Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Quality evaluation of community pharmacy blood pressure (BP) screening services: an English cross-sectional survey with geospatial analysis
  1. Ravina Barrett1,2,
  2. James Hodgkinson3
  1. 1School of Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences, University of Brighton, Brighton, UK
  2. 2Pharmacy Practice, School of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK
  3. 3Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
  1. Correspondence to Mrs Ravina Barrett; ravina.barrett{at}


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.

  • accuracy
  • blood pressure monitors
  • community pharmacy services
  • hypertension
  • spatial analysis
  • surveys and questionnaires

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:

View Full Text

Statistics from


  • Contributors RB led on the literature search, conduct, data acquisition and statistical analysis. RB and JH were involved in study conception and design, data analysis and interpretation of data, manuscript preparation, editing and revision and agreed upon the final version of the paper.

  • Funding This study was funded by the University of Portsmouth.

  • Disclaimer The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not those of the University of Portsmouth, University of Brighton, University of Birmingham nor the NHS.

  • Map disclaimer The depiction of boundaries on this map does not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of BMJ (or any member of its group) concerning the legal status of any country, territory, jurisdiction or area or of its authorities. This map is provided without any warranty of any kind, either express or implied.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Ethics approval University of Portsmouth, Science Faculty Ethics Committee provided a favourable ethical review (Reference Number: SFEC 2018-061, Date Submitted: 31 May 2018).

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data availability statement No data are available.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.