Cargando…

Quality evaluation of community pharmacy blood pressure (BP) screening services: an English cross-sectional survey with geospatial analysis

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to assess the accuracy (calibration and validation status) of digital blood pressure (BP) monitors used within community pharmacy in England and the secondary objectives were to assess the overall quality of the BP service by assessing service prevalence, servic...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Barrett, Ravina, Hodgkinson, James
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6924779/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31831543
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032342
_version_ 1783481787287076864
author Barrett, Ravina
Hodgkinson, James
author_facet Barrett, Ravina
Hodgkinson, James
author_sort Barrett, Ravina
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to assess the accuracy (calibration and validation status) of digital blood pressure (BP) monitors used within community pharmacy in England and the secondary objectives were to assess the overall quality of the BP service by assessing service prevalence, service utilisation and other in-service considerations. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Primary-care retail-pharmacies. PARTICIPANTS: 500 pharmacies that contribute to government dispensing-data were invited by post to complete the survey. Private contractors were excluded. INTERVENTIONS: We conducted a questionnaire survey with a follow-up (September 2018 to December 2018). RESULTS: 109 responses were received. 61% (n=66) of responding pharmacies provided a free BP check to their patients. 40 (61%) pharmacies used recommended validated clinical metres, 6 (9%) had failed validation and 20 (30%) provided too little information to enable us to determine their monitor’s status. CONCLUSIONS: Responding pharmacies were able to provide useful BP monitoring services to their patients, though quality enhancements need to be implemented. Majority of pharmacies use validated BP monitors, however, there was a lack of range of cuff sizes, variation in replacement and calibration of monitors and apparent absence of such practice in a minority of pharmacies alongside variation in training standards. We noted higher frequency of BP screening in the most deprived postcodes. We recommend in-service redesign and delivery improvements, and suggest professional bodies and researchers work together to create clearer frameworks for front-line practitioners, creating appropriate incentives to facilitate this service redesign. Funders and policy setters should consider the value added to the National Health Service and other healthcare agencies of such screening by pharmacy providers both nationally and internationally. It has the potential to reduce complications of undiagnosed hypertension and the medicines burden that it creates. Future work should examine the impact of pharmacist-led BP screening on patients.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6924779
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69247792020-01-02 Quality evaluation of community pharmacy blood pressure (BP) screening services: an English cross-sectional survey with geospatial analysis Barrett, Ravina Hodgkinson, James BMJ Open General practice / Family practice OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to assess the accuracy (calibration and validation status) of digital blood pressure (BP) monitors used within community pharmacy in England and the secondary objectives were to assess the overall quality of the BP service by assessing service prevalence, service utilisation and other in-service considerations. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Primary-care retail-pharmacies. PARTICIPANTS: 500 pharmacies that contribute to government dispensing-data were invited by post to complete the survey. Private contractors were excluded. INTERVENTIONS: We conducted a questionnaire survey with a follow-up (September 2018 to December 2018). RESULTS: 109 responses were received. 61% (n=66) of responding pharmacies provided a free BP check to their patients. 40 (61%) pharmacies used recommended validated clinical metres, 6 (9%) had failed validation and 20 (30%) provided too little information to enable us to determine their monitor’s status. CONCLUSIONS: Responding pharmacies were able to provide useful BP monitoring services to their patients, though quality enhancements need to be implemented. Majority of pharmacies use validated BP monitors, however, there was a lack of range of cuff sizes, variation in replacement and calibration of monitors and apparent absence of such practice in a minority of pharmacies alongside variation in training standards. We noted higher frequency of BP screening in the most deprived postcodes. We recommend in-service redesign and delivery improvements, and suggest professional bodies and researchers work together to create clearer frameworks for front-line practitioners, creating appropriate incentives to facilitate this service redesign. Funders and policy setters should consider the value added to the National Health Service and other healthcare agencies of such screening by pharmacy providers both nationally and internationally. It has the potential to reduce complications of undiagnosed hypertension and the medicines burden that it creates. Future work should examine the impact of pharmacist-led BP screening on patients. BMJ Publishing Group 2019-12-11 /pmc/articles/PMC6924779/ /pubmed/31831543 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032342 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle General practice / Family practice
Barrett, Ravina
Hodgkinson, James
Quality evaluation of community pharmacy blood pressure (BP) screening services: an English cross-sectional survey with geospatial analysis
title Quality evaluation of community pharmacy blood pressure (BP) screening services: an English cross-sectional survey with geospatial analysis
title_full Quality evaluation of community pharmacy blood pressure (BP) screening services: an English cross-sectional survey with geospatial analysis
title_fullStr Quality evaluation of community pharmacy blood pressure (BP) screening services: an English cross-sectional survey with geospatial analysis
title_full_unstemmed Quality evaluation of community pharmacy blood pressure (BP) screening services: an English cross-sectional survey with geospatial analysis
title_short Quality evaluation of community pharmacy blood pressure (BP) screening services: an English cross-sectional survey with geospatial analysis
title_sort quality evaluation of community pharmacy blood pressure (bp) screening services: an english cross-sectional survey with geospatial analysis
topic General practice / Family practice
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6924779/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31831543
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032342
work_keys_str_mv AT barrettravina qualityevaluationofcommunitypharmacybloodpressurebpscreeningservicesanenglishcrosssectionalsurveywithgeospatialanalysis
AT hodgkinsonjames qualityevaluationofcommunitypharmacybloodpressurebpscreeningservicesanenglishcrosssectionalsurveywithgeospatialanalysis