Published
I think that is rediculous. Vital signs are a group of information to indicate how stable someone is. You can be stable and also have diabetes. Its a very important piece of health history, but shouldn't be included as a vital sign. Why not add heart disease and cancer as the 7th and 8th vital sign. And then why not add more and more. If you want to say blood sugar should be the 6th vital sign, why not potassium, magesium, calcium levels as well? You can't just keep adding and adding things like this.
Diabetes is a serious health issue and needs to be addressed, patients need to be properly educated about this disease. In the facility I work in diabetes and hypertension are neck in neck as diagnosis. We check blood pressures as a vital sign, now blood sugars are quite often too. Usually at least 50% of my patients have diabetes or are on respiratory steroids so blood sugars have become a vital sign.
Blood sugar is definitely something you want to stay on top of. However, if you follow this line of logic, nearly any measured value could be considered a vital sign for a particular patient. WBC? ABG? At what point is it too much?
IMHO, true vital signs help describe the condition of any patient, regardless of illness - not just those with DM.
RNLULULABAMBA
24 Posts
Hi nurses,
I went to a med/surg review class last week and I learnt that DM is the #6 V/S. Has anyone ever heard of this before.