| Is the Content of Textbooks on the Evaluation of a Patient in Respiratory Distress Adequate? | |
| | |
MedLine Citation:
|
PMID: 22005290 Owner: NLM Status: Publisher |
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
|
Rationale: The ability to rapidly and precisely evaluate patients in respiratory distress is essential. Due to limited opportunities for formal instruction during training, textbooks are the main educational source to teach junior physicians how to interpret the signs of respiratory distress. The quality of the textbook content relevant to respiratory distress is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To examine the content on the evaluation of a patient in respiratory distress in a representative sample of textbooks and internet resources. METHODS: Two physicians individually reviewed the most recent edition of 21 standard textbooks from a variety of specialties. Smartphone apps, Up To Date, and MDConsult were examined. Each physician reviewed the source for 14 different signs. For each sign, the reviewers determined three parameters: 1) a mention of the sign, 2) its pathophysiology, and 3) its detection. The reviews were compared for discrepancies and a third reviewer resolved them. RESULTS: The normal respiratory rate was mentioned in 10 (48%) of textbooks and ranged between 10 and 22 breaths/minute. Each sign was mentioned by a mean of 45% ± 26% of the textbooks. The pathophysiology was described by a mean of 33% ± 30% of the textbooks. The most and least commonly mentioned inspection signs were cyanosis and retraction of suprasternal notch respectively. They were mentioned in 20 (95%) and 3 (14%) textbooks respectively. The most and least commonly mentioned palpation signs were thoracoabdominal asynchrony or paradox (TAAP) and tracheal tug, respectively. They were mentioned in 17 (81%) and 3 (14%) textbooks, and their pathophysiology was described in 15 (71%) and 4 (19%) textbooks respectively. The reviewers also found inconsistency in the descriptions of the meaning of scalene muscle contraction and thoracoabdominal asynchrony and paradox. CONCLUSION: The content of the reviewed textbooks on the evaluation of respiratory distress is inconsistent and deficient. |
| | |
Authors:
|
Aiman Tulaimat; Aiyub Patel; Bhaven Shah; Stephen W Littleton |
Publication Detail:
|
Type: JOURNAL ARTICLE Date: 2011-10-12 |
Journal Detail:
|
Title: Respiratory care Volume: - ISSN: 0020-1324 ISO Abbreviation: - Publication Date: 2011 Oct |
Date Detail:
|
Created Date: 2011-10-18 Completed Date: - Revised Date: - |
Medline Journal Info:
|
Nlm Unique ID: 7510357 Medline TA: Respir Care Country: - |
Other Details:
|
Languages: ENG Pagination: - Citation Subset: - |
Export Citation:
|
APA/MLA Format Download EndNote Download BibTex |
| MeSH Terms | |
Descriptor/Qualifier:
|
|
From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine
Previous Document: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in a hospitalized adult with h...
Next Document: Subcortical processing of speech regularities underlies reading and music aptitude in children.