EKG/ECG deciphering for dummies

Nov 28, '03Look over in the CCU forum  I started a thread about this a while ago and I used as many different links as I could so that if people could not follow MY notes they could follow the links. Hmmm perhaps I should convert that thread into a sticky listing all the ECG websites??

Nov 28, '03What would be really cool is to have a "sticky" forum for websites, arranged by subject?

Nov 28, '03Give me some time I am working on it:chuckle So far I have written the Australasian sticky, started the UK sticky and am currently working on one for Rural nursing that will cover resources from around the world. I personally would love to see stickies for all forums and if anyone is interested in contributing once started please, please feel free.

Nov 28, '03No website but I used a book called, "Flip and See EKG." It was about 20.00 and was really good. I still don't know alot about them, because I don't work with them but it helped me through my classes.

Nov 28, '03i'v been a paramedic for 11 years and am an ACLS and 12 lead instructor. i'd be glad to help with ecg questions

Nov 29, '03If there's no p wave, there's an atrial problem.
Calculating rate is pretty cool. Count the little squares between any 2 p's or r's, then divide into 1500, and there you have it. Or count the number of beats in six seconds and multiply by tenbut the other way is more accurate (and way more fun if you are into that). 
Nov 29, '03another way to count the rate is by counting from pp intervals [atrial rate] and multiplying x 10 or from rr intervals [ventricular rate] and multiplying x 10.
you can try this link below:
http://wwwmedlib.med.utah.edu/kw/ec...on1/index.html 
Nov 29, '03I don't think it works if you count between the p to p or r to r and multiply by ten.
The rate would be higher the further apart those landmarks were, when in fact the further apart they are, the slower the rate.
For example, take two different strips. One has 10 little squares between the p's and one has 20. By your method, the first one would have a HR of 100 (when it is actually 150), and the second would have a rate of 200 (when it is actually 75).
Check it outyou'll see what I mean....
This is definitely the sort of thing to look up in a dependable source before applying the info on an exam (or a patient...) 
Nov 29, '03chris, i am in the learning stage and this was one way, not the best way, we were taught in class.
thanks for letting me know, i appreciate that. 
Nov 29, '03Heyrealized just now that you may have felt assaulted at my comment about checking out sources.....
That was not directed at you! That was because of exactly what you describethat's how you were taught in class.
I'm a student too and one of my frustrations was that our instructors made so many errors, and those were the ones I caught~
Being a student is an uneasy, insecure spot to be in, but so much more so when instructors mess up....
Thank youand please accept my apologies if I seemed out of lineit wasn't personal!

Nov 29, '03originally posted by chris_at_lucas
heyrealized just now that you may have felt assaulted at my comment about checking out sources.....
that was not directed at you! that was because of exactly what you describethat's how you were taught in class.
i'm a student too and one of my frustrations was that our instructors made so many errors, and those were the ones i caught~
being a student is an uneasy, insecure spot to be in, but so much more so when instructors mess up....
thank youand please accept my apologies if i seemed out of lineit wasn't personal!
i am glad to learn from nurses, nursing students and the like. :kiss 