IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0152601.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Prevalence and Predictive Value of Dyspnea Ratings in Hospitalized Patients: Pilot Studies

Author

Listed:
  • Jennifer P Stevens
  • Kathy Baker
  • Michael D Howell
  • Robert B Banzett

Abstract

Background: Dyspnea (breathing discomfort) can be as powerfully aversive as pain, yet is not routinely assessed and documented in the clinical environment. Routine identification and documentation of dyspnea is the first step to improved symptom management and it may also identify patients at risk of negative clinical outcomes. Objective: To estimate the prevalence of dyspnea and of dyspnea-associated risk among hospitalized patients. Design: Two pilot prospective cohort studies. Setting: Single academic medical center. Patients: Consecutive patients admitted to four inpatient units: cardiology, hematology/oncology, medicine, and bariatric surgery. Measurements: In Study 1, nurses documented current and recent patient-reported dyspnea at the time of the Initial Patient Assessment in 581 inpatients. In Study 2, nurses documented current dyspnea at least once every nursing shift in 367 patients. We describe the prevalence of burdensome dyspnea, and compare it to pain. We also compared dyspnea ratings with a composite of adverse outcomes: 1) receipt of care from the hospital’s rapid response system, 2) transfer to the intensive care unit, or 3) death in hospital. We defined burdensome dyspnea as a rating of 4 or more on a 10-point scale. Results: Prevalence of burdensome current dyspnea upon admission (Study 1) was 13% (77 of 581, 95% CI 11%-16%). Prevalence of burdensome dyspnea at some time during the hospitalization (Study 2) was 16% (57 of 367, 95% CI 12%-20%). Dyspnea was associated with higher odds of a negative outcome. Conclusions: In two pilot studies, we identified a significant symptom burden of dyspnea in hospitalized patients. Patients reporting dyspnea may benefit from a more careful focus on symptom management and may represent a population at greater risk for negative outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Jennifer P Stevens & Kathy Baker & Michael D Howell & Robert B Banzett, 2016. "Prevalence and Predictive Value of Dyspnea Ratings in Hospitalized Patients: Pilot Studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-11, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0152601
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0152601
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0152601
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0152601&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0152601?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0152601. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.