Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
TERMINATED
22 participants
OBSERVATIONAL
2022-04-01
2024-01-03
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Methods: This is a prospective study to evaluate the agreement between dyspnea assessment by a patient and respiratory therapist, nurses, and physicians. The primary aim of this study will be to evaluate clinician ability to assess a patients dyspnea level. The secondary aim of this study is to identify patient characteristics that might influence clinician ability to assess dyspnea.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
An Educational Intervention to Improve Disease Management Knowledge of Hospitalized Patients With COPD
NCT03323190
Establishing Clinical Utility for a New Diagnostic Test for Patients With Shortness of Breath
NCT04693793
Feasibility Study of a Non-invasive Device to Quickly, Easily and Accurately Measure Respiration in a Clinical Setting
NCT04182711
Dyspnea Neuroscience Education on Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
NCT04987125
The Impact of Pulmonary Rehabilitation on Dyspnea in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
NCT01513616
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Various efforts have been made to understand how well physicians and nurses assess the dyspnea status of patients. In 2017, Binks et al assessed physicians, nurses, and respiratory therapists on their ability to rate dyspnea in patients requiring mechanical ventilation. The study found that those patients experienced dyspnea and at a significantly higher prevalence than any professional had rated. There was also positive correlation between the amount of discomfort and the degree of underestimation, thus undertreatment which can lead to patient suffering. In a prospective observational study conducted by Puntillo et al, 171 patients considered high risk of dying were assessed for symptoms experienced while in the intensive care unit (ICU). In that study, they found that a significant number of patients had unaddressed symptoms that contributed to unnecessary suffering. Dyspnea was found to be the most distressing symptom that patients experienced. Interestingly, dyspnea was noted in patients that required mechanical ventilation and those that did not.
Stefan et al conducted a study to evaluate the agreement of dyspnea in spontaneously breathing patients with that of the physicians or nurses' assessment. The researchers found that physicians underestimated patients' dyspnea 37.9 % of the time and overestimated 25.8% while nurses underestimated 43.5% and overestimated 12.4%. This is worrisome considering the number of patients that suffer from dyspnea.
Several studies have shown that clinicians responsible for respiratory assessments, like physicians and nurses, often inaccurately assess breathing discomfort. Since respiratory therapists care for many patients at risk for dyspnea, an evaluation of their abilities to assess it should be made. Findings from a study involving respiratory therapists, along with findings from other medical professionals, will provide valuable information for future efforts to better train clinicians on how to best assess dyspnea. The primary aim of this study will be to evaluate clinician (respiratory therapist, nurse, and physician) ability to assess patient dyspnea level. The secondary aims of this study are to identify patient characteristics that might influence clinician ability to assess dyspnea.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
COHORT
PROSPECTIVE
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Admitted to RUMC
* Non-intubated,
* Admitted with a diagnosis of heart failure (HF), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma, pneumonia, a generic diagnosis of shortness of breath, or requiring supplemental oxygen support.
Exclusion Criteria
* Non-English-speaking,
* Subjects unable to answer questions about dyspnea for any reason.
18 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Rush University Medical Center
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Brady Scott
Associate Professor
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Rush University Medical Center
Chicago, Illinois, United States
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
22020104-IRB01
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.