All Journals from Teopista Namujwiga
Background: heart rates generated by pulse oximeters and electronic sphygmomanometers in acutely ill patients may not be the same as those recorded by ECG
Methods: heart rates recorded by an oximeter and an electronic sphygmomanometer were compared with electrocardiogram (ECG) heart rates measured on acutely ill medical patients.
Results: 1010 ECGs were performed on 217 patients while they were in the hospital. The bias between the oximeter and the ECG measured heart rate was -1.37 beats per minute (limits of agreement -22.6 to 19.9 beats per minute), and the bias between the sphygmomanometer and the ECG measured heart rate was -0.14 beats per minute (limits of agreement -22.2 to 21.9 beats per minute). Both devices failed to identify more than half the ECG recordings that awarded 3 NEWS points for heart rate.
Conclusion: Heart rates of acutely ill patients are not reliably measured by pulse oximeter or electronic sphygmomanometers.
Please subscribe to see more.
Subscribe
Subscribe
Already a member? Log in here
Background: counting respiratory rate over 60 seconds can be impractical in a busy clinical setting.
Methods: 870 respiratory rates of 272 acutely ill medical patients estimated from observations over 15 seconds and those calculated by a computer algorithm were compared.
Results: The bias of 15 seconds of observations was 1.85 breaths per minute and 0.11 breaths per minute for the algorithm derived rate, which took 16.2 SD 8.1 seconds. The algorithm assigned 88% of respiratory rates their correct National Early Warning Score points, compared with 80% for rates from 15 seconds of observation.
Conclusion: The respiratory rates of acutely ill patients are measured nearly as quickly and more reliably by a computer algorithm than by observations over 15 seconds.
Please subscribe to see more.
Subscribe
Subscribe
Already a member? Log in here