SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.6 número1African Primary Care Research: Writing a research reportKnowledge, attitude and practice regarding lifestyle modification in type 2 diabetic patients índice de autoresíndice de materiabúsqueda de artículos
Home Pagelista alfabética de revistas  

Servicios Personalizados

Articulo

Indicadores

Links relacionados

  • En proceso de indezaciónCitado por Google
  • En proceso de indezaciónSimilares en Google

Compartir


African Journal of Primary Health Care & Family Medicine

versión On-line ISSN 2071-2936
versión impresa ISSN 2071-2928

Resumen

MLAWANDA, Ganizani; PATHER, Michael  y  GOVENDER, Srini. An analysis of blood pressure measurement in a primary care hospital in Swaziland. Afr. j. prim. health care fam. med. (Online) [online]. 2014, vol.6, n.1, pp.1-9. ISSN 2071-2936.  http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/phcfm.v6i1.590.

BACKGROUND: Measurement of blood pressure (BP) is done poorly because of both human and machine errors. AIM: To assess the difference between BP recorded in a pragmatic way and that recorded using standard guidelines; to assess differences between wrist- and mercury sphygmomanometer-based readings; and to assess the impact on clinical decision-making. SETTING: Royal Swaziland Sugar Corporation Mhlume hospital, Swaziland METHOD: After obtaining consent, BP was measured in a pragmatic way by a nurse practitioner who made treatment decisions. Thereafter, patients had their BP re-assessed using standard guidelines by mercury (gold standard) and wrist sphygmomanometer. RESULTS: The prevalence of hypertension was 25%. The mean systolic BP was 143 mmHg (pragmatic) and 133 mmHg (standard) using a mercury sphygmomanometer; and 140 mmHg for standard BP assessed using wrist device. The mean diastolic BP was 90 mmHg, 87 mmHg and 91 mmHg for pragmatic, standard mercury and wrist, respectively. Bland Altman analyses showed that pragmatic and standard BP measurements were different and could not be interchanged clinically. Treatment decisions between those based on pragmatic BP and standard BP agreed in 83.3% of cases, whilst 16.7% of participants had their treatment outcomes misclassified. A total of 19.5% of patients were started erroneously on anti-hypertensive therapy based on pragmatic BP. CONCLUSION: Clinicians need to revert to basic good clinical practice and measure BP more accurately in order to avoid unnecessary additional costs and morbidity associated with incorrect treatment resulting from disease misclassification. Contrary to existing research, wrist devices need to be used with caution.

        · resumen en Francés     · texto en Inglés     · Inglés ( pdf )

 

Creative Commons License Todo el contenido de esta revista, excepto dónde está identificado, está bajo una Licencia Creative Commons