Fever and clinical thermometry: What do physicians and nurses really know?

C. Neves, I. Luz, M. Salgado
{"title":"Fever and clinical thermometry: What do physicians and nurses really know?","authors":"C. Neves, I. Luz, M. Salgado","doi":"10.25753/BIRTHGROWTHMJ.V28.I4.17730","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Fever is a leading cause of Pediatric visits. However, most studies used as reference for fever assessment had a cross-sectional design and were conducted in adults. Different and more precise fever definitions exist within the field of knowledge known as clinical thermometry. Aims: To assess basic knowledge of health professionals working in Pediatrics regarding fever physiopathology and clinical thermometry. Material and Methods: A cross-sectional analytical study was performed between February and July 2014 through application of an anonymous closed-end questionnaire to health professionals. Results: From 426 questionnaires applied, 29% were completed by nurses and 71% by physicians. Within the whole group, 89% did not know how human “normal temperature” was determined, 70% did not recognize the “individual definitions” of fever, 33% acknowledged a “subfebrile” status, 39% did not recognize the most and least accurate anatomical sites for temperature measurement, and 57% did not recognize the dynamic difference between core and peripheral temperatures. Hyperthermia and fever definitions were confounded by 78% of nurses and 56% of physicians. Conclusions: Most health professionals surveyed had a limited knowledge of fever and clinical thermometry. The traditional oversimplification of this subject can lead to underestimation of true febrile statuses.","PeriodicalId":31313,"journal":{"name":"Nascer e Crescer","volume":"80 1","pages":"191-202"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nascer e Crescer","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25753/BIRTHGROWTHMJ.V28.I4.17730","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Fever is a leading cause of Pediatric visits. However, most studies used as reference for fever assessment had a cross-sectional design and were conducted in adults. Different and more precise fever definitions exist within the field of knowledge known as clinical thermometry. Aims: To assess basic knowledge of health professionals working in Pediatrics regarding fever physiopathology and clinical thermometry. Material and Methods: A cross-sectional analytical study was performed between February and July 2014 through application of an anonymous closed-end questionnaire to health professionals. Results: From 426 questionnaires applied, 29% were completed by nurses and 71% by physicians. Within the whole group, 89% did not know how human “normal temperature” was determined, 70% did not recognize the “individual definitions” of fever, 33% acknowledged a “subfebrile” status, 39% did not recognize the most and least accurate anatomical sites for temperature measurement, and 57% did not recognize the dynamic difference between core and peripheral temperatures. Hyperthermia and fever definitions were confounded by 78% of nurses and 56% of physicians. Conclusions: Most health professionals surveyed had a limited knowledge of fever and clinical thermometry. The traditional oversimplification of this subject can lead to underestimation of true febrile statuses.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
发烧和临床体温测量:医生和护士真正了解什么?
发热是儿科就诊的主要原因。然而,大多数作为发热评估参考的研究采用的是横断面设计,并且是在成人中进行的。在称为临床测温学的知识领域中存在着不同的和更精确的发烧定义。目的:了解儿科卫生专业人员在发热生理病理和临床体温测量方面的基本知识。材料和方法:在2014年2月至7月期间,通过对卫生专业人员使用匿名封闭式问卷进行了横断面分析研究。结果:426份问卷中,由护士完成的占29%,由医生完成的占71%。在整个群体中,89%的人不知道人体“正常体温”是如何确定的,70%的人不知道发烧的“个体定义”,33%的人不知道“低体温”状态,39%的人不知道最准确和最不准确的体温测量解剖部位,57%的人不知道核心和外周温度之间的动态差异。78%的护士和56%的医生混淆了热疗和发烧的定义。结论:大多数接受调查的卫生专业人员对发热和临床体温测量的知识有限。传统上对这一主题的过度简化可能导致对真实发热状态的低估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Science as a Guarantee of Civilizational Development: Vaccines as the safest and most effective way to prevent disease and save lives Children and teens moving towards mental health After pediatric stroke, it’s time to enable! Weight loss as a cause of superior mesenteric artery syndrome Lesão no couro cabeludo de um recém-nascido
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1