D McCarthy1, B Matz2,3, J Wright3,4, L Moore5. 1. Coral Springs Animal Hospital, 2160 North University Drive, Coral Springs, FL, 33071, USA. 2. Department of Clinical Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849, USA. 3. Auburn University College of Veterinary Medicine, 1220 Wire Rd, Auburn, AL 36849, USA. 4. Department of Pathobiology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849, USA. 5. IndyVet Emergency & Specialty Hospital, 5425 Victory Drive, Indianapolis, IN 46203, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of an active patient-warming device. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Temperatures of an active patient-warming device (HotDog system) were measured at various time points using an infrared thermometer. The study was conducted in two phases: Phase 1 compared temperatures among four different areas of the warming blanket. Phase 2 compared conditions simulating different scenarios using a weighted patient simulator. RESULTS: Phase 1: Three out of four positions on the warming blanket had significantly different temperature measurements. Phase 2: Temperature output by the warming blanket was reduced: (1) in the absence of the patient simulator placed across the blanket (-1·9°C, P=0·013); (2) if the patient simulator was placed away from the blanket sensor (-2·0°C, P=0·009); and (3) if there was fluid between the patient simulator and warming blanket (-2·2°C, P=0·004). In a majority of measurements (95%), the set temperature of 43°C on the control unit was not reached (range, 29·8 to 42·9°C) and 2·3% of measurements were higher (range, 43·1 to 45·8°C) than the control unit set temperature of 43°C. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Measured temperatures on the active warming blanket did not reflect control unit settings. This could result in the potential for hyperthermic injury, ineffectual heating and uneven heat distribution.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of an active patient-warming device. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Temperatures of an active patient-warming device (HotDog system) were measured at various time points using an infrared thermometer. The study was conducted in two phases: Phase 1 compared temperatures among four different areas of the warming blanket. Phase 2 compared conditions simulating different scenarios using a weighted patient simulator. RESULTS: Phase 1: Three out of four positions on the warming blanket had significantly different temperature measurements. Phase 2: Temperature output by the warming blanket was reduced: (1) in the absence of the patient simulator placed across the blanket (-1·9°C, P=0·013); (2) if the patient simulator was placed away from the blanket sensor (-2·0°C, P=0·009); and (3) if there was fluid between the patient simulator and warming blanket (-2·2°C, P=0·004). In a majority of measurements (95%), the set temperature of 43°C on the control unit was not reached (range, 29·8 to 42·9°C) and 2·3% of measurements were higher (range, 43·1 to 45·8°C) than the control unit set temperature of 43°C. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Measured temperatures on the active warming blanket did not reflect control unit settings. This could result in the potential for hyperthermic injury, ineffectual heating and uneven heat distribution.