↓ Skip to main content

Is Nurse Interpretation of the ECG QRS Width Reliable?

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Toxicology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
Title
Is Nurse Interpretation of the ECG QRS Width Reliable?
Published in
Journal of Medical Toxicology, January 2012
DOI 10.1007/s13181-011-0205-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tonia Zimmerman, Michael C. Beuhler, William Kerns

Abstract

Electrocardiogram (ECG) data are critical in formulating management strategies following sodium channel antagonist overdose. Poison centers frequently rely on verbal reports of the ECG obtained from bedside nurses. No previous study has addressed the quality of ECG data obtained in this manner. Therefore, we sought to test the ability of nurses to recognize and measure a widened QRS complex, the hallmark of myocardial sodium channel toxicity. Thirty-six emergency department and critical care nurses employed at a tertiary care hospital participated in this prospective study. The study subjects were divided into three groups and asked to interpret 12 ECGs (five normal and seven wide QRS). For each ECG, participants (1) determined if the QRS was narrow or wide and (2) measured the QRS duration. The groups differed in delivery of instruction regarding QRS measurement. Group 1 received visual instructions; group 2 received scripted verbal instructions, and group 3 served as controls, receiving no specific QRS measurement instructions. The nurse data was compared with physician interpretation (consensus of three physicians). Between-group analysis tested for impact of potential real-time educational intervention. Overall, the nurses identified a wide QRS complex most of the time (77%), but had difficulty in accurately measuring the QRS duration (44%). Real-time visual or verbal instruction did not improve accuracy (p = NS between groups). The results suggest that verbal ECG data from nurse callers is not sufficient to make an accurate clinical assessment in the setting of sodium channel poisoning.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 24%
Other 4 16%
Student > Bachelor 4 16%
Lecturer 2 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 6 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 9 36%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Psychology 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 June 2012.
All research outputs
#15,245,883
of 22,668,244 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Toxicology
#547
of 661 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,206
of 244,270 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Toxicology
#14
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,668,244 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 661 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.3. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 244,270 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.