将观察到的15秒内的呼吸频率与使用RRate应用程序测量的频率进行比较。一项针对急性病成年内科患者住院期间的观察性研究得出的基于实践的证据。
Respiratory rates observed over 15 seconds compared with rates measured using the RRate app. Practice-based evidence from an observational study of acutely ill adult medical patients during their hospital admission.
作者信息
Nakitende I, Namujwiga T, Dunsmuir D, Ansermino J M, Wasingya-Kasereka L, Kellett J
机构信息
Department of Medicine, Enrolled Nurse, Department of Medicine, Kitovu Hospital, Masaka, Uganda.
Department of Medicine, Enrolled Midwife, Department of Medicine, Kitovu Hospital, Masaka, Uganda.
出版信息
Acute Med. 2020;19(1):15-20.
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.
背景
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。
方法
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。
结果
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%。
结论
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。
Zotero 插件