Resp Care
-
Comparative Study
Wheeze detection in the pediatric intensive care unit: comparison among physician, nurses, respiratory therapists, and a computerized respiratory sound monitor.
To correlate wheeze detection in the pediatric intensive care unit among staff members (a physician, nurses, and respiratory therapists [RTs]) and digital recordings from a computerized respiratory sound monitor (PulmoTrack). ⋯ Between the physician, RTs, and nurses there was agreement about the presence of wheeze in critically ill patients in the pediatric intensive care unit. Compared to the objective acoustic measurements from the PulmoTrack, the intensive care unit staff was similar in their ability to detect the absence of wheeze. The PulmoTrack was better than the staff in detecting wheeze.
-
Retention of airway secretions is a common and serious problem in ventilated patients. Treating or avoiding secretion retention with mucus thinning, patient-positioning, airway suctioning, or chest or airway vibration or percussion may provide short-term benefit. ⋯ The movement of mucus simulant was influenced by the ventilation pattern and lung impedance. Flow bias obtained with ventilator settings may clear or embed mucus during mechanical ventilation.
-
Comparative Study
Sleep and respiratory function after withdrawal of noninvasive ventilation in patients with chronic respiratory failure.
In patients with restrictive thoracic disease, little is known about changes in sleep and breathing if the patient stops using nocturnal noninvasive ventilation (NIV). Better understanding of those changes may affect NIV management and improve our understanding of the relationship of night-to-night variability of respiratory and sleep variables and morning gas exchange. ⋯ NIV discontinuation in patients with restrictive chronic respiratory failure previously stabilized on NIV promptly leads to nocturnal respiratory failure and within days to diurnal respiratory failure. Stopping NIV for more than a day or two is not recommended.
-
The federal government regulates human research with a local institutional review board (IRB) at your institution. Your IRB's main responsibility is to protect the rights and welfare of human subjects recruited to participate in research. The IRB is responsible for reviewing and approving all research protocols that involve human subjects. ⋯ They also want to know how you plan to protect research subjects from the risks of research and how you will manage the data, especially protected health information. Though the Code of Federal Regulations is extensive, this article provides information to help you navigate your research protocol through the layers of regulations, including the Privacy Rule of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Whether conducting a simple chart review or participating in a multi-site randomized placebo-controlled trial, if you follow tried-and-true scientific methods and good clinical practice, you will be able to work effectively with your IRB.
-
Comparative Study
Readability assessment of internet-based consumer health information.
A substantial amount of consumer health-related information is available on the Internet. Studies suggest that consumer comprehension may be compromised if content exceeds a 7th-grade reading level, which is the average American reading level identified by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS). ⋯ Our findings support that Web-based medical information intended for consumer use is written above USDHHS recommended reading levels. Compliance with these recommendations may increase the likelihood of consumer comprehension.