Atsushi Takayama1,2, Taro Takeshima3, Yutaka Nakashima4, Takahiro Yoshidomi5, Takahiko Nagamine6, Kazuhiko Kotani2. 1. Department of Family Medicine, Iwakuni Municipal Miwa Hospital, Iwakuni, Yamaguchi, Japan. m05054at@live.jp. 2. Jichi Medical University Center for Community Medicine, Division of Community and Family Medicine, Shimotsuke, Tochigi, Japan. 3. Department of General Medicine, Shirakawa Satellite for Teaching and Research (STAR) Fukushima Medical University, Fukushima, Japan, and with the Center for Innovative Research for Communities and Clinical Excellence (CIRC2LE), Fukushima Medical University, Fukushima, Japan. 4. Support Center for Rural Medicine, Yamaguchi Grand Medical Center, Houfu, Yamaguchi, Japan. 5. Division of Internal Medicine, Shimonoseki Municipal Toyota Central Hospital, Shimonoseki, Yamaguchi, Japan. 6. Sunlight Brain Research Center, Houfu, Yamaguchi, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Counting breaths for a full minute for all patients to determine breathing frequency could result in excessive work load for many medical staff. The aim of this study was to verify the agreement of 2 quick screening methods with counting breaths for a full minute. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study to compare the breathing frequency estimates from a 15-s period multiplied by 4 (15-s quadruple) and a value which is 60 divided by the time measured for a single breath (ie, breathing time measurement) against counting breaths for a full minute. Subjects of this study included 58 nurses; 1 nurse acted as the patient, and 57 nurses counted the patient's breathing frequency using each of the 3 methods. Each nurse examiner performed the breathing time measurement, the 15-s quadruple method, and the 1-min breath count, in that order. We performed correlation and Bland-Altman analyses between the 15-s quadruple and 1-min breath count methods, and between the breathing time measurement and 1-min breath count methods. Using paired t tests, we compared the absolute difference between the 15-s quadruple and the 1-min breath count methods to the absolute difference between the breathing time measurement and the 1-min breath count methods. RESULTS: The coefficient of correlation between the 15-s quadruple and 1-min breath count was 0.83, while the coefficient of correlation between the breathing time measurement and 1-min breath count methods was 0.90. Brand-Altman analysis indicated that the bias of 15-s quadruple method to the 1-min breath count method was -2.1 ± 2.9 SD, and the limit of agreement was ±5.6; the bias of the breathing time measurement method to the 1-min breath count method was 0.5 ± 2.6 SD, and the limit of agreement was ±5.0. There were statistically significant differences between the 15-s quadruple and 1-min breath count methods and between the breathing time measurement and 1-min breath count methods (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The breathing time measurement method had better agreement with the 1-min breath count method than did the 15-s quadruple method in this study setting.
BACKGROUND: Counting breaths for a full minute for all patients to determine breathing frequency could result in excessive work load for many medical staff. The aim of this study was to verify the agreement of 2 quick screening methods with counting breaths for a full minute. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study to compare the breathing frequency estimates from a 15-s period multiplied by 4 (15-s quadruple) and a value which is 60 divided by the time measured for a single breath (ie, breathing time measurement) against counting breaths for a full minute. Subjects of this study included 58 nurses; 1 nurse acted as the patient, and 57 nurses counted the patient's breathing frequency using each of the 3 methods. Each nurse examiner performed the breathing time measurement, the 15-s quadruple method, and the 1-min breath count, in that order. We performed correlation and Bland-Altman analyses between the 15-s quadruple and 1-min breath count methods, and between the breathing time measurement and 1-min breath count methods. Using paired t tests, we compared the absolute difference between the 15-s quadruple and the 1-min breath count methods to the absolute difference between the breathing time measurement and the 1-min breath count methods. RESULTS: The coefficient of correlation between the 15-s quadruple and 1-min breath count was 0.83, while the coefficient of correlation between the breathing time measurement and 1-min breath count methods was 0.90. Brand-Altman analysis indicated that the bias of 15-s quadruple method to the 1-min breath count method was -2.1 ± 2.9 SD, and the limit of agreement was ±5.6; the bias of the breathing time measurement method to the 1-min breath count method was 0.5 ± 2.6 SD, and the limit of agreement was ±5.0. There were statistically significant differences between the 15-s quadruple and 1-min breath count methods and between the breathing time measurement and 1-min breath count methods (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The breathing time measurement method had better agreement with the 1-min breath count method than did the 15-s quadruple method in this study setting.
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