Auscultating heart and breath sounds through patients' gowns: who does this and does it matter?

BACKGROUND: Doctors are taught to auscultate with the stethoscope applied to the skin, but in practice may be seen applying the stethoscope to the gown. OBJECTIVES: To determine how often doctors auscultate heart and breath sounds through patients' gowns, and to assess the impact of this approach on the quality of the sounds heard. METHODS: A sample of doctors in the west of Scotland were sent an email in 2014 inviting them to answer an anonymous questionnaire about how they auscultated heart and breath sounds. Normal heart sounds from two subjects were recorded through skin, through skin and gown, and through skin, gown and dressing gown. These were played to doctors, unaware of the origin of each recording, who completed a questionnaire about the method and quality of the sounds they heard. RESULTS: 206 of 445 (46%) doctors completed the questionnaire. 124 (60%) stated that they listened to patients' heart sounds, and 156 (76%) to patients' breath sounds, through patients' gowns. Trainees were more likely to do this compared with consultants (OR 3.39, 95% CI 1.74 to 6.65). Doctors of all grades considered this practice affected the quality of the sounds heard. 32 doctors listened to the recorded heart sounds. 23 of the 64 (36%) skin and 23 of the 64 (36%) gown recordings were identified. The majority of doctors (74%) could not differentiate between skin or gown recordings, but could tell them apart from the double layer recordings (p=0.02). Trainees were more likely to hear artefactual added sounds (p=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Many doctors listen to patients' heart and breath sounds through hospital gowns, at least occasionally. In a short test, most doctors could not distinguish between sounds heard through a gown or skin. Further work is needed to determine the impact of this approach to auscultation on the identification of murmurs and added sounds.

Cardioverting acute atrial fibrillation and the risk of thromboembolism: not all patients are created equal .

Current guidelines support the well-established clinical practice that patients who present with atrial fibrillation (AF) of less than 48 hours duration should be considered for cardioversion, even in the absence of pre-existing anticoagulation. However, with increasing evidence that short runs of AF confer significant risk of stroke, on what evidence is this 48-hour rule based and is it time to adopt a new approach? We review existing evidence and suggest a novel approach to risk stratification in this setting. Overall, the risk of thromboembolism associated with acute cardioversion of patients with AF that is estimated to be of <48 hours duration is low. However, this risk varies widely depending on patient characteristics. From existing evidence, we show that using the CHA2DS2-VASc score may allow better selection of appropriate patients in order to prevent exposing specific patient groups to an unacceptably high risk of a potentially devastating complication.