Self monitoring of blood pressure at home
BMJ 2004; 329 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.329.7471.870 (Published 14 October 2004) Cite this as: BMJ 2004;329:870
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
The review of home BP monitoring sets out recommendations which are
similar to those published some years ago as a result of reviewing the
literature and a study confirming the feasibilty and acceptability of the
procedure.
The problem of course is not deciding what should be done but in
getting recommendations implemented. Primary Care, where most British
hypertensive patients are exclusively managed, remains sceptical about
this procedure despite the use of semiautomatic devices now being
commonplace. Now, in my dotage, I am on the receiving end of the
sphygmomanometer and I sadly find that my carers are only interested in
isolated office readings.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Regardless of the preferred setting used to take the blood pressure,
the credence given here to home monitoring[1] presupposes suitable and
safe blood pressure measuring devices purchased by a well informed
consumer. A mercury sphygmomanometer is not safe[2], due to it’s now
century old design faults, yet it is the preferred instrument of doctors.
Here in the metropolitan area of Brisbane, this very day, consumers
can buy mercury based sphygmomanometers from sellers of first aid
equipment in the walkways of major shopping centres. It's as if the seller
is aping the doctor. Mercury droplet leakage from these unsealed,
unlabelled containers of poison(mercury sphygmomanometers), will
inevitably cause health problems and contamination in otherwise happy
domestic environments, where non-mercury devices should have been
purchased. It will also have the effect to devaluing the properties where
Hg is spilled.
This is the mercury that we were led to believe was being abated, due
to environmental concerns, in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s
prime time TV current affairs segment “7.30 Report”, shown on national
Australian TV in February 2000[3]. Four years later, and we see little
evidence of the abatement.
[1] George Stergiou, Thomas Mengden, Paul L Padfield, Gianfranco
Parati, Eoin O'Brien, working group on blood pressure monitoring of the
European Society of Hypertension. Self monitoring of blood pressure at
home.BMJ 2004; 329: 870-871.
[2] A C Rennie, M McGregor-Schuerman, I M Dale, C Robinson, and R
McWilliam. Lesson of the week: Mercury poisoning after spillage at home
from a sphygmomanometer on loan from hospital. BMJ, Aug 1999; 319: 366 -
367.
[3]European countries ban sphygmomanometer[Transcript]. ABC 7.30
Report. 15/2/2000.
Accessed 18 Oct. 2004 at: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s100543.htm
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Informed self-regulation of medicines: the next step?
Whilst highlighting that home blood pressure readings can be lower
and more reliable than those taken in the clinic, the authors seem
reluctant to recommend extensive use of the practice or take the next step
of empowering patients to take action based on these results.
However we already know that patients adjust their medicines, or even
stop taking them altogether without consulting a doctor or looking at
their latest blood pressure readings. An estimated 50% of medicines for
long term conditions are not taken as prescribed and research shows that
patients’ beliefs about medicines are the biggest predictor of compliance,
with beliefs about the necessity of the medicine weighed against concerns
about side effects and dependency [1]. People are therefore more likely
to benefit from therapy when they balance these beliefs in a more informed
way, through better understanding of the diagnosis and treatment and being
actively involved in decisions about the management of the condition. So
for some patients, a combination of home monitoring of blood pressure and
self-adjustment of medication with professional support could be a more
effective way of finding their optimum level of control than just being
instructed to ‘follow doctor’s orders’.
Despite this, research to date has focussed on self-monitoring with
comparatively few studies investigating the potential for informed self-
regulation of medicines. However, small-scale studies on self-monitoring
and self-medication in hypertension [2] and anticoagulation management [3]
already give positive signs that this is an avenue to pursue. Patients
successfully completed training in monitoring and medication-adjustment
techniques and carried them out in a home setting without complication.
They valued the method and some improvement in control was reported. A
recent Cochrane review also reported better lung function outcomes in
those who adjusted their medication using a written plan than in those
whose medication was adjusted by a doctor [4].
Medicines Partnership are currently developing a pilot with
Hillingdon Hospital and Hillingdon PCT to test the approach in a UK
setting involving patients with diabetes who have high blood pressure. We
feel it may be particularly suitable to patients with diabetes who are
already accustomed to self-management and adjustment of insulin or oral
medication on the basis of self-testing. We recognise that this approach
will not be for everybody and that it is important not to impose a regime
that will add to somebody’s anxiety. However, we feel self-regulation on
the basis of home monitoring could be an effective option in an area where
control is critical but current methods are not always effective.
More information about this and other Medicines Partnership projects
are available at http://www.medicines-partnership.org/projects/current-
projects. You can contact us at info@medicines-partnership.org.
References:
[1] Horne R & Weinman J (1999) Patients’ beliefs about prescribed
medicines & their role in adherence to treatment in chronic illness.
Journal of Psychosomatic Research 47(6): 555-567
[2] Zarnke KB, Feagan BG, Mahon JL, Feldman RD. A randomized study
comparing a patient-directed hypertension management strategy with usual
office-based care. Am J Hypertens. 1997 Jan;10(1):58-67.
[3] Murray E, Fitzmaurice D, McCahon D, Fuller C, Sandhur H. Training
for patients in a randomised controlled trial of self management of
warfarin treatment. BMJ. 2004 Feb 21;328(7437):437-8.
[4] Gibson PG, Powell H, Coughlan J et al. Self-management education
and regular practitioner review for adults with asthma. Cochrane database
Syst Rev 2003; (1): CD001117.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests