Limits...
The accuracy of respiratory rate assessment by doctors in a London teaching hospital: a cross-sectional study.

Philip KE, Pack E, Cambiano V, Rollmann H, Weil S, O'Beirne J - J Clin Monit Comput (2014)

Bottom Line: A cross-sectional study assessing the accuracy (range, bias, and imprecision) of doctors' 'spot' and 'formal' respiratory rate assessments, using videos of mock patients. 54 doctors in a London teaching hospital participated.We observed a trend towards decreasing accuracy of 'spot' assessments with increasing clinical experience (p = 0.0490).This may be significantly delaying appropriate clinical care, or even misguiding treatment.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK, kejphilip@gmail.com.

ABSTRACT
Respiratory rate (RR) is one of the most sensitive markers of a patient condition and a core aspect of multiple clinical assessment tools. Doctors use a number of methods to assess RR, including formal measurement, and 'spot' assessments, although this is not recommended. This study aimed to assess the accuracy of the methods of RR measurement being used by doctors. A cross-sectional study assessing the accuracy (range, bias, and imprecision) of doctors' 'spot' and 'formal' respiratory rate assessments, using videos of mock patients. 54 doctors in a London teaching hospital participated. Both methods showed high levels of inaccuracy, though formal methods were more accurate than 'spot' assessments. 52 and 19% of doctors did not identify the respiratory rates shown as abnormal, using 'spot' and formal assessment methods respectively. We observed a trend towards decreasing accuracy of 'spot' assessments with increasing clinical experience (p = 0.0490). Current methods of RR assessment by doctors are inaccurate. This may be significantly delaying appropriate clinical care, or even misguiding treatment.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Box and whisker plots showing the median and interquartile ranges for ‘spot’ and formal assessments
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4487351&req=5

Fig1: Box and whisker plots showing the median and interquartile ranges for ‘spot’ and formal assessments

Mentions: Figure 1a shows the distribution of results from the spot assessment in relation to each video. The true value for each video is shown on the horizontal line, with the box and whisker plots showing the median and interquartile ranges. Figure 1b shows the equivalent results for the formal assessment.Fig. 1


The accuracy of respiratory rate assessment by doctors in a London teaching hospital: a cross-sectional study.

Philip KE, Pack E, Cambiano V, Rollmann H, Weil S, O'Beirne J - J Clin Monit Comput (2014)

Box and whisker plots showing the median and interquartile ranges for ‘spot’ and formal assessments
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4487351&req=5

Fig1: Box and whisker plots showing the median and interquartile ranges for ‘spot’ and formal assessments
Mentions: Figure 1a shows the distribution of results from the spot assessment in relation to each video. The true value for each video is shown on the horizontal line, with the box and whisker plots showing the median and interquartile ranges. Figure 1b shows the equivalent results for the formal assessment.Fig. 1

Bottom Line: A cross-sectional study assessing the accuracy (range, bias, and imprecision) of doctors' 'spot' and 'formal' respiratory rate assessments, using videos of mock patients. 54 doctors in a London teaching hospital participated.We observed a trend towards decreasing accuracy of 'spot' assessments with increasing clinical experience (p = 0.0490).This may be significantly delaying appropriate clinical care, or even misguiding treatment.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK, kejphilip@gmail.com.

ABSTRACT
Respiratory rate (RR) is one of the most sensitive markers of a patient condition and a core aspect of multiple clinical assessment tools. Doctors use a number of methods to assess RR, including formal measurement, and 'spot' assessments, although this is not recommended. This study aimed to assess the accuracy of the methods of RR measurement being used by doctors. A cross-sectional study assessing the accuracy (range, bias, and imprecision) of doctors' 'spot' and 'formal' respiratory rate assessments, using videos of mock patients. 54 doctors in a London teaching hospital participated. Both methods showed high levels of inaccuracy, though formal methods were more accurate than 'spot' assessments. 52 and 19% of doctors did not identify the respiratory rates shown as abnormal, using 'spot' and formal assessment methods respectively. We observed a trend towards decreasing accuracy of 'spot' assessments with increasing clinical experience (p = 0.0490). Current methods of RR assessment by doctors are inaccurate. This may be significantly delaying appropriate clinical care, or even misguiding treatment.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus