Is the content of textbooks on the evaluation of a patient in respiratory distress adequate?

BACKGROUND

The ability to rapidly and precisely evaluate patients in respiratory distress is essential. Due to limited opportunities for formal instruction during training, textbooks are the main educational source to teach junior physicians how to interpret the signs of respiratory distress. The quality of the textbook content relevant to respiratory distress is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the content on the evaluation of a patient in respiratory distress in a representative sample of textbooks and Internet resources.

METHODS

Two physicians individually reviewed the most recent edition of 21 standard textbooks from a variety of specialties. Smartphone applications, UptoDate, and MD Consult were examined. Each physician reviewed the source for 14 different signs. For each sign, the reviewers determined 3 parameters: a mention of the sign, its pathophysiology, and its detection. The reviews were compared for discrepancies, and a third reviewer resolved them.

RESULTS

The normal respiratory rate was mentioned in 10 (48%) of textbooks, and ranged between 10 and 22 breaths/min. Each sign was mentioned by a mean of 45 ± 26% of the textbooks. The pathophysiology of the signs was described by a mean of 33 ± 30% of the textbooks. The most and least commonly mentioned inspection signs were cyanosis and retraction of suprasternal notch, respectively. They were mentioned in 20 (95%) and 4 (19%) textbooks, respectively. The most and least commonly mentioned palpation signs were thoracoabdominal asynchrony or paradox and tracheal tug, respectively. They were mentioned in 17 (81%) and 4 (19%) textbooks, and their pathophysiology was described in 15 (71%) and 4 (19%) textbooks, respectively. The reviewers also found inconsistency in the descriptions of the meaning of scalene muscle contraction and thoracoabdominal asynchrony and paradox.

CONCLUSIONS

The content of the reviewed textbooks on the evaluation of respiratory distress is inconsistent and deficient.