Cargando…

Influence of observer preferences and auscultatory skill on the choice of terms to describe lung sounds: a survey of staff physicians, residents and medical students

BACKGROUND: In contrast with the technical progress of the stethoscope, lung sound terminology has remained confused, weakening the usefulness of auscultation. We examined how observer preferences regarding terminology and auscultatory skill influenced the choice of terms used to describe lung sound...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bohadana, Abraham, Azulai, Hava, Jarjoui, Amir, Kalak, George, Izbicki, Gabriel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7173982/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32220901
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2020-000564
_version_ 1783524547222306816
author Bohadana, Abraham
Azulai, Hava
Jarjoui, Amir
Kalak, George
Izbicki, Gabriel
author_facet Bohadana, Abraham
Azulai, Hava
Jarjoui, Amir
Kalak, George
Izbicki, Gabriel
author_sort Bohadana, Abraham
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In contrast with the technical progress of the stethoscope, lung sound terminology has remained confused, weakening the usefulness of auscultation. We examined how observer preferences regarding terminology and auscultatory skill influenced the choice of terms used to describe lung sounds. METHODS: Thirty-one staff physicians (SP), 65 residents (R) and 47 medical students (MS) spontaneously described the audio recordings of 5 lung sounds classified acoustically as: (1) normal breath sound; (2) wheezes; (3) crackles; (4) stridor and (5) pleural friction rub. A rating was considered correct if a correct term or synonym was used to describe it (term use ascribed to preference). The use of any incorrect terms was ascribed to deficient auscultatory skill. RESULTS: Rates of correct sound identification were: (i) normal breath sound: SP=21.4%; R=11.6%; MS=17.1%; (ii) wheezes: SP=82.8%; R=85.2%; MS=86.4%; (iii) crackles: SP=63%; R=68.5%; MS=70.7%; (iv) stridor: SP=92.8%; R=90%; MS=72.1% and (v) pleural friction rub: SP=35.7%; R=6.2%; MS=3.2%. The 3 groups used 66 descriptive terms: 17 were ascribed to preferences regarding terminology, and 49 to deficient auscultatory skill. Three-group agreement on use of a term occurred on 107 occasions: 70 involved correct terms (65.4%) and 37 (34.6%) incorrect ones. Rate of use of recommended terms, rather than accepted synonyms, was 100% for the wheezes and the stridor, 55% for the normal breath sound, 22% for the crackles and 14% for the pleural friction rub. CONCLUSIONS: The observers’ ability to describe lung sounds was high for the wheezes and the stridor, fair for the crackles and poor for the normal breath sound and the pleural friction rub. Lack of auscultatory skill largely surpassed observer preference as a factor determining the choice of terminology. Wide dissemination of educational programs on lung auscultation (eg, self-learning via computer-assisted learning tools) is urgently needed to promote use of standardised lung sound terminology.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7173982
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-71739822020-04-27 Influence of observer preferences and auscultatory skill on the choice of terms to describe lung sounds: a survey of staff physicians, residents and medical students Bohadana, Abraham Azulai, Hava Jarjoui, Amir Kalak, George Izbicki, Gabriel BMJ Open Respir Res Respiratory Physiology BACKGROUND: In contrast with the technical progress of the stethoscope, lung sound terminology has remained confused, weakening the usefulness of auscultation. We examined how observer preferences regarding terminology and auscultatory skill influenced the choice of terms used to describe lung sounds. METHODS: Thirty-one staff physicians (SP), 65 residents (R) and 47 medical students (MS) spontaneously described the audio recordings of 5 lung sounds classified acoustically as: (1) normal breath sound; (2) wheezes; (3) crackles; (4) stridor and (5) pleural friction rub. A rating was considered correct if a correct term or synonym was used to describe it (term use ascribed to preference). The use of any incorrect terms was ascribed to deficient auscultatory skill. RESULTS: Rates of correct sound identification were: (i) normal breath sound: SP=21.4%; R=11.6%; MS=17.1%; (ii) wheezes: SP=82.8%; R=85.2%; MS=86.4%; (iii) crackles: SP=63%; R=68.5%; MS=70.7%; (iv) stridor: SP=92.8%; R=90%; MS=72.1% and (v) pleural friction rub: SP=35.7%; R=6.2%; MS=3.2%. The 3 groups used 66 descriptive terms: 17 were ascribed to preferences regarding terminology, and 49 to deficient auscultatory skill. Three-group agreement on use of a term occurred on 107 occasions: 70 involved correct terms (65.4%) and 37 (34.6%) incorrect ones. Rate of use of recommended terms, rather than accepted synonyms, was 100% for the wheezes and the stridor, 55% for the normal breath sound, 22% for the crackles and 14% for the pleural friction rub. CONCLUSIONS: The observers’ ability to describe lung sounds was high for the wheezes and the stridor, fair for the crackles and poor for the normal breath sound and the pleural friction rub. Lack of auscultatory skill largely surpassed observer preference as a factor determining the choice of terminology. Wide dissemination of educational programs on lung auscultation (eg, self-learning via computer-assisted learning tools) is urgently needed to promote use of standardised lung sound terminology. BMJ Publishing Group 2020-03-26 /pmc/articles/PMC7173982/ /pubmed/32220901 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2020-000564 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Respiratory Physiology
Bohadana, Abraham
Azulai, Hava
Jarjoui, Amir
Kalak, George
Izbicki, Gabriel
Influence of observer preferences and auscultatory skill on the choice of terms to describe lung sounds: a survey of staff physicians, residents and medical students
title Influence of observer preferences and auscultatory skill on the choice of terms to describe lung sounds: a survey of staff physicians, residents and medical students
title_full Influence of observer preferences and auscultatory skill on the choice of terms to describe lung sounds: a survey of staff physicians, residents and medical students
title_fullStr Influence of observer preferences and auscultatory skill on the choice of terms to describe lung sounds: a survey of staff physicians, residents and medical students
title_full_unstemmed Influence of observer preferences and auscultatory skill on the choice of terms to describe lung sounds: a survey of staff physicians, residents and medical students
title_short Influence of observer preferences and auscultatory skill on the choice of terms to describe lung sounds: a survey of staff physicians, residents and medical students
title_sort influence of observer preferences and auscultatory skill on the choice of terms to describe lung sounds: a survey of staff physicians, residents and medical students
topic Respiratory Physiology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7173982/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32220901
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2020-000564
work_keys_str_mv AT bohadanaabraham influenceofobserverpreferencesandauscultatoryskillonthechoiceoftermstodescribelungsoundsasurveyofstaffphysiciansresidentsandmedicalstudents
AT azulaihava influenceofobserverpreferencesandauscultatoryskillonthechoiceoftermstodescribelungsoundsasurveyofstaffphysiciansresidentsandmedicalstudents
AT jarjouiamir influenceofobserverpreferencesandauscultatoryskillonthechoiceoftermstodescribelungsoundsasurveyofstaffphysiciansresidentsandmedicalstudents
AT kalakgeorge influenceofobserverpreferencesandauscultatoryskillonthechoiceoftermstodescribelungsoundsasurveyofstaffphysiciansresidentsandmedicalstudents
AT izbickigabriel influenceofobserverpreferencesandauscultatoryskillonthechoiceoftermstodescribelungsoundsasurveyofstaffphysiciansresidentsandmedicalstudents