STUDY OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the accuracy of emergency department (ED) triage respiratory rate measurement using the usual care method and a new electronic respiratory rate sensor (BioHarness, Zephyr Technology Corp.), both compared to a criterion standard measurement. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study with convenience sampling conducted in an urban academic adult ED, including 3 separate respiratory rate measurements performed at ED triage: usual care measurement, electronic BioHarness measurement, and criterion standard measurement. The criterion standard measurement used was defined by the World Health Organization as manual observation or auscultation of respirations for 60 seconds. The resultant usual care and BioHarness measurements were compared with the criterion standard, evaluating accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) for detecting tachypnea, as well as potential systematic biases of usual care and BioHarness measurements using a Bland Altman analysis. RESULTS: Of 191 analyzed patients, 44 presented with tachypnea (>20 breaths/min). Relative to criterion standard measurement, usual care measurement had a sensitivity of 23% (95% confidence interval [CI] 12% to 37%) and specificity of 99% (95% CI 97% to 100%) for tachypnea, whereas BioHarness had a sensitivity of 91% (95% CI 80% to 97%) and specificity of 97% (95% CI 93% to 99%) for tachypnea. Usual care measurements clustered around respiratory rates of 16 and 18 breaths/min (n=144), with poor agreement with criterion standard measurement. Conversely, BioHarness measurement closely tracked criterion standard values over the range of respiratory rates. CONCLUSION: Current methods of respiratory rate measurement at ED triage are inaccurate. A new electronic respiratory rate sensor, BioHarness, has significantly greater sensitivity for detecting tachypnea versus usual care method of measurement.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the accuracy of emergency department (ED) triage respiratory rate measurement using the usual care method and a new electronic respiratory rate sensor (BioHarness, Zephyr Technology Corp.), both compared to a criterion standard measurement. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study with convenience sampling conducted in an urban academic adult ED, including 3 separate respiratory rate measurements performed at ED triage: usual care measurement, electronic BioHarness measurement, and criterion standard measurement. The criterion standard measurement used was defined by the World Health Organization as manual observation or auscultation of respirations for 60 seconds. The resultant usual care and BioHarness measurements were compared with the criterion standard, evaluating accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) for detecting tachypnea, as well as potential systematic biases of usual care and BioHarness measurements using a Bland Altman analysis. RESULTS: Of 191 analyzed patients, 44 presented with tachypnea (>20 breaths/min). Relative to criterion standard measurement, usual care measurement had a sensitivity of 23% (95% confidence interval [CI] 12% to 37%) and specificity of 99% (95% CI 97% to 100%) for tachypnea, whereas BioHarness had a sensitivity of 91% (95% CI 80% to 97%) and specificity of 97% (95% CI 93% to 99%) for tachypnea. Usual care measurements clustered around respiratory rates of 16 and 18 breaths/min (n=144), with poor agreement with criterion standard measurement. Conversely, BioHarness measurement closely tracked criterion standard values over the range of respiratory rates. CONCLUSION: Current methods of respiratory rate measurement at ED triage are inaccurate. A new electronic respiratory rate sensor, BioHarness, has significantly greater sensitivity for detecting tachypnea versus usual care method of measurement.
Authors: Richard De La Garza; Jin H Yoon; Daisy G Y Thompson-Lake; Colin N Haile; Joel D Eisenhofer; Thomas F Newton; James J Mahoney Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2016-08-09 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: Jacinta A Lucke; Jelle de Gelder; Laura C Blomaard; Christian Heringhaus; Jelmer Alsma; Stephanie C E Klein Nagelvoort Schuit; Anniek Brink; Sander Anten; Gerard J Blauw; Bas de Groot; Simon P Mooijaart Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-06-20 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Goris Nazari; Pavlos Bobos; Joy C MacDermid; Kathryn E Sinden; Julie Richardson; Ada Tang Journal: BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil Date: 2018-02-21
Authors: Jonathan C Rawstorn; Nicholas Gant; Andrew Meads; Ian Warren; Ralph Maddison Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2016-06-24 Impact factor: 4.773