Quantitative systematic review: Sources of inaccuracy in manually measured adult respiratory rate data

DC ElementWertSprache
dc.contributor.authorKallioinen, Noa
dc.contributor.authorHill, Andrew
dc.contributor.authorChristofidis, Melany J.
dc.contributor.authorHorswill, Mark S.
dc.contributor.authorWatson, Marcus O.
dc.date.accessioned2021-12-23T16:17:57Z-
dc.date.available2021-12-23T16:17:57Z-
dc.date.issued2021
dc.identifier.issn03092402
dc.identifier.urihttps://osnascholar.ub.uni-osnabrueck.de/handle/unios/12472-
dc.description.abstractAims To identify the potential sources of inaccuracy in manually measured adult respiratory rate (RR) data and quantify their effects. Design Quantitative systematic review with meta-analyses where appropriate. Data Sources Medline, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library (from database inception to 31 July 2019). Review Methods Studies presenting data on individual sources of inaccuracy in the manual measurement of adult RR were analysed, assessed for quality, and grouped according to the source of inaccuracy investigated. Quantitative data were extracted and synthesized and meta-analyses performed where appropriate. Results Included studies (N = 49) identified five sources of inaccuracy. Theawareness effectcreates an artefactual reduction in actual RR, andobservation methodsinvolving shorter counts cause systematic underscoring. Individual RR measurements can differ substantially in either direction between observations due tointer-orintra-observer variability.Value bias, where particular RRs are over-represented (suggesting estimation), is a widespread problem.Recording omissionis also widespread, with higher average rates in inpatient versus triage/admission contexts. Conclusion This review demonstrates that manually measured RR data are subject to several potential sources of inaccuracy. Impact RR is an important indicator of clinical deterioration and commonly included in track-and-trigger systems. However, the usefulness of RR data depends on the accuracy of the observations and documentation, which are subject to five potential sources of inaccuracy identified in this review. A single measurement may be affected by several factors. Hence, clinicians should interpret recorded RR data cautiously unless systems are in place to ensure its accuracy. For nurses, this includes counting rather than estimating RRs, employing 60-s counts whenever possible, ensuring patients are unaware that their RR is being measured, and documenting the resulting value. For any given site, interventions to improve measurement should take into account the local organizational and cultural context, available resources, and the specific measurement issues that need to be addressed.
dc.description.sponsorshipClinical Skills Development Service, Metro North Hospital and Health Service Funding Source: Medline
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherWILEY
dc.relation.ispartofJOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING
dc.subjectAT-RISK PATIENTS
dc.subjectCRITICAL-CARE OUTREACH
dc.subjectDETECTING CLINICAL DETERIORATION
dc.subjectdocumentation
dc.subjectEARLY WARNING SCORE
dc.subjectINITIAL EVALUATION
dc.subjectMOBILE PHONE APPLICATIONS
dc.subjectNURSE-PATIENT INTERACTION
dc.subjectNursing
dc.subjectPHYSIOLOGICAL TRACK
dc.subjectPROVIDE RELIABLE COUNTS
dc.subjectquality of care
dc.subjectsystematic reviews and meta-analyses
dc.subjectVITAL SIGNS
dc.titleQuantitative systematic review: Sources of inaccuracy in manually measured adult respiratory rate data
dc.typereview
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/jan.14584
dc.identifier.isiISI:000578440500001
dc.description.volume77
dc.description.issue1
dc.description.startpage98
dc.description.endpage124
dc.identifier.eissn13652648
dc.publisher.place111 RIVER ST, HOBOKEN 07030-5774, NJ USA
dcterms.isPartOf.abbreviationJ. Adv. Nurs.
dcterms.oaStatusGreen Published, hybrid
Zur Kurzanzeige

Seitenaufrufe

5
Letzte Woche
0
Letzter Monat
0
geprüft am 07.06.2024

Google ScholarTM

Prüfen

Altmetric