Title
Birmingham assessment of breathing study (BABS) Birmingham assessment of breathing study (BABS)
Author
Faculty/Department
Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences
Publication type
article
Publication
Limerick ,
Subject
Human medicine
Source (journal)
Resuscitation. - Limerick, 1972, currens
Volume/pages
64(2005) :1 , p. 109-113
ISSN
0300-9572
1873-1570
ISI
000226569800017
Carrier
E
Target language
English (eng)
Full text (Publishers DOI)
Abstract
Background: Current international resuscitation guidelines for lay people rely on the assessment of normal breathing as a key sign of breathing and circulation. However, it is not known how accurately laypersons can discriminate between normal and abnormal breathing. The aim of this study was to test the ability of medical students to discriminate between simulated normal and abnormal breathing patterns and select the correct treatment. Methods: Six video clips of simulated breathing were recorded showing: normal; abnormal -shallow, rapid, agonal (obstructed and unobstructed airways); or absent breathing. The clips were validated by three experienced emergency practitioners and then shown in a random order to 48 second-year medical students. For each clip observers were asked to indicate: Is this patient breathing? (yes-normal, yes-abnormal, no) and What action would you take? (rescue breathing or recovery position). Results: All experts correctly identified the breathing type and agreed on an appropriate emergency action. Students identified normal breathing as: normal 61%, abnormal 33% and absent 6%; abnormal breathing as: normal 29%, abnormal 61%, absent 10%; and absent breathing as: normal 8%, abnormal 6%, absent 85%. Correct actions were selected in 86% during normal breathing, 51% during abnormal breathing and 86% during absent breathing. The sensitivity for observers correctly identifying normal from abnormal breathing was 60% and specificity 75% and for selecting the correct action was 42% and 80%, respectively. Conclusions: Medical students were unable to identify normal breathing from abnormal breathing reliably resulting in a high number of inappropriate, potentially harmful actions. Further evaluation of the optimal method for assessing for signs of breathing and circulation is required.
E-info
https://repository.uantwerpen.be/docman/iruaauth/4866a7/15e986807b9.pdf
http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000226569800017&DestLinkType=RelatedRecords&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=ef845e08c439e550330acc77c7d2d848
http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000226569800017&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=ef845e08c439e550330acc77c7d2d848
http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000226569800017&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=ef845e08c439e550330acc77c7d2d848