Show simple item record

Interpretation of Biophysical Profiles by Nurses and Physicians

dc.contributor.authorGegor, Carolyn L.en_US
dc.contributor.authorPaine, Lisa L.en_US
dc.contributor.authorCostigan, Kathleenen_US
dc.contributor.authorJohnson, Timothy R. B.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-06-01T22:13:01Z
dc.date.available2010-06-01T22:13:01Z
dc.date.issued1994-06en_US
dc.identifier.citationGEGOR, CAROLYN L.; PAINE, LISA L.; COSTIGAN, KATHLEEN; JOHNSON, TIMOTHY R. B. (1994). "Interpretation of Biophysical Profiles by Nurses and Physicians." Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, & Neonatal Nursing 23(5): 405-410. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/75234>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0884-2175en_US
dc.identifier.issn1552-6909en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/75234
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=8083781&dopt=citationen_US
dc.description.abstractTo determine the agreement between nurse and physician interpretation of biophysical profile scores. Design : A prospective evaluation of videotaped biophysical profiles was independently scored by four nurse and four physician interpreters and compared to that of an expert physician. Setting : The fetal assessment center of a large tertiary-care center; study included women from public and private practices. Patients : Twenty-three women with high-risk pregnancies who were regularly scheduled for a biophysical profile. Women pregnant with multiple fetuses or whose fetuses were less than 28 weeks' gestational age or had severe fetal anomalies were excluded. Main Outcome Measure : The proportion of agreement between the physicians and nurses and the physician expert was calculated for each biophysical profile criterion. Results : The kappa statistic was used to evaluate the proportion of agreement with the “gold standard.” When compared with the expert, physicians showed 60% moderate or substantial agreement, and the nurses showed 80% moderate or substantial agreement. Conclusions : Nurses' interpretations of biophysical profiles were at least as reliable as physicians' when compared with an expert reviewer.en_US
dc.format.extent507885 bytes
dc.format.extent3109 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing Ltden_US
dc.rights1994 by NAACOG, a division of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologistsen_US
dc.titleInterpretation of Biophysical Profiles by Nurses and Physiciansen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelNursingen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelObstetrics and Gynecologyen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumTimothy R. B. Johnson is chair and Bates Professor of Diseases of Women and Children, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor.en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherCarolyn L. Gegor is director of Nurse-Midwifery Services and assistant professor of gynecology and obstetrics at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and clinical director of the Fetal Assessment Center at The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore.en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherLisa L. Paine is director of the Nurse-Midwifery Education Program and associate professor of maternal-child health at the Boston University School of Public Health, Health Services Department, Massachusetts.en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherKathleen Costigan is the research coordinator for fetal assessment at The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore.en_US
dc.identifier.pmid8083781en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/75234/1/j.1552-6909.1994.tb01897.x.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1552-6909.1994.tb01897.xen_US
dc.identifier.sourceJournal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, & Neonatal Nursingen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAfriat, C. ( 1983 ). The nurse's role in fetal heart rate monitoring. Perinatology Neonatology, 7 ( 3 ), 29 – 32.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAfriat, C., ( 1987 ). Historical perspective on electronic fetal monitoring: A decade of growth, a decade of conflict. Journal of Perinatal Neonatal Nursing, 1 ( 1 ), 1 – 4.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAmerican College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ( 1991 ). Ultrasound imaging in pregnancy ACOG Committee Opinion Number 96 Washington, DC: Author.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAWHONN. ( 1993 ) Nursing practice competencies and educational guidelines: Limited ultrasound guidelines. Washington, DC: Author.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChez, B., Skurnick, J., Chez, R., Verklan, M. T., Biggs, S., & Hage, M. ( 1990 ). Interpretations of nonstress tests by obstetric nurses. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing, 19, 227 – 232.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCraig, M. ( 1991 ). Controversies in obstetrics and gynecologic ultrasound. In: M. C. Berman ( Ed. ), Diagnostic Medical Sonography, A Guide to Clinical Practice. Vol. 1. Obstetrics and Gynecology ( pp. 551 – 563 ). Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDauphinee, J. D. ( 1987 ). Antepartum testing: A challenge for nursing. Journal of Perinatal Neonatal Nursing, 1 ( 1 ), 29 – 48.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFinberg, H., Kurtz, A., Johnson, R., & Wapner, R. J. ( 1990 ). The biophysical profile: A literature review and reassessment of its usefulness in the evaluation of fetal well-being. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine, 9, 583 – 591.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFresquez, M. L., & Collins, D. E. ( 1992 ). Advancement of the nursing role in antepartum fetal evaluation. Journal of Perinatal Neonatal Nursing 5 ( 4 ), 16 – 22.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGegor, C. L., Paine, L. L., & Johnson, T. R. B. ( 1991 ). Fetal assessment: A nurse-midwifery perspective. Journal of Nurse-Midwifrey, 36 ( 3 ), 153 – 167.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGegor, C. L., & Paine, L. L. ( 1992 ). Antepartum fetal assessment techniques: An update for today's perinatal nurse. Journal of Perinatal Neonatal Nursing, 5 ( 4 ), 1 – 15.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJohnson, T. R. B., Besinger, R. E., & Thomas, R. L. ( 1988 ). New clues to fetal behavior & well-being. Contemporay Ob/Gyn, 30, 108.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceManning, F. A., Platt, L. D., & Sipos, L. ( 1980 ). Antepartum fetal evaluation: Development of a biophysical profile. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 136 787.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMurray, M. L. ( 1988 ). Antepartal and intrapartal fetal monitoring. Washington, DC: NAACOG.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNAACOG. ( 1991 ). Nursing practice competencies and educational guidelines: Antepartum fetal surveillance and intrapartum fetal heart monitoring. ( 2nd ed. ). Washington, DC: Author.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSabey, P. L., & Clark, S. L. ( 1992 ). Establishing an antepartum testing unit: The nurse's role. Journal of Perinatal Neonatal Nursing, 5 ( 4 ), 23 – 32.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSkurnick, J. H., Chez, R. A., & Chez, B. F. ( 1991 ). Effect of explicit criteria on nonstress test evaluation by obstetric nurses. American Journal of Peritiatology, 8 ( 2 ), 139 – 143.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.