Banning Doctors' Wristwatches Could Be Potentially Dangerous In A Clinical Setting
Editor's ChoiceMain Category: MRSA / Drug Resistance
Also Included In: Public Health
Article Date: 04 Jan 2008 - 0:00 PDT
| Patient / Public: | ![]() |
4 (2 votes) |
| Healthcare Prof: | ![]() |
4.5 (2 votes) |
| Article Opinions: | 1 posts |
As doctors will soon have to be 'bare below the elbows' in UK hospitals, including no wristwatches, an article in this week's British Medical Journal (BMJ) warns that not allowing doctors to wear wristwatches could be potentially dangerous in a clinical setting.
James Henderson and Sarah McCracken point out that there is no evidence that wristwatches carry infections. In fact, little has been mentioned about the clinical benefits of the wristwatch.
Most UK hospital beds and examination couches are not near any visible clock. So the doctor is dependent on his/her wristwatch for measuring and keeping time.
Twenty health care professionals were asked to evaluate varying pulse and respiratory rates on a simulated patient. But they did not have the use of a second hand. The participants could take as long as they wanted in order to make their estimates.
They found that an estimate for a pulse rate of 83 was as low as 60 and as high as 120. A respiratory rate of 14 was estimated at 10 and as high as 28. This simple experiment demonstrated how impossible it is for a healthcare professional to tell normal from abnormal rates without having access to the second hand of a clock/watch. In fact, only one of the twenty participants gave a reading that would not have been potentially dangerous.
The authors say that this study emphasizes the importance for doctors to have visual access to a second hand when assessing a patient, especially in an emergency situation when no clock may be within sight.
If trusts insist on banning wristwatches they should make sure that each bed space has its own clock with its own second hand, the authors write.
"Letter: Clinical value of a wristwatch"
BMJ Volume 336, p 10
http://www.bmj.com
Written by - Christian Nordqvist
Copyright: Medical News Today
Not to be reproduced without permission of Medical News Today
MLA
16 Feb. 2012. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/92877.php>
APA
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/92877.php.
Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.
|
Rate this article: (Hover over the stars then click to rate) |
Patient / Public: |
or |
Health Professional: |
Visitor Opinions In Chronological Order (1)
RN
posted by Anne on 7 Jan 2008 at 2:40 amThis is silly on two counts. First of all, it's almost always a NURSE who counts the patient's pulse, not the physician. And secondly, the rule is only about WRIST watches. There's no reason a health professional can't have a pocket watch or a timepiece which hangs from a neck chain.
Add Your Opinion
Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.
If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.
All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)
Contact Our News Editors
For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.
![]()
Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:
Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.




