A Granholm1, N E Pedersen2,3, A Lippert2, L F Petersen2, L S Rasmussen4. 1. Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation, Centre for Human Resources, Capital Region of Denmark, Herlev, Denmark. andersgran@gmail.com. 2. Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation, Centre for Human Resources, Capital Region of Denmark, Herlev, Denmark. 3. Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 4. Department of Anaesthesia, Centre of Head and Orthopaedics, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Respiratory rate is among the first vital signs to change in deteriorating patients. The aim was to investigate the agreement between respiratory rate measurements by three different methods. METHODS: This prospective observational study included acutely admitted adult patients in a medical ward. Respiratory rate was measured by three methods: a standardised approach over 60 s while patients lay still and refrained from talking, by ward staff and by a wireless electronic patch (SensiumVitals). The Bland-Altman method was used to compare measurements and three breaths per minute (BPM) was considered a clinically relevant difference. RESULTS: We included 50 patients. The mean difference between the standardised approach and the electronic measurement was 0.3 (95% CI: -1.4 to 2.0) BPM; 95% limits of agreement were -11.5 (95% CI: -14.5 to -8.6) and 12.1 (95% CI: 9.2 to 15.1) BPM. Removal of three outliers with huge differences lead to a mean difference of -0.1 (95% CI: -0.7 to 0.5) BPM and 95% limits of agreement of -4.2 (95% CI: -5.3 to -3.2) BPM and 4.0 (95% CI: 2.9 to 5.0) BPM. The mean difference between staff and electronic measurements was 1.7 (95% CI: -0.5 to 3.9) BPM; 95% limits of agreement were -13.3 (95% CI: -17.2 to -9.5) BPM and 16.8 (95% CI: 13.0 to 20.6) BPM. CONCLUSION: A concerning lack of agreement was found between a wireless monitoring system and a standardised clinical approach. Ward staff's measurements also seemed to be inaccurate.
BACKGROUND: Respiratory rate is among the first vital signs to change in deteriorating patients. The aim was to investigate the agreement between respiratory rate measurements by three different methods. METHODS: This prospective observational study included acutely admitted adult patients in a medical ward. Respiratory rate was measured by three methods: a standardised approach over 60 s while patients lay still and refrained from talking, by ward staff and by a wireless electronic patch (SensiumVitals). The Bland-Altman method was used to compare measurements and three breaths per minute (BPM) was considered a clinically relevant difference. RESULTS: We included 50 patients. The mean difference between the standardised approach and the electronic measurement was 0.3 (95% CI: -1.4 to 2.0) BPM; 95% limits of agreement were -11.5 (95% CI: -14.5 to -8.6) and 12.1 (95% CI: 9.2 to 15.1) BPM. Removal of three outliers with huge differences lead to a mean difference of -0.1 (95% CI: -0.7 to 0.5) BPM and 95% limits of agreement of -4.2 (95% CI: -5.3 to -3.2) BPM and 4.0 (95% CI: 2.9 to 5.0) BPM. The mean difference between staff and electronic measurements was 1.7 (95% CI: -0.5 to 3.9) BPM; 95% limits of agreement were -13.3 (95% CI: -17.2 to -9.5) BPM and 16.8 (95% CI: 13.0 to 20.6) BPM. CONCLUSION: A concerning lack of agreement was found between a wireless monitoring system and a standardised clinical approach. Ward staff's measurements also seemed to be inaccurate.
Authors: Niels Egholm Pedersen; Lars Simon Rasmussen; John Asger Petersen; Thomas Alexander Gerds; Doris Østergaard; Anne Lippert Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2017-02-25 Impact factor: 2.502
Authors: Linda M Posthuma; Maarten J Visscher; Philipp B Lirk; Els J M Nieveen van Dijkum; Markus W Hollmann; Benedikt Preckel Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2019-11-13 Impact factor: 2.502
Authors: Linda K Bawua; Christine Miaskowski; Xiao Hu; George W Rodway; Michele M Pelter Journal: Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol Date: 2021-08-18 Impact factor: 1.468
Authors: Martine J M Breteler; Erik Huizinga; Kim van Loon; Luke P H Leenen; Daan A J Dohmen; Cor J Kalkman; Taco J Blokhuis Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-02-27 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Noa Kallioinen; Andrew Hill; Melany J Christofidis; Mark S Horswill; Marcus O Watson Journal: J Adv Nurs Date: 2020-10-10 Impact factor: 3.057