STUDY OBJECTIVE: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.
Authors: Matthew M Churpek; Trevor C Yuen; Michael T Huber; Seo Young Park; Jesse B Hall; Dana P Edelson Journal: Chest Date: 2011-11-03 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: S Kohn; D Waisman; J Pesin; A Faingersh; I C Klotzman; C Levy; G Hirshberg; A Rotschild; A Landesberg Journal: J Perinatol Date: 2015-11-19 Impact factor: 2.521
Authors: Matthew W Semler; Daniel G Stover; Andrew P Copland; Gina Hong; Michael J Johnson; Michael S Kriss; Hannah Otepka; Li Wang; Brian W Christman; Todd W Rice Journal: Chest Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Siân Russell; Rachel Stocker; Robert Oliver Barker; Jennifer Liddle; Joy Adamson; Barbara Hanratty Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2020-10-29 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Mathieu Raux; Michel Thicoïpé; Eric Wiel; Elisabeth Rancurel; Dominique Savary; Jean-Stéphane David; Frédéric Berthier; Agnès Ricard-Hibon; Frédéric Birgel; Bruno Riou Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2006-02-17 Impact factor: 17.440