Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Clinical Practice

Realising the potential of home blood pressure monitoring in the community: should HBPM be the default?

Samuel Finnikin and James P Sheppard
British Journal of General Practice 2022; 72 (718): 242-243. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp22X719441
Samuel Finnikin
Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham; national clinical specialist advisor, Personalised Care Group, NHS England and NHS Improvement.
Roles: Clinical research fellow
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
James P Sheppard
Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford.
Roles: Associate professor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

BACKGROUND

Helping control patients’ blood pressure is one of the most important things GPs do to reduce premature mortality and morbidity. Home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) is increasingly used to achieve this vital primary care task.1 As recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic continues, there is a renewed focus on identifying patients with undiagnosed hypertension and ensuring that patients with existing hypertension have every opportunity to optimise their blood pressure. Given the increased trend towards remote consulting over the past 18 months, now is an ideal time to ensure that GPs and patients are getting the most out of this simple and effective tool.

While ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) remains the gold standard for the diagnosis of hypertension, HBPM may be a reasonable alternative2 and is recommended when ABPM is not available or tolerated.3 It does, however, carry a risk of overdiagnosis.4 HBPM is the most acceptable method of monitoring blood pressure to patients,5 particularly among some minority ethnic groups.6 However, HBPM is not currently recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for monitoring patients with hypertension, but there is good evidence of improved blood pressure control when HBPM is combined with co-interventions such as tailored pharmacist or physician support,7 and there are several advantages to patients and practices (Box 1). In practice, HBPM is often more convenient for patients and less resource intensive for practices so is an excellent option for monitoring blood pressure control.

AdvantagesDisadvantages
Inexpensive for healthcare providersSome cost to patients; may contribute to health inequalities
Improved accuracy when compared with office readingsNot as accurate as ambulatory blood pressure monitoring
Engages patients with self-management of their hypertensionNot all patients can do it (or want to)
May improve medicine adherence8Onus on patients to take and report readings
Ideal for remote consultationsMonitors need to be calibrated every few years and may become inaccurate without patient or clinician being aware
Box 1.

Pros and cons of community home blood pressure monitoring

WHAT TO DISCUSS WITH PATIENTS?

For patients who are willing and able to undertake HBPM, it is worth investing some time discussing the use of home monitors to ensure that the readings obtained are accurate. This information sharing could be delegated to other members of the practice team and there are various online resources that can support the process (Box 2).

  • British and Irish Hypertension Society (BIHS) validated monitors: https://bihsoc.org/bp-monitors/for-home-use/

  • BIHS ‘how-to’ guides for patients and practices: https://bihsoc.org/resources/bp-measurement/hbpm/

  • Academic Health Science Network (AHSN) North East and North Cumbria resources: https://www.ahsn-nenc.org.uk/what-we-do/improving-population-health/cardiovascular-disease-prevention/blood-pressure-monitoring/home-blood-pressure-monitoring-resources-page/

  • AHSN video for patients: https://www.ahsn-nenc.org.uk/what-we-do/improving-population-health/cardiovascular-disease-prevention/blood-pressure-monitoring/home-blood-pressure-monitoring-resources-page/

  • British Heart Foundation resources for patients: https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/support/manage-your-blood-pressure-at-home

Box 2.

Useful resources to support home blood pressure monitoring

If patients are buying a monitor, GPs should advise them to invest in one with an upper arm cuff that has been clinically validated and ideally is recommended by the British and Irish Hypertension Society. More expensive machines add features but do not increase accuracy, so the cheapest machines (usually <£20) will suffice. Patients with particularly large or small upper arms may need to purchase an appropriately sized cuff. If the patient already has a monitor, or is borrowing one, the clinician should mention that, if it is >5 years old, it may be inaccurate or require calibration to ensure it is reliable. The cost of obtaining a monitor may be a barrier; to support patients, some practices have a scheme to lend out monitors. There may also be local or national schemes to provide free blood pressure monitors to patients who would benefit the most.

When taking readings, patients should be told to sit comfortably, with their feet flat on the floor, for 5 min prior to taking their blood pressure. Ideally, they should avoid caffeine or alcohol for at least 2 hours prior to taking their blood pressure. Two readings, taken at least a minute apart, are preferable; with the patient recording both. For diagnosis, at least 5 days of readings should be used, with the average being taken (excluding the first day of readings.) For monitoring purposes, it may be pragmatic to be more flexible. Even one reading gives an idea of control and is correlated with cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk,9 but a greater number will increase accuracy and better inform decision making.

Finally, if there are concerns that home readings being submitted may be inaccurate, then the GP should consider inviting the patient for a review. At this review, the GP should ensure the patient is using the correct technique for taking readings, check that the machine they are using is not old or damaged, and perhaps take a clinic reading for comparison (although it must be remembered that clinic readings may not be more accurate than home readings).

WHAT TO DO WITH THE READINGS?

It is important that the patient understands what their blood pressure numbers mean. A target to aim for should be agreed upon. It should be remembered that HBPM targets are lower than clinic readings. For most people with hypertension, a target of <135/85 mmHg is appropriate, but this should be adjusted to <145/85 mmHg for adults aged ≥80 years.3 Patients may worry and seek urgent advice should their BP be much higher than this. It is a good idea for the GP to pre-empt these situations by explaining that high one-off readings are seldom concerning, but recommend they contact the GP if their BP is persistently over 170/115 mmHg.

The frequency of readings should also be agreed, although there is little evidence to inform this decision. It is unnecessarily burdensome for patients to take their blood pressure every day. A GP may only want the results sent to them once a year, but could suggest the patient takes readings more frequently, only letting the GP know if their readings are above their target. Every patient is different. Personalising monitoring can reduce the burden of hypertension and increase efficiency of care.

Several ways exist for patients to let GPs know their HBPM readings. It should be considered what method is preferable for the patient as well as the ease of processing by the practice team; a paper form may be easiest for some patients, but requires manual processing; an online form or SMS-based system, though requiring some technological literacy, may be preferable since it may automatically calculate and code average results. SNOMED codes for average home systolic and diastolic blood pressure should be used.

If blood pressure is not below target (for example, 135/85 mmHg) then a discussion about further options to reduce blood pressure should be arranged. In some circumstances, pre-agreed actions could be put into place (for example, up-titrating an antihypertensive and rechecking). It is also worth taking note of the lowest and highest readings. Some patients have particularly variable blood pressures. If GPs only focus on the average, they risk dropping their lowest readings too low and causing symptomatic and problematic hypotension or other harms from overtreatment.10

CONCLUSION

HBPM is a fundamental component of the management of hypertension and there is a good argument to say that using clinic readings should be the exception, rather than the norm, in modern primary care. Encouraging patients to incorporate HBPM as part of their self-management, and having clear systems to communicate and respond to results, can optimise efficiency and effectiveness of hypertension management in primary care.

Notes

Funding

James P Sheppard was funded in part by the Wellcome Trust [211182/Z/18/Z] and also receives funding via a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) Senior Fellowship. The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. Samuel Finnikin receives funding from the West Midlands Clinical Research Network.

Provenance

Freely submitted; externally peer reviewed.

Competing interests

The authors have declared no competing interests.

Discuss this article

Contribute and read comments about this article: bjgp.org/letters

  • Received October 5, 2021.
  • Revision requested December 21, 2021.
  • Accepted January 11, 2022.
  • © The Authors
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This article is Open Access: CC BY 4.0 licence (http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/).

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Fletcher BR,
    2. Hinton L,
    3. Bray EP,
    4. et al.
    (2016) Self-monitoring blood pressure in patients with hypertension: an internet-based survey of UK GPs. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp16X687037.
  2. 2.↵
    1. Stergiou GS,
    2. Bliziotis IA
    (2011) Home blood pressure monitoring in the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension: a systematic review. Am J Hypertens 24, 2, 123–134.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
    (2019) Hypertension in adults: diagnosis and management NG136 (NICE, London).
  4. 4.↵
    1. Hodgkinson J,
    2. Mant J,
    3. Martin U,
    4. et al.
    (2011) Relative effectiveness of clinic and home blood pressure monitoring compared with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in diagnosis of hypertension: systematic review. BMJ 342, d3621.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Little P,
    2. Barnett J,
    3. Barnsley L,
    4. et al.
    (2002) Comparison of acceptability of and preferences for different methods of measuring blood pressure in primary care. BMJ 325, 7358, 258–259.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Wood S,
    2. Greenfield SM,
    3. Haque MS,
    4. et al.
    (2016) Influence of ethnicity on acceptability of method of blood pressure monitoring: a cross-sectional study in primary care. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp16X685717.
  7. 7.↵
    1. Tucker KL,
    2. Sheppard JP,
    3. Stevens R,
    4. et al.
    (2017) Self-monitoring of blood pressure in hypertension: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis. PLoS Med 14, 9, e1002389.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Fletcher BR,
    2. Hartmann-Boyce J,
    3. Hinton L,
    4. et al.
    (2015) The effect of self-monitoring of blood pressure on medication adherence and lifestyle factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Hypertens 28, 10, 1209–1221.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Niiranen TJ,
    2. Asayama K,
    3. Thijs L,
    4. et al.
    (2015) Optimal number of days for home blood pressure measurement. Am J Hypertens 28, 5, 595–603.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Albasri A,
    2. Hattle M,
    3. Koshiaris C,
    4. et al.
    (2021) Association between antihypertensive treatment and adverse events: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 372, n189.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Back to top
Previous Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 72 (718)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 72, Issue 718
May 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Realising the potential of home blood pressure monitoring in the community: should HBPM be the default?
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Realising the potential of home blood pressure monitoring in the community: should HBPM be the default?
Samuel Finnikin, James P Sheppard
British Journal of General Practice 2022; 72 (718): 242-243. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp22X719441

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Realising the potential of home blood pressure monitoring in the community: should HBPM be the default?
Samuel Finnikin, James P Sheppard
British Journal of General Practice 2022; 72 (718): 242-243. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp22X719441
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • BACKGROUND
    • WHAT TO DISCUSS WITH PATIENTS?
    • WHAT TO DO WITH THE READINGS?
    • CONCLUSION
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • NICE chronic primary pain guidelines: what the busy GP needs to know
  • Atrial fibrillation: NICE 2021 update and the focus on anticoagulation
Show more Clinical Practice

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2022 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242