At 14:29 19/12/98 , you wrote:
>
>But how many of you who are in favour of these machines are happy about
>their accuracy?
>
>I too felt the flush of technological wizardry when I got mine. However,
>I have only once recorded the same temperature in each ear.(was just
>checking the thermometer, not looking for unilateral hyperthermia!)
>
>Go on, try it...I would love to know...is it just me?Now if the machine
>can show a difference of 0.6 degrees, is it really any use?
>
>I take the point about taking the temperature as a way of showing you
>are 'being thorough'. However, I have found putting the back of my hand
>on the patient's forehead, then on the (upper) chest, with a suitably
>thoughtful look on my face,followed by a definitive pronouncement like
>'well there's no/not much of a/a high (delete as applicable) temperature'
>is actually just as fast and effective as the Thermoscan...and a bloody
>sight cheaper.
>
>Cheerio,
>
>Graham
Recent article suggested hand measurement sensitive but not specific. If
you don't think they've got a fever and Mo doesn't think they've got a
fever in all likelihood - they ain't got a fever.
If the differential is between different infections, e.g. Appx. and gastro-
enteritis how does it help? If they've got a fever with a sore throat, so
what? I've never believed that normal instantaneous temps can really exclude
anything as fevers can "swing".
Can't remember the last time I took a temperature, but agree that it's a
useful technique for generating some quiet thinking time.
Can anyone offer specific examples of situations where taking a temp. is
clinically useful?
Virtual fiver for the best answer??
Julian
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|