Published
We were taught to take respirations while you are pretending to take the pulse because then the patient won't start breathing all weird because they know you are watching. AFTER you get it then you listen to the lungs for the abnormalities, but this is just what we were taught. It's more accurate in my opinion.
I would say that it can be done that way, but probably not as accurate. In general, the first thin people do when the stethascope hits their skin is start breathing deep. I have a really hard time counting and timing the respirations. I find myself focusing on the watch or clock, and losing count.
If all you wanted was an accurate number as opposed to a "breathing naturally" number, auscultating would probably be more accurate since you can hear the breaths as opposed to say, a shallow breather with lots of fabric folds, etc. impeding your view of the chest rising and falling, but NOBODY breathes naturally with a stethoscope on their chest!!
They even anticipate the whole "take a deep breath" thing before you ask 'cause they've been through it 85 thousand times, lol
EricJRN's tip is really a good one.
monahanrb
2 Posts
Today during clinical's one of my fellow students told me she obtains respiration values by auscultating the lungs since she is often unsuccessful obtaining values via the more conventional method, (pretend we are taking the pts pulse, etc). Is anyone familiar with that method, and does anyone know how accurate those values are in comparison to the more conventional method?