• Niamh Chapman, Rebekah E McWhirter, Kim A Jose, Martin G Schultz, Douglas Ezzy, Mark R Nelson, and James E Sharman.
• Menzies Institute for Medical Research, College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.
• J Eval Clin Pract. 2021 Dec 1; 27 (6): 1353-1360.

BackgroundAbsolute cardiovascular disease (aCVD) risk assessment is recommended in CVD prevention guidelines. Yet, General Practitioners (GPs) often focus on single risk factors, including blood pressure (BP). Pathology services may be suitable to undertake high-quality automated unobserved BP (AOBP) measurement and aCVD risk assessment. This study explored GP attitudes towards AOBP measurement via pathology services and the role of BP in aCVD risk management.MethodsA brief survey was completed, after which a focus group (n = 8 GPs) and interviews (n = 10 GPs) explored attitudes to AOBP and aCVD risk via pathology services with an example pathology report discussed. Verbatim transcripts were thematically coded.ResultsGPs predominantly used doctor-measured BP despite low levels of confidence. High BP measured by AOBP reported with aCVD risk via pathology services, would prompt a follow-up response. However, GPs focused on BP management. GPs were concerned about AOBP equivalency to routine BP measurements. After protocol explanation, GPs reported AOBP could value-add to care delivery.ConclusionGPs lacked familiarity of AOBP and maintained a focus on BP management in the context of absolute CVD risk. Targeted education on AOBP and BP management as part of absolute CVD risk is needed to support guideline-directed care in practice.© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

10 keywords...

hide…