You are on page 1of 2

Usefulness of the modified 0-10 Borg scale in assessing the degree of dys...

http://www.jenonline.org/article/S0099-1767(00)90093-X/abstract

ENA

RSS Feeds Login Register

If you need assistance, please contact support by phone at +1 (877)839-7126.

Search for

in

Advanced Search

Previous

Journal of Emergency Nursing Volume 26, Issue 3 , Pages 216-222, June 2000

Next

Print or Share This Page


Access this article on

Usefulness of the modified 0-10 Borg scale in assessing the degree of dyspnea in patients with COPD and asthma
Karla R. Kendrick, RN, MSN, Sunita C. Baxi, MD, Robert M. Smith, MD San Diego, Calif Karla R. Kendrick, San Diego County Chapter, is Staff Nurse III and Quality Improvement Facilitator for the Emergency Department and Urgent Care Clinic, Veterans Administration San Diego HealthCare System, San Diego, Calif; E-mail: Karlak@ix.netcom.com. Sunita C. Baxi is a staff physician in the Section of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Veterans Administration San Diego HealthCare System, and Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine at UCSD, San Diego, Calif. Robert M. Smith is Associate Chief of Staff for Health Care Analysis at Veterans Administration San Diego HealthCare System and Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine at UCSD, San Diego, Calif

SciVerse ScienceDirect

Abstract

Full Text

PDF

Images

References

Abstract
Introduction: Rapid assessment and monitoring is essential for patients with acute bronchospasm. However, tools for measuring dyspnea or the state of being short of breath are often limited to peak flow, blood gas analysis, and asking patients multiple questions about their breathing at a time when they find speaking difficult. We thus decided to examine a tool called the modified Borg scale (MBS) that had the potential to provide quick, easy, and rapid information about a patients subjective state of dyspnea. This 0 to 10 rated scale gave our ED patients a device they could use to measure and evaluate their dyspnea. For this reason, we added it to the triage assessment practice and included it in all posttreatment assessment notes on patients with exacerbations of asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who were seen in the emergency department and urgent care clinic. Study Questions: (1) Can patients with acute bronchospastic asthma or COPD adequately communicate their level of dyspnea using the MBS? (2) Does subjective improvement in the patients dyspnea using the MBS correlate with improvements in pulmonary functions as measured by the peak flow meter and cutaneous oxygen saturation (SaO2)? Methods: Routine and triage assessment of subjective dyspnea using the MBS was instituted at a hospital emergency department serving adult veterans. Concurrently, the MBS was added to our standardized treatment protocol for management of patients with bronchospasm. ED and urgent care records were reviewed to collect baseline and postrespiratory treatment data on peak expiratory flow rates (PEFR), MBS scores, and SaO2 percentages. Results: Four hundred male veterans aged 24 to 87 years presented with a chief complaint of dyspnea. The assessing physician identified 102 of these patients as having acute bronchospasm; 42 were diagnosed with asthma, and 60 were diagnosed with COPD. All study patients with acute bronchospasm were able to use the MBS to rate their perception of severity of dyspnea. As the peak flow measurements increased, the MBS scores of difficulty breathing decreased. For the asthma groups, the mean MBS score decreased from 5.1 at triage baseline to 2.4 after treatment. This finding indicated that a significant correlation existed between the change in MBS scores and the change in PEFR from pretreatment to posttreatment scores (r = .31, P < .05). As the peak flow increased, the MBS scores decreased. SaO2 only slightly improved in the asthma group compared with the COPD group. For patients with COPD, the mean MBS score decreased from 6.0 at triage baseline to 3.0 after treatment. This finding indicated that a significant correlation also existed between the change in MBS scores and the change in PEFR from pretreatment to posttreatment scores (r = .42, P < .001). Cutaneous oxygen saturation also improved in the COPD group after treatment. The modality of treatment ordered by the physician was metered dose inhaler or nebulizer. These treatment modalities had no effect on the aforementioned results in the asthma or COPD group. Conclusions: The MBS is a valid and reliable assessment tool for dyspnea. This study demonstrated that it correlated well with other clinical parameters and could be useful when assessing and monitoring outcomes in patients with acute bronchospasm. Patients who used the MBS rated it with a high degree of satisfaction on ease of use and found that the language in this scale adequately expressed their dyspnea. The ED triage and primary care nursing staff rated the MBS as highly satisfactory, stating that it was quick and easy to use. Respiratory assessment in the triage notes and nursing notes were streamlined to consistently include 3 respiratory measures: PEFR, MBS, and SaO 2. Long respiratory narratives were found to be unnecessary in many cases. In addition, the MBS helped to include an important element of subjective assessment when evaluating the severity of dyspnea. (J Emerg Nurs 2000;26:216-22)

1 of 2

3/4/2013 1:41 PM

Usefulness of the modified 0-10 Borg scale in assessing the degree of dys...

http://www.jenonline.org/article/S0099-1767(00)90093-X/abstract

To access this article, please choose from the options below


Login Register
Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

Purchase this article for 14.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)
Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

Subscribe to this title


Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

Claim access now


For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.

Previous

Journal of Emergency Nursing Volume 26, Issue 3 , Pages 216-222, June 2000

Next

Copyright 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Feedback | About Us | Help | Contact Us The content on this site is intended for health professionals. Advertisements on this site do not constitute a guarantee or endorsement by the journal, Association, or publisher of the quality or value of such product or of the claims made for it by its manufacturer.

2 of 2

3/4/2013 1:41 PM