Nakitende I, Namujwiga T, Dunsmuir D, Ansermino J M, Wasingya-Kasereka L, Kellett J
Department of Medicine, Enrolled Nurse, Department of Medicine, Kitovu Hospital, Masaka, Uganda.
Department of Medicine, Enrolled Midwife, Department of Medicine, Kitovu Hospital, Masaka, Uganda.
Acute Med. 2020;19(1):15-20.
counting respiratory rate over 60 seconds can be impractical in a busy clinical setting.
870 respiratory rates of 272 acutely ill medical patients estimated from observations over 15 seconds and those calculated by a computer algorithm were compared.
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.
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.
在繁忙的临床环境中，持续60秒计数呼吸频率可能不切实际。
比较了通过15秒观察估算的272名急性病内科患者的870次呼吸频率与计算机算法计算得出的呼吸频率。
15秒观察的偏差为每分钟1.85次呼吸，算法得出的呼吸频率偏差为每分钟0.11次呼吸，算法用时16.2秒（标准差8.1秒）。该算法为88%的呼吸频率正确分配了国家早期预警评分，而15秒观察得出的呼吸频率这一比例为80%。
与15秒观察相比，计算机算法测量急性病患者呼吸频率的速度几乎一样快，且更可靠。
