Understanding measurement of postural hypotension: a nationwide survey of general practice in England

Journal article

Background Postural hypotension is associated with excess mortality, falls, and cognitive decline. Postural hypotension is poorly recorded in routine general practice records. Few studies have explored measurement and diagnosis of postural hypotension in general practice. Aim To understand how postural hypotension is measured, diagnosed, and managed in general practice. Design and setting This was an online survey of general practice staff in England. Method Clinical research networks distributed the survey to practices, seeking individual responses from any clinical staff involved in routine blood pressure (BP) measurement. Responses were analysed according to role and demographic data using descriptive statistics. Multivariable modelling of checking for postural BP measurements was performed. Results There were 703 responses from 243 general practices (mean practice-level response rate 17%). Half (362; 51%) of responders were doctors, 196 (28%) nurses, and 77 (11%) healthcare assistants (HCAs). In total, 8% (58/703) did not routinely check for postural hypotension, usually citing time constraints. For the remaining 92%, postural symptoms were the predominant reason for checking (97% responders, 627/645); only 24% cited any other guideline indication for postural hypotension testing. The study found that 77% used sit-to-stand BP measurements; approximately one-quarter measured standing BP for >1 min. On regression modelling, other professionals tested less for postural hypotension than doctors (odds ratios: nurses 0.323, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.117 to 0.894, HCAs 0.102, 95% CI = 0.032 to 0.325, and pharmacists 0.099, 95% CI = 0.023 to 0.411). Conclusion Awareness of reasons, besides symptoms, and adherence to guidelines for postural hypotension testing, are low. Time is the key barrier to improved testing for postural hypotension. Clarity on pragmatic methods of measuring postural hypotension in general practice would also facilitate measurement uptake.

Authors: McDonagh, S; Cross, R; Masoli, J; Konya, J; Abel, G

• Publication status: Published
• Peer review status: Peer reviewed
• Publisher: Royal College of General Practitioners
• Journal: British Journal of General Practice
• Pages: BJGP.2025.0025-BJGP.2025.0025
• Publication date: 2025-04-22
• DOI: 10.3399/bjgp.2025.0025
• EISSN: 1478-5242
• ISSN: 0960-1643
• Language: English
• Keywords: Internal medicine; CLARITY; Pathology; Odds ratio; Medicine; Guideline; Confidence interval; Clinical Practice; Family medicine; Physical therapy; Descriptive statistics