ArticleBMJ open quality2018
Nursing attitudes towards continuous capnographic monitoring of floor patients.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionNurses' perceptions of the utility of capnography monitoring are inconsistent in previous studies. We sought to outline the limitations of a uniform education effort in bringing about consistent views of capnography among nurses.
methodsA survey was administered to 22 nurses in three subacute care floors participating in a pragmatic clinical trial employing capnography monitoring in a large, urban tertiary care hospital. A 5-point Likert scale was used to assess the value and acceptance nurses ascribed to the practice. Means and SD were calculated for each response.
resultsSurvey results indicated inconsistency in the valuation of capnography, coupled with varying degrees of acceptance of its use. The mean for the level of perceived impact of capnography use on patient safety was 3.86, yet the perceived risk of removing capnography was represented by a mean of 2.57. The levels of urgency attached to apnoea alarms (mean 3.57, SD 1.57) were lower than those for alarms for oxygen saturation violations (mean 3.67, SD 1.32). The necessity for pulse oximetry monitoring was perceived as much higher than that for capnography monitoring (mean 1.76, SD 1.34), where '1' represented pulse oximetry as more necessary and '5' represented capnography as more necessary.
conclusionsNursing acceptance of capnography monitoring is a difficult endpoint to achieve. There is a need for better accounting for the external and internal influences on nurse perceptions and values to have greater success with the implementation of similar monitoring.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.