Lovett Paris B, Buchwald Jason M, Stürmann Kai, Bijur Polly
Department of Emergency Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY 10032, USA.
Ann Emerg Med. 2005 Jan;45(1):68-76. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2004.06.016.
Of all the vital signs, only respiratory rate is still measured clinically in most US triage systems. Previous studies have demonstrated the inaccuracy, poor interobserver agreement, and low variability of routine measurements of respiratory rate. We assess the variability and accuracy of triage nurses' measurements of respiratory rate against a criterion standard. Also, we assess electronic measurement of respiratory rate against the same criterion standard.
Consecutive patients presenting to an urban teaching emergency department (ED) were enrolled in this prospective study. Electronic measurement of respiratory rate was recorded throughout the triage encounter when nurses were recording measurements of respiratory rate. Electronic respiratory rate was measured using transthoracic impedance plethysmography. Immediately after each triage evaluation, criterion standard measurements of respiratory rate were made by research assistants using the World Health Organization recommendation of auscultation or observation for 60 seconds.
We enrolled 159 patients. Variability was low for triage nurses' measurements of respiratory rate (SD 3.3) and electronic measurement of respiratory rate (SD 4.1) compared with criterion standard measurements of respiratory rate (SD 4.8; P <.05). Triage nurses' measurements of respiratory rate and electronic measurement of respiratory rate showed low sensitivity in detecting bradypnea and tachypnea. In a Bland-Altman analysis, triage nurses' measurements of respiratory rate and electronic measurement of respiratory rate showed poor agreement with criterion standard measurements of respiratory rate. Subgroup analysis of patients presenting with cardiac and respiratory symptoms yielded similar results.
Neither triage nurses nor an electronic monitor provides accurate measurements of respiratory rate in the ED. Emergency physicians should search for new electronic modalities for measuring respiratory rate to bring respiratory rate into line with other vital signs. Emergency physicians should also consider new clinical strategies for measuring respiratory rate.
在美国大多数分诊系统中,所有生命体征里只有呼吸频率仍通过临床方式测量。既往研究已证实呼吸频率常规测量存在不准确、观察者间一致性差以及变异性低的问题。我们对照一项标准对分诊护士测量呼吸频率的变异性和准确性进行评估。此外,我们也对照同一标准评估呼吸频率的电子测量。
连续进入一家城市教学急诊科(ED)的患者纳入这项前瞻性研究。在分诊过程中,当护士记录呼吸频率测量值时,记录呼吸频率的电子测量值。使用经胸阻抗体积描记法测量电子呼吸频率。每次分诊评估后,研究助理立即按照世界卫生组织的建议,通过听诊或观察60秒来进行呼吸频率的标准测量。
我们纳入了159名患者。与呼吸频率的标准测量值(标准差4.8;P<.05)相比,分诊护士测量呼吸频率(标准差3.3)以及呼吸频率的电子测量值(标准差4.1)的变异性较低。分诊护士测量呼吸频率和呼吸频率的电子测量值在检测呼吸过缓和呼吸急促方面敏感性较低。在Bland-Altman分析中,分诊护士测量呼吸频率和呼吸频率的电子测量值与呼吸频率的标准测量值一致性较差。对出现心脏和呼吸症状患者的亚组分析得出了类似结果。
在急诊科,分诊护士和电子监测器都无法准确测量呼吸频率。急诊医生应寻找新的电子测量方法,以使呼吸频率的测量与其他生命体征的测量保持一致。急诊医生还应考虑测量呼吸频率的新临床策略。