劣质听诊工具的危害

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
W. Frank Peacock MD, FACEP, FACC, FESC
{"title":"劣质听诊工具的危害","authors":"W. Frank Peacock MD, FACEP, FACC, FESC","doi":"10.1016/j.jemermed.2024.03.027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The potential for heart failure, and thus the need for accurate auscultation, represents real risks in patients undergoing certain specific cancer treatments. As the need to prevent pathogen exposure by unclean stethoscopes cannot be addressed by simply washing the diaphragm with alcohol (leaving pathogens in as many as 28%), strategies to protect the immunocompromised patient have included single use aseptic diaphragm barriers, or single patient used disposable stethoscopes. Since the auscultation quality of these strategies are poorly described, we sought to determine their diagnostic accuracy in identifying potential cardiovascular sounds of heart failure.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Using a simulation mannequin, we performed a prospective randomized trial to determine the ability of physicians to identify sounds using the following auscultation strategies: a single patient use disposable stethoscope (Proscope 665, ADC Inc, Hauppauge, New York), a high fidelity Littman 3200 recording stethoscope (3M, Inc, St. Paul, MN), and a high fidelity Littman 3200 recording stethoscope with a DiskCover barrier (Aseptiscope, Inc, San Diego, CA) in place. Physicians, randomized to auscultation strategy, performed blinded auscultation on a simulation mannequin to identify various sounds.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Overall, 28 physicians performed 910 auscultation examinations. A total of 800 were performed using the Littman 3200 stethoscope (400 with, and 400 without, the DiskCover barrier), and 110 auscultations using the single patient disposable stethoscope. Diagnostic accuracy was 100% with the Littman stethoscope, with identical accuracy with or without the DiskCover barrier in place. When using the disposable stethoscope there were 12 diagnostic errors; a 10.9% error rate. All single use stethoscope diagnostic errors were of heart murmurs (9 systolic and 3 diastolic).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The disposable single patient stethoscope used in this study resulted in a potential misdiagnosis number needed harm of 10 and suggests these inferior tools should not be used in patients. Using a high fidelity stethoscope with a disposable barrier was acoustically invisible, provided 100% diagnostic accuracy, and provided an aseptic patient contact.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":16085,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Danger of Inferior Auscultation Tools\",\"authors\":\"W. Frank Peacock MD, FACEP, FACC, FESC\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jemermed.2024.03.027\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The potential for heart failure, and thus the need for accurate auscultation, represents real risks in patients undergoing certain specific cancer treatments. As the need to prevent pathogen exposure by unclean stethoscopes cannot be addressed by simply washing the diaphragm with alcohol (leaving pathogens in as many as 28%), strategies to protect the immunocompromised patient have included single use aseptic diaphragm barriers, or single patient used disposable stethoscopes. Since the auscultation quality of these strategies are poorly described, we sought to determine their diagnostic accuracy in identifying potential cardiovascular sounds of heart failure.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Using a simulation mannequin, we performed a prospective randomized trial to determine the ability of physicians to identify sounds using the following auscultation strategies: a single patient use disposable stethoscope (Proscope 665, ADC Inc, Hauppauge, New York), a high fidelity Littman 3200 recording stethoscope (3M, Inc, St. Paul, MN), and a high fidelity Littman 3200 recording stethoscope with a DiskCover barrier (Aseptiscope, Inc, San Diego, CA) in place. Physicians, randomized to auscultation strategy, performed blinded auscultation on a simulation mannequin to identify various sounds.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Overall, 28 physicians performed 910 auscultation examinations. A total of 800 were performed using the Littman 3200 stethoscope (400 with, and 400 without, the DiskCover barrier), and 110 auscultations using the single patient disposable stethoscope. Diagnostic accuracy was 100% with the Littman stethoscope, with identical accuracy with or without the DiskCover barrier in place. When using the disposable stethoscope there were 12 diagnostic errors; a 10.9% error rate. All single use stethoscope diagnostic errors were of heart murmurs (9 systolic and 3 diastolic).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The disposable single patient stethoscope used in this study resulted in a potential misdiagnosis number needed harm of 10 and suggests these inferior tools should not be used in patients. Using a high fidelity stethoscope with a disposable barrier was acoustically invisible, provided 100% diagnostic accuracy, and provided an aseptic patient contact.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16085,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0736467924001045\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0736467924001045","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景接受某些特定癌症治疗的患者可能会出现心力衰竭,因此需要进行准确的听诊,这是一种真正的风险。要防止不洁听诊器接触病原体,仅用酒精清洗隔膜是无法解决的(多达 28% 的隔膜会残留病原体),因此保护免疫力低下患者的策略包括一次性使用无菌隔膜屏障或单个患者使用的一次性听诊器。由于对这些策略的听诊质量知之甚少,我们试图确定它们在识别心衰潜在心血管杂音方面的诊断准确性。方法使用模拟人体模型,我们进行了一项前瞻性随机试验,以确定医生使用以下听诊策略识别声音的能力:一次性听诊器(Proscope 665,ADC Inc,Hauppauge,New York)、高保真 Littman 3200 录音听诊器(3M, Inc,St.Paul, MN)的高保真 Littman 3200 录音听诊器,以及安装了 DiskCover 屏障(Aseptiscope, Inc, San Diego, CA)的高保真 Littman 3200 录音听诊器。医生随机选择听诊策略,对模拟人体模型进行盲听,以识别各种声音。其中 800 次使用 Littman 3200 听诊器(400 次使用 DiskCover 屏障,400 次未使用),110 次使用单人一次性听诊器。使用 Littman 听诊器的诊断准确率为 100%,使用或不使用 DiskCover 屏障的准确率相同。使用一次性听诊器时出现了 12 次诊断错误,错误率为 10.9%。所有一次性听诊器的诊断错误都是心脏杂音(9 个收缩期,3 个舒张期)。使用带有一次性屏障的高保真听诊器在声音上是不可见的,诊断准确率达 100%,并能无菌接触患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Danger of Inferior Auscultation Tools

Background

The potential for heart failure, and thus the need for accurate auscultation, represents real risks in patients undergoing certain specific cancer treatments. As the need to prevent pathogen exposure by unclean stethoscopes cannot be addressed by simply washing the diaphragm with alcohol (leaving pathogens in as many as 28%), strategies to protect the immunocompromised patient have included single use aseptic diaphragm barriers, or single patient used disposable stethoscopes. Since the auscultation quality of these strategies are poorly described, we sought to determine their diagnostic accuracy in identifying potential cardiovascular sounds of heart failure.

Methods

Using a simulation mannequin, we performed a prospective randomized trial to determine the ability of physicians to identify sounds using the following auscultation strategies: a single patient use disposable stethoscope (Proscope 665, ADC Inc, Hauppauge, New York), a high fidelity Littman 3200 recording stethoscope (3M, Inc, St. Paul, MN), and a high fidelity Littman 3200 recording stethoscope with a DiskCover barrier (Aseptiscope, Inc, San Diego, CA) in place. Physicians, randomized to auscultation strategy, performed blinded auscultation on a simulation mannequin to identify various sounds.

Results

Overall, 28 physicians performed 910 auscultation examinations. A total of 800 were performed using the Littman 3200 stethoscope (400 with, and 400 without, the DiskCover barrier), and 110 auscultations using the single patient disposable stethoscope. Diagnostic accuracy was 100% with the Littman stethoscope, with identical accuracy with or without the DiskCover barrier in place. When using the disposable stethoscope there were 12 diagnostic errors; a 10.9% error rate. All single use stethoscope diagnostic errors were of heart murmurs (9 systolic and 3 diastolic).

Conclusions

The disposable single patient stethoscope used in this study resulted in a potential misdiagnosis number needed harm of 10 and suggests these inferior tools should not be used in patients. Using a high fidelity stethoscope with a disposable barrier was acoustically invisible, provided 100% diagnostic accuracy, and provided an aseptic patient contact.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Emergency Medicine
Journal of Emergency Medicine 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
6.70%
发文量
339
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Emergency Medicine is an international, peer-reviewed publication featuring original contributions of interest to both the academic and practicing emergency physician. JEM, published monthly, contains research papers and clinical studies as well as articles focusing on the training of emergency physicians and on the practice of emergency medicine. The Journal features the following sections: • Original Contributions • Clinical Communications: Pediatric, Adult, OB/GYN • Selected Topics: Toxicology, Prehospital Care, The Difficult Airway, Aeromedical Emergencies, Disaster Medicine, Cardiology Commentary, Emergency Radiology, Critical Care, Sports Medicine, Wound Care • Techniques and Procedures • Technical Tips • Clinical Laboratory in Emergency Medicine • Pharmacology in Emergency Medicine • Case Presentations of the Harvard Emergency Medicine Residency • Visual Diagnosis in Emergency Medicine • Medical Classics • Emergency Forum • Editorial(s) • Letters to the Editor • Education • Administration of Emergency Medicine • International Emergency Medicine • Computers in Emergency Medicine • Violence: Recognition, Management, and Prevention • Ethics • Humanities and Medicine • American Academy of Emergency Medicine • AAEM Medical Student Forum • Book and Other Media Reviews • Calendar of Events • Abstracts • Trauma Reports • Ultrasound in Emergency Medicine
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信