
Observer training has been proposed as a solution to poor measurement technique. Training programs leading to short-term success in improving measurement technique have been described, all emphasizing the fundamentals of proper BP measurement (Table 2), and varying in their delivery format, from web-based to in-person, and in length, from 30 min to full-day sessions [55–57]. Clearly, shorter, web-based programs are preferred because of their practical advantages, lower cost and scalability. Beyond observer training alone, bundled quality improvement programs that combine use of automated office BP measurement with provider education on proper measurement and advice on clinical workflow improvement have been examined and shown to increase use of automated measurement and reduce terminal digit preference . Additional approaches that have been proposed include training patients to recognize when their care providers are performing improper measurement and having regulatory agencies enforce use of standardized measurement, but the practical implementability of these propositions is uncertain [59,60].
A trained nurse with auscultatory expertise can approximate daytime ambulatory BP, a commonly used reference standard, better than automated devices . However, the generalizability of this finding to an observer with less expertise undergoing a single training seminar, in the LMIC setting or otherwise, is likely to be low. Auscultation appears to be particularly difficult to perform in a uniform manner over time. The inter-observer variability of auscultatory BP measurements between expert observers was minimized by repeated training sessions, validating the importance of retraining . However, following each training session, between-observer variability increased after just 1–2 months, indicating that very frequent re-training is required to maintain auscultatory skills. These data indicate that training requirements are greater over the short-term and long-term if the auscultatory technique is used, which is not feasible for widespread implementation, particularly in the LMIC setting. Accordingly, use of automated devices is recommended to minimize additional training requirements.
Overall, training improves BP measurement practices over the short term and retraining is required to maintain skills over the long term. The optimal frequency of retraining is unclear. As a practical compromise, to avoid a burdensome retraining schedule yet ensure relatively frequent refreshment of skills, retraining is recommended at least annually.
Additional challenges exist in LMIC settings and many are not easily solved. These are summarized in Table 4, together with proposed solutions.
Recommendations for optimizing observer performance in BP measurement and stakeholder implementation are listed in Fig. 2 and focus on performing simplified, standardized measurements using validated semi-automated or automated devices in a properly configured setting, and ensuring proper observer training and periodic retraining. Task-sharing by training nonphysician healthcare or lay providers, such as nurses and community health workers to perform measurement, is strongly advised because it frees physicians, who are in short supply relative to other healthcare providers, to perform other work and also reduces white-coat effect [27,63,64]. Task shifting alone may not improve BP control if clinics are overburdened, equipment is unreliable, or antihypertensive therapy is unavailable . The core curricula of healthcare professional schools and postgraduate training programs should include standardized training and performance testing in blood pressure measurement.
Given the importance of proper observer training, programs are needed to assist observers in acquiring the necessary skills to perform proper BP measurement. To this end, training courses that provide certification in standardized measurement, endorsed by prominent national and international organizations working in the field, would encourage and substantiate best measurement practices. The World Hypertension League has developed resources to assist providers to perform BP screening . Proper BP measurement Certification programs should not be onerous and need to be simple, brief, multilingual, low-cost (ideally, free), easily repeatable and widely accessible. Research is needed to identify the best methods of delivering training, and further work is required to identify how and where training and certification could be best performed and if certification should be required.
R.P. is a co-founder of a blood pressure measurement start-up company, mmHg Inc. No products are currently in the market. N.R.C.C. was a paid consultant to the Novartis Foundation (2016–2017) to support their program to improve hypertension control in low-to-middle-income countries, which includes travel support for site visits and a contract to develop a survey. N.R.C.C. has provided paid consultative advice on accurate blood pressure assessment to Midway Corporation (2017). M.K.R. is Vice President, Improving Health Outcomes at American Medical Association. G.W. is Director, Outcomes Analytics at American Medical Association. The remaining authors have no disclosures. G.S. is Chairman of European Society of Hypertension Working Group on BP Monitoring, ISO Sphygmomanometer committee member, and has conducted validation studies for various manufacturers of BP-measuring technologies and advised manufacturers on device and software development. J.K.C. is immediate past President of the Artery Society. A.E.S. received speaker fees from Novartis and Omron for scientific lectures on blood pressure and CV risk assessment, and Servier for presenting on raising awareness of blood pressure measurement. She a paid consultant to Abbott Pharmaceuticals on antihypertensive medication, and is President of the International Society of Hypertension.
1. Global Burden of Disease Risk Factor Collaborators. Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 84 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks for 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study, 2017. Lancet
2. Mills KT, Bundy JD, Kelly TN, Reed JE, Kearney PM, Reynolds K, et al. Global disparities of hypertension
prevalence and control: a systematic analysis of population-based studies from 90 countries. Circulation
3. Benjamin EJ, Virani SS, Callaway CW, Chamberlain AM, Chang AR, Cheng S, et al. American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Heart disease and stroke statistics - 2018 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation
4. Olsen MH, Angell SY, Asma S, Boutouyrie P, Burger D, Chirinos JA, et al. A call to action and a lifecourse strategy to address the global burden of raised blood pressure
on current and future generations: the Lancet Commission on hypertension
5. Pickering TG, Hall JE, Appel LJ, Falkner B, J G, Hill MN, et al. Recommendations for blood pressure measurement
in humans and experimental animals: Part 1: blood pressure measurement
in humans: a statement for professionals from the subcommittee of professional and public education of the American Heart Association Council on High Blood Pressure
6. Joffres MR, Campbell NRC, Manns B, Tu K. Estimate of the benefits of a population-based reduction in dietary sodium additives on hypertension
and its related healthcare costs in Canada. Can J Cardiol
7. Raven PB, Chapleau MW. Blood pressure
regulation XI: overview and future research directions. Eur J Appl Physiol
8. Pickering TG, Gerin W, Schwartz JE, Spruill TM, Davidson KW. Franz Volhard lecture: should doctors still measure blood pressure
? The missing patients with masked hypertension
. J Hypertens
9. Riva-Rocci S, Zanchetti A, Mancia G. A new sphygmomanometer. Sphygmomanometric technique. J Hypertens
10. Campbell NR, Myers MG, McKay DW. Is usual measurement of blood pressure
meaningful? Blood Press Monit
11. McKay DW, Raju MK, Campbell NR. Assessment of blood pressure
measuring techniques. Med Educ
12. Ray GM, Nawarskas JJ, Anderson JR. Blood pressure
monitoring technique impacts hypertension
treatment. J Gen Intern Med
13. O’Brien E, Stergiou GS. The pursuit of accurate blood pressure measurement
: a 35-year travail. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)
14. O’Brien E, Dolan E, Stergiou GS. Achieving reliable blood pressure
measurements in clinical practice: It's time to meet the challenge. J Clin Hypertens
15. Campbell NRC, Culleton BW, McKay DW. Misclassification of blood pressure
by usual measurement in ambulatory physician practices. Am J Hypertens
2005; 18 (12 Pt 1):1522–1527.
16. Alpert BS, Quinn D, Gallick D. Oscillometric blood pressure
: a review for clinicians. J Am Soc Hypertens
17. Ettehad D, Emdin CA, Kiran A, Anderson SG, Callender T, Emberson J, et al. Blood pressure
lowering for prevention of cardiovascular disease and death: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet
18. Chen Y, Lei L, Wang JG. Methods of blood pressure
assessment used in milestone hypertension
trials. Pulse (Basel)
19. Giorgini P, Weder AB, Jackson EA, Brook RD. A review of blood pressure measurement
protocols among hypertension
trials: implications for ‘evidence-based’ clinical practice. J Am Soc Hypertens
20. Brueren MM, Petri H, van Weel C, van Ree JW. How many measurements are necessary in diagnosing mild to moderate hypertension
. Fam Pract
21. Sebo P, Pechère-Bertschi A, Herrmann FR, Haller DM, Bovier P. Blood pressure
measurements are unreliable to diagnose hypertension
in primary care. J Hypertens
22. Rakotz MK, Townsend RR, Yang J, Alpert BS, Heneghan KA, Wynia M, et al. Medical students and measuring blood pressure
: results from the American Medical Association Blood Pressure
Check Challenge. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)
23. Minor DS, Butler KR Jr, Artman KL, Adair C, Wang W, McNair V, et al. Evaluation of blood pressure measurement
and agreement in an academic health sciences center. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)
24. Kallioinen N, Hill A, Horswill MS, Ward HE, Watson MO. Sources of inaccuracy in the measurement of adult patients’ resting blood pressure
in clinical settings. J Hypertens
25. O’Brien E, Asmar R, Beilin L, Imai Y, Mancia G, Mengden T, et al. European Society of Hypertension
Working Group on Blood Pressure
Monitoring. Practice guidelines of the European Society of Hypertension
for clinic, ambulatory and self blood pressure measurement
. J Hypertens
26. Stergiou GS, Kyriakoulis KG, Kollias A. Office blood pressure measurement
types: different methodology-different clinical conclusions. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)
27. Clark CE, Horvath IA, Taylor RS, Campbell JL. Doctors record higher blood pressures than nurses: systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Gen Pract
28. Campbell NR, Berbari AE, Cloutier L, Gelfer M, Kenerson JG, Khalsa TK, 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
29. Fagard RH, Cornelissen VA. Incidence of cardiovascular events in white-coat, masked and sustained hypertension
versus true normotension: a meta-analysis. J Hypertens
30. Williams B, Mancia G, Spiering W, Agabiti Rosei E, Azizi M, Burnier M, et al. 2018 ESC/ESH guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension
: The Task Force for the management of arterial hypertension
of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Society of Hypertension
. J Hypertens
31. O’Brien E, Parati G, Stergiou G, Asmar R, Beilin L, Bilo G, et al. European Society of Hypertension
Working Group on Blood Pressure
Monitoring. European Society of Hypertension
position paper on ambulatory blood pressure
monitoring. J Hypertens
32. Stergiou GS, Bliziotis IA. Home blood pressure
monitoring in the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension
: a systematic review. Am J Hypertens
33. Cloutier L, Daskalopoulou S, Padwal RS, Lamarre-Clich M, Bolli P, McLean D, et al. A new algorithm for the diagnosis of hypertension
in Canada. Can J Cardiol
34. Duan Y, Xie Z, Dong F, Wu Z, Lin Z, Sun N, et al. Effectiveness of home blood pressure
telemonitoring: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled studies. J Hum Hypertens
35. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Hypertension
in adults: diagnosis and management. Clinical guideline CG127. 2011 (updated 2016). Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg127
. [Accessed 12 October 2018]
36. Parati G, Stergiou G, O’Brien E, Asmar R, Beilin L, Bilo G, et al. European Society of Hypertension
practice guidelines for ambulatory blood pressure
monitoring. J Hypertens
37. Nerenberg KA, Zarnke KB, Leung AA, Dasgupta K, Butalia S, McBrien K, et al. Hypertension
Canada's 2018 Guidelines for Diagnosis, Risk Assessment, Prevention, and Treatment of Hypertension
in Adults and Children. Hypertension
Canada's 2018 guidelines for diagnosis, risk assessment, prevention, and treatment of hypertension
in adults and children. Can J Cardiol
38. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for high blood pressure
: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med
39. Milot JP, Birnbaum L, Larochelle P, Wistaff R, Laskine M, Van Nguyen P, et al. Unreliability of home blood pressure measurement
and the effect of a patient-oriented intervention. Can J Cardiol
40. Myers MG. Eliminating the human factor in office blood pressure measurement
. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)
41. Roerecke M, Kaczorowski J, Myers MG. Comparing automated office blood pressure
readings with other methods of blood pressure measurement
for identifying patients with possible hypertension
. JAMA Intern Med
2019; 179: [Epub ahead of print].
42. Jegatheswaran J, Ruzicka M, Hiremath S, Edwards C. Are automated blood pressure
monitors comparable to ambulatory blood pressure
monitors? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Cardiol
43. Ringrose JS, Cena J, Ip S, Morales F, Hamilton P, Padwal R. Comparability of automated office blood pressure
to daytime 24-Hour ambulatory blood pressure
. Can J Cardiol
44. Drawz PE, Pajewski NM, Bates JT, Bello NA. Effect of intensive versus standard clinic-based hypertension
management on ambulatory blood pressure
: novelty and significance. Hypertension
45. de Greeff A, Nathan H, Stafford N, Liu B, Shennan AH. Development of an accurate oscillometric blood pressure
device for low resource settings. Blood Press Monit
46. Baker EC, Hezelgrave N, Magesa SM, Edmonds S, de Greeff A, Shennan A. Introduction of automated blood pressure
devices intended for a low resource setting in rural Tanzania. Trop Doct
47. Parati G, Kilama MO, Faini A, Facelli E, Ochen K, Opira C, et al. A new solar-powered blood pressure
measuring device for low-resource settings. Hypertension
48. O’Brien E, Stergiou GS, Turner MJ. The quest for accuracy of blood pressure
measuring devices. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)
49. Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation. ANSI/AAMI/ISO 81060-2:2013 noninvasive sphygmomanometers - part 2: clinical investigation of automated measurement type. 2013. Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation. Arlington, VA, 2013. Available at: www.aami.org
. [Accessed 10 August 2013]
50. Jung M-H, Kim G-H, Kim J-H, Moon K-W, Yoo K-D, Rho T-H, et al. Reliability of home blood pressure
monitoring: in the context of validation and accuracy. Blood Press Monit
51. Stergiou GS, Lourida P, Tzamouranis D, Baibas NM. Unreliable oscillometric blood pressure measurement
: prevalence, repeatability and characteristics of the phenomenon. J Hum Hypertens
52. Padwal R, Jalali A, McLean D, Anwar S, Smith K, Raggi P, et al. Accuracy of oscillometric blood pressure
algorithms in healthy adults and in adults with cardiovascular risk factors. Blood Press Monit
53. Cohen JB, Padwal RS, Gutkin M, Green BB, Bloch MJ, Germino FW, et al. History and justification of a national blood pressure measurement
validated device listing. Hypertension
54. Eguchi K, Kuruvilla S, Ishikawa J, Schwartz JE, Pickering TG. A novel and simple protocol for the validation of home blood pressure
monitors in clinical practice. Blood Press Monit
55. Grim CM, Grim CE. A curriculum for the training and certification of blood pressure measurement
for healthcare providers. Can J Cardiol
1995; 11 Suppl H:38H–42H.
56. Block L, Flynn SJ, Cooper LA, Lentz C, Hull T, Dietz KB, et al. Promoting sustainability in quality improvement: an evaluation of a web-based continuing education program in blood pressure measurement
. BMC Fam Pract
57. Dickson BK, Hajjar I. Blood pressure measurement
education and evaluation program improves measurement accuracy in community-based nurses: a pilot study. J Amer Acad Nurse Pract
58. Boonyasai RT, Carson KA, Marsteller JA, Dietz KB, Noronha GJ, Hsu Y-J, et al. A bundled quality improvement program to standardize clinical blood pressure measurement
in primary care. J Clin Hypertens
59. Appel LJ, Miller ER, Charleston J. Improving the measurement of blood pressure
: is it time for regulated standards. Ann Intern Med
60. Umscheid CA, Townsend RR. Is it time for a blood pressure measurement
‘bundle’? J Gen Intern Med
61. Graves JW, Grossardt BR, Gullerud RE, Bailey KR, Feldstein J. The trained observer better predicts daytime ABPM diastolic blood pressure
in hypertensive patients than does an automated (Omron) device. Blood Pres Monit
62. Bruce NG, Shaper AG, Walker M, Wannamethee G. Observer bias in blood pressure
studies. J Hypertens
64. World Health Organization. HEARTS Technical package for cardiovascular disease management in primary healthcare: team-based care. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018 (WHO/NMH/NVI/18.4). Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.
65. Goudge J, Chirwa T, Eldridge S, Gómez-Olivé FXF, Kabudula C, Limbani F, et al. Can lay health workers support the management of hypertension
? Findings of a cluster randomised trial in South Africa. BMJ Glob Health
2018; 3: e000577-e12.
66. Mangat BK, Campbell N, Mohan S, Niebylski ML, Khalsa TK, Berbari AE, et al. Resources for blood pressure
screening programs in low resource settings: a guide from the World Hypertension
League. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)