This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on Web of Science (11)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Roger C. Bone, MD

JAMA. 1990;264(22):2933.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

There have been few, if any, studies to evaluate physician interpretation and application of pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) data. The information presented in the article by Iberti et al¹ in this issue of JAMA is important to both intensivists and to all practitioners whose patients undergo these procedures. The authors document that "physician understanding of the use of the PAC is extremely variable and frighteningly low." Mean scores on their multiple-choice examination designed to measure knowledge about the PAC varied independently by training, frequency of use of PAC data in patient management, frequency of inserting a PAC, and whether the respondent's hospital was a primary medical school affiliate. There was an increase in correct responses with increased training and frequency of PAC use, but 47% of respondents to the questionnaire were unable to determine pulmonary capillary wedge pressure from a clear tracing. Furthermore, 44% of respondents could not correctly identify . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
From the Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Pulmonary Medicine, Rush-Presbyterian—St Luke's Medical Center, Chicago, Ill.

Footnotes
Reprint requests to Section of Pulmonary Medicine, Rush-Presbyterian—St Luke's Medical Center, 1753 W Congress Pkwy, Chicago, IL 60612 (Dr Bone).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?