以质量求发展，以服务铸品牌

护理学报 ›› 2023, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (10): 7-10.doi: 10.16460/j.issn1008-9969.2023.10.007

• 护理教育 • 上一篇    下一篇

常用测温方法的一致性及对《护理学基础》教学的启示

李彩英1a, 苏玉芳1b, 金募2, 赵雪萍2, 赵鑫1a   

  1. 1.苏州大学附属第一医院 a.护理部;b.骨科,江苏 苏州 215006;
    2.苏州大学 苏州医学院 护理学院,江苏 苏州 215006
  • 收稿日期:2023-01-13 出版日期:2023-05-25 发布日期:2023-06-08
  • 通讯作者: 赵鑫（1981-）,女,江苏徐州人,硕士,博士研究生在读,副主任护师,硕士研究生导师。E-mail：mumu011120@163.com
  • 作者简介:李彩英（1997-）,女,广西来宾人,本科学历,硕士研究生在读,护士。
  • 基金资助:
    2020年度江苏高校自然科学研究面上项目（20KJD320009）

Consistency of common temperature measurement methods and its enlightenment to teaching of Fundamental Nursing

LI Cai-ying1a, SU Yu-fang1b, JIN Mu2, ZHAO Xue-ping2, ZHAO Xin1a   

  1. 1a. Dept. of Nursing Administration, 1b. Dept. of Orthopaedics, the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou 215006, China;
    2. Suzhou Medical College of Soochow University, Suzhou 215006, China
  • Received:2023-01-13 Online:2023-05-25 Published:2023-06-08

PDF (PC)

425

赞

摘要： 目的 比较耳温枪、非接触式红外测温仪所测温度与水银体温计所测口温之间的差异与一致性,寻找可替代水银体温计的测温方法。方法 便利选取2021年3—5月骨科住院患者720例。采用自身同期对照设计,用耳温枪测量鼓膜温度,非接触式红外温度仪测量前额、耳后和内关温度,同时以水银体温计测量口腔温度作为标准参照,使用配对t检验和Bland-Altman分析方法比较这4种测温方式所测温度与口温之间的差异和一致性。结果 4种测温方式中,仅耳后温与口温差异有统计学意义（P<0.001）;鼓膜温与口温95%一致性界限范围最窄,为（-0.605,0.601）,95%一致性界限外数据点占比3.06%,均优于其他测温方式所测温度。结论 耳温枪所测鼓膜温与水银体温计所测口温的一致性相对较好,在水银体温计停产后,可以优先选择耳温枪替代水银体温计测量患者体温。

关键词: 体温, 口温, 鼓膜温, 耳温枪, 水银体温计, Bland-Altman

Abstract: Objective To compare the difference and consistency between the temperature measured by ear thermometer, non-contact infrared thermometer and oral temperature measured by mercury thermometer, and to find a temperature measurement method to replace mercury thermometer. Methods A total of 720 orthopedic inpatients from March to May 2021 were selected by convenience sampling. Tympanic temperature was measured with an ear thermometer. Forehead, behind the ear and Neiguan temperature were measured with a non-contact infrared thermometer, and oral temperature was measured with a mercury thermometer as standard reference. Paired t test and Bland-Altman analysis were used to compare the differences and consistency between the temperature measured by these four temperature measurement methods and oral temperature. Results Among the four temperature measurement methods, only the difference between retroauricular temperature and oral temperature was statistically significant (P<0.001). The 95% limit of agreement between tympanic temperature and oral temperature was the narrowest (-0.605, 0.601), and the data points outside the 95% consistency limit accounted for 3.06%, which were better than those measured by other temperature measurement methods. Conclusion The consistency between tympanic temperature measured by ear thermometer and oral temperature measured by mercury thermometer is relatively good. Mercury thermometer can be replaced by ear thermometer after it is discontinued.

Key words: body temperature, mouth temperature, tympanic membrane temperature, ear thermometer, mercury thermometer, Bland-Altman

中图分类号: 

  • R47
[1] 国家药品监督管理局. 国家药监局综合司关于履行《关于汞的水俣公约》有关事项的通知[EB/OL].(2020-10-16)[2023-03-10]https://www.nmpa.gov.cn/xxgk/fgwj/gzwj/gzwjylqx/20201016150908105.html.
[2] 管燕璐,杨丹丹,张薇,等. 新型冠状病毒肺炎疫情期间Ⅰ期临床试验病房及受试者管理[J]. 护理学报, 2021, 28(15):60-62. DOI:10.16460/j.issn1008-9969.2021.15.060.
[3] 力敏,赖钦涛,冷芬,等. 新型冠状病毒肺炎重点疫区人员航空转运中感染防控策略[J]. 护理学报, 2020, 27(14): 59-62. DOI:10.16460/j.issn1008-9969.2020.14.059.
[4] 李小寒,尚少梅. 基础护理学[M]. 7版.北京:人民卫生出版社,2022:211-214.
[5] Kameda N.Clinical accuracy of non-contact forehead infrared thermometer and infrared tympanic thermometer in postoperative adult patients: a comparative study[J]. J Perioper Prac, 2022, 32(6):142-148.DOI:10.1177/17504589211022314.
[6] Dante A, Franconi I, Marucci AR, et al.Evaluating the interchangeability of forehead, tympanic, and axillary thermometers in italian paediatric clinical settings: results of a multicentre observational study[J]. J Pediatr Nurs,2020,52:e21-e25.DOI:10.1016/j.pedn.2019.11.014.
[7] Dante A, Gaxhja E, Masotta V, et al.Evaluating the interchangeability of infrared and digital devices with the traditional mercury thermometer in hospitalized pediatric patients: an observational study[J]. Sci Rep, 2021, 11(1). DOI:10.1038/s41598-021-96587-y.
[8] 李镒冲,李晓松. 两种测量方法定量测量结果的一致性评价[J]. 现代预防医学, 2007(17): 3263-3266.
[9] Altman DG, Bland JM.Measurement in medicine: the analysis of method comparison studies[J]. J R Stat Soc Series D (Statist),1983,32(3):307-317.DOI:10.2307/2987937.
[10] Zaki R,Bulgiba A,Ismail R,et al.Statistical methods used to test for agreement of medical instruments measuring continuous variables in method comparison studies: a systematic review[J]. PLoS One, 2012,7(5): e37908. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0037908.
[11] Bland JM, Altman DG.Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement[J]. Lancet,1986,1(8476):307-310. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8.
[12] 钟伟华. Bland-Altman方法一致性评价报告规范研究[D]. 广州:南方医科大学, 2017.
[13] 刁玲玲,赵晓玲,张婷婷,等. 三种体温测量方法的一致性评价[J]. 护理学杂志, 2018, 33(11):49-51.
[14] Basak T, Aciksoz S,Tosun B,et al. Comparison of three different thermometers in evaluating the body temperature of healthy young adult individuals[J]. Int J Nurs Pract, 2013: n/a-n/a. DOI: 10.1111/ijn.12097.
[15] Deborah Gates V H. Temperature Measurements: Comparison of Different Thermometer Types for Patients With Cancer[J]. Clin J Oncol Nurs, 2018. DOI:10.1188/18.CJON.611-617.
[16] Aadal L, Fog L, Pedersen A R.Tympanic ear thermometer assessment of body temperature among patients with cognitive disturbances. An acceptable and ethically desirable alternative?[J]. Scand J Caring Sci, 2016, 30(4):766-773. DOI:10.1111/scs.12303.
[17] 钱宇,王艳,黎萌,等. 非侵入式体温测量设备在临床体温测量准确度研究[J]. 生物医学工程与临床, 2022:1-8. DOI:10.13339/j.cnki.sglc.20220421.005.
[1] 许芳, 姚志清, 韩伟, 韩生伟. 口腔癌根治术患者术中低体温风险预测模型的构建及验证[J]. 护理学报, 2022, 29(7): 1-6.
[2] 周毅峰, 杨继平, 彭瑶丽, 袁浩, 石泽亚. 体外循环心脏手术中体温管理循证实践[J]. 护理学报, 2022, 29(3): 40-45.
[3] 陈鑫, 傅双, 庄珊珊, 芮琳. 手术患者术中测温方式的最佳证据总结[J]. 护理学报, 2022, 29(2): 40-44.
[4] 邹丽, 郑雅宁, 房媛媛, 杨燕. 常态化新型冠状病毒肺炎疫情防控下医用新生儿防护仓的设计[J]. 护理学报, 2021, 28(6): 54-55.
[5] 严露培, 姚丽丽, 李跃荣, 陈豪, 刘文文, 赵庆华, 肖明朝. 手术患者非计划性术中低体温风险预测模型研究进展[J]. 护理学报, 2021, 28(6): 13-16.
[6] 周毅峰, 杨继平, 袁浩, 吴娟. 体外循环心脏手术中体温管理证据汇总[J]. 护理学报, 2021, 28(5): 26-31.
[7] 赵振华, 邢星敏, 冯波, 俞琳, 沈萍, 董大伟, 仇丽华. 成人危重患者低体温复温管理的证据总结[J]. 护理学报, 2021, 28(19): 39-43.
[8] 张曼曼, 段红香, 周晓阳, 邹振亚, 茅金宝. 降低神经外科全麻手术患者术中低体温发生率的PDCA实践[J]. 护理学报, 2021, 28(12): 10-15.
[9] 章明阳, 杜李百合, 罗小平, 章文军, 梁爱群, 常后婵. 术前患者预保温的最佳证据总结[J]. 护理学报, 2020, 27(6): 17-22.
[10] 黄培培, 史平, 米元元, 张琼, 吴白女, 杨喜群, 鲍映雪, 陈肖敏. 肝肿瘤患者术中非计划性低体温的循证护理实践[J]. 护理学报, 2019, 26(5): 30-34.
[11] 黄培培, 米元元, 吴白女, 陈肖敏, 周明, 鲍映雪, 张琼, 杨喜群, 史平. 肿瘤患者术中非计划性低体温预防及管理的证据总结[J]. 护理学报, 2018, 25(21): 33-39.
[12] 刘瑞红,朱松,万晶晶,刘映红. 加温输液对预防产妇剖宫产术后低体温和寒颤有效性的Meta分析[J]. 护理学报, 2018, 25(2): 41-47.
[13] 熊璨,高兴莲,向御婷,赵诗雨. 成人手术患者术中低体温影响因素的Meta分析[J]. 护理学报, 2018, 25(2): 48-53.
[14] 韩通, 王英丽, 徐梅. 181家手术室主动体温保护的现状调查[J]. 护理学报, 2018, 25(19): 48-50.
[15] 涂加园,李琳,刘云,孙琳,聂时南,韩小琴,赵泽华. 创伤后患者低体温的评估工具及影响因素研究进展[J]. 护理学报, 2018, 25(13): 37-41.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
[1] 何佳琪, 郝习君, 陈长香. 854名随迁老人社会融入困境及其影响因素分析[J]. 护理学报, 2023, 30(9): 1 -6 .
[2] 周梦娟, 朱晓丽, 张态, 段剑锋, 罗宇梅, 马维莉, 陆涵, 史婷婷, 杨怡霖, 李婷, 查耀蕾, 赵媛. 急性胰腺炎非重症患者住院时间延长预测模型的构建及验证[J]. 护理学报, 2023, 30(9): 7 -12 .
[3] 吕璐洋, 王华芬, 卢芳燕, 王燕, 蒋树英. 肝移植患儿家庭照顾者出院准备体验的质性研究[J]. 护理学报, 2023, 30(9): 13 -17 .
[4] 尚彬, 罗彩凤, 吕妃, 徐剑鸥, 吴静, 张许婷, 吴贤群. 护理人员资质过剩感潜在类别分析及其与离职意愿的关系[J]. 护理学报, 2023, 30(9): 18 -24 .
[5] 张楠, 马丽, 刘光英, 周学通, 安晓华, 滕敏. 缩短达芬奇机器人接台手术术前准备时间的PDCA实践[J]. 护理学报, 2023, 30(9): 25 -29 .
[6] 杨晓燕, 王静, 杨亚平. 教育游戏软件在护理教学中应用研究进展[J]. 护理学报, 2023, 30(9): 30 -32 .
[7] 吴娟, 柏晓玲, 杨曾桢, 李慧, 樊雅. 虚拟模拟训练脚本设计在护理教学中应用的研究进展[J]. 护理学报, 2023, 30(9): 33 -36 .
[8] 杨琰, 董泗芹, 赵宝生, 李振香. 早中期帕金森病患者运动管理的最佳证据总结[J]. 护理学报, 2023, 30(9): 37 -42 .
[9] 周祎敏, 姚宇哲, 叶旭春. 社区老年人对照护机器人感知与期望的Meta整合[J]. 护理学报, 2023, 30(9): 43 -48 .
[10] 庞田英, 曾芳芳, 江小兰, 高茹, 谢林艳, 刘维, 鲁娟, 杨华. 喉切除术后吞咽功能评估与康复训练的循证护理实践[J]. 护理学报, 2023, 30(9): 49 -54 .