4.0 Article

Pilot study of nurse-led rheumatic heart disease echocardiography screening in Fiji - a novel approach in a resource-poor setting

期刊

CARDIOLOGY IN THE YOUNG
卷 23, 期 4, 页码 546-552

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1047951112001321

关键词

Developing countries; screening; public health

资金

  1. Cure Kids New Zealand
  2. Fiji Water Foundation
  3. Accor group
  4. Menzies School of Health Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We designed a pilot study of a training module for nurses to perform rheumatic heart disease echocardiography screening in a resource-poor setting. The aim was to determine whether nurses given brief, focused, basic training in echocardiography could follow an algorithm to potentially identify cases of rheumatic heart disease requiring clinical referral, by undertaking basic two-dimensional and colour Doppler scans. Training consisted of a week-long workshop, followed by 2 weeks of supervised field experience. The nurses' skills were tested on a blinded cohort of 50 children, and the results were compared for sensitivity and specificity against echocardiography undertaken by an expert, using standardised echocardiography definitions for definite and probable rheumatic heart disease. Analysis of the two nurses' results revealed that when a mitral regurgitant jet length of 1.5 cm was used as the trigger for rheumatic heart disease identification, they had a sensitivity of 100% and 83%, respectively, and a specificity of 67.4% and 79%, respectively. This pilot supports the principle that nurses, given brief focused training and supervised field experience, can follow an algorithm to undertake rheumatic heart disease echocardiography in a developing country setting to facilitate clinical referral with reasonable accuracy. These results warrant further research, with a view to developing a module to guide rheumatic heart disease echocardiographic screening by nurses within the existing public health infrastructure in high-prevalence, resource-poor regions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据