Body temperature is a vital sign considered during the routine physical assessment as well as in patients with a sickness. While all forms of measuring temperature seek to display an estimated patient’s internal body temperature, oral thermometry is commonly utilized. However, it is time-consuming and not recommended for infants and young children. Fevers highlight not only the presence of severe health alterations but also an elevated body temperature is a physiologic response towards defending the body against inflammatory stimuli. On the one hand, accurate temperature assessment in nursing practice is a vital process towards diagnosing, treating, and monitoring diseases. On the other hand, inaccurate thermometry may lead to false-positive fever detections and, in turn, consumes vast resources utilized in unnecessary diagnostics work-ups amid medical treatments. There is no official standardized clinical report that identifies thermometry measurement as a technique that meets all practice needs in times of age and setting variations. This study provides evidence to support the use of thermometers as a type of clinical system to improve outcomes and efficiencies in patients through synthesizing peer-reviewed articles.
Ryan-Wenger et al. (2018) compile quantitative research using a meta-analysis of relevant articles. Termed as “ Selection of the most accurate thermometer devices for clinical practice: Part 1: Meta-analysis of the accuracy of non-core thermometer devices compared to core body temperature,” the study sought to estimate the accuracies of thermometer devices commonly employed in clinics and hospitals. The peer-reviewed articles met the following criteria; that they compared core body temperatures from non-core using thermometer devices in adults and infants [one-month]. The researchers deduced that electronic rectal thermometer, as well as oral, were the most likely devices embraced in the clinical practice since they are safe.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Fitzwater et al. (2019) document a quantitative study that utilized a comparison between several pieces of literature. The study “ A Comparison of Oral, Axillary, and Temporal Artery Temperature Measuring Devices in Adult Acute Care” sought to depict the degree of understanding concerning oral, electronic reference and temporal artery thermometer, a non-expendable axillary and oral, electronic thermometer estimations and an expendable advanced thermometer for oral and axillary evaluations. Evaluation and checking of internal heat level are fundamental segments of nursing practice. Noninvasive temperatures (e.g., oral course) are utilized frequently in the intense consideration setting. Interchange noninvasive estimations have not been concentrated enough in the grown-up acute consideration setting. The authors concluded that utilization of a temporal artery thermometer, axillary courses, and an advanced thermometer might be worthy options in contrast to an electronic, oral thermometer for normothermic grown-ups. However, patient temperatures were inside a moderately restricted normothermic run and may restrain the materialness for use in patients with temperatures outside the ordinary range
As well, Sims et al. (2018) conducted a systematic quantitative review of literature through evidence-based practice (EBP) project to determine the most accurate temperature-taking routes and evaluation procedures to set as the standard for a hospital setting. The study “Selection of the Most Accurate Thermometer Devices for Clinical Practice: Part 2: Nursing Practice and Policy Change in the Use of Non-Core Thermometer Devices” was guided as per the PICO question. The question states that given the variety of thermometer devices in our pediatric ambulatory and hospital settings (I), which non-core temperature routes and devices (C), compared to core body temperature (O), have the most excellent measurement precision and accuracy Sims et al. (2018). The authors’ finding states that oral and rectal electronic thermometers present the most likable and accurate approximation of core body temperatures.
Furthermore, Fogt et al. (2017) document research on “Noninvasive Measures of Core Temperature versus Ingestible Thermistor during Exercise in the Heat.” Through cross-validating using Bland-Altman analysis, the quantitative study purposed to cross-validate four noninvasive Tc [two tympanic devices, oral and temporal] alternates to PBTc during intermittent exercise in a hot, humid environment. The authors find that of the two tympanic devices tested in the present study, T1 best-matched PBTc throughout the heat-stressed exercise challenge. The T2 measure was statistically more considerable than mean PBTc, which could initiate premature field-based heat illness preventative care. This research leverages athletes, sports medicine practitioners as well as coaches by providing them with information concerning monitoring of body temperature during humid conditions and physical activities in hot environments.
Finally, Gates et al. (2018) published quantitative research on “Temperature Measurements; Comparison of different thermometer types for patients with cancer.” The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of two alternatives, noninvasive thermometers (tympanic and temporal artery) by comparing them to an oral thermometer. This comparison study constituted data from the respondents based on three temperature measurements, which were further classified as dependent variables as per the differences in temperature between the test and oral thermometers. The authors concluded that neither of the thermostats precisely presented core-body temperatures, in particular, the febrile patients—both apparatuses [tympanic and temporal artery thermometers became less accurate as oral temperature continually increased.
Conclusion
Precise temperature estimation in patients with conditions is essential. The aftereffects of the present examinations recommend that oral thermometers ought to be utilized at whatever point conceivable inside a broad scope of settings and populaces and that care ought to be taken when deciphering temperatures from elective thermometers in febrile patients. The outcomes likewise feature that thermometer innovation has the opportunity to get better, leaving scarcely any accessible options in contrast to oral thermometry for oncology (and other exceptional populaces). Adjustments to the oral test or developments to diminish the chance of user error with tympanic thermometers may incredibly improve the exactness of temperature estimation later on.
Reference
Fitzwater, J., Johnstone, C., Schippers, M., Cordoza, M., & Norman, B. (2019). A Comparison of Oral, Axillary, and Temporal Artery Temperature Measuring Devices in Adult Acute Care. Medsurg Nursing , 28 (1), 35-41.
Fogt, D. L., Henning, A. L., VENABLE, A. S., & McFarlin, B. K. (2017). Noninvasive measures of core temperature versus ingestible thermistor during exercise in the heat. International journal of exercise science , 10 (2), 225.
Gates, D., Horner, V., Bradley, L., Sheperd, T. F., John, O., & Higgins, M. (2018). Temperature Measurements: Comparison of different thermometer types for patients with cancer. Clinical journal of oncology nursing , 22 (6).
Ryan-Wenger, N. A., Sims, M. A., Patton, R. A., & Williamson, J. (2018). Selection of the most accurate thermometer devices for clinical practice: Part 1: Meta-analysis of the accuracy of non-core thermometer devices compared to core body temperature. Pediatric Nursing , 44 (3), 116-133.
Sims, M. A., Patton, R. A., Williamson, J., & Ryan-Wenger, N. A. (2018). Selection of the most accurate thermometer devices for clinical practice: Part 2: Nursing practice and policy change in the use of non-core thermometer devices. Vol. 44/No. 3
