false
OasisLMS
Catalog
SCCM Resource Library
Con: We Don't Need Monitors: Physical Examination ...
Con: We Don't Need Monitors: Physical Examination and Some Blood Tests Are All You Need
Back to course
[Please upgrade your browser to play this video content]
Video Transcription
Video Summary
In this video transcript, the speaker presents arguments for the use of physical examination in assessing patients with circulatory failure. They highlight that physical examination is readily available, accessible, and safe. While reliability of examination findings can vary, there is evidence to suggest that certain findings, such as peripheral temperature, capillary refill time, and mottling, can correlate with important outcomes like organ failure and mortality. However, there is a lack of high-quality studies demonstrating that physical examination improves patient outcomes. The speaker also discusses the Andromeda shock trial, which compared the use of capillary refill time and lactate clearance as resuscitation targets in septic shock patients, but found no significant difference in mortality. They conclude that physical examination, coupled with some blood tests, should be the starting point for assessing patients, but the choice of monitoring tools should be determined based on availability, expertise, and patient characteristics.
Asset Subtitle
Quality and Patient Safety, Procedures, 2023
Asset Caption
Type: one-hour concurrent | Pro/Con: Do We Really Need Monitors for Shock? (SessionID 1119341)
Meta Tag
Content Type
Presentation
Knowledge Area
Quality and Patient Safety
Knowledge Area
Procedures
Membership Level
Professional
Membership Level
Select
Tag
Healthcare Delivery
Tag
Monitoring
Year
2023
Keywords
physical examination
circulatory failure
accessible
safe
reliability
mortality
×
Please select your language
1
English