by SciFiFisher » Tue Jan 19, 2021 1:01 am
lady_*nix wrote:Yeah, no kidding.
One of my medically inclined friends says the article isn't quite accurate, because a lot of nurses know to manually compensate for the inaccuracy (and will treat sustained readings below 90 the same regardless, i.e. as a dire emergency). But it sounds like there's still a huge possibility for bias. And also honestly (from experience) I wouldn't trust most docs to correct the measurements manually as nurses tend to do.
the docs rarely look at the devices. The nurses do. So, when the doc asks for a pulse ox reading he will get it from the nurse who will do the correction.
"To create more positive results in your life, replace 'if only' with 'next time'." — Author Unknown
"Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson afterward." — Vernon Law